The Liberals and their Democrat flunkies have started Kabuki Theater 3.o recasting the Russian Collusion Delusion into the Ukrainian Impeachment Delusion.
So while Schiff For Brains does his very best to prove President Trump committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors based on a half dozen political flunkies from the Entrenched Bureaucracy who will report that they heard someone tell them someone told them something that somebody told them"
Let's look at how the sycophants in the Media lie constantly.
Check out this asinine approach to convince America that "Mass Shootings" are out of control.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mass-shootings-2019-more-mass-shootings-than-days-so-far-this-year/
As of September 1, which was the 244th day of the year, there have been 283 mass shootings in the U.S., according to data from the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive (GVA), which tracks every mass shooting in the country. The GVA defines a mass shooting as any incident in which at least four people were shot, excluding the shooter.
Now first notice the reporter, Jason Silverstein can't even get the definition of a mass shooting correct.
Federal statutes define "mass shootings" as three or more people killed, regardless of weapons.
So simpleton Silverstein says shot while the Federal Government says killed. Hmmmm.... big difference No?
But let's go with Silverstein's definition but check his data.
He says as of Sept 1st its 283 mass shootings, the Gun Violence Archive for that period is actually 287. Poor simpleton Silverstein can't even count!
But what does the data really say?
From Jan 1 through Sept 1:
Top 10 states "Mass Shootings"
1. California - 34 shooting 40 Killed 131 Injured
2. Illinois - 31 Shootings 17 Killed 140 Injured
3. Texas -20 Shootings 58 Killed 102 Injured
4. Maryland - 16 Shootings 8 Killed 66 Injured
5. Georgia - 14 Shootings 13 Killed 55 Injured
6. Pennsylvania 14 Shootings 8 Killed 66 Injured
7. Louisiana 13 Shootings 8 Killed 51 Injured
8. Missouri 11 Shootings 17 Killed 33 Injured
9. Virginia 9 Shootings 20 Killed 38 Injured
10. New Jersey 9 Shootings 5 Killed 40 Injured
So 171 of the 287 (59.6%) mass shootings were in 10 states while the remaining 116 were in 38 other states. Wyoming and Hawaii had no mass shootings for this period. But, Washington DC would have fallen into position 16 with 6 Shootings 3 Killed 23 Injured
Now what were the top 10 Cities?
1. Chicago 29 Shootings 17 Killed 131 Injured
2. Oakland/San Francisco 22 Shootings 20 Killed 81 Injured
3. Baltimore 13 Shootings 7 Killed 52 Injured
4. Philadelphia 10 Shootings 4 Killed 47 Injured
5. St. Louis 8 Shootings 16 Killed 26 Injured
6. Houston 7 Shootings 12 Killed 23 Injured
7. Washington DC 6 Shootings 3 Killed 23 Injured
8. Miami 5 Shootings 1 Killed 31 Injured
9. Columbus (OH) 5 Shootings 10 Killed 38 Injured
10. Newark 5 Shootings 4 Killed 18 Injured
So folks, it seems Silverstein's article which had no real point failed to point out the majority of Shootings and Killings occur in Blue States and Cities.
But it seems we know two things about the Media, they don't know how to do analysis or research, but they do know hoe to lie. I guess they think we won't check to see if they are slinging Bullshit.
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
New Complaint Alleges Anti-Trump Whistleblower Tried To Get Rich Off His ICIG Complaint
A new complaint filed to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) alleges the anti-Trump whistleblower violated federal law by soliciting money via a GoFundMe page.
“We are requesting you investigate whether 18 USC 208, 18 USC 209, or any other criminal statute or regulation, has been violated by the federal employee you are protecting when they reportedly requested an investigation into a matter they had no direct personal knowledge of, and on account of which they were able to obtain sizeable gifts from unknown persons because of their official duty,” the complaint reads.
At the time of publication, the GoFundMe page raised roughly $227,000 from approximately 6,100 individuals. The GoFundMe page was started by Whistleblower Aid, a non-profit legal service that “helps patriotic government employees and brave, private-sector workers report and publicize their concerns — safely, lawfully, and responsibly.”
The complaint claims these donations constitute gifts to an intelligence official that would be restricted due to the individual’s official position. This would be a violation of 5 CFR 2635.203 and potentially other statutes which prohibit gift giving to federal officials.
“The complaint also raised the possibility that some of the donations may have come from prohibited sources, and asked the ICIG to look into whether any ‘foreign citizen or agent of a foreign government’ contributed,” Fox News said.
However, in the GoFundMe page’s description it claims, “donations will only be accepted from U.S. citizens.” Although, there is no way to tell how the page plans to regulate that. Many donations are from anonymous sources.
While the identity of the individual who submitted this complaint has yet to be released, Fox News reports the complainant holds a top-secret SCI security clearance and has served in the government.
5 Reasons A Senate Trial Would Be A Nightmare For Democrats
If impeachment occurs and a Senate trial happens, the GOP has the advantages. It could be a disaster for Democrats.
The once distant and gauzy fantasy of impeaching President Donald Trump is becoming very real for Democrats, just not quite how they wanted or expected it to. As we move into public testimony this week, the wheels of presidential removal are stuck in deeper mud than ever. The polls have been flat or reversing back Trump’s way for weeks despite alleged bombshell revelations, and the worst could be yet to come if and when the issue moves to the Senate.
Over the weekend, many Democrats and media allies moved away from the dulcet sound of the Latin “quid pro quo” to the more menacing “extortion” and “bribery,” imagining using a dead language is hurting their messaging.
Many also insisted that the magic of television will persuade voters even if the facts of the case are already known and stipulated for the most part. Not only does this assume that the American people are kind of dumb, it also may rely just a smidge too much on hopes that Ambassador Bill Taylor has some kind of powerful television presence. Could an “end of the Perry Mason episode” moment happen? It is not beyond the realm of possibility, but also extremely unlikely.
So let’s assume that Democrats move forward on Articles of Impeachment next month with essentially the same facts that everyone more or less agrees with and the same polls that show the country bitterly divided on impeachment. For the case to move to the Senate under these conditions would be a disaster for Democrats, for a whole host of reasons.
Here are five of them.
1. Losing Control Of the Process
In the six weeks thus far of L’Affaire Ukraine, House Democrats have been in complete control of the process. They have chosen witnesses, whether testimony is in private or public, set the rules of questioning and the schedules. In all these areas, their hand has been firmly on the wheel. It is hard to overestimate what an incredible advantage this is.
One can think of it as being both the director and stage manager of a play. They tell the actors where to go, and work to create a narrative convincing enough to sway the American people. But, of course, two parties can play at that game, and once the case moves to the Senate for trial all of those powerful advantages switch hands. Instead of Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff making the rules, it will be Sens. Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham.
2. Oh Hi, Hunter Biden
Among the advantages the Democrats have had in the House inquiry is that of approving witnesses. Although they allowed Republicans to request witnesses, the authority to approve them is entirely Democrats’.
This came into play this weekend when the GOP requested Hunter Biden be brought in to testify about his knowledge of alleged corruption at the energy company Burisma, where he was making Mr. Burns money for Homer Simpson knowledge. That alleged corruption lies at the heart of the entire impeachment.
Schiff says Biden will not testify, in part because he does not the inquiry to become the very investigation he says he believes is bogus, that President Trump wanted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to engage in. In the House, Schiff can block whoever he wants, but it’s hard to see how Democrats could stop the Senate from calling Hunter Biden, and maybe even Joe Biden, in to testify. In that scenario, the investigation Schiff wants shelved will go very public, very quickly, shivving the Democratic frontrunner for president in the process.
3. Senators On The Trail
There are currently six Democratic senators running for president of the United States. Two of them, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, are polling in the top three of all candidates. The Iowa caucus in on February 3. So let’s be generous and say Santa gives Democrats Articles of Impeachment by Christmas, We would be looking at almost all of the month of January, at least, taken up with a Senate trial.
What are these senators supposed to do? Do they put their campaign stops on hold for a month to be in the chamber and watch the trial, giving their opponents a huge ground game advantage? Conversely, do they skip the trial in order to campaign and eventually vote to remove a president even though they didn’t bother to attend the trial? Neither of these are very attractive options.
4. Republican Unity
During the Trump era, the time the GOP and conservatives in general have been most united and powerful was during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. Note, as discussed above, that was a process controlled by Senate Republicans, not House Democrats, and the picture that emerged was of a qualified man being hounded on the basis of politics, not evidence.
The Senate will try to recreate this energy in much the same way. As they puncture the one-sided story crafted by House Democrats, look for Trump’s support to solidify, just as Kavanaugh’s did. There could be no better outcome for the president, who relies almost solely on his base for electoral success.
5. The Odds Of Winning Are Not Good
Notwithstanding the televisual spectacle we will all be treated to this week during public testimony, the Democrats have already made their basic case to the American people and to Republicans in the Senate. The dream of a few short weeks ago, that cracks would emerge and suddenly senators would start turning on Trump, is now dissipating as dawn rises over an actual vote on impeachment.
Like hungover frat boys who convinced themselves over the raucous night that they would road trip to Mexico the next day, the cruel sun is now glinting off their empties and discarded Juul pods, and they will be going to class after all.
The result? A huge win for Trump, any way you slice it. There are only two outcomes for the trial: conviction and removal, or acquittal. Once acquitted, the president will take so many victory laps that the track will need new asphalt. Democrats will be left holding an empty bag saying, “We did our duty but the process wasn’t fair,” truly the mantra of winners.
So, is there a way out of this mess for Democrats? There may be. Over the weekend if you were very quiet and listened very carefully, a new word started emerging. That word is “censure.” Censuring, rather than impeaching, the president would allow Democrats to claim some measure of holding Trump accountable without the parade of horribles listed above. It might also deprive Trump of the ability to claim total exoneration.
But alas, it may be too late for that. Democrats promised their base blood, and blood will be had. But as in any good fight, once you level your best shot, the other guy gets to hit back.
“Whistleblower” Eric Ciaramalla Hosted Jan 19, 2016 WH Mtg. – Same Day US Told Ukraine in WH Mtg. to Fire Prosecutor Investigating Hunter Biden
So The New York Times reported that Joe Biden’s own staff thought the Ukrainian gas company Burisma paying Hunter Biden $83,333/month while his father was Vice President was “unseemly” or “worse” — and they made State Department officials help them do damage control.
Joe Biden said he first learned of his son’t activities in Ukraine when the story broke in 2014 according to Hunter Biden’s recollection in a New Yorker piece earlier this year.
John Solomon at The Hill also reported on the January 19, 206 meeting between Ukrainian officials and Obama officials at the White House.
The other case raised at the January 2016 meeting, Telizhenko said, involved Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company under investigation in Ukraine for improper foreign transfers of money. At the time, Burisma allegedly was paying then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter as both a board member and a consultant. More than $3 million flowed from Ukraine to an American firm tied to Hunter Biden in 2014-15, bank records show.According to Telizhenko, U.S. officials told the Ukrainians they would prefer that Kiev drop the Burisma probe and allow the FBI to take it over. The Ukrainians did not agree. But then Joe Biden pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire Ukraine’s chief prosecutor in March 2016, as I previously reported. The Burisma case was transferred to NABU, then shut down.
According to Stephen McIntyre the demand that Ukrainian top prosecutor Viktor Shokin be fired as a condition for IMF loan almost certainly originated with Biden staff. The demand was first announced to Ukrainian prosecutors at a January 19, 2016 meeting with US officials hosted by Eric Ciaramella.
Obviously, this is a very bold and shocking statement.
Sure enough — If you run a search on the White House visitor logs during the final year (2016) of the Obama administration you find that Eric Ciaramella is listed over 200 times.
Ciaramella hosted a meeting with Ukrainian diplomat Andrii Telizhenko on January 19, 2016 in the Obama White House.
Fool Nelson first reported this on October 12 before the Ciaramella was alleged publicly to be the whistleblower.
There may have been a series of meetings held that day with Ukrainian officials in the Obama White House.
It is clear that Eric Ciaramella hosted one meeting.
It is also clear that this is the day the US told Ukrainian officials in the White House to fire Viktor Shokin.
This is why Eric Ciaramella MUST TESTIFY.
He may have filed his phony second-hand “whistleblower” report because he was definitely in on the plot fire the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden.
Supreme Court allows Sandy Hook families to sue gun maker Remington Arms
Article by Natalie Musumeci in "The New York Post":
The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a blow to the gun industry Tuesday by permitting a lawsuit to proceed against the maker of the AR-15-style weapon used in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that left 26 dead.
The justices denied a bid from firearms manufacturer Remington Arms, which argued that it should be protected by a 2005 federal law that aims to prevent most lawsuits against gunmakers when their weapons are used in crimes.
The order allowed a survivor and relatives of nine victims of the horrific Dec. 14, 2012 massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, to pursue their lawsuit.
The papers, filed in 2014, charged that Remington Arms never should have sold a weapon as dangerous as the Bushmaster AR-15 style rifle to the public.
Gunman Adam Lanza, 20, who also fatally shot his mother, used the rifle to slay 20 first-graders and six educators at the school before he committed suicide.
The suit also alleges that the North Carolina-based company targeted younger at-risk men in marketing in violent video games.
Remington’s ads, the suit says, “continued to exploit the fantasy of an all-conquering lone gunman.”
“The families are grateful that the Supreme Court upheld precedent and denied Remington’s latest attempt to avoid accountability,” Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the Sandy Hook families, said in a statement.
“We are ready to resume discovery and proceed towards trial in order to shed light on Remington’s profit-driven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and court high-risk users at the expense of Americans’ safety.”
Previously, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the lawsuit could continue, citing an exemption in the federal law.
That decision overturned a ruling made a trial court judge who threw out the suit on the basis of the 2005 law known as Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
The National Rifle Association, which supported Remington in the case as well as other gun rights groups, called the lawsuit “company killing.”
The case will now go to trial in Connecticut.
https://nypost.com/2019/11/12/supreme-court-allows-sandy-hook-families-to-sue-gun-maker-remington-arms/
The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a blow to the gun industry Tuesday by permitting a lawsuit to proceed against the maker of the AR-15-style weapon used in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that left 26 dead.
The justices denied a bid from firearms manufacturer Remington Arms, which argued that it should be protected by a 2005 federal law that aims to prevent most lawsuits against gunmakers when their weapons are used in crimes.
The order allowed a survivor and relatives of nine victims of the horrific Dec. 14, 2012 massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, to pursue their lawsuit.
The papers, filed in 2014, charged that Remington Arms never should have sold a weapon as dangerous as the Bushmaster AR-15 style rifle to the public.
Gunman Adam Lanza, 20, who also fatally shot his mother, used the rifle to slay 20 first-graders and six educators at the school before he committed suicide.
The suit also alleges that the North Carolina-based company targeted younger at-risk men in marketing in violent video games.
Remington’s ads, the suit says, “continued to exploit the fantasy of an all-conquering lone gunman.”
“The families are grateful that the Supreme Court upheld precedent and denied Remington’s latest attempt to avoid accountability,” Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the Sandy Hook families, said in a statement.
“We are ready to resume discovery and proceed towards trial in order to shed light on Remington’s profit-driven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and court high-risk users at the expense of Americans’ safety.”
Previously, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the lawsuit could continue, citing an exemption in the federal law.
That decision overturned a ruling made a trial court judge who threw out the suit on the basis of the 2005 law known as Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
The National Rifle Association, which supported Remington in the case as well as other gun rights groups, called the lawsuit “company killing.”
The case will now go to trial in Connecticut.
https://nypost.com/2019/11/12/supreme-court-allows-sandy-hook-families-to-sue-gun-maker-remington-arms/
Eric Ciaramella, the alleged whistleblower, was the name Fiona Hill could not recall
When former National Security Council official Fiona Hill testifed before the House Intelligence Committee, she said that she could not remember the name of the Ukraine director when she joined the White House.
That person was Eric Ciaramella, the career CIA analyst who is alleged to be the Ukraine whistleblower.
Hill was White House NSC senior director for European and Russian affairs, a position Ciaramella held in an acting capacity while still Ukraine director, for a brief period immediately before she took the post.
Ciaramella, 33, is now a deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia on the National Intelligence Council under President Trump’s director of national intelligence, the Washington Examiner previously reported.
According to the released transcript of Hill's deposition, which took place during closed-door proceedings, Republican counsel for the House Oversight Committee Steve Castor prompted Hill to name her predecessors and NSC officials who handled the Ukraine portfolio.
She said: “My predecessor at the NSC, well, there would have been two predecessors, because this was an amalgamation of two bureaus. The immediate predecessor would have been Celeste Wallander for Russia, Central Asia, I guess, but probably not Ukraine."
Castor asked who had the Ukraine portfolio prior to Army Lt. Col Alexander Vindman, who also testified before the committee. "Catherine Croft, who was the Ukraine desk officer at the State Department and then went to work with Ambassador VoIker," Hill responded.
Castor asked, "And what was the time frame that she had the Ukraine portfolio?"
Hill, 54, replied: "Up until the summer of 2018. And before her it was oh, I can't remember who was before her. There were several changes of directorates in the time that — of directors in the time that I was there."
At this point, Hill appeared to become frustrated with the line of questioning and told Castor, "Look, and I'm sorry to get testy about, you know, this back and forth, because I'm really worried about these conspiracy theories, and I'm worried that all of you are going to go down a rabbit hole, you know, looking for things that are not going to be at all helpful to the American people or to our future election in 2020."
In a previous hearing, Castor had asked William Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine: "Does a person by the name of Eric Ciaramella ring a bell for you?" Taylor answered: "It doesn't." When pressed further if he was sure he never communicated with Ciaramella, Taylor answered, "Correct."
Hong Kong protests: Rule of law on 'brink of collapse', police say
Hong Kong's rule of law has been
pushed to the "brink of total collapse" after more than five months of
protests, police have warned.
The warning came as protesters clashed with police across the city on Tuesday. At the Chinese University of Hong Kong, police fired tear gas and rubber bullets at protesters who built barricades on the campus.
Earlier in the day, around 1,000 protesters rallied in central Hong Kong during the lunch hour blocking roads
Protesters, wearing office clothes, were seen chanting: "Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong!"
The demonstrations come just a day after the territory saw a marked escalation in violence, with police shooting one activist in the torso. A pro-Beijing supporter was set on fire by anti-government protesters
On Tuesday afternoon, police spokesman Kong Wing-cheung hit out at the protesters, saying they had "countless examples of rioters using random and indiscriminate violence against innocent" people.
"Hong Kong's rule of law has been pushed to the brink of total collapse as masked rioters recklessly escalate their violence under the hope that they can get away with it," he told reporters, adding that Monday's attack on the pro-Beijing supporter was being investigated as attempted murder.
Speaking at the same conference, Supt Li Kwai-wah defended the officer's decision to shoot the protester on Monday.
"We found out that our colleague did not only face threat from one person, instead it was a group of people with an organised plan attempting to steal the gun," he said.
"In a situation like this, we believe our police are reacting according to the guideline, to protect themselves as well as the people around them."
Both the protester and the pro-Beijing supporter remain in hospital, with the latter in a critical condition.
Students built roadblocks on streets in and around City University campus to stop police from entering. At one stage, a van used as part of a street barricade was set on fire.
Students at Hong Kong Polytechnic also tried to disrupt traffic near their campus.
In the morning, suspended railway services and road closures had already led to long traffic jams in the early rush hour. At noon, protesters moved into the city's central business district for a flash mob protest.
Democrats have a Col. Vindman problem
House Democrats conducted their impeachment interviews in secret, but Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman still emerged as star of the show. Appearing at his Oct. 29 deposition in full dress uniform, the decorated Army officer, now a White House National Security Council Ukraine expert, was the first witness who had actually listened to the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that is at the heart of the Democratic impeachment campaign. Even though lawmakers were forbidden to discuss his testimony in public, Vindman's leaked opening statement that "I did not think it was proper [for Trump] to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen" exploded on news reports.
Vindman has not yet been scheduled to appear before the Democrats' public impeachment hearings. When that happens, he will undoubtedly again play a prominent role. But there will be a difference. The public now has a transcript of Vindman's deposition. And those who have taken the trouble to read the 340-page document will have a different picture of Vindman's testimony than the one presented in early media reports.
Yes, Vindman testified repeatedly that he "thought it was wrong" for Trump, speaking with Zelensky, to bring up the 2016 election and allegations of Ukraine-related corruption on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. But the Vindman transcript also showed a witness whose testimony was filled with opinion, with impressions, who had little new to offer, who withheld important information from the committee, who was steeped in a bureaucracy that has often been hostile to the president, and whose lawyer, presumably with Vindman's approval, expressed unmistakable disdain, verging on contempt, for members of Congress who asked inconvenient questions. In short, Vindman's testimony was not the slam-dunk hit Democrats portrayed it to be. And that raises questions about how it will play when Vindman goes before the world in a public impeachment hearing.
Here are four problems with the Vindman testimony:
1) Beyond his opinions, he had few new facts to offer.
Vindman seemed to be an important fact witness, the first who had actually been on the July 25 call when Trump talked to Zelensky. But the White House weeks ago released the rough transcript of that call, which meant everyone in the secure room in which Vindman testified, and everyone on the planet, for that matter, already knew what had been said.
Indeed, Vindman attested to the overall accuracy of the rough transcript, contrary to some impeachment supporters who have suggested the White House is hiding an exact transcript that would reveal everything Trump said to the Ukrainian president. As one of a half-dozen White House note-takers listening to the call, Vindman testified that he tried unsuccessfully to make a few edits to the rough transcript as it was being prepared. In particular, Vindman believed that Zelensky specifically said the word "Burisma," the corrupt Ukrainian energy company that hired Hunter Biden, when the rough transcript referred only to "the company." But beyond that, Vindman had no problems with the transcript, and he specifically said he did not believe any changes were made with ill intent.
"You don't think there was any malicious intent to specifically not add those edits?" asked Republican counsel Steve Castor.
"I don't think so."
"So otherwise, this record is complete and I think you used the term 'very accurate'?"
"Yes," said Vindman.
Once Vindman had vouched for the rough transcript, his testimony mostly concerned his own interpretation of Trump's words. And that interpretation, as Vindman discovered during questioning, was itself open to interpretation.
Vindman said he was "concerned" about Trump's statements to Zelensky, so concerned that he reported it to top National Security Council lawyer John Eisenberg. (Vindman had also reported concerns to Eisenberg two weeks before the Trump-Zelensky call, after a Ukraine-related meeting that included Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union.) Vindman said several times that he was not a lawyer and did not know if Trump's words amounted to a crime but that he felt they were "wrong." That was when Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe, a former U.S. attorney, tried to get to the root of Vindman's concerns. What was really bothering him?
"I'm trying to find out if you were reporting it because you thought there was something wrong with respect to policy or there was something wrong with respect to the law," Ratcliffe said to Vindman. "And what I understand you to say is that you weren't certain that there was anything improper with respect to the law, but you had concerns about U.S. policy. Is that a fair characterization?"
"So I would recharacterize it as I thought it was wrong and I was sharing those views," Vindman answered. "And I was deeply concerned about the implications for bilateral relations, U.S. national security interests, in that if this was exposed, it would be seen as a partisan play by Ukraine. It loses the bipartisan support. And then for — "
"I understand that," Ratcliffe said, "but that sounds like a policy reason, not a legal reason."
Indeed it did. Elsewhere in Vindman's testimony, he repeated that his greatest worry was that if the Trump-Zelensky conversation were made public, then Ukraine might lose the bipartisan support it currently has in Congress. That, to Ratcliffe and other Republicans, did not seem a sufficient reason to report the call to the NSC's top lawyer, nor did it seem the basis to begin a process leading to impeachment and a charge of presidential high crimes or misdemeanors.
At another point, Castor asked Vindman whether he was interpreting Trump's words in an overly alarmist way, especially when Vindman contended that Trump issued a "demand" to Zelensky.
"The president in the transcript uses some, you know, words of hedging from time to time," Castor said. "You know, on page 3, he says 'whatever you can do.' He ends the first paragraph on page 3, 'if that's possible.' At the top of page 4, 'if you could speak to him, that would be great.' 'So whatever you can do.' Again, at the top of page 4, 'if you can look into it.' Is it reasonable to conclude that those words hedging for some might, you know, lead people to conclude that the president wasn't trying to be demanding here?"
"I think people want to hear, you know, what they have as already preconceived notions," Vindman answered, in what may have been one of the more revealing moments of the deposition. "I'd also point your attention to 'whatever you can do, it's very important to do it if that's possible.'"
"'If that's possible,'" Castor stressed.
"Yeah," said Vindman. "So I guess you can interpret it in different ways."
2) Vindman withheld important information from investigators.
Vindman ended his opening statement in the standard way, by saying, "Now, I would be happy to answer your questions." As it turned out, that cooperation did not extend to both parties.
The only news in Vindman's testimony was the fact that he had twice taken his concerns to Eisenberg. He also told his twin brother, Yevgeny Vindman, who is also an Army lieutenant colonel and serves as a National Security Council lawyer. He also told another NSC official, John Erath, and he gave what he characterized as a partial readout of the call to George Kent, a career State Department official who dealt with Ukraine. That led to an obvious question: Did Vindman take his concerns to anyone else? Did he discuss the Trump-Zelensky call with anyone else? It was a reasonable question, and an important one. Republicans asked it time and time again. Vindman refused to answer, with his lawyer, Michael Volkov, sometimes belligerently joining in. Through it all, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff stood firm in favor of keeping his committee in the dark.
Vindman openly conceded that he told other people about the call. The obvious suspicion from Republicans was that Vindman told the person who became the whistleblower, who reported the call to the Intelligence Community inspector general, and who, in a carefully crafted legal document, framed the issue in a way that Democrats have adopted in their drive to remove the president from office.
Vindman addressed the suspicion before anyone raised it. In his opening statement, he said, "I am not the whistleblower ... I do not know who the whistleblower is and I would not feel comfortable to speculate as to the identity of the whistleblower."
Fine, said Republicans. We won't ask you who the whistleblower is. But if your story is that you were so concerned by the Trump-Zelensky issue that you reported it to Eisenberg, and also to others, well, who all did you tell? That is when the GOP hit a brick wall from Vindman, his lawyer Volkov, and, most importantly, Schiff. As chairman of the Intelligence Committee, charged with overseeing the intelligence community, Schiff might normally want to know about any intelligence community involvement in the matter under investigation. But in the Vindman deposition, Schiff strictly forbade any questions about it. "Can I just caution again," he said at one point, "not to go into names of people affiliated with the IC in any way." The purpose of it all was to protect the identity of the whistleblower, who Schiff incorrectly claimed has "a statutory right to anonymity."
That left Republicans struggling to figure out what happened. "I'm just trying to better understand who the universe of people the concerns were expressed to," said Castor.
"Look, the reason we're objecting is not — we don't want — my client does not want to be in the position of being used to identifying the whistleblower, okay?" said Volkov. "And based on the chair's ruling, as I understand it, [Vindman] is not required to answer any question that would tend to identify an intelligence officer."
"Okay," Castor said to Vindman. "Did you express concerns to anybody, you know, that doesn't fall under this category of someone who might be the whistleblower, or is Eisenberg the only — "
"No," said Vindman. "In my coordination role, as I actually said in the statement, in my opening ... in performing my coordination role as director on the National Security Council, I provide readouts of relevant meetings and communications to [redacted] properly cleared counterparts with a relevant need to know."
What did that mean, exactly? Vindman didn't tell anybody else, he just provided readouts? On a need-to-know basis? Republicans tried on several occasions to figure it out. "Some of the other people that you raised concerns to, did you ask any of those folks to do anything with the concerns?" asked Castor.
That only prompted more bureaucratese from the witness. "I don't think that's an accurate characterization, counsel," Vindman said. "I think what I did was I fulfilled my coordination role and spoke to other national security professionals about relevant substance in the call so that they could take appropriate action. And frankly, it's hard to — you know, without getting into, you know, sources and methods, it's hard to kind of talk about some of these things."
So, Vindman's basic answer was: I won't tell you because that's a secret. After several such exchanges, Volkov got tough with lawmakers, suggesting further inquiries might hurt Vindman's feelings.
"Look, he came here," Volkov said. "He came here. He tells you he's not the whistleblower, okay? He says he feels uncomfortable about it. Try to respect his feelings at this point."
An unidentified voice spoke up. "We're uncomfortable impeaching the president," it said.
"Excuse me. Excuse me," Volkov responded. "If you want to debate it, we can debate it, but what I'm telling you right now is you have to protect the identity of the whistleblower. I get that there may be political overtones. You guys go do what you got to do, but do not put this man in the middle of it."
Castor spoke up. "So how does it out anyone by saying that he had one other conversation other than the one he had with George Kent?"
"Okay," said Volkov. "What I'm telling you right now is we're not going to answer that question. If the chair wants to hold him in contempt for protecting the whistleblower, God be with you. ... You don't need this. You don't need to go down this. And look, you guys can — if you want to ask, you can ask — you can ask questions about his conversation with Mr. Kent. That's it. We're not answering any others."
"The only conversation that we can speak to Col. Vindman about is his conversation with Ambassador Kent?" asked Republican Rep. Lee Zeldin.
"Correct," said Volkov, "and you've already asked him questions about it."
"And any other conversation that he had with absolutely anyone else is off limits?"
"No," said Volkov. "He's told you about his conversations with people in the National Security Council. What you're asking him to do is talk about conversations outside the National Security Council. And he's not going to do that. I know where you're going."
"No, actually, you don't," said Zeldin.
"Oh, yes, sir," said Volkov.
"No, you really don't," said Zeldin.
"You know what?" said Volkov. "I know what you're going to say. I already know what you're going to do, okay? And I don't want to hear the FOX News questions, okay?"
Zeldin, perhaps seeking to cool Volkov down, said, "Listen, this transcript is going to be out at some point, okay?"
"I hope so," said Volkov.
Finally, Schiff stepped in to stop things. "The gentleman will suspend," he said. "Let's suspend. Counsel has made his position clear. I think his client has made his position clear. Let's move on."
It should be noted that Volkov was a lawyer, and members of Congress were members of Congress. The lawyer should not be treating the lawmakers as Volkov did. Volkov was able to tell Republicans to buzz off only because he had Schiff's full support. And Republicans never found out who else Vindman discussed the Trump-Zelensky call with.
3) There were notable gaps in Vindman's knowledge.
Vindman portrayed himself as the man to see on the National Security Council when it came to issues involving Ukraine. "I'm the director for Ukraine," he testified. "I'm responsible for Ukraine. I'm the most knowledgeable. I'm the authority for Ukraine for the National Security Council and the White House." Yet at times there were striking gaps in Vindman's knowledge of the subject matter. He seemed, for instance, distinctly incurious about the corruption issues in Ukraine that touched on Joe and Hunter Biden.
Vindman agreed with everyone that Ukraine has a serious corruption problem. But he knew little specifically about Burisma, the nation's second-largest privately owned energy company, and even less about Mykola Zlochevsky, the oligarch who runs the firm.
"What do you know about Zlochevsky, the oligarch that controls Burisma?" asked Castor.
"I frankly don't know a huge amount," Vindman said.
"Are you aware that he's a former Minister of Ecology"? Castor asked, referring to a position Zlochevsky allegedly used to steer valuable government licenses to Burisma.
"I'm not," said Vindman.
"Are you aware of any of the investigations the company has been involved with over the last several years?"
"I am aware that Burisma does have questionable business dealings," Vindman said. "That's part of the track record, yes."
"Okay. And what questionable business dealings are you aware of?" asked Castor. Vindman said he did not know beyond generalities. "The general answer is I think they have had questionable business dealings," Vindman said.
Castor then noted that in 2014 Burisma "undertook an initiative to bring in some additional folks for their board, are you aware of some of the folks they added to their board in 2014?"
"The only individual I'm aware of, again, after, you know, as it's been reported in the press is Mr. Hunter Biden," Vindman said.
"Okay," said Castor. "And did you check with any of your authoritative sources in government to learn a little bit more about these issues?"
"I did not," said Vindman. "I didn't think it was appropriate. He was a U.S. citizen, and I wasn't going to ask questions."
A short time later, Castor asked, "And do you have any knowledge as to why Hunter Biden was asked to join the board?"
"I do not."
"Did you check with any of your authoritative sources whether he was a corporate governance expert or — "
"Like I said, I didn't," Vindman answered. "He's an American citizen. Certainly there are domestic political overtones. I did not think that was appropriate for me to start looking into this particular ... I drew my conclusions on Burisma and I moved on."
Vindman had other blind spots, as well. One important example concerned U.S. provision of so-called lethal aid to Ukraine, specifically anti-tank missiles known as Javelins. The Obama administration famously refused to provide Javelins or other lethal aid to Ukraine, while the Trump administration reversed that policy, sending a shipment of missiles in 2018. On the Trump-Zelensky call, the two leaders discussed another shipment in the future.
"Both those parts of the call, the request for investigation of Crowd Strike and those issues, and the request for investigation of the Bidens, both of those discussions followed the Ukraine president saying they were ready to buy more Javelins. Is that right?" asked Schiff.
"Yes," said Vindman.
"There was a prior shipment of Javelins to Ukraine, wasn't there?" said Schiff.
"So that was, I believe — I apologize if the timing is incorrect — under the previous administration, there was a — I'm aware of the transfer of a fairly significant number of Javelins, yes," Vindman said.
Vindman's timing was incorrect. Part of the entire Trump-Ukraine story is the fact that Trump sent the missiles while Obama did not. The top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council did not seem to know that.
4) Vindman was a creature of a bureaucracy that has often opposed President Trump.
In his testimony, Vindman's perspective could be mind-numbingly bureaucratic. One of his favorite words is "interagency," by which he means the National Security Council's role in coordinating policy among the State Department, Defense Department, the Intelligence Community, the Treasury Department, and the White House. His bible is something known as NSPM-4, or National Security Presidential Memorandum 4. He says things such as, "So I hold at my level sub-PCCs, Deputy Assistant Secretary level. PCCs are my boss, senior director with Assistant Secretaries. DCs are with the deputy of the National Security Council with his deputy counterparts within the interagency." He believes the interagency has set a clear U.S. policy toward Ukraine.
"You said in your opening statement, or you indicated at least, that there's a fairly consensus policy within the interagency towards Ukraine," Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman said to Vindman. "Could you just explain what that consensus policy is, in your own words?"
"What I can tell you is, over the course of certainly my tenure there, since July 2018, the interagency, as per normal procedures, assembles under the NSPM-4, the National Security Policy [sic] Memorandum 4, process to coordinate U.S. government policy," Vindman said. "We, over the course of this past year, probably assembled easily a dozen times, certainly at my level, which is called a subpolicy coordinating committee — and that's myself and my counterparts at the Deputy Assistant Secretary level — to discuss our views on Ukraine."
That is a classic bureaucrat's view of government and the world. Needless to say, Trump does not do that sort of thing. The president is remarkably freewheeling, unbureaucratic, and certainly not always consistent when it comes to making policy. But he generally has a big goal in mind, and in any event, he is the president of the U.S. He, not the interagency, sets U.S. foreign policy.
Still, Vindman was deeply upset when Trump, relying on Rudy Giuliani and others, turned his attention to 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," Vindman said in his opening statement. The outside influencers, he suggested, were undermining the work of his "interagency colleagues." In the words of the Washington Post, Vindman was "deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy."
Vindman's discussion of the interagency, while dry as dust, might contain the key to his role in the Trump-Ukraine affair. In the last few years, the bureaucracy with which he so clearly identified has often been at odds, sometimes privately and sometimes publicly, with the president. Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, writing in a new book, said two top officials, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and White House chief of staff John Kelly, sought to undermine Trump to "save the country."
"It was their decisions, not the president's, that were in the best interest of America, they said," Haley wrote. "The president didn't know what he was doing."
That view extended deep into some areas of the government. Now, parts of the foreign policy bureaucracy are in open war with the president, channeling their grievances through the House Democrats' drive toward impeachment. When he testifies in public, Vindman will be the living embodiment of that bureaucratic war.
Sean Hannity Provides Latest Tick Tock – IG Report Will Contain Criminal Referrals
Sara Carter appears on the nightly meeting of the Tick Tock club to promote her latest tick-tock article claiming the Horowitz report will contain a criminal referral for James Comey. Once the tick-tock material du jour is implanted, the tick-tock committee begins debating the importance of the latest tick and tock. There seems to be a pattern to this.
If you haven’t watched a tick-tock discussion in the past six months, tonight’s tick-tock might seem like a re-run, it’s not. Tonight, amid prior tick tock claims, and the frequency of tick-tockers over-promoting the ticks and the tocks, ringmaster Hannity expresses both tick-tock frustration and tick-tock certainty:
The People and the President
A
particularly well-placed and insightful person close to the powerful of
Washington contributed the following observation of disparate views
regarding the president:
One might consider that the author of this elevated and impressively-written commentary is an insider referring to President Trump; one would be wrong.
The author is Edward L. Pierce, secretary to Charles Sumner, Senator from Massachusetts before, during, and after the Civil War. The subject of his analysis could well be President Trump, but it is Abraham Lincoln.
The modern reader is struck by the similarity of criticism and the truth of the author's conclusion; that while the elites, the establishment, and certainly his enemies hate him, the people love Trump and rally behind him just as they did for Lincoln.
They do this because they are aware of the gravity of the moment -- another revolutionary challenge presented to the country by the Democratic party and its utopian, globalist, communist leaders and fellow travelers. That most Democrats would deny that they are engaged in revolution is not relevant.
History is not only linear; it is also cyclical. In each of the three or four revolutionary moments in our history (post founding) the opposition’s rhetoric was more insidious than during times of political and societal calm. Today’s common vicious criticism of the president by fake Republicans, fake journalists, and ignorant/revolutionary Democrats is reminiscent of the same made against Jackson, Lincoln, and Reagan.
The heightened rhetoric and the grotesque misuse of the impeachment process to engender a coup d'etat against the president and overturn the election of 2016 is further evidence that we are once again in a revolutionary moment.
In a speech delivered at Boston on July 4, 1863, in the midst of national dissolution and civil war, Oliver Wendell Holmes, (father of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., justice of the Supreme Court), said:
Any nation conceived as a consequence of revolution will forever retain a revolutionary seed; it is part of our heritage and our national character. While this is generally understood and known it places the responsibility upon the living generation to remain vigilant against revolutionary forces and concepts that would overturn our dearly bought freedoms and rights.
Now, we are engaged in a great national crisis, driven once again by the forces of moral and ethical corruption and the deathless contagion that is utopianism and ignorance. This challenge is not new and is a recurrent cycle in our history; just as it threatens the nation today similar will be seen again most assuredly by future Americans.
As the impeachment façade continues apace and fundamentally anti-American, anti-sovereignty concepts such as globalism and communism are legitimized and championed by deluded political mediocrities and their fake journalist helpers, it is clear that much is at stake.
In a January 21, 1830 letter to Daniel Webster written during Andrew Jackson’s presidency, former Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court James Kent wrote that “all theories of government that suppose the mass of people virtuous and able to act virtuously are purely Utopian.”
While Jackson’s challenges were not quite the same as those facing the current president, the similar odious specter of those who prefer wealth and power and false political ideologies to country and constitution are essentially identical. They are identical because they are modern incarnations of timeless failures.
As Jackson’s first presidential term approached and the vicious criticism of the opposition press continued unabated, Jackson’s friend (later Secretary of War) John Henry Eaton wrote to Jackson that, “Nothing now to be said of you can… [work] the least injury. The Press has overthrown its own power through repeated falsehoods.”
Fake news happens every time the members of the 4th Estate are overwhelmed with ignorance and partisanship and forget the obligation to truth that is fundamental to their profession. Their special constitutionally recognized role (and obligations) as guardians of democracy and of the nation recedes to but a memory.
The grotesque and dangerous collapse of the press is an old story that began with Washington’s second term and was noted with alarm by his successor, John Adams, and the third president, Jefferson. (In an attempt to correct the press, Jefferson surreptitiously caused one opposition editor to be tried for libel, see: People v. Croswell, 1804).
That these challenges to the country have happened before and that history is both linear and cyclical are curious truths. For us, the living generation, it is now nothing less than an existential challenge to us similar in nature to those faced by Americans during previous revolutionary times.
One month before his death, Robert E. Lee wrote this to a friend and former Army of Northern Virginia staff officer:
We are met amidst this our great crisis -- as the advancing wave of ignorance and revolutionism begins to crest. It is for us to save the country, acknowledge the truth, and expose those revolutionists and the corrupt whose purposes are so well known and so unpleasantly familiar.
And we are not to lose hope.
"Visitors to Washington... were struck with the want of personal loyalty to him. They found few senators and representatives who would maintain cordially and positively that he combined the qualifications of a leader in the great crisis; and the larger number of them, as the national election approached, were dissatisfied with his candidacy. An indifference towards him was noted in the commercial centers and among the most intelligent of the loyal people. . . He was thought to be wanting in the style, in the gravity of manner and conversation, which are becoming the chief of the nation. His habit of interrupting the consideration of grave matters with stories was attributed to levity, and offended sober-minded men who sought him on public business… and the objection in general was, that in capacity and temperament he was inadequate to the responsibilities of the head of a nation at such a momentous period. This estimate was honestly held by many clear-headed and patriotic men; nor can their sincerity be questioned...
This also is to be said, that whatever those who came near him thought, the popular instinct was with him; and plain men -- the masses of the people -- did not admit the limitations apparent to those who were present at the seat of government. Indeed, the very qualities and ways which repelled public men brought the President near to the people."
One might consider that the author of this elevated and impressively-written commentary is an insider referring to President Trump; one would be wrong.
The author is Edward L. Pierce, secretary to Charles Sumner, Senator from Massachusetts before, during, and after the Civil War. The subject of his analysis could well be President Trump, but it is Abraham Lincoln.
The modern reader is struck by the similarity of criticism and the truth of the author's conclusion; that while the elites, the establishment, and certainly his enemies hate him, the people love Trump and rally behind him just as they did for Lincoln.
They do this because they are aware of the gravity of the moment -- another revolutionary challenge presented to the country by the Democratic party and its utopian, globalist, communist leaders and fellow travelers. That most Democrats would deny that they are engaged in revolution is not relevant.
History is not only linear; it is also cyclical. In each of the three or four revolutionary moments in our history (post founding) the opposition’s rhetoric was more insidious than during times of political and societal calm. Today’s common vicious criticism of the president by fake Republicans, fake journalists, and ignorant/revolutionary Democrats is reminiscent of the same made against Jackson, Lincoln, and Reagan.
The heightened rhetoric and the grotesque misuse of the impeachment process to engender a coup d'etat against the president and overturn the election of 2016 is further evidence that we are once again in a revolutionary moment.
In a speech delivered at Boston on July 4, 1863, in the midst of national dissolution and civil war, Oliver Wendell Holmes, (father of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., justice of the Supreme Court), said:
"We know pretty nearly how much sincerity there is in the fears so clamorously expressed, and how far they are found in company with uncompromising hostility to the armed enemies of the Nation. We have learned to put a true value on the services of the watch-dog who bays the moon but does not bite the thief!"
Any nation conceived as a consequence of revolution will forever retain a revolutionary seed; it is part of our heritage and our national character. While this is generally understood and known it places the responsibility upon the living generation to remain vigilant against revolutionary forces and concepts that would overturn our dearly bought freedoms and rights.
Now, we are engaged in a great national crisis, driven once again by the forces of moral and ethical corruption and the deathless contagion that is utopianism and ignorance. This challenge is not new and is a recurrent cycle in our history; just as it threatens the nation today similar will be seen again most assuredly by future Americans.
As the impeachment façade continues apace and fundamentally anti-American, anti-sovereignty concepts such as globalism and communism are legitimized and championed by deluded political mediocrities and their fake journalist helpers, it is clear that much is at stake.
In a January 21, 1830 letter to Daniel Webster written during Andrew Jackson’s presidency, former Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court James Kent wrote that “all theories of government that suppose the mass of people virtuous and able to act virtuously are purely Utopian.”
While Jackson’s challenges were not quite the same as those facing the current president, the similar odious specter of those who prefer wealth and power and false political ideologies to country and constitution are essentially identical. They are identical because they are modern incarnations of timeless failures.
As Jackson’s first presidential term approached and the vicious criticism of the opposition press continued unabated, Jackson’s friend (later Secretary of War) John Henry Eaton wrote to Jackson that, “Nothing now to be said of you can… [work] the least injury. The Press has overthrown its own power through repeated falsehoods.”
Fake news happens every time the members of the 4th Estate are overwhelmed with ignorance and partisanship and forget the obligation to truth that is fundamental to their profession. Their special constitutionally recognized role (and obligations) as guardians of democracy and of the nation recedes to but a memory.
The grotesque and dangerous collapse of the press is an old story that began with Washington’s second term and was noted with alarm by his successor, John Adams, and the third president, Jefferson. (In an attempt to correct the press, Jefferson surreptitiously caused one opposition editor to be tried for libel, see: People v. Croswell, 1804).
That these challenges to the country have happened before and that history is both linear and cyclical are curious truths. For us, the living generation, it is now nothing less than an existential challenge to us similar in nature to those faced by Americans during previous revolutionary times.
One month before his death, Robert E. Lee wrote this to a friend and former Army of Northern Virginia staff officer:
“My experience of men has neither disposed me to think worse of them nor indisposed me to serve them; nor, in spite of failures which I lament, of errors which I now see and acknowledge, or of the present aspect of affairs, do I despair of the future. The truth is this: The march of Providence is so slow and our desires so impatient; the work of progress is so immense and our means of aiding it so feeble; the life of humanity is so long, that of the individual so brief, that we often see only the ebb of the advancing wave and are thus discouraged. It is history that teaches us to hope.”
We are met amidst this our great crisis -- as the advancing wave of ignorance and revolutionism begins to crest. It is for us to save the country, acknowledge the truth, and expose those revolutionists and the corrupt whose purposes are so well known and so unpleasantly familiar.
And we are not to lose hope.
