About today’s witness, prof says, “Some people might call that espionage.”


Army Officer Alexander Vindman

A White House national security official, who listened in on the President’s phone call with the Ukrainian President, will tell impeachment lawmakers today that he heard the President ask Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. He did not approve and told his superior. He said he is not the whistleblower, the NY Times reported.

What he heard was the phone call for which we all have a transcript.

We have the transcript of the call he is referring to below, and there is no quid pro quo, but Army officer Alexander Vindman, who serves on the National Security Council, didn’t think it appropriate, nor did he like Rudy Giuliani’s role. Giuliani, as the President’s lawyer, was investigating the 2016 election, and the Bidens. Giuliani said the Bidens came up as part of the investigation into corruption in the 2016 election.

Ukraine Call Transcript by Johannah Winter on Scribd

It’s 13 months before the election, and House Democrats want to take the next election out of Americans’ hands.

The President will have no rights during Vindman’s ‘depositions’ and will have no ability to question. The House Democrats have set themselves up as investigators, prosecutors, and jury.

The House Democrats get to release whatever they want and keep all other information from the public.


Laura Ingraham told a panel on her show last night that “buried in the New York Times piece tonight…I found it very interesting. He’s a decorated colonel, by the way, in the Iraq war. Because Col. Vindman immigrated from Ukraine along with his family when he was a child and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian officials sought advice from him about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani though they typically communicated in English.”

“Here we have a U.S. national security official who is advising Ukraine while working inside the White House, apparently against the president’s interest. And usually, they spoke in English.

She found that worthy of mention, but one panelist, law professor, and former DOJ attorney John Yoo said, “I find that astounding. Some people might call that espionage.”

That might be an exaggeration or not, but should Ms. Hill and Mr. Vindman be telling Ukrainians how to get around the President?


“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,” Colonel Vindman said in his statement. “I realized that 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.”

Burisma Holdings is an energy company on whose board Mr. Biden’s son served while his father was vice president.

“This would all undermine U.S. national security,” Colonel Vindman added, referring to Mr. Trump’s comments in the call.

The Times says, he will testify that he watched with alarm as “outside influencers” began pushing a “false narrative” about Ukraine that was counter to the consensus view of American national security officials, and harmful to United States interests.

Consensus view??? Does that mean it can’t be investigated if there is a consensus?

According to documents reviewed by The Times on the eve of his congressional testimony, Colonel Vindman was concerned as he discovered that Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s lawyer, was leading an effort to prod Kyiv to investigate Mr. Biden’s son, and to discredit efforts to investigate Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and his business dealings in Ukraine.

That is common knowledge at this point, but there still is no quid in the quid pro quo yet, according to Republicans who were in the non-impeachment impeachment hearings/depositions/whatever.


The Times admits Vindman’s information beyond the call, for which we have the transcript, was HEARSAY:

“Colonel Vindman did not interact directly with the president but was present for a series of conversations that shed light on his pressure campaign on Ukraine,” the Times wrote, buried into the article.

He will say that he and John Bolton wanted the aid renewed, but the President did not agree. They also wanted him to sign a letter congratulating Mr. Zelensky, but he wouldn’t.

Others agreed. The consensus crowd agreed the President should release the money and sign the letter. The Times wrote, “…Colonel Vindman’s concerns were shared by several other officials, some of whom have already testified…”


“Ambassador Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens and Burisma,” Colonel Vindman said in his draft statement.

“I stated to Ambassador Sondland that his statements were inappropriate” and that the “request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the N.S.C. was going to get involved in or push,” he added.

However, we have a question. If the former Vice President and his son were in bed illicitly with Ukraine [and China], isn’t that a national security matter if Biden is running for President?

So far, there is evidence of thought crimes.

Mr. Vindman and Ms. Hill said, “…and Mr. Bolton were angered by efforts to politicize the interactions with Ukraine.”

That is an opinion, not a crime., isn’t it?

So far, it appears the consensus is the President should not tie in the investigation into 2016 — and Biden — to aid. It sounds like the President did not do that but disagreed with the consensus.



The statements favoring Democrats are released in advance, and then cherry-picked information is leaked with no counter-narrative. Nothin is happening in Congress except impeachment.

The statement is his opinion. We have the transcript, and we know the President wanted the investigation of the 2016 election and the Bidens as an aside. You decide if he has the right.

Vindman’s Statement by Johannah Winter on Scribd

More background information HERE

N.B.: We updated to include comments by Laura Ingraham and Professor Yoo immediately after publication.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
4 years ago

If Vindman has a security clearance, which he almost certainly does, and he was approached by the Ukranians in the way it was reported, he is required to report such contact to DCSA (the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency – formerly DSS). It would be interesting to know if that report was made at the time of the contact

4 years ago

” Ukrainian officials sought advice from him about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani”…….“Here we have a U.S. national security official who is advising Ukraine while working inside the White House”…………….so is this guy a foreign MOLE????? and on top of that Trump has tweeted out that he has never even heard of this guy? but he was in on the phone call?………hhhmmmm could this guy be the original WHISTLEBLOWER??????