Archive for the ‘Impeachment’ Category

When former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly tried defending Lt. Col. Vindman, he made a major mistake. That isn’t in dispute. What’s still in question is whether it was a mistake or whether it was intentional.

Vindman was rightly disturbed by Trump’s phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July, Kelly suggested: Having seen something “questionable,” Vindman properly notified his superiors, Kelly said.

In his testimony, Lt. Col. Vindman said that his first call was to a lawyer. His first call should have been to Tim Morrison. This actually happened during Jim Jordan’s cross-examination of Lt. Col. Vindman:

During Jordan’s cross-examination, Lt. Col. Vindman said that he first called a lawyer named John Eisenberg. Later, Lt. Col. Vindman testified that he attempted to contact “Tim Morrison, the former top Russia and Europe adviser on President Donald Trump’s National Security Council.”

Jordan followed up, saying “Not only didn’t you go to your boss. You said you tried but you didn’t go to your boss, you went straight to the lawyer and the lawyer told you not to go to your boss? Lt. Col. Vindman replied “No, he didn’t tell me until — what ended up unfolding is I had the conversation with the attorney, I did my coordination. I did my core function, which is coordination. I spoke with the appropriate people in the interagency and then I circled back around to Mr. Eisenberg told me not to talk with anyone else.”

Congressman Jordan then read from the transcript. He asked Lt. Col. Vindman “Why didn’t you go to your direct report, Mr. Morrison? This is page 102. Because Mr. Eisenberg had told me to take my concerns to him. Then I asked you ‘Did Mr. Eisenberg tell you not to report, to go around Mr. Morrison?’ And you said “Actually, he did say that, that you shouldn’t talk to any other people. Is that right?'”

That’s a pretty major difference. At the time of the call, Tim Morrison was the top Russia and Europe adviser on President Donald Trump’s National Security Council. According to this article, “Moments after President Trump ended his phone call with Ukraine’s president on July 25, an unsettled national security aide rushed to the office of White House lawyer John Eisenberg.”

I’m betting that Gen. Kelly doesn’t think that the military trains its officers to go around the military’s chain of command. That wouldn’t make sense. In that light, Gen. Kelly’s previous comment sounds more like a generic defense of Lt. Col. Vindman than a full-throated defense of Lt. Col. Vindman. It also sounds a bit like sour grapes.

The truth is that Lt. Col. Vindman isn’t the hero that the MSM consistently portrays him as. Lt. Col. Vindman is a military veteran who earned a Purple Heart. For that, I salute him. For his work at the NSC, I thank him but I don’t think of him as a hero.

The SC Times editorial board apparently didn’t learn from President Trump’s impeachment. At least, that’s the impression I got from this Our View Editorial. The editorial starts by lecturing its readership, saying “The scariest aspect of the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump is how both sides of the aisle dramatically weakened the tools the Founding Fathers provided to allow the three branches of government to hold each other accountable.”

This isn’t that complicated. Jonathan Turley, a far wiser man than anyone sitting on the Editorial Board, made an important point when he made an emphatic point when he said this:

I can’t emphasize this enough and I’ll say it just one more time: If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts; it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power.

It isn’t surprising that the Editorial Board didn’t notice their intellectual stupidity was showing.

This is how the Editorial Board expressed their foolishness:

Had that been the case, the Democrat-led House impeachment team would have used the full force of the courts to enforce subpoenas issued to key witnesses, hear their testimony and gain access to key documents the Trump White House refused to release. Instead, with eyes clearly focused on the next election, they rushed through their process, apparently hoping the Senate trial would do that hard work for them. Or perhaps they realized their case was not going to rise to the justifiably high standards for removal from office set by the founders.

The Republican-led Senate proved even more pathetic. When confronted with overwhelming proof that the House did not provide all the evidence, a majority of senators chose blind allegiance to party and voted in favor of the president instead of pursuit of the truth. Among the tools at their disposal, but not used, are hearing witness testimony and cross-examining those witnesses.

I’d love hearing the Times’ explanation for them saying that House Democrats probably “realized their case wasn’t going to rise to the justifiably high standards for removal from office set by the founders”, then have them say that Republicans, “when confronted with overwhelming proof that the House didn’t provide all the evidence” … “chose blind allegiance to party” rather than pursuing the truth. The case can’t have overwhelming proof and not rise to the justifiably high standards for removal from office.”

The Constitution gives the House “sole authority for impeachment.” That means the House receives the report from the special counsel or their own investigation, then the House Judiciary Committee writes up the articles of impeachment. This isn’t a joint responsibility shared between the House and Senate. That’s because the Constitution gives the Senate “sole authority” to try impeachments. They aren’t investigators. They are, literally, both judges and jury. The Senate determines what comes in as evidence. The Senate can overrule the Chief Justice of the United States. They are also the jury.

The Senate sent the message that they wouldn’t accept House Democrats’ shoddy investigation. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called these articles of impeachment “a half-baked censure resolution.” That’s being charitable. They also sent the message that they wouldn’t accept a flimsy case because articles of impeachment are considered a privileged resolution. That means, literally, that everything stops in the Senate until the verdict is reached.

Finally, this paragraph is downright stupid:

Rather read this for what it is: a commentary about elected officials from both parties who put their partisan allegiances above the constitutional oaths they took after you elected them.

The Founding Fathers were reluctant to put impeachment into the Constitution. When they finally agreed that such a provision was required, they established 2 important requirements. They required a) a two-thirds majority to convict and remove and b) that people could only be impeached for “Treason, Bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

They wanted to guarantee that impeachment was only used as a tool of last resort. That didn’t happen here. The Founding Fathers wanted impeachment used only when it was clear that something so egregious had happened that a bipartisan majority agreed that such a high crime had been committed. House Democrats impeached knowing that there wasn’t a chance of conviction and removal.

The simple fact is this: House Democrats screwed things up badly. Senate Republicans rendered the only just verdict allowed by the Constitution.

It’s pretty apparent that Democrats enjoy investigating President Trump. Similarly, it’s apparent that they haven’t done anything to make people’s lives better. Sen. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are calling on Michael Horowitz to investigate why the sentencing recommendation was reduced for Roger Stone. They’ve implied that President Trump improperly interfered in the matter.

The problem they’ve got is that the DOJ got involved in reducing the recommendation before President Trump criticized Judge Amy Berman-Jackson. It’d be quite the trick for William Barr to reduce the sentence recommendation at President Trump’s behest before President Trump made the request. That doesn’t matter to Sen. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. They just want to convince people that President Trump is a scoundrel who should be impeached again.

Not to be left out is Adam Schiff. He just got humiliated (if that’s possible with pathological dirtbags) through President Trump’s impeachment acquittal but he’s spoiling for another fight:

“I’m struck by the fact that it’s all out in the open. I mean, we will certainly learn about what’s taking place behind the scenes, the sort of clandestine effort to weigh in and help the President’s friends and hurt the President’s enemies,” the California Democrat told CNN’s David Axelrod on “The Axe Files” podcast. “But the fact that this is being done in the open in a way makes it more insidious, because it is normalizing this attack on the independence of our justice system.”

The fact that the prosecutors told DOJ one thing, then did another in front of the judge apparently doesn’t mean anything because Orange Man Bad. Now there’s accusations that one of the jurors was biased. There’s nothing insidious about this. Period. Full stop.

It’s time to get Mr. Schiff a new dictionary. The definition of insidious is “stealthily treacherous or deceitful or operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect.” How can President Trump, who has a bajillion Twitter followers, use Twitter and still be inconspicuous or stealthy? That’s right up there with Schiff saying during the impeachment trial that the cover-up is hiding there right in plain sight.

Schumer didn’t have a problem with Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Pat Leahy of Vermont writing a letter to the Ukraine prosecutor to help the Mueller investigation that was improperly predicated. Before the special counsel was appointed, it was known that Russian collusion didn’t happen. There was Russian interference in the election but the FBI knew that there wasn’t collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

Democrats can’t help themselves. If there’s anything in the news about President Trump, Democrats insist that he needs to be investigated. The Democrats’ first instinct is to investigate, not to legislate. What a bunch of sick puppies. That’s why firing Pelosi as Speaker-in-Name-Only is essential. That’s why keeping Sen. Schumer as the minority leader is essential, too. Pelosi, Schumer and Schiff aren’t patriots. They’re money-grubbing conspiracy theorists who don’t have the spine to stand up to the Resist activists.

That’s the new definition of today’s Democrats.

FNC is reporting that Devin Nunes and Chris Stewart, the ranking members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Strategic Technologies and Advance Research respectively, wrote a letter to Adam Schiff criticizing the Democrats “for not holding hearings on FISA in the wake of the IG report.”

In their letter, Nunes and Stewart wrote “Under your chairmanship, the House Intelligence Committee has strayed far from its mandate of overseeing the Intelligence Community. In fact, we have gone months at a time in which we’ve hardly held any oversight-related briefings or hearings at all.”

“During this period of inadequate oversight, numerous critical issues pertinent to this Committee’s jurisdiction were ignored,” they continued, noting that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz issued his FISA report on Dec. 9 which identified “seventeen serious shortcomings related to the conduct” of the surveillance of former Trump campaign foreign policy aide Carter Page.

“The IG Report was followed by the release of a declassified assessment by the Department of Justice acknowledging that at least two of the four FISA applications lacked probable cause,” they continued. “Despite the seriousness of these issues and our clear jurisdiction, you have failed to hold a single briefing or hearing on this matter.”

It’s obvious that Chairman Schiff isn’t serious about the Committee’s responsibilities. He’s likely the worst chairman in the history of HPSCI, aka the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

It’s been 2 months since the Horowitz Report was published on Dec. 9, 2019. Chairman Schiff hasn’t lifted a finger to find out why the FBI used the discredited Steele Dossier in their FISA warrant application to surveil Carter Page. Chairman Schiff didn’t lift a finger to find out why US intelligence agencies were weaponized to take down President Trump.

Further, the Horowitz report established as fact that the Nunes Memo was virtually 100% correct. The Horowitz Report discredited the Schiff Memo. The Schiff Memo took the opposite position on FISA warrant abuse, whether the Steele Dossier was relied on to obtain the FISA warrant and whether the FBI included exculpatory evidence as the Nunes Memo.

That’s likely why Chairman Schiff isn’t interested in conducting hearings into FISA abuse. If he held a hearing into FISA abuses, Republicans would certainly question the Schiff Memo’s fictional assertions.

It’s clear that Democrats are on the defensive. Republicans serving on HPSCI signed this blistering letter. Today, Republicans criticized Jerry Nadler’s mishandling of the House Judiciary Committee. Nadler passed a bill to prevent President Trump from implementing a “Muslim ban”. Republicans fought back, saying “This has nothing to do with religion. This has to do with securing our country,” said Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., taking on Democrats for calling it a Muslim ban. “…If it really was, as you call it, a Muslim ban, why wouldn’t Indonesia be on this ban? I mean they have a lot of Muslims. This is just inaccurate. You are just spreading this falsity.”

Nadler and Schiff undoubtedly got stung by impeachment. Now, they’re just a pair of losers who didn’t hesitate to impeach a president while ignoring tons of exculpatory evidence. They’ve been exposed as partisans who put partisan politics ahead of patriotism.

Back when this first got started, CNN ridiculed then-Chairman Nunes, suggesting that he was President Trump’s hatchetman:

The Horowitz Report didn’t just dismantle Schiff’s spin. The Horowitz Report utterly demolished Schiff’s spin. Democrats are verifiably dishonest. Putting them in charge of protecting our liberties is beyond foolish. Chairmen Schiff and Nadler shouldn’t be entrusted to run a lemonade stand, much less the HPSCI and the Judiciary Committee.

Last week’s antics from Nancy Pelosi top off Pelosi’s hyperpartisan actions throughout the last 3+ years. Though the MSM insisted that she was a master strategist, it’s apparent that she isn’t. That became obvious when she ran into a true master strategist named Mitch McConnell. In that match-up, Pelosi got her fanny spanked. Hard. (Perhaps that’s why she mumbled during President Trump’s SOTU Address?)

Speaking of which, why didn’t Pelosi applaud when Jenayah Davis got an opportunity scholarship? Why didn’t Pelosi applaud when President Trump rattled off a list of impressive economic numbers that prove that, under President Trump’s policies, everyone’s doing better with Trumponomics? Apparently, Pelosi can’t stand prosperity if President Trump’s policies caused it. How disgusting is that? Hint: very. How surprising is that? Hint: it isn’t.

Miranda Devine’s column exposes Pelosi as the hate-filled (but not too bright) leader of the Democrats:

If Pelosi meant to delay handing over the impeachment articles to the Senate as a strategic masterstroke to tie up ascendant socialist Sanders in the Senate and give Joe Biden three weeks on his own in Iowa, that, too, backfired big-time.

‘Granny’ Pelosi needs to retire. She needs to spend more time with her grandchildren. She lost the fight with AOC because she wanted AOC’s supporters without AOC’s ill-advised agenda. She lost that fight bigtime. She lost the impeachment fight, too. What’s worst is that she hasn’t gotten anything accomplished for the American people.

Despite Chairman Schiff’s Democrats’ dishonest attacks against President Trump, he just keeps making life better for Americans. Despite the MSM’s tributes to her and the Democrats, Pelosi hasn’t improved the lives of Americans. How does she explain that away?

I’ll explain it simply. She’s overrated plus she’s a bitch. Here’s how overrated she is:

Trump has gained 10 points since impeachment began in October. Nice one, Nancy. But nonwhites’ approval of Trump also is at a high: 28 percent, up 10 points in a year.

When it comes to Trump’s handling of the economy, he gets 67 percent overall job approval and a resounding 49 percent among nonwhites, the beneficiaries of lower unemployment and higher wages. So almost half of all black and Hispanic voters think Trump is doing a good job with the economy. That makes him hard to beat.

We The People expect better than this:

What a loser. We need Kevin McCarthy as speaker next January.

When Devin Nunes talks about the Democrats’ next hoax, I listen. This morning, Nunes appeared on Fox & Friends to talk about the Democrats’ next impeachment hoax. Nunes has gotten vilified virtually daily on US intelligence-gathering. Time after time, Nunes has gotten things right. Most recently, the Horowitz Report vindicated Nunes, showing the Nunes Memo to be virtually flawless.

It’s noteworthy that the same Horowitz Report literally verified the Schiff Memo to be 100% wrong. In other words, Adam Schiff’s report was totally worthless while Devin Nunes’ Memo was almost 100% right. During his interview, Nunes talked about Pelosi’s press conference where she said “We will continue to do our oversight to protect and defend the Constitution … but those cases still exist, if there are others that we see as an opportunity we’ll make a judgment at that time.”

Nunes replied, saying “I’d say that old habits die hard. They’ve done nothing else for their entire time that they’ve controlled Congress and don’t forget the Democrats on the intelligence committee started this right after Trump was elected so that’s going over three years.”

The only way to end these investigations is by firing the Democrat majority in the House this November. Schiff, Pelosi and Nadler have proven that their interest is investigating President Trump. These Democrats have shown that they aren’t interested in fixing immigration, lowering prescription drug prices, establishing opportunity scholarships for students trapped in failing schools or cutting middle class taxes.

House Democrats want to raise taxes, raise the minimum wage and kill the fossil fuel industry. What’s frustrating is that these Democrats sat while America cheered for Iain Lanphier and his 100-year-old great-grandfather Charles McGee. McGee is one of the last living Tuskegee Airmen. Democrats sat when President Trump announced that Janiyah Davis was receiving an opportunity scholarship so she could escape her failing school.

What type of people sit on their hands when great news like that is announced? How cold-hearted do you have to be to react like that? America, remember these things when you enter the voting booth:

Nunes continued criticizing Pelosi’s Democrats, saying “They may concoct a new hoax, I’m not sure that the American people will believe it, but you can be sure of one thing, the mainstream media will support whatever the narrative is that they want to build.” It’s time to stop this hate-filled, years-long diatribe. It’s time to send an emphatic message to Democrats that We The People come first, not the nutjob conspiracy theorist Democrats.

Democrats haven’t done a thing. They didn’t make people more prosperous. They criticized President Trump when he killed the 2 biggest terrorists in the world. Democrats even tried telling us that President Trump’s killing of Gen. Soleimani would trigger a further destabilization of the Middle East. It’s time to get these idiots out of office. It’s time to put competent people in charge. That starts with giving Rep. Nunes the gavel back to the HPSCI. That starts with handing the Speaker’s gavel to Kevin McCarthy.

It’s difficult to take this article seriously. The article starts by saying “On February 6, 2020, the Senate acquitted Donald Trump on two articles of impeachment, bringing an end to a process the president has been hurtling toward since the moment of his inauguration.” After that, the writer turns into an emotional mess, writing “He and the Constitution are irrevocably at odds; one way or another, the country was always going to end up here. But ‘here’ doesn’t just mean a world in which Trump has been impeached, of course; it’s also a world in which a majority of the Senate voted to bless his conduct.

Next, the trainwreck:

The two other presidents who faced impeachment in living memory both delivered natural ends to the drama. Richard Nixon’s helicopter lifted off the White House lawn after he resigned the presidency. Bill Clinton, the day of his acquittal in the Senate, stood in the Rose Garden and apologized for his conduct.

Richard Nixon resigned because he’d committed multiple felonies, including suborning perjury, obstructing justice and telling the FBI that they didn’t need a warrant to wiretap antiwar protesters’ phone calls. When Nixon resigned, few people thought he wasn’t guilty as hell. I had just graduated from high school and I knew he was guilty as hell.

When Bill Clinton apologized, he had a lot to apologize for. The Independent Counsel’s office issued this statement:

In the independent counsel’s judgment, there was sufficient evidence to prosecute President Clinton for violating federal criminal laws within this office’s jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the independent counsel concluded, consistent with the Principles of Federal Prosecution, that further proceedings against President Clinton for his conduct should not be initiated.

In other words, Clinton committed multiple felonies. The difference between Nixon and Clinton is that Clinton’s felonies were considered low crimes.

The Schiff-Pelosi-Nadler-Democrat impeachment articles didn’t charge President Trump with committing a crime. That, by itself, differentiates President Trump from Nixon and Clinton. Further, the investigators in Nixon and Clinton accumulated tons of proof that supported the investigators’ charges. The Mueller Report was the precursor to the Schiff Report. It didn’t find proof that President Trump committed any crimes.

So much for verifying the statement “at odds; one way or another, the country was always going to end up here.” We shouldn’t have wound up here. That isn’t what the evidence said. Period.

That’s before looking at the process. The Schiff-Pelosi-Nadler-Democrat process was scandalous. In Nixon and Clinton, their legal teams were allowed to bring in witnesses, submit evidence and cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses. President Trump wasn’t afforded any of those rights. For the first 71 days of the official 78-day investigation, President Trump’s legal team weren’t allowed in the room.

Comparing President Trump’s impeachment with Nixon’s and Clinton’s impeachments is like comparing Stalin with the Pope. It’s a travesty. The MSM (and Pelosi) insist that President Trump is impeached forever. If that’s true, then there’s a stench and a stain forever on the Democrats’ investigation. It’s the most partisan investigation in presidential history. The Democrats ignored multiple pieces of exculpatory evidence, starting with the transcript of the July 25 phone call.

Simply put, President Trump deserved a victory lap like this:

This November, it isn’t just important to remember the Democrats’ corrupt investigation. It’s essential to remember the Democrats’ corrupt investigation.

Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi have accused President Trump of retaliating against Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Lt. Col. Vindman testified against President Trump during Schiff’s public impeachment hearings.

What Pelosi and Schiff intentionally omit is the fact that Lt. Col. Vindman sidestepped his chain of command by talking to the NSC Counsel rather than talking to his boss, “Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s senior director for European affairs.” Pelosi and Schiff intentionally omitted the fact that Jennifer Williams, who also listened in on the call, didn’t find anything inappropriate with the call that alarmed Lt. Col. Vindman. Check out John Ratcliffe’s cross-examination of Ms. Williams and Lt. Col. Vindman:

Predictably, there’s much more to this story than what Pelosi and Schiff are claiming. This isn’t retaliation. This is President Trump reassigning a disgruntled employee with a habit of ignoring his chain of command reporting responsibilities. For all his military heroics, Lt. Col. Vindman had a habit of insubordination and mutiny. That’s hardly a model employee.

During the hearings in November, his boss, Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s senior director for European affairs, said that multiple other officials had cast doubt on Vindman’s judgment. Morrison said those colleagues had expressed concerns about whether Vindman had leaked information and confirmed that Vindman didn’t keep him “in the loop at all times.” Vindman also didn’t immediately speak to Morrison about his concerns about the July 25 phone call, Morrison said during the hearings.

Lt. Col. Vindman was thought to have been one of the NSC’s leakers. A person who’s insubordinate and who leaks hasn’t earned the right to serve on the NSC. Follow this link for more on the truth on Lt. Col. Vindman.

Sunday on At Issue, Ember Reichgott-Junge had a meltdown moment when discussing President Trump’s impeachment acquittal. In a mini-rant, Reichgott-Junge said “My biggest concern about what is happening now after the State of the Union is that we have Trump unleashed and now, he is emboldened to do whatever he wants to do for the next 9 months — start investigations that have no basis, hold aid back in the districts of the legislators that worked to impeach him. I mean this man has no mores and no sense of justice at all. So my concern is what we’re going to see in the future.”

Wow. That’s as paranoid of a rant as I’ve seen in years. Let’s put what she said under the microscope, starting with “start investigations that have no basis.” That’s what the Obama administration, through Jim Comey’s FBI and the FISC, did against Carter Page. That’s what Lois Lerner did against TEA Party organizations when the IRS delayed tax-exempt status applications.

Next, where did Reichgott-Junge come up with the thought of withholding aid to districts represented by impeachment managers? Is this another paranoid fantasy of Ms. Reichgott-Junge’s?

Finally, Ms. Reichgott-Junge admits that these are her concerns. She didn’t say where her concerns came from. Were they the product of an over-active imagination? I can’t eliminate that as a possibility? Perhaps, it’s something that Democrats have done in the past? That’s definitely possible.

What’s worst about Ms. Reichgott-Junge’s rant was that Tom Hauser didn’t interrupt her. He sat there like a potted plant. He didn’t say a thing. Mr. Truth Test sat there like he didn’t disagree with her. That’s a worse performance than Ms. Reichgott-Junge’s paranoid rantings.

I expect delusional rantings from DFL politicians. Prior to this winter, I’d expected more from Hauser. This winter, though, Hauser’s bias-proofing has slipped.

In this post, Jeff Dunetz laid out why Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was reassigned to the Pentagon after President Trump was acquitted. John Kirby didn’t explain what happened to Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman in Kirby’s CNN op-ed. This isn’t surprising. Jeff is a man of integrity. Kirby hangs around with Deep Staters.

Kirby wrote “[Lt. Col.] Vindman did his duty by not only testifying about the infamous July 25, 2019 White House phone call, in which Trump pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Trump’s leading 2020 rival Joe Biden, Burisma (the Ukrainian energy company that had hired Hunter Biden), and the 2016 election–while $391 million in congressionally approved military aid was being withheld.”

President Trump didn’t press President Zelenskiy “to investigate” the Bidens. The transcript, not Lt. Col. Vindman, tells what actually happened:

The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.

That’s an awfully casual pressure. That’s at the top of pg. 4 so it’s hardly a priority for President Trump. Watch Rep. John Ratcliffe’s cross-examination of Lt. Col. Vindman:

That drives a stake through the heart of Lt. Col. Vindman’s testimony. At minimum, it casts doubt on Lt. Col. Vindman’s testimony. Let’s compare that with what’s quoted in Jeff’s article:

In November 2019 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) sent a letter to Reps Jordan (R-OH) and Nunes (R-CA) at Jordan’s request which among other things raised questions about Lt. Col. Vindman’s credibility, and accused him of being an insubordinate leaker and confirmed the President’s reasons for the 55-day delay in Ukraine aid were the same as the President’s public statements.

Johnson went to Ukraine as part of the U.S. delegation to President Volodymyr Zelensky’s inauguration on May 20. Vindman was part of the delegation also. In the letter, the Senator suggested that Lt. Col. Vindman may be among the government bureaucrats who aim to push back on Trump’s policies “by leaking to the press and participating in the ongoing effort to sabotage his policies and, if possible, remove him from office.”

Lt. Col. Vindman gives new meaning to the cliché “going above and beyond the call of duty”:

[In Sen. Johnson’s letter, he wrote that Lt. Col. Vindman] “stated that it was the position of the NSC that our relationship with Ukraine should be kept separate from our geopolitical competition with Russia. My blunt response was, “How in the world is that even possible?”

Lt. Col. Vindman continued, saying this:

Vindman testified that an “alternative narrative” pushed by the president’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was “inconsistent with the consensus views of the” relevant federal agencies and was “undermining the consensus policy.”

According to the Constitution, there’s only one consensus view that matters — the President’s. As I wrote in this post, “The first sentence in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution emphatically states that ‘The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.'”

In another diatribe, RAdm. Kirby wrote “No, it is not the Vindman brothers who have been disgraced by this pettiness. It is President Trump. It is not they who will be remembered for putting personal needs above national interests. The President will. And it is not they who will in years to come be forced to qualify or explain or argue the case surrounding their behavior. In a final and outrageous act of vengefulness, White House security officials escorted the Vindmans off the grounds.”

That’s BS. The Vindman twins will be celebrated by CNN as having stood up to Orange Man Bad but it’s Lt. Col. Vindman who a) went around the chain of command, b) leaked information to the press and c) tried undermining US foreign policy because the President didn’t do what Lt. Col. Vindman told him to do. That sounds more like a mutiny than doing the honorable thing. Perhaps CNN has a different definition for doing the honorable thing.