ABOVE: VINDMAN TOLD CONGRESS HE WAS AFRAID OF REPRISAL, NEEDED EXTRA SECURITY, THE ARMY STATED IT MIGHT MOVE TO A MILITARY BASE, BUT THEN, SOON AFTER HIS TESTIMONY, AS HE AND HIS TWIN WENT BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE TO WORK, IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES, HE POSED FOR CAMERAS AND WAITED TO BE RECOGNIZED. CBS, WHO TOOK THIS VIDEO, SAID HE WAS CLEARLY WANTING TO BE SEEN.
VINDMAN TOOK OFFENSE AT THE CIVILIAN CONGRESSMAN NUNES CALLING HIM "MISTER" INSTEAD OF BY HIS MILITARY RANK.
AS MANY HAVE SINCE POINTED OUT, IT ISN'T IMPERATIVE NOR EVEN EXPECTED THAT CIVILIANS DO THAT.
AS MANY HAVE SINCE POINTED OUT, IT ISN'T IMPERATIVE NOR EVEN EXPECTED THAT CIVILIANS DO THAT.
THIS GAVE VINDMAN AN AUTOMATIC PROMOTION IN RANK, FROM O-5 TO O-6, WHICH HE IN NO WAY HAS ATTAINED.
VINDMAN ALSO DID NOT CORRECT ANDRE CARSON'S GROSS ERROR WHEN HE CONSTANTLY REFERRED TO AMBASSADOR TO THE E.U., SONDMAN AS AMBASSADOR SOLOMON.
THERE IS NO AMBASSADOR SOLOMON.
THE ONE AND ONLY 'SOLOMON' IN THIS ENTIRE SCENARIO, IN ALL OF THE TESTIMONIES, REFERRED TO JOHN SOLOMON, AN INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST WITH WHOM VINDMAN ALSO HAD 'ISSUES'.
SINCE VINDMAN DIDN'T CORRECT CARSON ON SOMETHING AS IMPORTANT AS A MAN'S REAL NAME, IDENTIFYING THE RIGHT AMBASSADOR, ONE CAN SEE THAT HE HAD NO QUALMS ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT AN AMBASSADOR HE KNEW DOESN'T EXIST AND ANSWERING A LONG SERIES OF QUESTIONS ABOUT A MYTHICAL 'SOLOMON', UNDER OATH, WHICH, IN MY OPINION, MAKES HIM GUILTY OF PERJURY.
I'M SURE HE WON'T FACE CHARGES FOR THAT, BUT, SERIOUSLY, HIS CORRECTING NUNES ON THE LT. COLONEL THING WAS FAR LESS IMPORTANT TO THE HEARINGS THAN PROPERLY IDENTIFYING SOMEONE HE SAYS HE SPOKE WITH MANY TIMES, SONDMAN, NOT 'SOLOMON'.
AS SPECIAL FORCES MILITARY VETERAN TIM KENNEDY SAID:
"Correcting a civilian about how to be a addressed is a for sure way to make everyone in the military think you are a douche bag."
VINDMAN WAS CRITICIZED AHEAD OF HIS 'TESTIMONY' BY MANY WITHIN THE STATE DEPARTMENT WHO CALLED HIM A CHRONIC 'LEAKER' (Morrison), SAID HE WASN'T UP TO THE TASK (Fiona Hill, beginning at about minute 39:35 of her questioning by Rep. Castor**), AND THAT HE OFTEN BROKE THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.
HE WAS DISSED BY FELLOW U.S. RANGERS WHO CALLED HIM LAZY AND A CHOW THIEF, RIDICULED BY MILITARY TOP BRASS FOR APPEARING IN UNIFORM AND DEMANDING A CIVILIAN CALL HIM 'LT. COLONEL' WHEN NOTHING IN MILITARY PROTOCOL DEMANDS THAT.
VINDMAN CAME OFF AS NOT ONLY A "DRAMA QUEEN" WITH A HYPER-INFLATED EGO WHO DREAMS OF GRANDEUR, BUT ALSO AS AN ATTENTION WHORE", CHRONICALLY, LIKE SCHIFF, CHECKING TWITTER FOR COMMENTS ABOUT HIMSELF, ESPECIALLY, IT SEEMS, AFTER THE PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS.
“The Rangers in the private groups are all calling him fat colonel,” one source told Cernovich, “You need to get this story out.”
ALSO, AS MANY IN THE MILITARY AND SOME IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT POINTED OUT, VINDY DOESN'T WEAR THAT UNIFORM TO WORK, HE WEARS A SUIT AND TIE.
WHEN ASKED WHY HE DRESSED IN UNIFORM TO TESTIFY, VINDY SAID BECAUSE HE "FELT MARGINALIZED".
Congressman Chris Stewart (R-UT) partially raised this after Vindman’s remarks to Nunes, asking, “Do you always insist on civilians calling you by your rank?” Vindman answered that he “thought it was appropriate to stick with” his rank today, and while he didn’t think Nunes was trying to be disrespectful, he "explained" that “the attacks that I’ve had in the press, on Twitter, have kind of eliminated the fact that, or either marginalized me, as a military officer.”
SO, HE'S ALSO GOT A LITTLE "CINDERELLA SYNDROME"?
AND HE JUST ISN'T GOOD AT PLAYING THE VICTIM. TOO MUCH EGO.
VINDMAN ADMITTED HE CHANGED THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT; HE HAD TO ADMIT IT, HE WAS BUSTED.
HOW MANY MORE DID HE "EDIT"?
The accuracy of ALL transcripts Vindman touched is now in question.
He changed it to match HIS talking points, not what Trump actually said.
HIS SUPERIOR, MORRISON, CONTRADICTED VINDMAN REPEATEDLY.
Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Tex.) asked Tim Morrison, former NSC senior official and Vindman's former boss, about the July 25 Trump-Zelensky call, to which Morrison had listened.
“Did you hear President Trump make a demand of anything that would constitute a crime?”
“No, sir,” Morrison said.
“Is it fair to say that as you were listening to the call, you weren’t thinking, ‘Wow, the president is bribing the president of Ukraine?’ That never crossed your mind?” Ratcliffe asked.
“It did not, sir,” Morrison said.
“Or that he was extorting the president of Ukraine or doing anything improper?” Ratcliffe continued.
“Correct, sir,” Morrison said.
VOLKER'S TESTIMONY ALSO CONTRADICTED VINDMAN.
"Former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker repeatedly denied that quid pro quo took place during the July 25 call between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky."
“I didn’t think” a quid pro quo “was actually there,” Volker, the first impeachment inquiry witness, testified, referring to the call.
Volker testified that he believed that Ukraine did not become aware of the hold on U.S. aid until Politico published a story on the matter, based on leaked information, on August 28, more than a month after the July 25 call.
House investigators asked Volker, “Did President Trump ever withhold a meeting with President Zelensky or delay a meeting with President Zelensky until the Ukrainians committed to investigate the allegations that you just described concerning the [2016] presidential election?”
“The answer to the question is no …. there was no linkage like that,” Volker said.
FOR HIS ACTIONS, VINDY COULD FACE COURT-MARTIAL, ALTHOUGH THE ARMY HAS STATED IT SUPPORTS HIM.
How the Army officer who testified against Trump could end up in a court-martial.
“It’s not far-fetched,” Sean Timmons, a managing partner at Tully-Rinckey, said. “It’s a murky issue.”
In any case, Vindman’s testimony would need to be limited to avoid disclosing anything out of order, Timmons said.
A spokesman for the National Security Council, Vindman’s official command, declined to comment on whether he might face an Article 15 investigation.
Beyond any possible legal fallout, Timmons added, it’s more likely that Vindman has torpedoed his career by testifying before Congress.
“...the reality is, whistleblowers often face retaliation through subterfuge,” he said.
Because it’s unlikely Vindman will remain a member of the NSC staff, his service record will have a big gash in it from being moved mid-assignment, Timmons said.
His rater, who signs off on his officer evaluation report, is also likely a senior civilian official, who could give him a less-than-stellar review that might affect his competitiveness for promotion to full colonel. And then, of course, if he’s not promoted, he’ll eventually be forced to retire.
AS SOMEONE POINTED OUT, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A MEMBER OF THE MILITARY DOES NOT FILE A GRIEVANCE WITH THEIR COMMANDER AND INSTEAD GOES TO A CONGRESS-PERSON?
What happens if you 'go down the proper chain of command and first file a grievance' and then still aren't happy?
Vindman did NONE of this.
HE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE FILED A GRIEVANCE AGAINST THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE MILITARY, DONALD J. TRUMP, WHO WAS HIS AND EVERY OTHER OFFICER'S "SUPERIOR OFFICER".
"The Chain of Command is the basic principle around which every military in the world is wrapped. The Chain of Command is the lifeblood of the services. It is the route of communications that has the military unit working as a team: information goes up the Chain, and Commands and Instruction go down the Chain. It is also the Order of Command (and Responsibility) of the actions of the Unit."
"Remember, Lt. Col. Vindman and his Testimony in front of the Congressional intelligence Committee? He had a Grievance, remember?
How to File a Military Congressional Complaint
In order to make a Grievance to Congress..or a specific member of the house of Representatives the Military member must first File the Grievance with their Direct Commander.
First we must remember that Vindman did not file a Grievance with his military commander.
I think after reading the next few paragraphs it will show that Lt. Col. Vindman did not follow UCMJ rules either.
*When you make a Congressional complaint, the congressman's staffer first sends it to the Service congressional liaison office. Most of the work is done by staffer's or operatives at the congressman's local field office. That office then sends it through the bureaucratic channel to your commanding officer for an answer.
The SJA for the commanding officer, the same SJA reviewing your case, will assist you to prepare a response. The most frequent response to a congressional inquiry is that you are 'going to have a fair trial, you are or will be represented by a military lawyer or can hire a civilian', and that your rights will be protected. That's about the best you can expect. That response then goes BACK UP the bureaucratic chain to the congressman's office. You will, in most cases, get a nice letter from your Congress-person saying "thanks for your inquiry, here's the Army's answer."
That's the best news. It can and usually does get worse from there.
That is not what happened in Vindman's Grievance is it?
He did not follow the rules and took his complaint/grievance right to the Intelligence Committee."
Another person pointed out that, under oath, Vindman admitted (1) he knowingly altered an official State Dept.document, (2) that he had UNREPORTED contact with the Ukranian government, and (3) he did NOT report to Morrison.
All of this appears to be prosecutable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Whether or not they decide to push that button and officially end his career remains to be seen.
REP. CHUCK SCHUMER TWEETED ON NOV. 22 THAT "Vindman and whistleblowers like him are patriots.They are standing up for the Constitution they swore an oath to defend. They don’t deserve these disgraceful attacks, and they must be protected from reprisals."
THAT OUTS VINDMAN AS A "WHISTLEBLOWER", BUT LET'S CALL HIM WHAT HE IS...A CHRONIC LEAKER WHO PROBABLY LEAKED FOR ATTENTION AND THE MISSING 'RECOGNITION' HE SEEMS TO THINK HE DESERVED.
BTW, DID SCHUMER'S REMARK INCLUDE 'CHELSEA' MANNING?
ISN'T WHAT VINDMAN DID AND THE WAY HE DID IT VERY SIMILAR TO MANNING'S SKIPPING THE FILING OF A GRIEVANCE, WHEN MANNING DIDN'T GO TO HIS SUPERIOR. ("HIS" because Manning had not changed names or gender at that time.)
ALSO, BTW, VINDMAN FREAKED OUT AFTER HIS INITIAL CLOSED-DOOR TESTIMONY AND DEMANDED EXTRA SECURITY PROTECTION, WAS APPARENTLY GOING TO BE MOVED TO AND HOUSED AT A MILITARY BASE, IF NECESSARY.
ANOTHER LT. COLONEL NAMED OLIVER NORTH NEVER ASKED FOR THAT KIND OF 'PROTECTION' AS HE TESTIFIED AGAINST REAGAN.
AS A LEAD-IN TO WHAT HIS MILITARY SUPERIOR SAYS ABOUT VINDMAN, NOTICE HIS RESPONSE TO GOLDMAN'S QUESTION, AND REMEMBER, HE'S LIVED IN THE U.S. SINCE HE WAS 3 YEARS OLD. IT WAS A SARCASTIC, SNIDE REPLY.
Daniel Goldman: (09:22)
Colonel Vindman, what languages do you speak?
Lt Col Vindman: (09:24)
I speak Russian and Ukrainian and a little bit of English.
WHAT A CUTE RESPONSE, RIGHT?
Vindman has a history of ridiculing America in front of Russian military officers.
LTC Alexander Vindman, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Ukraine, made fun of his adoptive nation to Russian army officers in 2013, according to retired Army LTC Jim Hickman.
"Do not let the uniform fool you,” Hickman said of Vindman in a series of Twitter posts, “he is a political activist in uniform.”
Vindman was detailed from the Pentagon to Trump’s National Security Council staff in 2018 as a Ukraine and Russia expert.
According to Hickman, Trump’s future accuser-in-uniform was already known as a politicized officer as far back as 2013, a year before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
“Vindman, who was a major at the time, was sitting in one of the classrooms talking to the US & Russian soldiers, as well as the young officers & GS [civil service] employees about America, Russia, and Obama,” Hickman said in his October 31 tweets.
The incident took place at the Joint Multinational Simulations Center in Germany from July 15-24, 2013.“I know LTC Alex Vindman from a Combined U.S.-Russian exercise called Atlas Vision in Grafenwoher, [Germany],” Hickman said.
“He [Vindman] worked with the Russian Embassy and I was assigned to the JMTC (Joint Multinational Training Command), within USAREUR (U.S. Army Europe). He worked coordination w/the Russian 15th Peacekeeping Brigade, and I was in charge of all Simulations planning, as well as assisting the USAREUR Lead Planner as the Senior Military Planner.”
Hickman witnessed the incident firsthand and says he verbally reprimanded Vindman. Other witnesses were present.
“He was apologetic of American culture, laughed about Americans not being educated or worldly, and really talked up Obama and globalism to the point of uncomfortable,” Hickman said about Vindman.
“He would speak with the Russian soldiers and laugh as if at the expense of the US personnel,” Hickman said.
“It was so uncomfortable and unprofessional, one of the GS [civil service] employees came and told me everything . . . . I walked over and sat within earshot of Vindman, and sure enough, all was confirmed.
“One comment truly struck me as odd, and it was with respect to American’s falsely thinking they’re exceptional, when he said, ‘He [Obama] is working on that now.’ And he said it with a snide ‘I know a secret’ look on his face. I honestly don’t know what it meant, it just sounded like an odd thing to say,” according to Hickman.
Bashed America ‘in front of subordinates’ and ‘Russians’
“Regardless, after hearing him bash America a few times in front of subordinates, Russians, and GS Employees, as well as hearing an earful about globalization, Obama’s plan, etc., I’d had enough,” Hickman recalled.
“I tapped him on the shoulder and asked him to step outside. At that point I verbally reprimanded him for his actions, and I’ll leave it at that, so as not to be unprofessional myself,” said Hickman.
‘Not your professional field-grade officer’
“The bottom line is LTC Vindman was a partisan Democrat at least as far back as 2012. So much so, junior officers and soldiers felt uncomfortable around him,” Hickman said. “This is not your professional, field-grade officer, who has the character & integrity to do the right thing.”
Hickman’s former boss at the Joint Multinational Simulation Center in Grafenwoehr has since gone on the record to corroborate his story.
YES, VINDMAN ADMITS HE BROKE THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.
"Vindman told Adam Schiff during his testimony on Tuesday that he went around his chain of command.
Vindman confessed that he told Ukrainian President Zelensky to “stay out of US politics” during his trip there in April."
Vindman did not tell his superiors about this message to the Ukrainian leader.
Vindman also testified earlier to the House Intel Committee in his basement hearing that he “thought” the President was wrong in his policy with Ukraine.
So he later told Ukrainians to ignore the President.
Vindman SHOULD have reported everything to his boss, Russian expert Tim Morrison, who told investigators on Tuesday that Vindman was a leaker, a liar and could not be trusted.
Counsel Castor: Were there concerns Col. Vindman leaked information?
Tim Morrison: Yes…
Tim Morrison: …”If he had concerns about the content of a call that was something I should have been notified of.
Counsel Castor: Did he become frustrated that he was cut out of some of the Ukraine portfolio?
Tim Morrison: Yes.
VINDMAN ADMITTED CHANGING THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS, BUT SAID, "It’s “not accurate” but “I wouldn’t describe it as false.”
EVEN CBS POINTED OUT FLAWS IN VINDMAN'S 'TESTIMONY'.
Vindman said that the Ukrainians first became aware of the pause in U.S. military aid in "mid-August," so the issue being discussed in the July 25 call was NOT about ["quid pro quo"] since the Ukrainians were unaware of a holdup in both their aid AND Lebanon's aid.
"They ask me, is this true, what we need to do, type of thing. So my impression was they were under pressure," Vindman said, according to the transcript. He responded to them that there was an "ongoing review".
AGAIN WITH HIS IDIOTIC, HEAVILY BIASED "MY IMPRESSIONS".
OTHER WITNESSES FROM STATE DEPT. WERE AWARE OF THE 'HOLDUP' ON UKRAINE'S AID PLUS 3 SOUTH AMERICAN COUNTRIES, PAKISTAN'S AND LEBANON'S AID WAS A NORMAL PROCESS WHILE BEING REVIEWED TO SEE IF SUCH AID WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF AMERICA'S FOREIGN AID POLICIES.
THEY HAD UNTIL SEPT. 11 TO RELEASE ALL THAT AID AND THEY MADE THE DEADLINE, BUT CHOSE NOT TO RELEASE PAKISTAN'S AID.
WHY DIDN'T ANY DEMOCRAT CONGRESSMEN HOWL ABOUT THAT?
LIKE KENNETH STARR SAID ON OCT. 30:
“He [Trump] did nothing that sounds in the nature of a corrupt bargain.”
“There were 17 people on the phone, including the secretary of state, so the president was so open, and shall I say transparent, about it that that goes to his intent. There was no corrupt bargain or attempt to achieve a corrupt bargain.”
Starr went on to say the Ukrainian military aid in the equation was NOT held up; it was, in fact, delivered by the end of the fiscal year, totally within the legal time frame.
“We need to ratchet down the conversation because of the evils of impeachment,” Starr stated. “Impeachment has become a terrible, terrible thorn in the side of the American democracy and the conduct of the American government since Watergate. We need to get rid of this ‘let’s go to impeachment immediately,’ let’s at least have a reasoned and deliberate conversation about some lesser kind of response.”
“Right now, the Democrats have embarked on quite an unusual and unorthodox process. Time will tell, but fundamental norms of fairness are not being observed at this stage,” he said. “Once this sinks into the public conscience, as it’s bound to do, because the procedures are so unorthodox, so unusual, such a substantial departure from history that the American people will eventually understand that and that they will either care about it, as I think they will, or they will brush it off and say ‘Well, they should not have done this, but they did.'”
Starr said on “America’s Newsroom” on Monday that history will be harsh with the Democrats handling of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump. “The text of the Constitution just entrusts [impeachment] to the good judgment, whether it’s being exercised or not, to the House of Representatives,” Starr said.
“But history will, I think, judge this not well. It should judge it not well. [You] didn’t have a full debate on the floor of the House—and that just lends itself to, ‘Then to let’s go to court and have this litigated.’
“And of course, the chairman then says, ‘You go to court, you’re in contempt.'”
TODAY, AWARD-WINNING *INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST JOHN SOLOMON ADDRESSED VINDMAN'S CLAIM THAT SOLOMON'S PUBLISHED ARTICLES WERE ALL FALSE.
IN 28 'POINTS' HE SHOWED HOE TRUE ALL THAT HE UNCOVERED ABOUT UKRAINE IS.
VINDMAN JUST KEEPS PLAYING OUT OF HIS LEAGUE IN HIS EFFORTS TO GAIN ATTENTION AND MORE THAN THAT "15 MINUTES OF FAME".
[U]nder oath to Congress, he [Vindman] asserted [that] all the factual elements in my columns at The Hill about Ukraine were false, except maybe my grammar.
Here are his exact words:
“I think all the key elements were false,” Vindman testified.
WHAT VINDY 'THINKS', 'FEELS', 'DECIDES', WHAT HIS 'IMPRESSIONS' ARE DON'T MATTER A HILL OF BEANS WHEN COMPARED TO FACTS AND TRUTH DURING CONGRESSIONAL IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.
HAD ANYONE OFFERED THIS KIND OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE WHEN BILL CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED, HE'D HAVE GOTTEN OFF SCOTT-FREE, AND THE HOWL OF 'GIVE US PROOF' WOULD HAVE GONE UP FROM EVERY DEMOCRAT ON THE HILL.
BUT THIS IS HATED TRUMP, BAD ORANGE MAN, SOMEONE THAT MANY HAVE SAID SHOULD BE ASSASSINATED, BEHEADED, SHOT, BASED ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE, THIRD- TO FIFTH-HAND HEARSAY.
THE CRIME WAS THE SHARING OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WITH SOMEONE WHO HAD NO RIGHT TO IT, NO CLEARANCE FOR RECEIVING IT.
It’s always been and still is a crime to share classified information with people not 'CLEARED', not legally authorized to receive that information.
We’ve been told from the beginning of this ordeal that the "whistle-blower" himself did not have the proper clearance to access the phone call.
Adam Schiff: (09:07)
Colonel, you’ve described this [ July 25th call] as a demand, this favor that the president asked. What is it about the relationship between the president of the United States and the president of Ukraine that leads you to conclude that when the president of the United States asks a favor like this, it’s really a demand?
A. Vindman: (09:25)
Chairman, the culture I come from the, the military culture. When a senior asks you to do something, even if it’s polite and pleasant, it’s not to be taken as a request. It’s to be taken as an order. In this case, the power disparity between the two leaders, my impression is that in order to get the White House meeting President Zelensky would have to deliver these investigations.
HELLO, MORON, THE PRESIDENCY IN NEITHER COUNTRY IS MILITARY. NEITHER NATION IS RUN BY THE MILITARY. BOTH MEN ARE DULY ELECTED SERVANTS OF THE PEOPLE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE NATIONS. BOTH ARE COMMANDERS IN CHIEF OF THEIR MILITARIES, BUT DO NOT PERFORM THEIR PRESIDENTIAL DUTIES IN A MILITARY ROLL. Chairman, the culture I come from the, the military culture. When a senior asks you to do something, even if it’s polite and pleasant, it’s not to be taken as a request. It’s to be taken as an order. In this case, the power disparity between the two leaders, my impression is that in order to get the White House meeting President Zelensky would have to deliver these investigations.
BOTH ARE EQUALLY 'HEADS OF STATE'. THEIR TITLES ARE PRESIDENT, NOT GENERALISSIMO.
POOR, PATHETIC, POUTY, POMPOUS 'WANNABE KING', VINDY REALLY BLEW THAT 'CONCLUSION', AND LET'S CALL IT WHAT IT WAS, HIS OBVIOUS CHOICE TO SEE THINGS HIS WAY, ALTHOUGH AS OTHERS IN STATE DEPT. POINTED OUT, HIS 'IMPRESSIONS' DON'T MAKE A DAMN. TRUMP DIDN'T USE VINDMAN'S SILLY "TALKING POINTS" AND VINDY WAS PISSED THAT HE WAS 'SLIGHTED'.
A SMALL TENNESSEE NEWSPAPER HAS POINTED OUT SEVERAL FACTS IN THIS CASE THAT MAINSTREAM MEDIA REFUSES TO POINT OUT.
"Ukraine says it has been investigating corruption including at Burisma in 2018 before Zelensky was even standing for election, and was looking for U.S. help to root it out, not the other way around. Where is the quid pro quo...? In a time machine?"
Daniel Goldman: (07:27)
Did you discuss at all, at any point, their concerns about the hold on security assistance?
Lt Col Vindman: (07:36)
To the best of my recollection, in the August timeframe, the Ukrainian Embassy started to become aware of the hold on security assistance and they were asking if I had any comment on that or if I could substantiate that.
Daniel Goldman: (07:53)
And that was before it became public, is that right?
Lt Col Vindman: (07:57)
Yes.
REALLY BIG LIE!
AS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR STATED IN HIS TESTIMONY,
"Ukrainian officials found out about the hold on aid on Aug. 29, 2019, after an article appeared in Politico."
TAYLOR THEN SPOKE TO AMBASSADOR TO THE E.U., SONDLAND, ON SEPT. 8.
TEXTS BETWEEN THE TWO SHOW THAT SONDLAND TOLD TAYLOR HE WAS WRONG ABOUT QUID PRO QUO.
UKRAINE RECEIVED ITS AID ON SEPT. 11, 2019.
IT WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING RELEASED WHEN TAYLOR "BECAME CONCERNED".
AS L.A. TIMES WROTE OCT. 1, 2019,
BOTH FORMER PRESIDENT POROSHENO AND CURRENT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAVE STATED THAT THEY FELT NO PRESSURE, NONE, FROM TRUMP ABOUT ANYTHING AND THAT IF ANY SUCH PRESSURE HAD BEEN ATTEMPTED, THEY WOULD HAVE DISMISSED IT AND DONE WHAT WAS BEST FOR UKRAINE.
"Petro Poroshenko, who was Ukraine’s president until May and dealt with both the Obama and Trump administrations, said in a rare interview with The Times on Tuesday that he never felt pressure from President Trump or his personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani to open questionable corruption investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden.
“There are many people abroad and in Ukraine who would like to pressure me,” Zelensky said. “However, I am president of independent Ukraine and I think it is impossible to influence me.”
WOULD-BE SUPERSTAR VINDY WAS ALSO BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER BY WHITE HOUSE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY.
"Let me be clear," Mulvaney wrote, Oct. 18, "there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election. The president never told me to withhold any money until the Ukrainians did anything related to the (DNC) server.”)
Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney told a press briefing at the White House on October 17, 2019, there was nothing nefarious about holding up Congressionally approved military aid for Ukraine.
"President Trump is not a big fan of foreign aid, never has been, still isn't," Mulvaney said:
TAYLOR THEN SPOKE TO AMBASSADOR TO THE E.U., SONDLAND, ON SEPT. 8.
TEXTS BETWEEN THE TWO SHOW THAT SONDLAND TOLD TAYLOR HE WAS WRONG ABOUT QUID PRO QUO.
UKRAINE RECEIVED ITS AID ON SEPT. 11, 2019.
IT WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING RELEASED WHEN TAYLOR "BECAME CONCERNED".
AS L.A. TIMES WROTE OCT. 1, 2019,
BOTH FORMER PRESIDENT POROSHENO AND CURRENT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAVE STATED THAT THEY FELT NO PRESSURE, NONE, FROM TRUMP ABOUT ANYTHING AND THAT IF ANY SUCH PRESSURE HAD BEEN ATTEMPTED, THEY WOULD HAVE DISMISSED IT AND DONE WHAT WAS BEST FOR UKRAINE.
"Petro Poroshenko, who was Ukraine’s president until May and dealt with both the Obama and Trump administrations, said in a rare interview with The Times on Tuesday that he never felt pressure from President Trump or his personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani to open questionable corruption investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden.
“There are many people abroad and in Ukraine who would like to pressure me,” Zelensky said. “However, I am president of independent Ukraine and I think it is impossible to influence me.”
WOULD-BE SUPERSTAR VINDY WAS ALSO BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER BY WHITE HOUSE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY.
"Let me be clear," Mulvaney wrote, Oct. 18, "there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election. The president never told me to withhold any money until the Ukrainians did anything related to the (DNC) server.”)
Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney told a press briefing at the White House on October 17, 2019, there was nothing nefarious about holding up Congressionally approved military aid for Ukraine.
"President Trump is not a big fan of foreign aid, never has been, still isn't," Mulvaney said:
Doesn't like spending money overseas, especially when it's poorly spent, and that is exactly what drove this decision.
I've been in the office a couple times with him talking about this. He said look, Mick, this (Ukraine) is a corrupt place. Everybody knows it's a corrupt place.
By the way, put this in context. This is on the heels of what happened in Puerto Rico when we took a lot of heat for not wanting to give a bunch aid to Puerto Rico because we thought that place was corrupt. And by the way, turns out we were right. So put that as your context.
We actually did an analysis of what other countries were doing in terms of supporting Ukraine.I've been in the office a couple times with him talking about this. He said look, Mick, this (Ukraine) is a corrupt place. Everybody knows it's a corrupt place.
By the way, put this in context. This is on the heels of what happened in Puerto Rico when we took a lot of heat for not wanting to give a bunch aid to Puerto Rico because we thought that place was corrupt. And by the way, turns out we were right. So put that as your context.
And what we found out was that--and I can't remember if it's zero or near zero dollars from any European countries for lethal aid.
You've heard the president say this, that we give them tanks and the other countries give them pillows. That's absolutely right, that as vocal as the Europeans are about supporting Ukraine, they are really, really stingy when it comes to lethal aid. And they weren't helping Ukraine. And then still to this day are not. And the president did not like that.
"We do that all the time with foreign policy," Mulvaney responded. "We were holding up money at the same time for, what was it, the Northern Triangle countries (Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador). We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they -- so that they would change their policies on immigration."
Mulvaney pointed to the ongoing investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe now being conducted by Connecticut Attorney General John Durham at the request of Attorney General William Barr:
"That's an ongoing investigation, right?" Mulvaney asked. "So, you're saying the president of the United States, the chief law enforcement person, cannot ask somebody to cooperate with an ongoing public investigation into wrongdoing? That's--that's--that's just bizarre to me that you would think that you can't do that."
Asked again about Trump's mention of the Bidens, Mulvaney said, "No, the money held up had absolutely nothing to do with Biden.
"I was involved with the--the process by which the money was held up temporarily, okay?" Mulvaney explained. "Three issues for that; the corruption in the country, whether or not other countries were participating in the support of the Ukraine, and whether or not they were cooperating in an ongoing investigation with our Department of Justice. That's completely legitimate."
Mulvaney told reporters he was not on the Trump-Zelensky phone call, although someone in his office was. "No one raised any difficulty with me on the call at all. I understand that, in fact, no one on the call in here thought there was any difficulty with it."
"FUNNY HOW EVERYTHING SPOKEN OF BY VP PENCE IN HIS SEPT. 1, 2019 VISIT TO POLAND, IN A VERY SIMILAR SITUATION TO UKRAINE, WAS NOT SEEN BY ANYONE AS TRUMP PRESSURING POLAND OR WITHHOLDING AID TO POLAND EVEN THOUGH POLAND HAD TO WAIT A BIT FOR ITS AID, TOO.
VP PENCE, WHEN ASKED ABOUT UKRAINE: "But as President Trump had me make clear, we have great concerns about issues of corruption. And, fortunately, President Zelensky was elected decisively on an anti-corruption message. And he and I discussed yesterday that as he’s assembled his cabinet, and as his parliament has convened, that even in the early days, he informed me that there have been more than 250 bills filed for — that address the issue of public corruption and really restoring integrity to the public process. I mean, to invest additional taxpayer [money] in Ukraine, the President wants to be assured that those resources are truly making their way to the kind of investments that will contribute to security and stability in Ukraine."
DITTO FOR FOUR OTHER NATIONS' AID PLUS LEBANON'S HOLD ON ITS AID, WHICH WAS PLACED AND RELEASED OR DENIED IN THE SAME TIME FRAME AS UKRAINE'S.
Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs David Hale confirmed Wednesday evening at the House Intelligence Committee that aid to Lebanon was held up at the same time, and in the same way, as aid to Ukraine.
Responding to questions from Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX), Hale agreed that President Trump had a general skepticism of foreign aid and wanted to overhaul the way it was handled, as part of his “America First” policy.
He also agreed that delays on aid are not uncommon, and confirmed his earlier testimony that aid to Lebanon had been held up by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the White House, as had aid to Pakistan and to the “Northern Triangle” countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) until it was later released. The Lebanon hold remains in effect.
The Pakistan aid was held up because of “unhappiness over the policies and behavior of the Pakistani government toward certain proxy groups that were involved in conflicts with the United States,” Hale said.
Hale also confirmed that when aid was withheld from Lebanon, there was no reason given — just as with Ukraine. Asked whether that was “not uncommon,” Hale said it is “not the normal way that we function,” but that “[I]t does happen.”
Ratcliffe concluded: “The assertion has been made that President Trump’s Ukraine policy changed when there was a pause in the aid, or the aid was withheld. Is that an accurate statement?”
Hale said: “That was not the way I understood things to be happening at the time — we were not given an explanation.”
WILL THE DEMOCRATS NOW SCREAM FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO LEBANON'S AID, PAKISTAN'S, NORTHERN TRIANGLE NATIONS'?
NO, BECAUSE NONE OF THOSE HOLDS ENTAIL THE DEMS HAVING TO DEFEND OBAMA, BIDEN, KERRY OR HILLARY LIKE THE UKRAINE CONNECTION DOES.
AS I WROTE IN A PREVIOUS BLOG, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WAS GUILTY OF AIDING A COUP AGAINST A DULY-ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UKRAINE. THEY NAMED THE MAN THEY WANTED AS HIS SUCCESSOR.
SINCE 2014, THEY DEMANDED EACH UKRAINIAN SPECIAL PROSECUTOR BE FIRED AND YOVANOVITCH DEMANDED IN MARCH 2019 THAT ANOTHER BE FIRED.
HER DEMAND WAS POSTED TO OUR OWN EMBASSY'S WEBSITE!
On March 5, 2019, YES, 2019, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch called to have anti-corruption prosecutor Nazar Kholodnytskyi fired in a speech to the Ukraine Crisis Media Center, saying, “To ensure the integrity of anticorruption institutions, the Special Anticorruption Prosecutor must be replaced,” she said, accusing Kholodnytskyi of corruption.
"To ensure the integrity of anticorruption institutions, the Special Anticorruption Prosecutor must be replaced. Nobody who has been recorded coaching suspects on how to avoid corruption charges can be trusted to prosecute those very same cases.
Those responsible for corruption should be investigated, prosecuted, and if guilty, go to jail."
NO MATTER WHOM THE UKRAINE CHOOSES, AMERICA WANTS THEM FIRED...FOR 5 LONG YEARS NOW.
AND EVERY PROSECUTOR HAS MENTIONED REOPENING THE BURISMA INVESTIGATION, THE MONEY WITHHELD BY MEMBERS OF THE OBAMA ADMMINISTRATION, AND BURISMA LEADS TO HUNTER BIDEN AND JOHN KERRY'S STEPSON AND WHO ELSE?
THE CURRENT PROSECUTOR, THE ONE DIRECTLY BEFORE HIM HAVE BOTH SAID THAT JOE BIDEN REAPED FINANCIAL BENEFITS FROM BURISMA.
EACH HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE U.S. EMBASSY IN KIEV WITHHELD FUNDS FOR THOSE INVESTIGATIONS.
UKRAINIAN MPs HAVE, SINCE 2016, ASKED THAT YOVANOVITCH BE REPLACED.
HOW MANY TIMES WILL AMERICA DEMAND UKRAINIAN PROSECUTORS BE FIRED TO COVER-UP THESE ALLEGATIONS, TO STOP INVESTIGATIONS FROM BECOMING MAINSTREAM HEADLINES?
AS FOR VINDY...HE SHOT HIMSELF IN THE FOOT.
HE'S OUT, WAY OUT.
_____________________________________
FURTHER READING AND FOOTNOTES:
-- ANOTHER LOOK AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S PAST FAILURES SHOWS US THE CAUSE OF TODAY'S?
NOTHING CHANGES. CROOKS COME AND CROOKS GO. LIARS IN, LIARS OUT, NEW SET OF LIARS?
38 People Cited for Violations After State Department Investigates Hillary Clinton Emails.
October 19, 2019
"A State Department investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server has found that more than 500 security violations took place on her watch.
Thirty-eight individuals, who committed 91 violations among them, could be identified as violators and face punishment, Fox News reported.
In total, the investigation uncovered 588 violations, but 497 of them could not be traced back to a specific individual.
According to the report, the review was hindered by a number of factors including missing emails, the Washington Examiner reported.
Another factor was the time gap of five to nine years between the time emails were sent and investigators interviewed current and former State Department employees about them.
The report listed as a “serious” challenge the fact that many people the investigation wanted to reach were unresponsive or could not be contacted.
-- Impeachment Hearing Transcript Series
November 13: Bill Taylor, George Kent Testimony Transcript
November 15: Marie Yovanovitch Testimony Transcript
November 19 AM: Alexander Vindman, Jennifer Williams Testimony Transcript
November 19 PM: Kurt Volker, Tim Morrison Testimony Transcript
November 20: Gordon Sondland Testimony Trancript
November 21: Fiona Hill, David Holmes Testimony Transcript
--Vindman's unclassified but redacted "secret" testimony Oct. 29, 2019
--* Solomon has received a number of prestigious awards for investigative journalism, among them the 2008 Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award and the Society of Professional Journalists' National Investigative Award together with CBS News' 60 Minutes for Evidence of Injustice; in 2002, the Associated Press's Managing Editors Enterprise Reporting Award for What The FBI Knew Before September 11, 2001, and the Gramling Journalism Achievement Award for his coverage of the war on terrorism; in 1992, the White House Correspondents' Association's Raymond Clapper Memorial Award for an investigative series on Ross Perot.
-- ** Fiona Hill: (40:41)
"I did not feel that he [Vindman] had the political antenna to deal with something that was straying into domestic politics.
Fiona Hill: (41:36)
Some people in my office have worked at the highest levels of advisory positions and Mr. Morrison had come from Capitol Hill, he knew politics inside out. And we said that Colonel Vindman did not and we were concerned about how he would manage what was becoming a highly charged and potentially partisan issue, which had not been before.
Fiona Hill: (42:45)
I mean we did pull him [Vindman] back from the meeting in the oval office. And subsequently we were very concerned about these political aspects to this and we did not feel Colonel Vindman was justifiably alarmed when he realized that there was this highly political aspect of the meeting that we were looking for eventually with President Zelensky.
Fiona Hill: (50:57)
And I’ve learned since from Mr. Holmes’ rendition here today, that Colonel Vindman has already warned the Ukrainians or in fact President Zelensky no less to stay out of American politics, domestic politics.
Fiona Hill: (01:47:58)
Mr. Eisenberg took it all very seriously. He said, for example, that Colonel Vindman should feel free … He said this to me … in future to go and bring any concerns to him about these meetings. Similarly myself and any others, if there was any subsequent followup in terms of these issues being raised again with any of the parties in the future.
"Yonavo#itch"
https://tennesseestar.com/2019/10/10/commentary-removed-u-s-ambassador-to-ukraine-wanted-the-same-prosecutor-who-was-investigating-burisma-bidengate-fired-too/
HOROWITZ REPORT. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/lary-c-johnson-here-is-what-the-horowitz-report-should-conclude/
//WW
No comments:
Post a Comment