Impeachment Witness Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was escorted out of the White House today.
He was fired by the National Security Council just days after President Trump was acquitted by the Senate.
This is a well-deserved dismissal that President Trump hinted at earlier today when he spoke with the media:
Asked if he would like to see Vindman out of the White House, the president had this to say:
“Well, I’m not happy with him. You think I’m supposed to be happy with him? I’m not.”
Trending: DOJ Releases Sentencing Statement On Violent Jan 6 Defendant Who Smashed Capitol Window, Sprayed Cops In Face With Pepper Spray...Doesn’t Mention He Encouraged Others to Attack Cops, Voted For Obama TWICE, and Did NOT Vote For Trump in 2016
“They’ll make that decision. You’ll be hearing.”
Remember that Alexander Vindman admitted to leaking information to the anti-Trump “whistleblower” who colluded with Democrats to start the partisan impeachment coup.
Vindamn’s lawyer released a vindictive statement saying Vindman was escorted out of the White House today:
Just to remind our readers, this was the man whose brother should be the next one to be fired. He’s in cahoots with Bolton. This is exactly why we hired President Trump…Drain the Swamp!
In fact, Real Clear Politics recently reported on the upcoming firing of Vindman and then predicted that John Bolton would be stripped of his National Security Clearance:
LT. COL. VINDMAN CROSSED THE LINE:
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s bombshell testimony raised significant questions as to what his authority is within the White House National Security Council when he delivered a direct message to the Ukrainian president in April and whether he undermined the White House when he spoke to the foreign leader.
Vindman’s advice to the Ukrainian president was based on his knowledge of an alleged plot being organized by public nongovernmental individuals to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden’s sons dealings with a Ukrainian gas company and the possible involvement of Ukraine in the 2016 presidential elections, he said.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) tweeted about how the Democrats are relying on the testimony of LTC Vindman’s testimony, a man who’s never even met with President Trump, to impeach him.
Meadows slammed Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, saying, “Remarkably using yet another witness who has never met or talked to President Trump,” adding, “They are relying on the witness’ disputed interpretation… of someone he’s never worked directly with.” Meadows called the impeachment circus a “farce.”
Remarkably, in attempting to build their impeachment case, House Democrats are using yet another witness who has never met or talked to @realDonaldTrump.
They are relying on the witness' disputed interpretation… of someone he's never worked directly with.
This is a farce. pic.twitter.com/ljE7SvXdAW
— Mark Meadows (@MarkMeadows) November 19, 2019
Rep. Mark Meadows pointed out that during Lt. Col Vindman’s testimony today, Rep. Brad Wenstrup asked him about going outside the chain of command to address his concerns about the July 25 call when he went to counsel instead of to his superior, Tim Morrison.
.@RepBradWenstrup highlighting how Lt. Col. Vindman notably went outside the chain of command to address the 7/25 call… going to counsel instead of his superior, Tim Morrison.
(Morrison, by the way, says there was nothing illegal or improper about the call).
— Mark Meadows (@MarkMeadows) November 19, 2019
Watch the stunning exchange between Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) and LTC Vindman here:
.@RepBradWenstrup: "In your edits, did you insist that the words 'demand' be put into the transcription between the conversation of the two presidents?"
Vindman: "I did not."
Wenstrup: "But you did say that in your opening statement today." pic.twitter.com/5Y8d5jkflW
— The Hill (@thehill) November 19, 2019
Republican Representative Lee Zeldin (NY) called out NYT Politics for making a tweet that was not accurate. Zeldin explained, “Actually LTC Vindman didn’t state his concerns about the 7/25 call to his superior Tim Morrison or anyone up the Vindman/Morrison Chain of Command.” Zeldin added, “Although it does appear one of the people Vindman spoke to was the whistleblower.”
This Tweet from @nytpolitics is just not accurate. Actually LTC Vindman didn’t state his concerns about the 7/25 call to his superior Tim Morrison or anyone up the Vindman/Morrison Chain of Command. Although it does appear one of the people Vindman spoke to was the whistleblower. https://t.co/jvXDLHhypq
— Lee Zeldin (@RepLeeZeldin) November 19, 2019
Today, during his popular radio talk show, Rush Limbaugh raised an important question. We all know Vindman went around his superior with his concerns about his commander-in-chief’s phone call with the Ukrainian President, and that he delivered a direct message to the newly elected Ukraine President Zelensky, so who does the U.S. Army TLC work for?
RUSH: Back to Vindman’s answer, “Why did you think it was necessary to advise President Zelensky to stay away from U.S. domestic politics?” (Now, this is in March and April—the phone call doesn’t happen until July.)
“Chairman, in the March and April time frame it became clear that there were actors in the U.S, public actors, nongovernmental actors promoting the idea of investigations in the 2016 Ukrainian interference.”
He’s talking about Rudy Giuliani. He’s talking about Trump’s effort to find out what happened in Ukraine visa his campaign in 2016. Ukrainians were attempting to undermine Trump’s campaign.
Now, naturally, Trump is gonna have to go outside existing channels because existing channels were part of it. Existing channels were Vindman’s precious deep state. They were part of the process and remain part of the process to undermine the Trump campaign.
And then after Trump was elected, they continued and still are continuing the effort to overturn the election results.
So Vindman took it upon himself — who does he work for? This is the question. Who does Vindman work for? Us? The United States or Ukraine? Because here he is clearly undermining the actions and desires of the president.
If the president sends somebody over to Ukraine just because he’s not in the State Department does not make him nongovernment.
Sara Carter reports – Vindman’s testimony raises jarring questions as to who was directing Vindman, if anyone, to deliver policy directives to the then newly-elected Ukrainian president. Vindman, a top Ukraine and Russia analyst, still works with the White House National Security Council.
“I offered two pieces of advice – to be particularly cautious with regards to Russia and its desire to provoke Ukraine and the second one was to stay out of U.S. domestic policy,” said Vindman, under questioning from Schiff.
Schiff then corrected part of Vindman’s statement, “you mean politics?”
“Politics, correction,” affirmed Vindman.