Tuesday, October 29, 2019

UPDATED: Is Latest Dem Impeachment "Witness" A Ukrainian Double Agent?

That's the question that Zerohedge and others are posing this morning: Double Agent? Dem's Latest Impeachment Witness 'Advised Ukrainian Government'.

The concerns are raised because the "witness"--Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who was born in Ukraine--was sought out by Ukrainian officials for advice on how to "deal with" Rudy Giuliani. As Laura Ingraham points out, this is a current NSC official giving advice to a foreign power on how to "deal with" the US government. One wonders who he cleared that with. As Laura says, it sounds a bit like ... espionage. Note that Vindman will state that he is "concerned" with how Ukraine was being treated by Trump. One wonders--exactly where do Vindman's loyalties lie?

Here's how the NYT puts it:

"While Colonel Vindman’s concerns were shared by a number of other officials, some of whom have already testified, he was in a unique position. Because he emigrated from Ukraine along with his family when he was a child and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian officials sought advice from him about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani, though they typically communicated in English."

UPDATE: I think I know the answer to this:


Remember when the Dems were all falling over one another to praise Gen. Flynn for his years of service? Me neither.


  1. Presumably Vindman reported the contacts and properly briefed his superiors. There would be a record to confirm the behavior and contacts.

    Of course, that there was a record of briefings didn't prevent accusations against Flynn as acting as an agent of a foreign country.

  2. intrepid Trump-hater Greg Sargent at the WaPo chimes in with:

    “A new witness is about to damage Trump. Fox News is already smearing him.”

    After painting “patriot” Vindman in glorious red, white and blue, Sargent tears into Laura Ingraham and John Yoo… No surprise.

  3. Something new this way cometh on intrepid witness Bill Taylor:

    Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, who provided key testimony to the Democrats’ controversial impeachment inquiry last week, led an election observation delegation in Ukraine earlier this year for a George Soros-funded organization that at the time boasted Hunter Biden on its small chairman’s council.

    Two months before he came out of retirement to serve as the highest ranking U.S. official in Ukraine, Taylor led an election observer delegation to Ukraine’s April 21, 2019 second round presidential election for the National Democratic Institute (NDI) organization.

    1. Yeah, I just can't keep up anymore. Amazing.

    2. "Liz Cheney calls out Republicans questioning Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s patriotism"

      Saw this on Twitchy earlier and thought: Now do General Wilkinson.

      "Patriotism, the last refuge of scoundrels."
      Tom S.

    3. "Patriotism, the last refuge of scoundrels."


  4. Someone noticed something interesting about Vintman:

    National Security Council (NSC) official Alexander Vindman showed up to testify Tuesday as part of the Democrats’ closed-door impeachment inquiry into President Trump in full military uniform.

    This is despite not wearing one to work every day at the NSC, according to several sources.

    Although Vindman is a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, he is serving an assignment at the NSC as the director for European Affairs. According to sources at the NSC, Vindman does not wear his uniform to work at the NSC, where the standard dress is business wear.

    One source said he donned the uniform “just for show.” The source pointed out that Vindman was ironically wearing a presidential service badge on his uniform — as he testifies on his concerns about Trump’s handling of Ukraine policy.

    1. And the only leaks I saw were that he was concerned about Ukraine's defense. IOW, Trump's not supposed to make policy, only to carry it out when he's told what it is. And that's supposedly a high crime and/or misdemeanor--against the Deep State.

  5. Ruminating on the Big Picture...

    At this point, nearly three full years after Trump's improbable election, much is still hazy, but a few things have become crystal clear (at least to me...).

    The Dems despise Trump. Or are they terrified by him?

    Do they hate his populism or are they terrified by what he will discover as he dismantles the Obama Administration?

    Are the Trump haters ideologues or are they crooks?

    Like most of us (I believe) I have been inclined to believe that the takeover of our government (pre-Trump) and our elite institutions (Wall Street, Ivy League, Hollywood, MSM, Silicon Valley) has been largely an ideological liberalism succeeded so did our elites (cf. P. Deneen).

    But I have wondered why ideology would be persuasive enough for the Brennans, Comeys, and Schiffs of the world to so blatantly lie and, even, in many cases, violate national security laws and perjure themselves.

    For ideology? Because Donald Trump, who has arguably done more for Black employment prospects than the last four Presidents put together, is a racist? It doesn't compute.

    I began to think about other explanations, and principally, whether corruption and greed, which are more common human faults might have had a larger role to play.

    I'm at the beginning of my 'investigation' but I can say what I'm looking at and invite y'all to help my inquiry.

    Why Russia? And why Ukraine? Surely there are places in the world where the economic stakes are higher? China, for example? Trump is playing hardball with China, but Schiff and Pelosi are not trying to impeach Trump for using tariff quid pro quos in his trade negotiation...

    So what is it about Russia and Ukraine? I came across an article -- 'Russia and the Ukraine – The Worrisome Connection to World Oil and Gas Problems' --from 2014 which describes the global implications of Russia's and Ukraine's energy issues, affecting not only the two principals but the EU, China and...the United States. Here's a link to the article:

    I'm not vouching for any of the conclusions expressed in the article. Just pointing out that the issues raised are big...and big dollar. I also note that the article was written in 2014 which was around the time that Hunter Biden went on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company and around the time his father threatened witholding US aid to Ukraine.

    A cursory internet search reveals extensive Obama-era involvement in Ukrainian domestic matters, including energy matters, as well as extensive involvement by Soros-related entities. Here's a link to a confusing report describing Soros-related attacks on Burisma! (

    And then there are all of the connections between Obama officials, Ukrainian government officials, Ukrainian oligarchs, the Atlantic Council, George Soros, Adam Schiff, Burisma and Hunter Biden. Take a look at this thread:

    Undoubtedly there are many here who are way ahead of me on this...but it does seem to me based on the foregoing that President Trump is more than justified in seeking to get to the bottom of the Hoaxes (Russia and Ukraine) and the criminal attempt to destroy his presidency. I, for one, won't be too surprised in there is a fair amount of filthy lucre at the bottom of it.

    1. In general, I would say that most of the alternatives are not mutually exclusive, or that--given the large sample size--each of the alternatives is present in large numbers.

      As for the willingness of the "elites" to "do whatever it takes," I happened to be thinking about that last night and concluded that the default moral, or anti-moral, position of many in America has become an openness to "the end justifies the means."

      Re Ukraine and the whole Russia Hoax, the axiom "follow the money" remains sound advice. Soros wouldn't be so heavily involved in Ukraine if there wasn't money to be made. The Dems wouldn't be there if they didn't regard the country as a giant slush fund. And sundance is no doubt correct when he periodically repeats: There are trillions at stake.

  6. "I happened to be thinking about that last night and concluded that the default moral, or anti-moral, position of many in America has become an openness to 'the end justifies the means.'

    In a similar vein, over the past 40 years, during which time I practiced law in large firms, there was a distinct shift in client attitude from 'tell me what the law says so I can comply with it' to 'tell me whether I'll get caught' or 'tell me what the penalty is and I'll decide whether to comply.'

    By the end of my time it was pretty useless to argue the principle of the thing.

    These former clients are the same ilk as the big money donors to the Dem Party.

    1. Similarly, what got me thinking about this issue was reflecting on conversations I had with younger agents in the decade or so before retiring.

  7. None of this matter is funny, but Ann Coulter’s take on Vindman is as humorous as one could make it… Her take, not Vindman himself. And in her quirky way, she really nailed him. I enjoyed this.

  8. Just saw this on Vindman. Typical chatty public radio interview, this one from NHPR (New Hampshire). Contained a lot of puffery about Vindman’s personal history, military career, wounding in Iraq, and then this:

    KELLY: OK, so an accomplished guy. Let me steer as to why we're talking about him, which is his role at the White House and how he came to listen to this July 25 phone call between the two presidents.

    MYRE: Right. So last year, he's asked to serve on the National Security Council - very common for military, State Department, CIA people to go there on a temporary assignment. In his opening statement on Capitol Hill today, he said that this spring, he was troubled by what he called a false narrative about Ukraine, and he cites a number of developments, specifically this July 25 call. He says he was listening in the situation room, and he writes in his prepared testimony, quote, "I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen."

    KELLY: What did he do with that concern?

    MYRE: Well, he wanted to raise it, and he did have a confidant at the National Security Council he could turn to - Army Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, his identical twin brother.

    KELLY: Oh, wow.

    MYRE: That's right. They both work in the NSC in the West Wing of the White House. His brother is a lawyer who deals with ethics questions. And Alexander Vindman raised this with the NSC's top lawyer. He said he'd often been encouraged to express his views and share his concern but was very proper about it, said it had to go through the chain of command through the proper authorities. He stresses he's not the whistleblower, but clearly, he's been in the middle of these Ukrainian discussions for the past year.

    And from the Daily Beast:

    In a profile of the latest star witness in the impeachment proceedings, the newspaper reports Vindman’s twin brother, Yevgeny, also works for the NSC and the two have offices across from one another in the West Wing of the White House. Yevgeny is a lieutenant colonel in the Army and serves on the NSC as a lawyer handling ethics issues. When Alexander decided to raise his concerns about Trump’s conduct, he turned to his twin and brought him along to a conversation with John Eisenberg, the top NSC lawyer.

    So he and his obviously identical twin brother (there are baby pictures out there that show they look alike) have this very cozy set up in the West Wing, and after Alexander has only been there since some time last year, he decides the elected President said something he (Alexander) personally thought was off base in a conversation with the present president of Ukraine. And hauls his twin brother along to a meeting with the “NSC’s top lawyer”. That just seems too wrong to me…

    I also don’t believe he cared a whit about the President’s supposedly asking Yevensky to investigate an American citizen. If he was concerned about anything, it was the weapons for Ukraine. He begins to look more like a plant who was supposed to have his ear to the ground in the West Wing and catch the President doing something that could be called impeachable.

    1. Possible. He was brought in by Bolton.

    2. Ukraine president Zelensky, not Yevensky. Sorry.