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.”

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.

Should Trump appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Bidens?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Completing this poll entitles you to 100 Percent Fed Up updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime with a single click. Here's our Privacy Policy.

Watch the stunning exchange between Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) and LTC Vindman here:

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.”

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.

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.