UPDATED: Arrests Monday! Or Maybe Tuesday! Or ...

So Lindsey Graham went on with Judge Jeanine last night, and here's what he had to say:

LINDSEY GRAHAM: The Russia investigation, what happened? Half the people behind the Russia investigation are gonna go to jail and Trump was cleared. Hang tight! They come after Trump on Ukraine, and BIDEN blows up! So every time they throw a rock at Trump, THEY get hit. 

So here's what we should look at. Why did the State Department not act when they were told about the conflict of interest with Hunter Biden regarding the Ukraine, right? Who was the "whistleblower"? Does he have contacts on Schiff's staff? Did Colonel Vindman leak information to the "whistleblower"? And as to the FISA warrant, how could you sign the warrant four times and not know the whole thing was off the rails? That's where I come in. 

JUDGE JEANINE: OK, so you're gonna do something. Cuz even the head of the FISA court said it was wrong ... 

LINDSEY GRAHAM: Stay tuned. 

JUDGE JEANINE: ... it was not predicated on probable cause. You know the whole thing. So you're gonna do something. Wanna tell us what you're gonna do? 

LINDSEY GRAHAM: Yeah, I'm gonna give a list of witnesses to the Department of Justice that I wanna call. It's gonna be the Case Agent. I wanna find out how this thing got so screwed up. Why didn't they tell about the Russian source who said, 'The dossier's not reliable,' how could it be possible that it never goes up to the top [to Loretta Lynch]? I don't believe--I wanna know what Obama knew about this investigation. I wanna call Rosenstein, Sally Yates, Comey and McCabe, and all the people who worked on this case to find out how it got so off the rails and make sure it never happens again. And I wanna know who in the White House knew about this counterintelligence investigation against the Republican nominee.

Sounds good! Call the case agent, Rosenstein, Sally Yates, Comey and McCabe, and all the people who worked on the Russia Hoax. Where was Loretta during all this? Shoot, call Obama, too!

About The Vindmans--And Bolton

I didn't know this, and maybe some regular readers weren't aware of this either. According to an article at American Greatness,

The Vindman Twins Are Creatures of John Bolton

The American people have the former national security advisor to blame for the presence of the self-serving brothers on the National Security Council staff.

Bolton is behind Impeachment Theater in more ways than one. The article states that Bolton in fact hired both of the Vindman twins. It also goes on to make some interesting observations about Bolton's MO which--from everything I've read--sounds in character and the author seems to have the background to know whereof he speaks:

Joseph Duggan is ...is a former White House speechwriter for President George H. W. Bush.

Excerpts:

Confirmed: Mr. Vindman Is The "Whistleblower"

The sourcing seems impeccable. If Schumer says so, who would know better? After all, he could have called him a witness.

That's Lt. Colonel whistleblower.
Please address him with respect. https://t.co/CuhhfxgIWg

— Rising serpent (@rising_serpent) November 23, 2019

UPDATED: Just For Laughs

I have a searchable copy of the Constitution bookmarked, but somehow ...

🚨Constitution 101 #VindmanTestimony pic.twitter.com/l3wd8DaWfo

— MoveOn (@MoveOn) November 19, 2019

Lefties--the stupid people.

UPDATE:

The Democratic Counsel leans in and asks, ominously, “did President Trump follow the Official U.S. Policy”? 

Aaaand we’re officially through the looking-glass.

— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) November 19, 2019

Confirmed: Vindman Falsified Trump's Phone Call With Zelensky

Alexander Vindman's testimony today was an utter disaster on so many levels--but it could hardly have been otherwise, given what has emerged since his secret deposition. This is one that will come back to haunt Vindman and the Dems, or maybe will bite them in the ass--your choice of metaphors:

VINDMAN, on October 29: "I do not know who the whistleblower is."

VINDMAN and his lawyer, today: I won't tell you the name of the intel analyst I deliberately leaked to, because it would out the anti-Trump whistleblower.

Pick one, Vindman. Because one of those is a lie. pic.twitter.com/0gq8UM9Vdi

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) November 19, 2019

On a perhaps trivial level, speaking as a civilian who once spent a year in a military environment:

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. https://t.co/uclV6B7VnG

— Tim Kennedy (@TimKennedyMMA) November 19, 2019

And then there's this:

In his prepared statement provided to Congress, Vindman claimed to be the top adviser to the President of the United States on Ukraine policy. He was later forced to admit he's never met Trump, never spoke to Trump, and has never advised him on anything. https://t.co/rphgP0QeqS

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) November 19, 2019

Because maybe Vindman's superiors at the NSC made sure Vindman never spoke to the president. Which leads us to something we noted a few days ago but has gotten little notice today, except at Breitbart--Vindman Admits Making up Parts of Trump Call Summary:

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman admitted he made up elements of President Donald Trump’s call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky in an official summary.
Prior to the call, Vindman included a discussion about corruption in the talking points provided to the president but Trump did not use them in the call.
The summary Vindman wrote after the call read: 

     President Trump underscored the unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – within its internationally recognized borders – and expressed his commitment to work together with President-elect Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people to implement reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption.

But Vindman clarified during his testimony that the president did not bring up the topic rooting out corruption during the phone call, but he included it in his summary of the call anyway. 

When asked by the Democrat counsel about whether the summary he wrote was false, Vindman hesitated. 

“That’s not entirely accurate, but I’m not sure I would describe it as false, it was consistent with U.S. policy,” Vindman said. 

Vindman said he included the rhetoric about corruption as a “messaging platform” to describe U.S. policy toward Ukraine, even though it was not discussed on the call.

 In other words, Vindman used the call summary as released to the press as "messaging platform" to express to the world what HE WANTED US POLICY TO BE (Did Vindman Falsify Trump's April Call With Zelensky?). President in his own mind.

This is the nut of the whole thing.

Vindman apparently believes that HE’S the one who makes & coordinates U.S. policy.

This may come as a shock to him and the Democrats, but the President of the United States makes U.S. policy.

Case closed.
pic.twitter.com/hj1LULUotI

— Tim Murtaugh (@TimMurtaugh) November 19, 2019

And there was much, much more.

UPDATED: Did Vindman Falsify Trump's April Call With Zelensky?

The reason for the White House's release of the President Trump's first phone call on April 21, 2019, with the newly elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, is now coming into focus. According to the Washington Examiner,

The White House is blaming Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman for misleading reporters about the contents of an April 21 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

At the time of that first phone call a "readout" or summary of the call was provided to the press. The "readout" was prepared, according to the White House, by the NSC's "Ukraine expert"--which can only mean Alexander Vindman. According to that "readout", Trump

"underscored the unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – within its internationally recognized borders – and expressed his commitment to work together with President-elect Zelensky and the Ukrainian people to implement reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption."

However the just released transcript of the conversation reveals that Trump said none of those things. The call was basically an exchange of congratulations and pleasantries, with Trump assuring Zelensky that high level US officials would attend Zelensky's inauguration, and inviting Zelensky to visit Washington, D. C.

What's the significance of this? It appears that Vindman--who is scheduled to testify publicly next week--was putting into Trump's mouth an affirmation of "Interagency" Ukraine policy, to try to box Trump into a position that may not have been his own policy. But that was all invented by Vindman, who is almost certainly the source for Eric Ciaramella's "whistleblowing".

The affirmation of "unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – within its internationally recognized borders" would naturally put Trump in direct conflict with Russia. The claim that Trump had made such an affirmation, as witnessed by the provision of a "readout" in those terms to the press, would make it more difficult for Trump to deal freely with Putin.

The "commitment to work together with President-elect Zelensky and the Ukrainian people to implement reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption," might seem at first glance to be unobjectionable. However, in context, that could be construed by the "Interagency" to authorize continued support for George Soros funded NGO "anti-corruption" activist groups--whose true aim was to smear Soros' competitors in Ukraine. (Cf. Impeachment Theater #2, and The Swamp Of Ukraine Corruption--And The Dems)

If Trump strayed from the "Interagency" policies, damaging leaks could be fed to the press, claiming that Trump was overturning policy that had been settled by his own administration. Now we also see why Trump approved the policy to place these call transcripts on a separate secure server.

This could make for interesting "theater" when Vindman testifies next week.

Other sources:

White House releases transcript of first Trump-Zelensky call

Summary of earlier Trump-Zelensky call released


UPDATE 1: I've been reviewing the testimony of Timothy Morrison, who replaced Fiona Hill in July, 2019, as head of the NSC Eastern Europe desk--meaning, Morrison succeeded Hill as supervisor of Alexander Vindman. Without getting into extracts from the transcript of Morrison's testimony, a certain consistent theme re Vindman jumps out:

1. During the transition of leadership, Morrison and Hill discussed the current status of the Eastern Europe desk, strengths and weaknesses--and personnel.

2. Hill told Morrison that she had concerns about Vindman's "judgment," obviously meaning that he exercised bad judgment and that Vindman was suspected of being a leaker.

3. Morrison testified that Vindman--who testified that "chain of command" was important to him--repeatedly failed to stay within the "chain of command".

4. Morrison was admonished not to provide a full answer to questions regarding examples of Vindman's disregard for the "chain of command" for the specific reason that a full answer might lead to identifying the "whistleblower".

5. In other words, Morrison is in possession of information that would show that Vindman was sharing information with Eric Ciaramella that Ciaramella was not entitled to have.

UPDATE 2: More from the Morrison transcript. Vindman was "not included", i.e., was excluded from foreign trips and was not allowed at meetings on certain (unspecified) policy areas, because of his "bad judgment" on who to share information with. Morrison also made sure that he never spoke with Vindman one-on-one. He was always careful to have someone else present when he spoke with Vindman.

Wow! Homerun Sundance! But So Worrisome

CTH at its best. Basically, I just want to record that I agree with sundance's characterization of what's going on: The “Coup” Against a Sitting U.S. President Became Official on October 29th, 2019. I'll paste in sundance's brief introductory analysis. What you need to do, then, is read the excerpts from Vindman's testimony at CTH. I assumed it was a lot of garbage and hadn't read it to this point. Well, it IS garbage--he's saying that his "concerns" "feelings" etc. trump the President. That as an NSC official and a US military officer he instructed, "counseled", a foreign official to ignore requests from the President of the United States. What's so stunning about this is the acquiesence of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the unmistakable significance that this has--the utter political corruption of our top level miltary command. The testimony and the efforts of the Dem lawyers to evade--Vindman's own twisting and turning under examination by John Ratcliffe are truly remarkable, in every sense of the word. Bravo, Rep. Ratcliffe.

However, Here's something that sundance--quite surprisingly--doesn't point out. Republicans control the US Senate. That means they chair every single committee in the Senate. I have not heard that they are calling the top military officials of this country to testify about what just transpired. Are we to take it that the US Senate has no views on the involvement of the military in domestic politics, and in an impeachment attempt that appears in fact to be a coup attempt? What's going on there? Is this still a republic?

The word “coup” shifted to a new level of formalized meaning last week when members of the political resistance showed up to remove President Trump wearing military uniforms.

Not only did U.S. military leadership remain silent to the optics and purpose, but in the testimony of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman he admits to giving instructions to ignore the instructions from a sitting United States President.

In the absence of push-back from the Joint Chiefs, from this moment forth, the impression is tacit U.S. military support for the Vindman objective.

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council official, testified before congressional committees conducting an impeachment inquiry on October 29, wearing a full military uniform.

To date there has been no visible comment from U.S. military sanctioning Lt. Col. Vindman for his decision; or correcting the impression represented by Vindman’s military appearance.  The willful blindness is concerning, but it gets much worse.

Beyond the debate about the optics of the “coup“, within the testimony of Lt. Col Vindman, the witness readily admits to understanding the officially established policy of the President of The United States (an agreement between President Trump and President Zelenskyy), and stunningly admits that two weeks later he was giving countermanding instructions to his Ukrainian counterpart to ignore President Trump’s policies.

The coup against President Donald Trump went from soft, to hard.  

The Deep State And The NSC

Phil Giraldi, a former CIA officer, has a nice piece up at Zerohedge this morning. Giraldi is no fan of Donald Trump but is disturbed at what's going on in the National Security Council. He sees Alexander Vindman--probably the actual originator of the "whistleblower" hoax--as a window into that world, and its distortion of American interests. I offer some excerpts. The entire article can be read here: Deep State On The National Security Council: Colonel Vindman Is An "Expert" With An Agenda.

The current frenzy to impeach President Donald Trump sometimes in its haste reveals that which could easily be hidden about the operation of the Deep State inside the federal government. ... 

The prepared opening statement by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, described as the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council (NSC), provides some insights into how decision making at the NSC actually works. ... 

Vindman, Ukrainian both by birth and culturally, clearly was a major player in articulating and managing US policy towards that country, but that is not really what his role on the NSC should have been. As more than likely the US government’s sole genuine Ukrainian expert, he should have become a source of viable options that the United States might exercise vis-à-vis its relationship with Ukraine, and, by extension, regarding Moscow’s involvement with Kiev. But that is not how his statement, which advocates for a specific policy, reads. Rather than providing expert advice, Vindman was concerned chiefly because arming Ukraine was not proceeding quickly enough to suit him, an extremely risky policy which has already created serious problems with a much more important Russia. 

Vindman apparently sees Ukraine-Russia through the established optic provided by the Deep State, which considers global conflict as the price to pay for maintaining its largesse from the US taxpayer. Continuous warfare is its only business product, which explains in part its dislike of Donald Trump ... “”When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration’s policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to US government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine’s prospects, this alternative narrative undermined US government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.” 

Translation: A narrative that is "inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency" is ipso facto a "false narrative" and "harmful to US government policy." Nota Bene: Not necessarily harmful to the United States, but harmful to the "consensus views of the interagency" which constitute, according to Vindman, the only legitimate source for "US government policy."

Bombshell Revelation Re Vindman

Don Surber has an outstanding blog up that questions Alexander Vindman's professionalism and even basic loyalty to the Commander in Chief--and to the United States: Court-martial the spy Vindman.

Surber begins by reviewing Vindman's actions in testifying before Congress in defiance of a direct order from the CINC. It's interesting for those who, like me, lack knowledge of military law. Surber also goes into the issue of whether Vindman acted as a spy in seeking access to material for which he had no need to know as well as in seeking to alter an official transcript. Clearly, if Vindman then cooperated with others in seeking to present this to Congress, there could be a criminal violation.

But don't stop there, because Surber then pastes in an extended twitter thread by a Lt. Col. Jim Hickman who had direct experience of Vindman interacting with the Russian military during the Obama years--specifically, in 2012. The thread by LtCol (retired) Jim Hickman is quite revealing. It suggests that there may be many other unpleasant surprises to come for Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, and company (I've formatted for readability):

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 Employees about America, Russia, & Obama. He was apologetic of American culture, laughed about Americans not being educated or worldly, & really talked up Obama & globalism to the point of uncomfortable. He would speak w/the Russian Soldiers & laugh as if at the expense of the US personnel.  

It was so uncomfortable & unprofessional, one of the GS employees came & told me everything above. I walked over & sat w/in earshot of Vindman, & sure enough, all was confirmed. One comment truly struck me as odd, & it was w/respect to American's falsely thinking they're exceptional, when he said, "He [Obama] is working on that now." And he said it w/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.  

Regardless, after hearing him bash America a few times in front of subordinates, Russians, & GS Employees, as well as, hearing an earful about globalization, Obama's plan, etc...I'd had enough. I tapped him on the shoulder & asked him to step outside. At that point I verbally reprimanded him for his actions, & I'll leave it at that, so as not to be unprofessional myself.

The bottom-line is LTC Vindman was a partisan Democrat at least as far back as 2012. So much so, junior officers & soldiers felt uncomfortable around him.  

This is not your professional, field-grade officer, who has the character & integrity to do the right thing. Do not let the uniform fool you...he is a political activist in uniform. I pray our nation will drop this hate, vitriol & division, & unite as our founding fathers intended!