Senator 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.

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.

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 lay 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 obligation to remove Lt. Col Vindman 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 appears to be collaborating with the CIA to remove a U.S. President from office.

The Pentagon has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to countermand this implication. The Secretary of Defense has done nothing to remove the conflict that Vindman represents within the National Security Council. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to diminish the appearance of an agenda toward the removal of President Trump.

This is not a complex issue.

No-one in the foreign policy group is going to take any advice or opinion from Vindman. No-one is going to allow him to engage in material of a sensitive or confidential nature. Lt. Col. Vindman has compromised himself; and therefore eliminated any usefulness to his prior assignment. Yet his command does nothing?

This statement by Defense Secretary Mark Esper doesn’t make a lick of sense.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Monday that an Army officer has no reason to fear retribution for testifying before Congress in the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump.

Esper was asked about potential retribution for Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman during a trip to New York City. The defense secretary said the Pentagon “has protections for whistleblowers” who report waste, fraud or abuse.

He said Vindman or any other whistleblower “shouldn’t have any fear of retaliation.” (read more)

Keep in mind congressman John Ratcliffe questioned 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

At 9 a.m. Eastern, tomorrow Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, will be testifying publicly in front of the impeachment committee.

This is one set of Questions and Answers that no-one should miss.

I would not dismiss this as entirely "fake news", it's likely only about 80% inaccurate – and that's mostly through spin and media shaping. There's a solid argument to be made that POTUS is increasingly aware Pompeo is strategically handling him. [At least attempting to] https://t.co/deu4hWwQsu — TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) November 18, 2019