, 147 tweets, 83 min read
My Authors
Read all threads
So, I ran across a retweet of the below tweet and it immediately raised flags. Puffing up a witness has a reason, so decided to go look for the documentation behind it, since it had a direct quote. Didn't take long - few minutes and NPR coughed it up (will link at the end)./1
About puffing someone up - the reason is to try to give the person credibility, their views more weight than they should be given, and to set them above someone they are in disagreement with. In this case, also to elicit support due to his medal./2
In the case of the tweet, it is immediately followed by the statement "speaking out against the command-in-chief." (you're suppose to gasp here I think)

Then "the reason" is given - people kept telling him he needed to speak up (be sure to ignore other possible reasons)./3
Now the "opening statement" *drum roll*

It too starts out with almost 2 1/2 pages of self promotion and his history, worded like an attorney would do for the star witness in a trial. (be sure to swoon now)/4
Then there is a half page of his analysis of Russia (of course) and the Ukraine (fireworks please).

He finishes it off with a "my commitment to our government's strategic interest" (have to shine that halo of a reason again for his "going against")./5
Note - he worked under Fiona Hill...

He then goes on to talk about how in the spring of 2019 "outsiders" were creating a "false narrative" that conflicted with "their views" on Ukraine. (How dare anyone have concerns or disagree!!)/6
After setting his "nefarious" backdrop of "outsiders", he takes half a page to talk of Zelensky's election, a "positive call" the President had with Zelensky, and the inaugural delegation. All positive stuff in his view, nothing wrong. Half page./7
The next 3/4 page is about Bolton, Sonderland, Perry, and Volker having a meeting in DC with Danyluk. "The meeting was going well" - then Sonderland raised "specific investigations", at which point the meeting ended./8
In the debrief he "told Sonderland his statements were inappropriate" and "NSC wasn't going to get involved in or push." (side note: If it was a NSC topic only meeting, why was Perry there?)/9
One last bit I forgot before the main part - he put in comments at the beginning about not being the WB and not knowing the WB. That was a tad strange to include IMO./10
Ok, main act. A jam packed half page about the phone call that triggered the WB.

Big point - Vindman states "As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said."

He just said it was accurate, no missing pieces, and a transcript (not notes)./11
Next paragraph was chock full of I's..."I thought", "I was concerned", "I was worried", "I realized." Not "it was concerning", or "it was worrisome."

It is all about HIS OPINION and feelings. (hence all the effort to puff up, give those opinions weight, make em unassailable)/12
There was even a LIE embedded in there.

The lie? "I did not think it was proper to DEMAND..."

Why lie about that? Was nobody suppose to notice?

No demand was made. NONE. (I've included the relevant part of the call transcript with this part of the statement)/13
After his lie, he explains he is "worried about the implications" regarding support.

This is where he "realized" that if Ukraine investigated Biden/Burisma "it would likely be interpreted as partisan."

Note he doesn't say he thinks it actually is partisan.../14
Vindman goes on to say it "would undoubtedly result in losing bipartisan support."

Put another way - the #Dems wouldn't like it and as a result the #Dems would pull their support for Ukraine!!

"UNdoubtedly" they would. No doubts at all./15
So now Vindman ties it back to his big, major concern - his big reason why all of this, speaking up, worry, concern, going against the CiC.

"This would all undermine U.S. national security."

Let that sink in a second./16
Now put it together - what he admitted without realizing it.

The #Dems wouldn't like Ukraine investigating.
The #Dems would pull their bipartisan support.

The #Dems would UNDERMINE U.S. National Security because they didn't like it. For Joe fucking Biden./17
In the end, Vindman only added a few NEW bits of info.

- HE didn't agree with other people.

- The transcript is complete and accurate.

- The #Dems wouldn't like investigations into possible crimes.

- The #Dems would UNDERMINE national security to protect the Bidens.
The anti-President crowd though things he is the icing on the cake of their desires.😂

Oh, here's the link to the opening statement in full.
Another reason for all of the puffing up of Vindman by the media and Vindman himself...the cold hard truth Jeff states:
Snap! If they can confirm his attempted access...
Family ties of Vindman...
Lot of work in Russia, Eastern Europe, and the M.E. by the elder brother.
Webb did some checking...if correct - very damning...
Maybe it was #Schiff - maybe it was Fiona Hill.

He was queried about that comment though and he didn't handle it well.
Greg weighs in a bit on Vindman too - points out that it isn't unusual at all for the U.S. to get foreign governments to help in looking into criminal activity.
Devin on the shenanigans of #Schiff during what little questioning was allowed.
Speaking of not allowing testimony - one of the questions raised was who he had talked to about the CLASSIFIED phone call. #Schiff wouldn't allow it. What is #SchiftySchiff worried about?
Turns out there is another lie from Vindman.

As pointed out earlier, Vindman said in his opening statement that "as the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said." /B1
If "we are ALL aware of what was said" as a result of the TRANSCRIPT "in the public record", then the transcript by definition must be complete.

If it was not, then we "ALL" could NOT be "aware of what was said." /B2
In spite of this, according to the NYT and others, part of what Vindman testified about was that there were missing words where the ellipses were - words he added in his testimony.

IF we "ALL are aware of what was said" due to the transcript "in the public record" then there can NOT be missing words.

If there are missing words, we couldn't all be aware of what was said.

Vindman lied again - either in his written testimony or verbal testimony. /B4
Here's his written testimony and what he is said to have testified to in his verbal testimony, together. /B5
1st a side comment - if it was Vindman's written testimony that was a lie, the stated missing words are nothing of consequence.

POTUS had tweeted the "tape", as had 1000s of others. Zelensky said "the company." So what.

It's as if Vindman is trying to create an issue. Why?/B6
2nd comment about that reported blurb - "note takerS and the transcription software" missed these words.

Uh,huh. Multiple people AND transcription software ALL missed the same thing. Also missed in the review process.

We're suppose to believe the crap? 🙄/B7
Also - Vindman "attempted to change the transcript", was "partially successful", just not on those "two corrections."

WTHH is he doing attempting to alter a record? Who does he think he is?

Multiple people AND software were wrong - "I, Vindman, was the only one right."🤨/B8
On the other hand, Tim Morrison, who within the NSC is higher up the chain as compared to Vindman, testified today the transcript of the call was accurate and he had no concerns of anything illegal.
Morrison made another telling comment in his opening statement that stands in stark contrast to Vindman's attitude that he and others determine the policy and shows just how far out of wack Vindman's arrogant comments were. /B10
Morrison's opening statement also contained a very clear, concise statement of @POTUS's key goal in foreign policy for Ukraine - one that stands in extreme opposition to #Dems goals but in unison with Zelensky's goals. /B11
.@realDonaldTrump's call with Zelensky was pitch perfect for implementing the policy of taking advantage of a "once in a generation opportunity" to have real anti-corruption reform take place - including that which involved US citizens or which affected the 2016 elections./B12
The very same corruption that nations across the EU and the globe were cognizant of and had commented on.

The same issue that was why @POTUS had the NSC looking into the post election landscape there before committing aid to prevent fraud & waste./B13
Morrison further testified it was this reason and the question of EU assistance that was the reason to delay the aid - so the aid wouldn't go to line people's pockets and would actually help Ukraine.
So for the "sin" of wanting to make sure $300M+ wasn't shot up a hog's arse and for wanting to make use of the treaty in place with Ukraine to look into foreign interference in the 2016 election and possible criminal activity, the screw America #Dems are running a Star Chamber.🤬
Speaking of the #Dems and their Star Chamber which they authorized to continue by vote today - substance matters, but so does process - precedents, the Constitution, and due process.

Those things separate us from Russia and China and Venezuela and DO matter.
I speak only for myself and those I know well, but what the #Dems did in '16, what they have done for the last 3 years, the shit they are doing now and did today show they don't believe in or want the USA of the last 240+ years - they hate our nation & us. They must go. #WalkAway
@SafariWoman Constitutional scholar @marklevinshow on a diverse number of aspects involving the #Dem coupe going on.

Think his suggestion of investigation the nest is a very good one.
@SafariWoman @marklevinshow Ned talks about the bureaucracy thinking that it runs things.

Hmmm...what does that remind me of🤔

Oh ya, my description of Vindman's view of his and his fellow operatives roles in the NSC.
@SafariWoman @marklevinshow Speaking of which...link to a recent, more detailed comment of why I said that previously in this thread.
@SafariWoman @marklevinshow Must read backgrounder that speaks to who Vindman really is, as told by @Jim_Hickman3🇺🇸
@SafariWoman @marklevinshow Which raises the question - WTH is a registered foreign agent doing on the NSC?
@SafariWoman @marklevinshow Almost forgot about my original comments on the WB complaint in another thread. Part of it was about the dichotomy of the testimony, where on the one hand the transcript was stated as being complete (contradicting Vindman).
@SafariWoman @marklevinshow WaPo trying to quickly cover up for the fact that Vindman has questionable loyalties...ignoring 3 years of RUSSSSSSSIA.
@SafariWoman @marklevinshow @RedState Verification by General Hertling regarding the identity of Jim a few tweets up. Can't say I'm surprised in the least that there was strong disagreement. I'll leave it at take a deep look at who Hertling follows.
@SafariWoman @marklevinshow @RedState @jsolomonReports The audible nervous laughter by Harf when cover ups of Biden and then later Kerry are mentioned are telling - and her facial expression is priceless. @SteveHiltonx talks like he writes👍
@SafariWoman @marklevinshow @RedState @jsolomonReports @SteveHiltonx Remember @Jim_Hickman13's identity and the time line of his testimony on Vindman was verified by a...very left...general (see a few tweets up).
@SafariWoman @marklevinshow @RedState @jsolomonReports @SteveHiltonx @Jim_Hickman13 Senator Rand Paul re-iterated an important point last night regarding aid to #Ukraine.

- Biden threatened to cut it off
- Menendez threatened to cut it off
- Murphy threatened to cut if off

Rand said if President he would have told Ukraine "No aid, we would have to borrow it."
@SafariWoman @marklevinshow @RedState @jsolomonReports @SteveHiltonx @Jim_Hickman13 The first part is about General Flynn, the altered 302s, and the case needing to be thrown out.

The latter part is a discussion of the #Ukraine ambassador having American citizens spied on. Regardless of whining to Congress - she SHOULD have been fired.
@SafariWoman @marklevinshow @RedState @jsolomonReports @SteveHiltonx @Jim_Hickman13 Then there is the #Ukraine "whistle blower" attorney who has been saying he was going to insure @POTUS was impeached since shortly after he was elected, fishing for clients to try to use. #CoupInLaw
@SafariWoman @marklevinshow @RedState @jsolomonReports @SteveHiltonx @Jim_Hickman13 @POTUS Another perspective - past events vs present ones.
@SafariWoman @marklevinshow @RedState @jsolomonReports @SteveHiltonx @Jim_Hickman13 @POTUS It appears that even #Schiff has said the name that must not be spoken.

There's even a special shout out to the MSM "Analysts"...
@SafariWoman @marklevinshow @RedState @jsolomonReports @SteveHiltonx @Jim_Hickman13 @POTUS Judicial Watch with some interesting information. Also included for research, the raw logs in CSV files.
@SafariWoman @marklevinshow .@RepDevinNunes and the minority staff release their letter to #Schiff containing a scathing commentary on the proceedings, along with their full #witnesslist. Quite the list too...
@SafariWoman @marklevinshow @RepDevinNunes Hmmm...an 'Intelligence Committee' Chair that indicates no concern for leaks of classified information and even goes so far as to obstruct queries into them.

Then again - Schiff leaks so much he bought stock in Depends.
@SafariWoman @marklevinshow @RepDevinNunes One has to wonder how #Schiff can remain chair when he not only leaks direct testimony, but essentially lies and says it isn't true he did it when confronted by JJ (who only got the network Schiff leaked on wrong).
@SafariWoman @marklevinshow @RepDevinNunes Hopefully @Jim_Hickman13 will remember it matters not what your enemy thinks, but what you, God, and maybe a select few know. It's a reminder to us all to consider the source.

May God Bless and watch over those who stand in the breach, wherever it may be.
@SafariWoman @marklevinshow @RepDevinNunes @Jim_Hickman13 As arrogant as Vindman was about being "the expert" and feeling that he set foreign policy - he didn't even know that Obo didn't provide Javelins, or any 'lethal' aid, in his rumbling, bumbling, stumbling testimony.
@SafariWoman @marklevinshow @RepDevinNunes @Jim_Hickman13 Byron with another bit on Vindman's testimony. This one touches on something I've been digging into (maybe later).
@SafariWoman @marklevinshow @RepDevinNunes @Jim_Hickman13 Byron's synopsis:

- Mostly Vindman's opinions, few facts
- Withheld information
- "Gaps in knowledge" (a division could transit)
- Bureaucrat that opposes the President

Details in article. True as far as it goes.
If they'll do this kind of dystopian crap to a House member, absolutely no surprise they would pull out all the stops to create a story to impeach the President.

Remember HRC said, "If...we're all going to hang." Might be one of her few true statements.
Speaking of Devin, a tidbit about Taylor.
Then there is that little tidbit about WH logs, Biden, spies, and Ukrainian extortion by Biden. (remember, they often excuse others of their own sins, so since it's extortion of which they speak...)
Speaking of Biden, there is an ever growing set of facts that are piling up against his cover-up.
Tim Pool points out MSM's stories shift with the political winds, at times directly opposing itself. Knowing they can't make past stories disappear they instead write new ones to contradict them.
One of NBC's Goebbels is really out there with the fantasy crowd.
The President isn't taking this coup attempt lying down - he continues to stride directly at our enemies, unafraid of openly telling it like it is.
Closing out the morning catch up string (no politics yesterday), we circle back towards the beginning and the book regarding Nune's part in uncovering the vipers den. The President's right and so is Lee. Thank you Lee.🇺🇸
Information continues to come up detailing #Biden #Ukrainian dealings in spite of the interference being run by GS's group.
From one of CDM's past articles - a reminder about George Kent's, who is set to "testify" tomorrow in Schiff's Kangaroo Court opener - he was purportedly entangled in the Ukrainian corruption...

Similar information was put out by Solomon in March as well.
Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth, coupled with apocalyptic apoplexy by the #MSM, that would have occurred in the scenario @jsolomonReports raises? However - Biden doing it is heroic.
@jsolomonReports @Jim_Hickman13 So, the plot with Vindman gets deeper.

First, a reminder of a statement he made during his testimony - he prepared the talking points memo for discussions between our President and Ukraine's President as part of his job./c1
He was asked if he put anything about the Biden or Burisma corruption or the 2016 election interference/corruption into the talking points.

His answer was "Absolutely not."

Absolutely not./c2
Now that the President has released the transcript of his earlier call with Zelensky in April, the MSM has tried to twist it to their advantage - but in doing so have exposed Vindman and unwittingly helped the President.
In the transcript of the April call, there was absolutely no mention of the 2016 election, Biden, Burisma, nothing.

Further, the President invited Zelensky to the WH, no strings attached. /c4
However, the call happened over the weekend and Vindman's talking points had been put into the phone call readout already and it was released to the press untouched. /c5
Note that Vindman did indeed put the topic of rooting out corruption in the talking points, even though it wasn't discussed during THAT call.

Of course, in the President's mind Ukrainian corruption is synonymous with Burisma, Biden, and the DNC./c6
It's well known now that the President did discuss corruption in their 2nd phone call.

In my mind, it brings up the question of, "Did Vindman put it into the April talking points to instigate the narrative?"

A 2nd is with his "Absolutely not", is this another lie under oath?/c7
Before anyone dismisses those Qs - remember Vindman also testified that he was worried about the "narrative" in the spring regarding Biden's corruption with Burisma and 2016 election interference by Ukraine.

It was definitely at the forefront of Vindman's thoughts./c8
One additional note - MSM asked the WH about that April phone call read out and it was confirmed that Vindman was the author./c9
More on Vindman. The question remains - why is he still there?
Vindman's boss doesn't agree about the edits - says all were excepted. Considering the other Vindman lies, which one to believe...🤔
Sen. Johnson sends a letter describing what he's seen and sensed wrt potential coup attempts, what he knows from his meetings with the President and Zelensky, and his views on Vindman and in general the bureaucracy vs President on foreign policy.🚨⬇️
A good dose of reality regarding Vindmans career...
Didn't think much of him before based on his closed door testimony and his actions - but after seeing him under questioning, HTF did he make grade?
Asked why he didn't talk to his boss, his initial tap dance reply:

- Went straight to the lawyer

- Whining 😿 about it being an extremely busy week with long dayS (note: plural as in multiple days)

<as if that is a reason to not report up the chain of command>
After whining about being too busy to set the stage...

"I attempted to try to communicate..uh...I...I...I..."

<oops, wrong narrative - back track>

"I meant to speak to 2 folks in the interagency"

<meant? There's his supreme 'interagency' crap>

"I attempted to talk to" boss.
"That didn't happen before"...the lawyer said "to not talk to anybody else any further."

<Then he sits up like that's my story and I'm sticking to it>

<Side note - the wording of "not talk to anybody else"- so he could talk to those he already had...?>
Now JJ plays it back...

- You not only didn't go to your boss, but went to the lawyer and he told you not to go to your boss?

Vindman fumbles again...

"No, he didn't tell me until...uh, uh, uh..."

<desperately tries to figure out an answer that fits>
So, first it was whining about being too busy...

...but he admits he had time to talk to the lawyer and at least 2 other people.

Then it was the lawyer told him not to talk to his boss...

...but wait, that doesn't sound right since talking to 2 others, so let me try again.
After the fumble and a pause...

"What ended up unfolding is..."

- Talked to attorney
- I did my "core function" of "coordination" (talked to 2 others)
- "spoke to appropriate people in THE interagency"
- "and then circling back around" the lawyer said shut up.

Remember - dayS.
So JJ reads Vindman's previous sworn testimony back to him - which differs.

Note he did NOT say don't tell his boss - he only said to feel free to come talk to him if he felt the need. Those 2 things are VASTLY different.
Note that JJ skips part of it and he says, "So he said you shouldn't talk to any other people. Is that right?"

Vindman trips..."Yes....but...there's a whole, there's a period of time in there. Between" 1st contact and circle back around.


"wasn't that long a period"
Vindman goes on, "but enough time..."

JJ cuts him off.

"Enough time to talk to someone you won't tell us who it is."

Vindman, "I was instructed not to" say who it is.

<but he doesn't know who the WB is supposedly - but he can't say the name...uh, huh>
JJ continues - lists 3 people Vindman talked to (not just 2 like Vindman said) - Kent, his brother, WB Eric...and the lawyer.

But - NOT his boss.

Talk about an inconsistent, changing, fishy story...but then we know he lied in his previous testimony too.
JJ then asks Vindman, "Is that right?"

Vindman falls back and says, "I did my job." <for who?>

JJ again replays Vindman's own previous testimony back and emphasizes bypassing his boss.

Vindman replies with his circle back around story.

JJ - "So that's when it happened." (WB)
The look on Vindman's face was priceless. (in all the segments, watch Vindman's facial expressions - forget watching JJ even when he is talking)
Here is the entire unbroken sequence.

#SchiffForBrains also interrupt earlier in the testimony to keep Eric's name out of the official testimony...
Through it all - as during the closed door testimony - Vindman provided NOTHING of consequence.

Just opinions, gossip, and a bad belief the he and the "interagency" rule foreign policy and also are tasked with deciding what are appropriate Presidential acts. FNN
Another apparent lie by vini vidi Vindman.
Unrelated to his testimony was the bit that spoke volumes about the type of ROTCer he is...

So Vindman admits that it wasn't just a weekend phone call issue that caused the incorrect readout of the original phone call - but an intentional lie on his part to put words in the President's mouth...
Half a dozen? WTH over. Where did half a dozen come from?
Ok...half a dozen beyond the 3+lawyer.

Damn - that earlier clip of testimony falls further and further apart.
Oh snap - another lie by Vindman, the FNN. That earlier highlighted clip of testimony where he said he couldn't reach his boss - well...kaBOOM.
Dear @threadreaderapp could you please unroll this thread?
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Enjoying this thread?

Keep Current with Dianna Glampers

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!