Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a Soviet-born US Army officer of Ukrainian descent, is being blasted by military veterans, who say he is a “traitor” and a “disgrace” to his uniform.
U.S. Marine and Benghazi hero Mark Geist slammed Vindman for suggesting that HE sets U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine. For the record, the President sets foreign policy, not some mid-level military grunt.
Anyone in the military knows that there is a chain of command, and the the President sits at the top. It was that way under Barack Obama, and it’s the same way under Donald Trump.
“Vindman is a disgrace to all who have served. [In] transcript of his previous closed-door testimony, he clearly admits to undermining President Trump’s foreign policy and now he has [Adam] Schiff advising him on how to answer questions,” tweeted Geist.
He also used the Twitter hashtags: “treason,” “traitor,” “POS,” and “conduct unbecoming.”
Navy SEAL Robert O’Neill, the hero who killed Osama bin Laden, also slammed Alexander Vindman, saying he is a left-wing political “operative with an agenda.”
I agree. I wish the left wouldn’t use his uniform to make him a saint. He’s an operative with an agenda. https://t.co/b6JfanQ2aQ
Mark Geist and Rob O’Neill were reacting to Alexander Vindman’s testimony yesterday during the Democrats impeachment hearing.
During his testimony, Vindman rebuked his commander-in-chief by saying that he interpreted Trump’s July phone call with Ukraine’s president as a “demand” to investigate Joe Biden’s corrupt self-dealings.
Vindman’s direct boss, Tim Morrison, testified just shortly afterward that Vindman was wrong. Morrison oversaw Russia and Europe policy on the National Security Council before his recent resignation.
Col. Vindman today testified: he interpreted @realDonaldTrump's 7/25 phone call with Zelensky as a "demand." Democrats were incredulous.
Tim Morrison, Vindman's superior, testified he believed Vindman was wrong. That it was NOT a demand. pic.twitter.com/lN8ddHz245
Former envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker’s testimony should mean game over for the Democrats and their impeachment circus.
On Tuesday, Volker faced impeachment investigators for the second time and knocked the legs out from under the narrative by the Dems in their attempts to impeach the President over alleged quid pro quo in his July phone conversation with Ukraine’s president.
The first witness Republicans called to testify publicly, Volker appeared before the House Intelligence Committee along with former Trump National Security Council adviser Tim Morrison and confirmed that there was no attempt by President Trump to press Ukraine to launch a probe of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter in exchange for U.S. military aid.
And in questioning by Rep. Mike Turner, Volker, who resigned in September after becoming entangled in the Ukraine controversy, virtually destroyed the Democrats’ sham impeachment show trial.
“You had a meeting with the President of the United States and you believe the policy issues he raised were valid, correct?” Turner, the GOP congressman from Ohio, asked Volker during his second appearance before the panel.
“Yes,” Volker responded.
“Did the President of the United States ever say to you that he was not going to allow aid from the United States to go to the Ukraine unless there were investigations into Burisma, the Bidens, or the 2016 elections?” Turner questioned.
“No, he did not,” the former special representative replied.
“Did the Ukrainians ever tell you that they understood that they would not get a meeting with the President of the United States, a phone call with the President of the United States, or military aid or foreign aid from the United States unless they undertook investigations of Burisma, the Bidens or the 2016 elections?” Asked the Ohio congressman, cutting to the underlying argument by Democrats.
“No they did not,” Volker responded simply.
“Pretty much Ambassador Volker you just took away their entire case!” Turner declared.
In responding to questioning by other lawmakers, Volker and Morrison repeatedly made it clear that there was no quid pro quo, no bribery or extortion in their experiences with President Trump and while they served in the White House.
Former U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker tells Intelligence Committee he was never involved in bribery or extortion. pic.twitter.com/lLC7yqxmxe
“I have only seen an allegation of bribery in the last week,” Volker said at one point. “I was never involved in anything that I considered to be bribery at all, or extortion.”
“It has long been U.S. policy under multiple administrations to urge Ukraine to investigate and fight internal corruption,” Volker said in his opening statement.
Volker and Morrison’s appearance before the committee followed five hours of testimony with the NSC’s Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and Vice President Pence aide, Jennifer Williams, as the BPR reported.
And despite headlines from the mainstream media painting a picture of doom for President Trump’s case, Twitter users agreed that Volker’s testimony was the “best take-down ever.”
Amid an ongoing impeachment inquiry before the U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, liberal public figures across social media criticized Rep. Jim Jordan for not wearing a suit jacket to the proceedings.
Not only that they criticized Rep. Jordan’s forceful assertion that the Democratic-led effort to impeach President Trump is a partisan “sham,” they also slammed his choice of attire.
Several of them accused Rep. Jordan on Tuesday of harboring “disrespect” for the proceedings and being “unprofessional.”
Liberal writer Andy Ostroy contrasted Jim Jordan’s appearance with that of Lt. Col. Vindman, referring to the Republican congressman as an “unAmerican traitor.”
What a striking distinction. The patriot on the right is wearing a medal-draped active-duty military jacket. The unAmerican traitor on the left can’t even show enough respect to put on a f’ing jacket. A picture says a thousand words… @Jim_Jordan#JimJordan#VindmanTestimonypic.twitter.com/oP5JMurcBr
“What a striking distinction. The patriot on the right is wearing a medal-draped active-duty military jacket. The unAmerican traitor on the left can’t even show enough respect to put on a f’ing jacket. A picture says a thousand words…”
“I just want Lt. Col. Vindman to tell Jim Jordan: “Congressman, put on a f—ing suit jacket,”” tweeted transgender activist and Human Rights Campaign press secretary Charlotte Clymer.
I wish someone would just throw a jacket over @Jim_Jordan's shoulders. That whole "Ima man of thuh people, that's why I can't afford a suit jacket" schtick is lame, and simply shouts his lazy arrogance.
You're a U.S. Congressman, dress like one – even if you can't act like one.
Others suggested that Jim Jordan’s motivations for not wearing a jacket were an attempt to signal blue-collar bonafides.
Political commentator Michelangelo Signorile compared Rep. Jim Jordan to a “bad frat boy who can’t put a jacket on and has to be reprimanded all the time.”
Jim Jordan is like a bad frat boy who can’t put a jacket on and has to be reprimanded all the time.
Elise Stefanik dropped the hammer on the Democrats today with a withering opening statement that should put this whole debacle to bed.
Stefanik got the Democrats star witnesses to admit corruption was a key issue in Ukraine. She also got them to admit that back in 2014 the Obama administration looked into corruption at Burisma, just as President Trump did in 2019.
Then she blasted Adam Schiff with his own petard saying he is refusing to call Hunter Biden and that damages the credibility of the investigation.
Elise Stefanik got them to admit that any aid given to Ukraine requires the U.S. to sign off an anti-corruption initiative showing Ukraine is not corrupt before they get the aid.
They had to admit that it is, in fact, a law that we do so.
She also reminded everyone that the president, not the staff, sets the policy for this great nation.
Stefanik read out how many times Vindman said “I” during his testimony implying that he thought he was in charge of Ukraine policy not POTUS.
“You report to Tim Morrison correct,” Elise demanded. “Does the president set the policy as commander in chief?”
“Yes” said Vindman.
“Every witness who has testified has answered yes – do you agree that Hunter Biden on the board has the potential for a conflict of interest.”
They both answered yes.
Stefanik also went after former president Obama and the infamous Javelin weapons program – Obama did not give this aid but President Trump did to which Vindman said yes.
“As millions of Americans are watching throughout the hysteria and frenzied media coverage, two key facts have not changed that are critical to these impeachment proceedings. One, Ukraine received the aid and, two, there was no investigation into the Bidens,” she added at one point.
Rep. Elise Stefanik says her constituents in New York's 21st congressional district "have many concerns" about Hunter Biden sitting on the board of Burisma https://t.co/OZ2lHu07Z6pic.twitter.com/VnEFUMfh7v
On Tuesday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff quickly interrupted LTC Alexander Vindman’s testimony when Vindman admitted that he had spoken to others about the Ukraine call.
Ranking Republican member Devin Nunes was following a line of questioning into the July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President, asking who Vindman might have spoken to about the phone call and his concerns about the implications of that call.
“Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, did you discuss the July 25th phone call with anyone outside the White House on July 25th or the 26th and if so with whom?” Davin Nunes asked.
“Yes. I did,” Vindman replied. “My core function is to coordinate U.S. Government policy and I spoke to two individual with regards to providing a — some sort of readout of the call … Not in the White House. Cleared U.S. Government officials with the appropriate need to know.”
“And what agencies were these officials with?” Nunes pressed.
Vindman stated that one of the people he also spoke to was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, who testified before the committee last week. He also said that he told an unnamed official within the intelligence community, as The Daily Caller reported.
“As you know, the intelligence community has 17 different agencies. What agency was this individual from?” Davin Nunes asked for more clarification, at which point Adam Schiff interrupted.
“If I could interject here. We don’t want to use the proceedings…” Schiff began.
“It’s our time,” Nunes protested.
“But we need to protect the whistle-blower. Please stop. I want to make sure that there is no effort to out the whistle-blower through these proceedings. If the witness has a good faith belief that this may reveal the identity of the whistle-blower, that is not the purpose that we’re here for. I want to advise the witness accordingly,” Schiff continued.
Davin Nunes then pointed out that LTC Vindman had, in his deposition, stated that he did not know the identity of the whistle-blower — which Vindman confirmed. “How it is possible for you to name the people and then out the whistle-blower?” Nunes asked then.
“Per the advice of my counsel, I have been advised not to answer specific questions about members of the intelligence community,” Vindman said.
“This is — are you aware this is the Intelligence Committee that is conducting the impeachment hearing?” Nunes asked. “Wouldn’t it be appropriate for you to come to testify to the intelligence community about somebody about the intelligence community?”
Vindman stated his objection again and clarified only that the person or people he spoke to “were properly cleared individuals or was a properly cleared individual with a need to know.”
“This is — you can really plead the fifth,” Nunes pushed back. “But you’re here to answer questions and you’re here under subpoena. So you can either answer the question or you can plead the fifth.”
Vindman’s attorney also jumped to his defense, saying that he was just following the rules set forth by the chair. Adam Schiff concurred, repeating his concern that the hearing not be used as an attempt to out the whistle-blower.
“Well, we’ve attempted to subpoena the whistle-blower,” Nunes said. “The Chair has tabled that motion and has an unwilling to recognize those motions over the last few days of this impeachment inquisition process.”
Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, made a rare public appearance over the weekend to accept a “courage award” from the American Civil Liberties Union.
The New York Post reported that Dr. Ford, who has since returned to duties as a professor and researcher at Stanford University, attended the awards ceremony in Beverly Hills, California, and gave a speech where she took credit for doing her patriotic duty in accusing Kavanaugh of a decades-old sexual assault during his Senate confirmation hearings.
“When I came forward last September, I did not feel courageous. I was simply doing my duty as a citizen,” she told the friendly Hollywood audience after accepting the Rodger Baldwin Courage Award. “I understood that not everyone would welcome my information, and I was prepared for a variety of outcomes, including being dismissed.”
“I was not prepared for the venom, the persistent attacks,” she added. “I was not prepared to be physically threatened and forced out of my home.”
Ford accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were both high school students. She claimed that he had several of his friends hold her down while he rubbed against her in the bedroom of a vacant Washington, area beach house sometime in the 1980s.
“She alleged that Kavanaugh pinned her down, groped her over her clothing before trying to remove it and put his hand over her mouth when she tried to scream,” according to NBC News.
Even though Ford had no evidence to back up her allegations and her only named witness, a woman by the name of Leland Keyser, had no recollection of the party or the assault, Dr. Ford’s claims against Kavanaugh were given significant weight, and she was called to testify in a special session of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Her allegations also became the subject of both an FBI and a Senate Judiciary investigation.
At Sunday’s awards ceremony, Ford was introduced by filmmaker and outspoken critic of President Trump, Judd Apatow, who called her “a true American hero.”
Dr. Ford told the crowd that, while she still suffers from spending time in the spotlight, she hopes her testimony helps other women come forward to confront their own sexual assaults and that she believes she “gives strength” to women who have been attacked.
“My voice was just one voice,” she said. “You are many. We are many.”
The public has been already informed that Rep. Ilhan Omar had paid $230,000 to her lovers’ firm for consulting purposes.
However, new details reveal that the total is actually barely below $400,000. Her campaign had paid his firm $147,000 that we didn’t know about previously.
It has been previosley reported that Rep. Omar and her lover have been shacking up at a hidden Washington apartment and that her campaign was paying for him to travel around the country with her.
The Daily Mail reported that Rep. Omar’s campaign paid $146,713 into finance chief Tim Mynett’s consulting firm, “The E Street Group” for digital advertising, fundraising consulting and video production, as records show.
That’s how much more the 38-year-old Minnesota lawmaker’s campaign pumped into Mynett’s firm since Peter Flaherty, chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center in October filed an an amended complaint into her campaign spending with the Federal Election Commission.
Groups have already filed ethics complaints against Rep. Omar, and as you can probably imagine this latest revelation will lead to one or two more.
Reports claimed that both Ilhan Omar and Tim Mynett were married when they hooked up. The affair became public when Mynett’s wife filed for divorce, naming his affair with Ilhan Omar as the primary cause of their marriage breaking up.
She claimed that her husband admitted the affair and that he had fallen in love with Rep. Ilhan Omar.
On Sunday, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” following an interview by Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, blasting her irresponsibly by calling President Trump an “imposter.”
Rep. Jim Jordan, one of Trump’s strongest defenders in Congress, appeared live following the recorded interview with Pelosi.
“Four facts will never change,” Rep. Jordan pointed out. “That’s the funny thing about facts — they don’t change. The fact that we have the transcript and there was no linkage of any type of security assistance dollars for an investigation in the call. We have two guys on the call, [Ukraine] President Zelensky said no pressure, no linkage. The Ukrainians did not know that their aid was held at the time of the call. And most importantly they didn’t do anything, any specific action or investigation to get the aid released.”
“What do the Democrats tell us? … There was a quid pro quo,” Rep. Jordan added. “The scary thing is, the Democrats have been out to get this president.”
“I was struck by listening to Speaker Pelosi’s comments, her answer to your second question, she used the word ‘imposter’ talking about the president of the United States,” he continued. “Who 63 million people voted for, who won an Electoral College landslide. And yet these Democrats have been trying to get him from the start of this Congress, Congresswoman Tlaib said she wants to impeach him before any evidence.”
“Five members, think about this,” Rep. Jordan concluded, “five members of the Democrat[s], five Democrat members on the intelligence committee have voted to move forward with impeachment even before the whistle-blower complaint was filed.”
Nancy Pelosi had been asked by reporters why President Trump had tweeted about former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch during her impeachment inquiry testimony on Friday.
“Well, he made a mistake,” Pelosi responded. “And he knows her strength and he was trying to undermine it. Of course, the president appoints ambassadors but people don’t insult people especially when they are giving testimony before the Congress of the United States. I think even his most ardent supporters have to honestly admit this was the wrong thing for the president to do.”
“The president and perhaps some at the White House, what they have to know is that the words of the president weigh a ton,” she added. “They are very significant and he should not frivolously throw out insults. But that’s what he does. I think part of it is his own insecurity as an imposter. I think he knows full well that he is in that office way over his head and so he has to diminish everyone else.”
She went on to say that “What the president did was so much worse than even what Richard Nixon did,” though of course there was no indication of what exactly the President did.
In that same fuzzy and deceptive manner, Nancy Pelosi could not respond with specific charges of wrongdoing when asked if Trump’s tweets about Yovanovitch “was witness intimidation.”
“I haven’t had a lot of time to pay attention to the president’s tweets and the legal implications of them,” Pelosi replied. “I just think it was totally wrong and inappropriate and typical of the president.”
The reporter then asked what in the impeachment inquiry qualifies as an impeachable offense as the Constitution “defines as treason bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors.”
“We are unfolding the facts. That’s what an inquiry is about,” Nancy Pelosi dodged the question.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave very strict orders to the President not to “intimidate” the whistle-blower who sparked the House impeachment inquiry into him – telling Trump that he was in her “wheelhouse” if he attempted to go after the anonymous source.
“I will make sure he does not intimidate the whistle-blower,” Nancy Pelosi said during an interview on CBS’ “Face The Nation.” “I told the president you’re in my wheelhouse when you come after the whistle-blower.”
Pelosi’s words come as the House Intelligence Committee is in the midst of public hearings with officials about President Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian President where he asked him to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son over their business dealings in the eastern European nation.
The Democrats argue that there is evidence of “quid pro quo” during the phone call and that the President made the release of military aid to Ukraine contingent on Kiev investigating Biden – one of Trump’s main 2020 political challengers – and his son. Hunter Biden was on the board of Ukrainian natural gas firm, Burisma Holdings, which in 2015 was subject to an investigation by Ukrainian officials, as Fox News reported.
The whistle-blower complaint, which concerned the purported “quid pro quo” Trump laid out in the phone call, sparked the impeachment inquiry and the president has since been highly critical of the unnamed person – questioning his credibility and asking for the disclosure of the person’s name.
Earlier this month, President Trump also called on the media to find out and disseminate the name of the whistle-blower – prompting the person’s lawyers to send a cease-and-desist letter to the White House.
Nancy Pelosi said it was of utmost importance to protect the whistle-blower’s identity given President Trump’s attacks.
“This is really important, especially when it comes to intelligence, that someone who would be courageous enough to point out truth to power and then through the filter of a Trump-appointed inspector general who found it of urgent concern and then took it to the next steps,” she said.
Pelosi added that if the President wanted to present his case, he should come before House lawmakers.
“The president could come right before the committee and talk, speak all the truth that he wants if he wants. He has every opportunity to present his case.”
The Democrats literally wrote the book when it comes to buying votes at the taxpayer’s expense, but the chapter on reparations has yet to be released and New Jersey is looking to be more than just a footnote here.
From the same cabal that calls the killing of unborn children “reproductive justice,” we now have “reparative justice,” with black New Jersey lawmakers introducing a bill that would establish a Reparative Justice Task Force, as described in a press release from the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice.
The introduced bill calls for New Jersey to examine its role in slavery and racial discrimination or disparity that may have resulted from it, and if necessary, pay reparations to black residents, the Associated Press reported.
Democratic state Sen. Sandra Cunningham says that it’s time “we begin the long and painstaking process to rectify our past,” according to the AP.
"Addressing our systematic challenges must begin with understanding how slavery here in New Jersey effects us all," says @ASWReyJackson on the creation of a New Jersey Reparations Task Force pic.twitter.com/U1KVYTSyM4
While New Jersey fought for the Union in the Civil War, it was the last northern state to abolish slavery.
The many problems with reparations, which will carry a price tag in trillions of dollars, begins with who is eligible and who pays. How is it determined who is a direct descendant of slaves, and why should families who had ancestors die fighting to free the slaves be expected to pay?
Some estimates say 30 million people would be in line for a check from Uncle Sam.
The New Jersey legislation takes the hard-left’s “critical race theory,” which claims that all white people are inherently racist and that racism is ingrained in our society — “structural racism” — from liberal college campuses to the statehouse.
“The Task Force will focus on repairing structural racism in New Jersey that can be traced back to slavery in the state and around the country, and recommend targeted policies and investments in Black communities that will address the lasting damage of America’s — and New Jersey’s — original sin,” the Institute said in the release.
President & CEO of the Institute, Ryan P. Haygood, perpetuates the notion that black people are victims who struggle to compete in society because of obstacles established hundreds of years ago.
“Four hundred years after the arrival of the first Black people in Jamestown as captives, many people don’t realize that slavery had deep roots in northern states like New Jersey, and that it left an ugly and pervasive legacy that still plagues us today with some of the worst racial disparities in the nation,” Haygood declared, as The Newark Times reported. “Whether it’s wealth, youth justice, or voting rights, Black people in New Jersey face challenges that their white neighbors don’t.”
Democratic 2020 presidential front-runner Sen. Elizabeth Warren, has expressed her support for reparations.
Warren said in a statement back in February: “We must confront the dark history of slavery and government-sanctioned discrimination in this country that has had many consequences including undermining the ability of Black families to build wealth in America for generations.”
As expected, social media users weren’t so keen on the idea. Here is a small sampling of responses from Twitter:
