enator Ron Johnson, in a letter to Devin Nunes, has provided a lengthy outline of his contacts, discussions and perspectives surrounding U.S-Ukraine foreign policy as it relates to the current democrat impeachment narrative. [Cloud Link to Johnson letter]
Senator Johnson, attended the inauguration of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky along with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), and shared his concerns that National Security Council official Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was running a rogue and independent foreign policy toward Ukraine expressly against the intents of President Trump.
CTH readers will note we identify Vindman as a very sketchy character within the entire construct of the impeachment fiasco. It is virtually certain Vindman is the primary source for the CIA ‘whistleblower’ dossier (complaint). Beyond the rogue Vindman foreign policy, there is an even more sketchy affiliated network that surround him. First, here’s the letter:
Lt. Col Alexander Vindman is likely a central character within the entire impeachment hoax. As Diana West points out, his connective tissue to the U.S. intelligence apparatus and their rogue efforts to remove President Trump cannot be ignored:
[…] The questions begin with Vindman’s activities as a staffer on the president’s National Security Council. Alarming reports indicate Vindman served as a source for the Ukrainian government inside the White House. This news may be padded by his protectors and muted by our general ignorance of the intelligence wars waged against this country, typically masterminded by the Kremlin, but it’s nonetheless deeply concerning.
Further, given the sophisticated penetration talents of the Russian intelligence services, it’s the height of foolhardiness to assume that Vindman’s Ukrainian connections end in Kyiv.
[…] We need more information about Vindman, his relationship to the Ukrainian government, and whatever “advice” he may have offered it, whether “typically communicated” in English or any other language. That’s because, if The New York Times is accurate, Vindman’s loyalties are divided between two governments. At a minimum, this disqualifies Vindman from serving the American people in the sensitive field of national security ever again. (read more)
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, including Vindman’s divided loyalties toward a foreign power; 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.
Will Vindman have to cry to get sympathy if the Republicans are mean to him by asking him questions about his duplicitous actions in Ukraine, favoring a foreign government over the one he supposedly is a citizen of and serves?