Advertisements

Who is Vindman today? A soldier who refused to follow civilian leadership

Reporter: Too many to list
Date: 10/31/19
Publication: AT&T's CNN, Amazon's Washington Post, Viacom's CBS, Comcast's NBC and MSNBC; Disney's ABC and the Ochs family's The New York Times and a host of others

“Patriot” Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman describes in his opening statement a mutiny against elected civilian leadership 

Vindman’s opening statement, cherry-picked by junk journalists to help the Democrat Party’s impeachment of President Trump, describes a soldier who valued the “consensus view of the interagency” over policies set by an elected commander and chief.

Vindman recounts a debriefing following a meeting between Oleksandr Danylyuk, Ukrainian Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, National Security Advisor John Bolton, Vindman’s direct supervisor Fiona Hill, and Ambassador Gordon Sondland.

“Following the meeting, there was a scheduled debriefing during which Amb. Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 elections, the Bidens and Burisma.” Vindman wrote. “I stated to Ambassador Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push.” Vindman ignores Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.

The transcript from the call itself (see below) indicates the president was concerned about reports the Ukrainians worked with the Democrat Party to defeat him in 2016 by providing misinformation to the media and law enforcement agencies in the U.S.

Biden Brags He Got A Quid Pro Quo

With the support of corporate media, the Democrat Party hides the names and titles of government workers actively undermining the president. In Vindman’s mind, it is the “interagency” government workers who should set policy, not the elected president.

Even though the name of the so-called whistleblower who started the impeachment effort is circulating throughout Washington, members of the media are not reporting it. In contrast, corporate media immediately disclosed the contents of the Trump dossier, which may have been Russian propaganda. They appear to be hiding the alleged whistleblower is tied to the Obama administration, former CIA Director John Brennan, candidate Joe Biden and attended meetings with James Comey. Many of the players in the Russian hoax and alleged conspiracy to bring down the president.

This would give credence to those who believe the impeachment is a pre-emptive strike by the Democrat Party and media to allow them to discredit any indictments related to wrongdoing as it relates to spying on the Trump campaign in 2016.

For Junk Journalists, it is not newsworthy that a military officer ignores the national security threat created by the conflict of interest the Bidens appear to have created. He admits to lecturing civilian leadership and insists he and his coworkers set national policy. He ignores in the 2016 U.S. elections, which is astounding considering a special prosecutor was assigned to investigate foreign meddling in the election.

Junk Journalists at AT&T’s CNN, Amazon’s Washington Post, Viacom’s CBS, Comcast’s NBC and MSNBC; Disney’s ABC and the Ochs family’s The New York Times appear to be in league with this effort to disenfranchise U.S. voters who supported Trump. The failure of these companies to require their news operations to report fairly and accurately undermines the people’s freedom to elect a president with the power to implement policies he or she promised to implement.

Reporters working for corporate media selected just one portion of Vindman’s opening statement to publicize. These Junk Journalists worked to further the impression the president wanted “dirt” on his political opponents by focusing their coverage on the following statement: “I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine.” 

The corporate journalists supporting the removal of the president fail to include a key point of his concern, however. It was that Democrats would cut funding to Ukraine if it helped the administration get to the bottom of the 2016 election interference by Ukraine and alleged pay-to-play efforts by presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. “I realized if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.” Vice President Joe Biden admitted in what appears to have been an effort to protect his son’s position on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company that hired Biden’s son to serve on its board.

He never mentions the so-called quid pro quo. He was “concerned” Democrats would stop supporting Ukraine if the country exposed the party’s candidate and the party’s efforts to use foreign influence in the 2016 election.

Propagandists posing as reporters skip the sentence referring to Ukraine losing bipartisan support for U.S. aid because it explains his worry was Democrats would withhold aid to the country if it helped expose the conspiracy to help Hillary and hurt Trump in 2016. They do use Vindman’s next sentence to further the impression Trump was the problem. “This would all undermine U.S. national security,” he wrote.

The corrupt media continue to ignore the larger question of a bureaucracy so entrenched its members feel their views of the world are all important. That an elected leader should not and cannot make changes to those views or policies.

Vindman wrote, “The U.S. government policy community’s view is that the election of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the promise of reforms to eliminate corruption will lock in Ukraine’s Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy and economic prosperity.”

Vindman’s and his colleague Ambassador Bill Taylor’s opening statements contain similar complaints about Trump. Vindman labels the problem “outside influencers,” and Taylor labels the problem as an “irregular, informal channel of U.S. policymaking….”

Vindman says, “In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy.”

Taylor says he became concerned in August and September that the president was using people outside of the NSC and State Department to formulate policy. He complains the president was sending his private lawyer to investigate Ukraine’s interference in the election.

If Vindman decided as a soldier in Iraq to ignore lawful presidential orders because the officer corp disagreed with those orders Vindman would be court marshaled. Vindman cannot claim he was acting against an illegal order as he and the Democrats he is helping cannot cite a law the president broke.

Imagine a private sector worker refusing to implement the policies of a new chief executive.

Vindman appears to be part of a coordinated, three-year attack on President Trump by the CIA and members of the government who refuse to accept elected leadership.

Real reporters would be asking how can a president operate if the permanent staff refuses to implement his/her policies or is actively working to destroy the administration.

For non-military workers, Trump eventual identifies and removes those working against him. Trump, a product of the private sector, let Hill and Bolton hear his most famous phrase – “you’re fired.”
Now he is being paid back.

References:

https://useu.usmission.gov/our-relationship/our-ambassador/
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/10/30/whistleblower_exposed_close_to_biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.html
Vindmanstatementfinal

AMB-Taylor-statement

Unclassified09.2019

Advertisements