Sunday, November 17, 2019

Dems’ Lies Lay Bare


On January 20th, 2017, The Washington Post’s front-page headline read: ‘The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.’

Democrats have wanted to impeach the President since before the ink was dry on his election certificate. Now, three years later, Democrats have thrown themselves head-first into an impeachment craze by advancing a partisan impeachment resolution on the House floor and holding sham hearings without cause.

The left, amplified by the mainstream media, has pushed back against the Trump presidency in every way possible since the 2016 election, starting with Maxine Waters’ attempt to contest the certification of the electoral college count against the President’s historic victory.

Baseless accusations, fake news, and flat out lies have continually bannered newspapers and television screens for years.

The first formidable attempt by the left and the deep state to take down the President was the Russia Hoax. For nearly two years, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff lied to the American public about possessing ‘clear evidence on the issue of collusion’ against the President.

The left and the mainstream media went all-in on the Russia Hoax, and were shocked by the outcome: the Mueller Report failed to validate the absurd claims made by Eric Swalwell, Adam Schiff and many others on the left that the President colluded with Russia.

Democrats had peddled falsehoods to the American people, and now they were outed as liars.

Robert Mueller’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee was a disaster for the Democrats, and shattered the Democrats’ chances of impeaching Trump over any claims of “Russia collusion.” 

Instead of admitting they were wrong, Democrats doubled down.

The Democrats pivoted from claims of collusion, to obstruction of justice. Then they moved to impeach Attorney General Barr and Justice Kavanaugh. Soon after, they began the Ukrainian sequel to the Russia Hoax. President Trump’s conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine soon became the Democrats’ new Impeachment Du Jour.

Enter Adam Schiff. His philosophy was simple: keep the truth away from the American people by keeping the process hidden from public view.

For weeks, Schiff held closed-door hearings deep in the bowels of the Capitol, selectively leaking to the media while barring Republicans from releasing any information.

Adam Schiff’s star chamber tactics were unacceptable and set a dangerous precedent. The media consistently knew more about the hearings than most members of Congress. When I tried to attend a hearing, I was ejected.

I refused to stand by and let this circus continue.

Last month, over 50 of my colleagues and I held a press conference, demanding more transparency in the impeachment process.

The media downplayed the event by calling it a ‘charade’ and a ‘political stunt.’ But Speaker Pelosi suddenly decided to hold a vote on impeachment procedures — something she dismissed as a ‘Republican talking point’ a week earlier.

We won that battle, but the war rages on.

The Democrats called their impeachment procedures “fair” and “transparent.” But details matter, and the Democrats’ procedures are far from fair. The impeachment measure passed in the House gives precious few rights to the minority. It allows Schiff and Nadler to make up procedure as they go — setting a dangerous precedent. Schiff has recently announced he will not be calling all his past witnesses for public hearings. Instead, he is cherry-picking witnesses that further an anti-Trump agenda.

He isn’t worried about the truth, because he knows that the truth will exonerate President Trump and turn the public against impeachment.

The left and their media overlords will continue to push against President Trump because he poses an existential threat to the corrupt ideology that keeps them in power. If we’ve learned anything from the Democrats’ impeachment attempts, it’s that their “facts” don’t hold up in public.

The Democrats have thrived in darkness. But their lies now lay bare before the American people.

at

Andrew Napolitano Has Been Wrong About Basically Everything


Andrew Napolitano is an interesting character. He’s managed to carve out a niche for himself on Fox News as a judge turned legal anaylst, mainly making his hay on the daytime shows. Admittedly, that’s likely largely because his opinions don’t really fit in with the prime time lineup anymore. He was a favorite on Shep Smith’s program, always telling the anchor exactly what he wanted to hear, which seemed to always include some form of “Trump is in big trouble.”

Napolitano has been giving anti-Trump hot takes going back to the Mueller investigation, so it was no surprise that he’d say this last week.

“Everybody does have their own opinion. But, if you look at the big picture, there doesn’t seem to be any dispute but that the president wanted dirt on Biden and the president was willing to hold up military aid in order to get it,” Napolitano said.
As I’ve laid out numerous times, nothing in those testimonies actually proved that. You’d think a well worn mind like Napolitano’s could distinguish between assumption gathered via hearsay and actual proof that something happened. In this case, we’ve yet to see the direct link between aid and the investigations made. It may appear that way to some, but the dots haven’t actually been connected and they need to be before you remove a President. Some like Bill Taylor say they presumed they were tied together, but they also admit their presumptions were based on media reports. Even Gordon Sondland, the one most directly dealing with Trump testified under oath that he had no idea why the aid was put on hold.

Napolitano is free to make whatever judgement he wants based on the hearsay being shared. What he doesn’t get to do is pretend that Trump must “dispute” things or prove a negative. Either Democrats have direct evidence or they don’t. If they don’t, this will die a quick death in the Senate.

The judge also said this.
Yet, as if to flaunt the Mueller findings, Trump apparently personally and directly committed the crime for which he claimed Mueller exonerated him.
What was that crime? It was the attempt to solicit foreign assistance for his campaign. It was the manipulation of American foreign and military policy for a corrupt purpose. A corrupt purpose puts the president personally above the needs of the nation.
For starters, “soliciting” foreign assistance is not a crime in and of itself. It it were, Hillary Clinton would be in jail right now for paying for the Steele dossier. Once again, we see the judge make vast assumptions about military aid being corruptly used with no actual evidence presented to prove that. He speaks is hyperbolic language, accusing Trump of committing a “crime” when that’s very much in doubt.

Napolitano is really good at hot takes. He’s much worse at backing them up.
And that’s really the issue. This guy has been wrong about nearly everything he’s said in the last four years. It’d be one thing if he had been spot on about the Hillary investigation or Mueller investigation. Instead, pretty much every prediction he’s made has crashed and burned.

Who can forget this greatest hit?
“There’s ample evidence  — this doesn’t require too much analysis — to indict the president,” Napolitano told Fox News anchor Shepard Smith in December. “The question is, do they want to do it? The DOJ has three opinions on this. Two say you can’t indict a sitting president, one says you can, but all three address the problem of what do you do when the statute of limitations is about to expire. All three agree in that circumstance you indict in secret, keep the indictment sealed and release it the day they get out of office.”
“So he may already be an indicted coconspirator?” Smith asked.
“That I don’t know about, but it could be, because we don’t know what’s been sealed,” Napolitano replied.
Remember, this is was prior to the release of the Mueller report. Napolitano is strictly speaking in terms of “collusion” and he not only said there was “ample evidence” to indict Trump, he thought he might already be secretly indicted. For what? Who the heck knows, because Mueller ultimately found the Russia collusion conspiracy theory to be bunk. But Napolitano was on Shep Smith’s show at least weekly preaching doom through much of the prior year.

Then he opined that Trump should be indicted for obstruction. Another swing and a miss.
“We learned from Mueller’s report to Barr that while there is evidence of members of the Trump campaign collaborating with the Russians, there is not enough evidence to establish a conspiracy,” Napolitano wrote. “We also learned that Trump personally engaged in 10 or 11 — depending on how you count them — efforts to interfere with Mueller’s investigation. Each of these attempts at interference constitutes the crime of obstruction of justice. That crime consists of any material attempt — whether successful or not — to impede a federal investigation for a corrupt purpose. So, a lawyer who files motions asking a judge to restrain FBI agents from violating the lawyer’s client’s constitutional rights is interfering with a federal investigation, but for a lawful — not a corrupt — purpose.”
Contrary to what he says there, no, Mueller did not find the Trump campaign “collaborated with the Russians.” It found some contacts throughout the campaign, but there was no collaboration carried out to get dirt on Hillary Clinton. The Trump Tower meeting, for example, was with third parties (working for Fusion GPS no less) and nothing came of it. Even Roger Stone’s latest conviction pushed against that narrative because he was convicted for lying about having a Wikileaks connection that didn’t actually exist.

Regardless, the idea that mean tweets constituted obstruction never added up because Trump never actually attempted to obstruct anything. Not only did Robert Mueller testify to that effect, even Andrew McCabe admitted Trump made no attempts to slow or stop the investigation into him. In the end, the DOJ found there was no case there and the Democrats also did not push the matter as a grounds for impeachment. That’s how weak that idea was.

Of course, when Mueller found that Trump could not be indicted, Napolitano was right there to say how wrong he was.
Following Robert Mueller’s statement on Wednesday that indicting President Trump was “not an option,” Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said the indictment of a sitting president is entirely legal.
When asked by “Fox & Friends” hosts on Thursday morning if a sitting president can be charged with a crime, Napolitano pointed to former President Clinton’s impeachment in 1999.
“Yes, we know that because Bill Clinton was charged with perjury,” Napolitano said, explaining that the 2000 Office of Legal Counsel opinion on the issue is “advisory, not mandatory.”
Apparently the judge doesn’t grasp the difference between the DOJ charging a President with a crime and impeachment, which is a purely political process. The OLC opinion he cites isn’t so much advisory as it is department policy. It could technically be changed, but certainly not unilaterally by Robert Mueller.

At some point, all of Napolitano’s opinions start to seem more like excuses to bash the President than actual legal analysis.
Napolitano also predicted that Donald Trump Jr. would be indicted.
When asked if he expects anyone in the president’s inner circle to be charged, Napolitano said, “Yes. I don’t know who, but I do know that Donald Jr. has told friends he expects to be indicted.”
“Do you expect he’d be indicted?” Abrams asked.
“Yes,” Napolitano said.
Wrong again, as Napolitano found himself in the company of such great predictive minds as John Brennan and Chris Matthews.

But forget Trump for a second, because his bad takes go back to Hillary Clinton as well. Who can forget his proclamations that indictments were coming in the email scandal?
So we know already the FBI is interacting with the Justice Department, the FBI has already made some recommendations to the Justice Department, the Justice Department has accepted those recommendations seriously, has convened a grand jury, and has begun or will soon begin to present evidence to the grand jury, and they need Mr. Pagliano’s testimony immunized, which means he no longer has the privilege against self-incrimination because they can’t use against him whatever he says. It also means — this is profound — they intend to indict someone. It’s not Bryan Pagliano; he can only be indicted if he commits perjury if he lies under oath. But, they intend to indict someone in this chain north of him.
That’s a big nope. In the end, no one was indicted in the Hillary email case, much less Clinton herself.

Allow me to reiterate what I said earlier. This guy has been wrong about literally everything he’s commented on in regards to high profile, political legal cases in the last four years. I’m sure if I went back further, I could find more examples outside of Trump and Hillary as well. He continually falls into dramatic proclamations over factual analysis. His hatred of Donald Trump has only driven him further over the edge, where he’s whiffed again and again regarding the President.

The same thing is happening now with his statements on Ukraine. At what point does Fox News stop paying this guy to be wrong? I don’t know, but I do know that no one should be taking him seriously.
at

As Impeachment Fizzles, The Stock Market Soars


In New York City on Friday the Dow Jones Industrial Average soared to 28,004, a new record. In fact all major U.S. stock indexes hit new highs, and the SNP 500 hit its longest streak of weekly gains in two years. Put simply, it was a really good day for the economy.

Meanwhile in Washington, the public phase of the House impeachment inquiry slogged along, with Democrats all but conceding that even if they vote to impeach, the removal of the president by the Senate is all but certainly not going to happen.

Are these two major events on the Acela corridor related? It’s difficult to say, but some experts feared impeachment and removal could put a serious strain on the market. Asked last month by CNN if he believed impeachment could crash the market, former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein said that it could, essentially arguing that markets don’t like that kind of political disruption.

So why hasn’t the impeachment inquiry spooked the market? Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at the audit and tax firm RSM, said he does not believe impeachment has any material impact on the markets or economy.

“Given where the public is and the small probability of conviction in the Senate, there is at this time little risk to the outlook…If there should be a major shift in public opinion and the opinion of potential jurors in the U.S. Senate, that is where economists, financial professionals and market actors would first look for stress,” he said. 

David Kotok, Chief Investment Office at investment advisory firm Cumberland, stressed a similar point, saying, “The markets see the impeachment process as a pure political ploy. So the metaphor is Clinton, not Nixon. Hence no market reaction to impeachment proceedings. So far, this is not a Nixon type story. If evidence surfaces to a smoking gun level like the Nixon 18 ½ minute gap in a tape, then things change.”

There are few things telling about this situation. First, it is yet another indicator that experts in myriad fields believe the Trump presidency will survive. Democrats, and progressives in the media are now claiming they always knew the Senate would never convict, but only a few weeks ago they were waxing poetic about how televised hearings would sway public opinion and pry loose enough GOP senators to sink Trump.

This is also an indicator that the Trump economy continues to chug along creating jobs and growth. The market’s sigh of relief and record highs as the fear of possible removal of Trump subsided show that investors are comfortable with Trump in the White House, and still feel rather bullish.

As hard as they tried, House Democrats were not able to pull off the potent impeachment effort that experts had feared would tank Wall Street. Instead, as their public hearings plod along the stock market is soaring and America is going about its business.

at

OMB Witness Saturday Blew Another Big Hole in Dems’ Impeachment Fairy Tale


In closed-door testimony Saturday, White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) official Mark Sandy blew another giant hole in the Democrats’ impeachment probe, according to two Republican lawmakers following the testimony.

Speaking to reporters, Reps Mark Meadows (R-NC) and Lee Zeldon (R-NY) said Saturday was “a bad day for Democrats” and urged House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) to release the transcript, along with five other previous deposition transcripts.

Rep. Zeldin said the next open hearing is scheduled for Tuesday morning and argued that it “shouldn’t take place unless all six deposition transcripts are out by then.”

House Democrats are trying to make a connection between the Trump administration’s withholding of aid to Ukraine and President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, in which the president urged Zelensky to look into Ukraine’s 2016 election meddling, as well as corruption involving Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son.

“Today we saw an even bigger hole blown inside of Adam Schiff’s fairy-tale story,” Zeldin told reporters.

The congressman pointed out that Democrats can’t seem to settle on a crime on which to base their impeachment charade.

“One day it was ‘quid pro quo,’ last Sunday they changed it to the word ‘extortion,’ and over the course of this past week, he changed it to the word bribery,” Zeldin explained.

He added: “Today was a sobering reminder of just how ridiculous this impeachment charade is, and how ridiculous the impeachment attack is on the president of the United States. Today was a great day for the Republic, but it was a really bad day for Democrats and the Resistance.”

When asked what Sandy said to blow up the Dems’ impeachment narrative, Zeldin replied, ” I would love to be able to tell you every single question that was asked and every single answer that was given, and if we can get Adam Schiff to give us permission to tell you that, we could talk about every single last thing that happens behind these closed doors.”

Zeldin pointed out that they are now in the “open phase” of the impeachment inquisition, yet they were all there on a Saturday in the basement SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) “where unfortunately all the questions that got asked and all they answers given” no one could watch live.

Zeldin told reporters that Sandy answered the questions “candidly and genuinely” all day, including the question of why there was a hold on Ukrainian aid, and lamented that the American public were not privy to the answer to the questions.

Democrats, however, leaked to the New York Times at least part of Sandy’s answers, saying that the official told the panel that he did not know why aid to Ukraine was held up, darkly claiming that he had never ever come across a hold like that before.

Zeldin urged Schiff to release the transcript so the American people could know the truth.

“There’s just a lot that would get cleared up if he just let that information out quicker,” he said.

Rep. Meadows said that he could tell reporters in general terms that the Democrats’ accusations regarding the hold on aid, were not supported by the Sandy during the deposition.

“We heard today behind closed doors that the assumptions that the Democrats have made and certainly the allegations that they have made have not been supported by the witness’s testimony here today,” Meadows said.

He later explained to reporters that at OMB, a hold on aid is not always known, but the reason was “ultimately shared in general terms behind closed doors and it was consistent with what we’ve heard from the president of the United States.”

Zeldin ticked off all of the pertinent facts in the case, which do not favor the Democrats’ impeachment narrative.

“What did we know before today is that Ukraine did not know that there was a hold on aid until August 29—we heard it with Bill Taylor’s testimony this past Wednesday,” he said. “And then the aid gets released shortly thereafter. And guess what Ukraine had to do in order to get that hold on aid lifted?” the NY congressman asked. “Absolutely nothing.”

Zeldin told reporters that the Dems’ “quid pro quo” and extortion” narratives fizzled out and the answers Sandy gave on Saturday drove a bigger hole in the Democrats’ impeachment fantasy.

He pointed out that there wasn’t a good case to remove the president before Saturday’s deposition, and Democrats have “an even deader case after today.”

“If you were standing on the side of Pennsylvania Avenue in January of 2017 holding a sign that said ‘impeach him now,’ you had a bad day. If you are still having trouble coping with the results of the 2016 election, today was a bad day,” Zeldin added.

He went on to note that the president would be happy with how they day went, “but no one knows more than he does what the answer was to the question.”

Zeldin told reporters that dots are being connected, but they’re not the dots that the Democrats want to see connected.
at

How to Shut Down the Democrats’ Alternative Universe

President Trump needs to be far more serious in his second term about personnel, ensuring the executive branch is filled with staffers working on his administration’s behalf every day.


By now, only a person living in Alternate Universe One could fail to understand that the past three years have precisely nothing to do with Russian collusion or Ukraine corruption and everything to do with who makes decisions about American policy: the duly elected president of the United States or the administrative state. That is the struggle right now. The crux is a struggle between advocates of our constitutional republic and those who prefer government by an administrative state composed of unelected elites.

There are no guarantees about who will win the fight.

The first public impeachment inquiry hearings on Wednesday showed that very clearly: George Kent and William Taylor weren’t witnesses per se as they clearly had witnessed nothing. In reality, they were mere opinionists. It became clear very quickly that Festivus had come early as two self-important bureaucrats took the stand for a grand airing of their grievances with the president over his policy decisions.

While some may call their behavior seditious, there is no doubting these types feel emboldened in today’s political climate. Bolstered by their propagandists in the media, an effete legal system, and a major political party, the administrative state actors are feeling so confident they’ve actually dropped the pretense that there is no such thing as a deep state. Old and broke is “the devil isn’t real.” New and woke is “the devil is real and he’s here for your good.”

But another factor tilts the contest in favor of the administrative state: it’s a rigged numbers game pure and simple.
Let me explain: the Plum Book is the list of every political position to which each new administration may appoint people across the Executive Branch and various agencies when it comes into power. In 2017, the Plum Book listed about 7,000 positions. These ranged from the secretaries of the various departments to the lower-level Schedule C appointees. (These last are known as Sched Cs; before I was a writer in the White House, I was a Sched C at the Pentagon working for Air Force Public Affairs).

While Sched Cs get to do some fun and interesting work, in no way do they have any authority to make decisions about implementing presidential policy across the administration. By the time you remove those 1,400 or so Sched Cs from the equation of those with any real power, along with a few thousand more lower and mid-levels from the 7,000, you’re left in the neighborhood of just a couple of thousand political appointees appointed by the president who have any real authority to implement his policies.

Juxtapose that number against more than 430 departments, agencies, and sub-agencies in our government peopled by nearly 2 million career federal government employees, many of whom have been around for decades inside the various institutions.

A quick survey of political donations from every cycle reveals that only about 4 percent of the District of Columbia voted for Donald Trump in 2016. And if you simply live in Washington, D.C. and ride the Metro with many of these federal employees, as I do, it becomes very clear the overwhelming majority of them are in no way interested in an America First agenda. They are not interested in reducing the size and scope of government; partly because of self-interest and job security, and partly because they hold to a political worldview and a mistaken belief that a large bureaucracy is a sign of progress and a healthy society.

Now for the sake of argument, let’s say every last political appointee with authority to implement the president’s vision is simpatico with him and, moreover, is a political rockstar. That is not only not true but impossible to imagine, especially with the Trump White House. When you have a deeply moderate establishment Republican like Johnny DeStefano running the Office of Presidential Personnel for more than two years inside the Trump White House, perhaps you’re hoping that some America First types get appointments to places of authority, but you cannot expect that such people would fill the majority of the positions.

And, of course, they have not.

But for the sake of argument, let’s say there were thousands of political rockstars sent into the fray to combat nearly 2 million federal employees and implement an America First agenda. Who do you think is going to win that fight, especially given a compressed time frame? Again, these appointees are only there for the duration of that given administration, and many don’t even last that long.

In his second term, Trump needs to be far more serious about personnel and make sure PPO is staffed with America First types who then fill his executive branch and administration with people who are working on his behalf every day. He should clean house at the Republican National Committee while he’s at it and truly make the party into his own.

But before any of that can matter he needs to work on shutting down a department or two—the Department of Energy would be a good place to start—and then devise a plan on how to migrate the 800,000 nonessential federal employees out of government and back into the private sector. Working with and championing a plan by Senators Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) to send several departments out of D.C. and into the various states, Trump could drain the swamp by breaking apart the administrative state.

Fact is, there really is no way you can win such a rigged game if you continue to play it by the rules laid out by the Left, which is precisely what conservatives have been doing for decades—really since the beginning of the 20th century. Some have done that willingly because they believe in big government so long as they’re the ones controlling the levers of power.

We’re never going to win if we continue down this path. We need to make new rules for the game, and change the dynamic.
at

A Seditious Conspiracy – Lt. Col. Vindman, CIA “Whistleblower” Source #1, Shaped False Summary of April Trump-Zelensky Phone Call


Amid increased calls from House Republicans to force the testimony of the CIA “whistleblower”, today the Washington Post, the primary outlet for CIA misinformation and public relations, began shaping the “whistle-blower” as a hero.

Because the overall effort involves multiple parts of the deep state apparatus, to see through the construction it is important to note which media outlet holds equity for agency talking points within the coup.  The Washington Post is primary PR for the CIA and IC writ large. The New York Times is primary PR for the FBI; and CNN is primary PR for the State Dept.  This pattern has been consistent throughout.


Over time it has become clear the first confidential human source for the CIA Ukraine dossier, written by CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella and also known as the “Whistleblower report”, is Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman a Ukraine expert inside the National Security Council on assignment from the Dept of Defense intelligence unit.

Within his deposition the ideology of Lt. Col Vindman is clear. Vindman’s mission focus was/is to shape U.S. policy toward Ukraine (and by extension NATO) regardless of the actual policy view of President Trump.  Within his deposition Vindman admitted to giving countermanding instructions to his Ukraine counterpart two weeks after understanding opposite policy objectives from his commander-in-chief.

During his deposition Lt Col Vindman also admitted -with considerable angst and attempts to deflect from his legal advisors provided by the Dept. of Defense- that he was intentionally usurping the chain of command in an effort to follow his own ideological agenda; and perhaps that of his DoD leadership.

By itself that level of admitted and direct insubordination should be alarming for many reasons; not the least of which is his lineage within the U.S. Military.  Indeed Vindman’s intent and purpose explains why he appeared for his deposition in full military uniform.

When we consider that Lt. Col. Vindman was carrying out what he believed to be his role; and when you overlay his military purpose; and when we accept Vindman was assisting CIA agent Eric Ciaramella in constructing his dossier to remove President Trump; and when we stand back and look at the aggregate interests involved; and when we consider there was ZERO push-back from the ranks of military leadership, specifically the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and when you accept Vindman was simply allowed to return to his post inside the White House – where he remains today; well, the alarming aspect increases in direct proportion to the definition of the word: “coup”.

I would encourage all readers to think long and hard those factual data-points.

CIA Agent Eric Ciaramella never delivered his dossier briefing to the upward chain-of-command within the CIA.  Instead Ciaramella subverted the formal process and transmitted his hearsay complaint, derived from material provided by Vindman, directly to principal officials who could assist in the removal of the President.  Again, often we get caught in the weeds, but think long-and-hard about this impeachment process as it is being discovered.

Yesterday President Trump released the call transcript from an April 21st conversation with Ukraine President Zelensky.  Reporters noted there was a disconnect between the call transcript and a separate summary of the call sent to reporters in April.

[…]  In response to questions from reporters, the White House said in a Friday statement that “the NSC’s Ukraine expert” prepared the April summary.
“The president continues to push for transparency in light of these baseless accusations and has taken the unprecedented steps to release the transcripts of both phone calls with President Zelensky so that every American can see he did nothing wrong. It is standard operating procedure for the National Security Council to provide readouts of the president’s phone calls with foreign leaders,” deputy White House press secretary Hogan Gidley said. “This one was prepared by the NSC’s Ukraine expert,” he added. (link)

That “NSC Ukraine expert” was Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.

For emphasis let me repeat a current fact that is being entirely overlooked.  Despite his admitted usurpation of President Trump policy, Vindman was sent back to his post in the NSC with the full support of the United States Department of Defense.

The onus of action to remove Vindman from the NSC does not just lay simply at the feet of the White House and National Security advisor Robert O’Brien; and upon whose action the removal of Vindman could be positioned as political; the necessary, albeit difficult or perhaps challenging, obligation to remove Lt. Col Vindman also resides purposefully with the Dept. of Defense.

The Pentagon could easily withdraw Vindman from his position at the National Security Council; yet, it does not…. and it has not.   WHY?

There is a code within the military whereby you never put your leadership into a position of compromise; ie. “never compromise your leadership”.  In this example, President Trump cannot remove Vindman from the White House NSC advisory group due to political ramifications and appearances… The Joint Chiefs certainly recognize this issue; it is the very type of compromise they are trained to remove.  Yet they do nothing to remove the compromise.  They do nothing to assist.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was the majority (#1) source for the material CIA operative Eric Ciaramella used in a collaborative effort to remove President Trump from office.  Let me make this implication crystal clear:

The United States Military is collaborating with the CIA to remove a U.S. President from office.

Do you see the issue now?

The Pentagon has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to countermand this implication/reality.  The Joint Chiefs of Staff have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to diminish the appearance of, nor deconstruct the agenda toward, the removal of President Trump.

Mr. President, do I have your attention?
On Tuesday, Nov. 19th, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman is scheduled to appear in an intentionally shortened morning congressional session along with his ally Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence.
In the afternoon, Kurt D. Volker, the former United States special envoy to Ukraine, and Timothy Morrison, a Europe and Russia expert for the National Security Council will appear.
The timing, construct and purposeful design of Vindman’s appearance next week is being intentionally buried within the totality of the narrative that surrounds the impeachment effort.  Perhaps, just perhaps, someone reading this will start to put the purposefully obfuscated pieces of the coup puzzle together and act quickly….


~ REFERENCE MATERIAL ~

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. Consider…

The testimony from Lt. Col. Vindman is available here. [SCRIBD pdf below]

Borrowing from Roscoe B Davis, here are some highlights:

 Representative John Ratcliffe begins deconstructing Lt. Col Vindman, while his arrogant attorneys begin trying to interfere with the questioning.
This next section is very interesting, and very important.

 Congressman John Ratcliffe begins questioning Vindman from the perspective of an Article 92 violation {READ IT}, coupled with an Article 88 violation {READ IT}. 

 President Trump, is Lt. Col Vindman’s superior. President Trump sets the foreign policy. 
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. [Article 88, UCMJ]
Two weeks after President Trump has established an agreement with Ukraine President Zelenskyy, and established the policy direction therein, Lt. Col. Vindman is now giving contrary instructions to the Ukranian government. Vindman’s lawyer recognizes where the questioning is going and goes absolutely bananas:

Here’s the Full Transcript:


A reminder from the CIA “whistleblower” attorney. January 30th, 2017, ten days after President Trump’s inauguration: the “coup has started”…

at