• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: Alexander Vindman

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman: “How could it possibly be a good idea …”

10 Sunday Nov 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Alexander Vindman, corruption, deposition, Donald Trump, Eric Swalwell, impeachment, John Ratcliffe, Michael Volkov, Mike Quigley, Ukraine

“…I’m representing my witness here and this is my client. And for you to — I mean, the insinuation — if you guys want to go down this road, God be with you. But I’m telling you it’s so apparent that — and it’s so — it’s so cynical for you to go down such a road with such a — with such an individual like this. If that’s the game you guys want to play, go at it. Okay? But we’re going to –“

It’s really a simple question.

Do you believe that is legal or acceptable for the President of the United States to extort interference in a U.S. election from a foreign government by withholding previously appropriated military aid?

The following individuals who appear in the deposition transcript hold law degrees:

Michael Volkov, legal counsel for Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman
Representative John Ratcliffe (R)
Representative Eric Swalwell (D)
Representative Mike Quigley (D)

From page 157 through 163 in the deposition:

PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, joint with the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
and the
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
WASHTNGTON, D.C.

DEPOSITION OF: LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER S. VINDMAN

Tuesday, October 29, 2Ot9
Washington, D.C.

[….]

MR. RATCLIFFE: Okay. Then let me move on to something that you said earlier that I want you to clarify for me, Colonel Vindman. You said that — I wrote down, in talking about the investigations that they — it was your opinion that they were, quote, “not credible,” end quote, that, quote, “there seemed to be a lot of leaks,” end quote. And then you — and, again, I’m not — I wrote this down. I want to give you an opportunity to address it or clarify it. That you had conversations with Ukrainian officials about what to do regarding Mr. Giu1iani, and I wrote down that your response was that you told them to stay out of U.S. domestic issues, stay out of U.S. politics. Does that sound like what you said earlier today, on words to that effect?

LT. COL. VINDMAN: So yeah. I mean, frankly, Congressman, I think you captured like three on four different responses to three on four different questions there. I don’t think those were all, you know, in the same — same, you know, question. But I think that I guess, as individual sections, that sounds accurate, yes.

MR. RATCLIFFE: Okay. So on the issue of advising Ukrainian officials to stay out of U.S. domestic issues, is that one conversation, multiple conversations?

LT. COL. VINDMAN: I could probably — I would say that it became an increasing theme as the Ukrainians became increasingly concerned about the narrative that was emanating from Mr. Giuliani, that I would continue to get the same types of questions about what — you know, what do we do with regard to these calls for an investigation and things of that nature.

My answer would be consistent. I am not a — you know, a political individual. I’m not a political operative. I’m a professional military officer, a — you know — as designated by the National Security Council, a kind of foreign policy expert, though that might be extreme.

I would counsel them that this is outside of my wheelhouse and, frankly, you know, I don’t fu11y understand all the implications; but I would consistently also counsel them that it’s important to stay out of U.S. politics. Because if you recall, Congressman, we have Ukraine’s neighbor, who is actively engaged in war with them, was involved in 2016 election meddling, and that did not work well for the U.S. – Russian bilateral relationship. If anything, that significantly retarded that relationship.

MR. RATCLIFFE: So —

LT. COL. VINDMAN: And in order to — Congressman, I apologize. In order to avoid that kind of pitfall for what I considered to be an important ally to the United States and certainly an ally in the struggle to push back against Russian aggression, I counseled them to stay out of U.S. politics.

MR. RATCLIFFE: So after this July 25th phone call, how many of those conversations did you have and with what Ukrainian officials?

LT. COL. VINDMAN: So after the July 25th phone call, it was an extremely busy week. I know I didn’t speak to any of the Ukrainians that week. I believe in order — just for good housekeeping — I was getting ready to go on vacation. I went on vacation — I was supposed to go on vacation from the 3rd through the 18th of July. That didn’t happen. I got called back early. And I believe, in terms of good housekeeping, there was probably a conversation with the Ukrainians. My recollection is, best recollection is about the 31st of July. It’s the middle of that week right before I went on vacation, you know, we had a conversation.

MR. RATCLIFFE: Okay. Who’s “we”?

LT. COL. VINDMAN: It would be my standard counterpart, which would be the Deputy Chief of Mission for Ukraine.

MR. RATCLIFFE: And who is that?

LT. COL. VINDMAN: Oksana Shulyar. It’s in the record, Congressman.

MR. RATCLIFFE: Okay. And were you having that conversation in the course of your responsibilities and duties at the NSC?

LT. COL. VINDMAN: Absolutely.

MR. RATCLIFFE: All right. And you had authority to have those conversations?

LT. COL. VINDMAN: Absolutely.

MR. RATCLIFFE: So you — a week following you listening in on a phone call with the President of the United States making a request of the Ukrainian Government to assist in ongoing investigations, a member of his National Security Council subsequently told Ukrainian officials to do just the opposite and to ignore his request and stay out of U.S. politics. Is that what we’re to understand from your testimony today?

LT. COL. VINDMAN: That’s an interesting characterization, Congressman. I was certainly not going against the orders of my Commander in Chief. What I was suggesting is that very superficial — on at the basic 1evel, staying out of U.S. domestic politics is not a good idea. Congressman, I apologize, do you think this is —

MR. RATCLIFFE: Let me ask the question.

LT. COL. VINDMAN: Congressman, do you think this is a good idea to get involved —

MR. SWALWELL: Let him finish.

MR. RATCLIFFE: He has a lawyer here, President Swalwell.

LT. COL. VINDMAN: How could it possibly be a good idea —

MR. QUIGLEY: [Presiding.] Hold on, gentlemen. Gentlemen, let the witness finish answering this question.

LT. COL. VINDMAN: Congressman, how could it possibly be a good idea to counsel at my 1evel — I’m certainly not the President of the United States. The President of the United States has the authority to do this, I guess, I don’t know. I didn’t think it was right. And that is not a criticism against the President. I just don’t know how — a better way to put it, so I apologize.

But I, as a Director on the National Security Council, would certainly not counsel my counterpart to somehow involve themselves into U.S. domestic politics. You could take that as — I mean, I guess you could twist that into some sort of specific —

MR. RATCLIFFE: I’m not trying to twist anything.

LT. COL. VINDMAN: I guess I misunderstood the question.

MR. VOLKOV: I object to that characterization. It’s pretty obvious what you’re trying to do, sir.

MR. RATCLIFFE: Let me ask the question.

MR. VOLKOV: I’m representing my witness here and this is my client. And for you to — I mean, the insinuation — if you guys want to go down this road, God be with you. But I’m telling you it’s so apparent that — and it’s so — it’s so cynical for you to go down such a road with such a — with such an individual like this. If that’s the game you guys want to play, go at it. Okay? But we’re going to —

MR. RATCLIFFE: Let me ask my question, because what I heard —

MR. VOLKOV: You don’t have a jury here, sir. You don’t have the public here.

MR. RATCLIFFE: I understand that. I’m making a record.

MR. VOLKOV: And eventually you will and you can do it then.

MR. RATCLIFFE: I will.

MR. VOLKOV: Right now we’re going to object.

MR. RATCLIFFE: Well, you can object, but I’m going to ask this question, because the witness just testified —

MR. VOLKOV: Well —

MR. RATCLIFFE: Are you going to let me ask a question, Mr. Volkov?

MR. VOLKOV: Yes, I will. Ask a proper question.

MR. RATCLIFFE: All night. Colonel Vindman, You have spent a lot of today talking about the fact that you reported to national security lead counsel that you thought there was something wrong with respect to the conversation between President Trump and President Zelensky, correct?

MR. VOLKOV: Asked and answered. How many times are we going to go through this? I’m asking the chair, how many times are we going to go through this? Are we going to go through this over and over and over again?

MR. RATCLIFFE: Do You have an answer?

MR. VOLKOV: Wait a minute. He hasn’t had an instruction from the chain yet. Remember when you’re in front of a judge, you wait for the judge.

MR. QUIGLEY: So the question has been asked and answered, the ruling of the chair.

MR. RATCLIFFE: All night.

Colonel Vindman, on July 25th, 2O19, the President of the United States asked for the assistance of the Ukraine in connection with criminal investigation or investigations.

Your testimony a few minutes ago was that during the week of July 31, following that ca11, you advised Ukrainian officials to stay out of U.S. politics. Is that connect? I want an answer.

MR. VOLKOV: We’ve already been down this road.

MR. RATCLIFFE: No, you haven’t.

MR. VOLKOV: I object.

MR. QUIGLEY: Just one second.

MR. CICILLINE: May I raise a point of inquiry or point of order?

MR. QUIGLEY: Hold that for a second. So I believe you asked the question in terms of it being criminal, and I’m not sure that was even anywhere in the President’s comments, that he said, I’m asking you to help in a criminal investigation. The rest of the question has been asked and answered. And the time is up.

MR. CASTOR: You guys got to give him a few more minutes after all the —

MR. QUIGLEY: No, I don’t.

[….]

Mr. Ratcliffe (R) is quite a piece of work, eh?

Addressing another member of Congress (Eric Swalwell) as he did tells us all a lot about his views on comity and decorum.

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…

Previously:

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman (November 9, 2019)

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman

09 Saturday Nov 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Alexander Vindman, corruption, deposition, Donald Trump, impeachment, Ukraine

It’s not a smoking gun, it’s more than that. It’s a smoldering crater.

Excerpts from a deposition:

PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, joint with the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
and the
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
WASHTNGTON, D.C.

DEPOSITION OF: LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER S. VINDMAN

Tuesday, October 29, 2Ot9
Washington, D.C.

[….]

0n July 10th, 2019, Oleksandr Danylyuk, the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council for Ukraine, visited Washington, D.C., for a meeting with National Security Advisor Bolton. Ambassadors Volker and Sondland and Energy Secretary Rick Perry attended.

The meeting proceeded well until the Ukrainians broached the subject of a meeting between the two Presidents. The Ukrainians saw this meeting as critically important in order to solidify the support for their most important international partner. Ambassador Sondland started — when Ambassador Sondland started to speak about Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the President, Ambassador Bo1ton cut the meeting short.

Following the meeting — this meeting — there was a scheduled debriefing during which Ambassador Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigation into the 2016 elections, the Bidens, and Burisma. I stated to Ambassador Sondland that the statements — that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate the Bidens and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something that the NSC was going to get involved in on push. Dr. Hill entered the room shortly thereafter and assented to Ambassador Sondland that his statements were inappropriate.

Following the debriefing, I reported my concerns to NSC’s 1ega1 counsel, Lead legal counsel. Dr. Hill also reported the incident to lead legal counsel.

[….]

Q And are you aware of any factual basis for that narrative, based on your training, experience, and knowledge of Ukraine?

A I am unaware of any factual basis for the accusations against Ambassador Yovanovitch, and I am, frankly, unaware of any authoritative basis for Ukrainian interference in 2016 elections, based on my knowledge.

[….]

Q Was this the first time that you had heard about these investigations in connection with a White House meeting?

A This ls the first time that it didn’t come from, you know — this wasn’t a — this had developed mainly — my situational awareness into this developed initially through open source and then, you know, professional communications to determine what was the substance behind some of this. But this was the first time that it emerged kind of with a government official discussing it.

[….]

Q Did Ambassador Sondland — were the Ukrainian officials in the room when he was describing the need for these investigations in order to get the White House meeting?

A So they were in the room initially. I think, once it became clean that there was some sort of discord amongst the government officials in the room, Ambassador Sondland asked them to step out of the room.

Q What was the discord?

A The fact that it was cl-ear that I, as the representative — I, as the representative of the NSC, thought it was inappropriate and that we were not going to get involved in investigations.

Q Did you say that to Ambassador Sondland?

A Yes, I did.

[….]

Q Why did you think it was not appropriate?

A I just — I thought it was inappropriate to have — to call for an investigation — to call a foreign power to investigate a U.S. citizen. In my mind, I had spent quite a bit of time in that part of the world. I understand how the justice system works. It’s not a rule of law that governs. These could all be orchestrated to achieve some sort of objective. And, in my mind, I thought it was, you know — if they thought that this was in their national security interests and they could potentially get away with it — you know, I’m not talking about the Ukrainians; I’m talking about foreign powers in general — and if they thought that it was in their national security interests — and this is a country that’s fighting a wan against Russia — and they could get away with it, I mean, why should they really care that much about domestic politics at a different country? They’re going to do what they need to to protect and advance thein own national security interests. And, you know, this would not be — if they chose to do it, they could potentially tip the scales, and this would not be a fair investigation, and it would provide, you know, compromising on maybe even fabricated information, if need be. So these things, these thoughts were all going through my mind.

[….]

And a Republican member tells a Democratic member to “shut up.”

[….]

THE CHAIRMAN: Excuse me. Excuse me. Let me just state this for the record. The whistleblower has a statutory night to anonymity. There are concerns about — and I’m –

MR. MEADOWS: Mr. Chainman, point of order.

MR. SWALWELL: Hey, Mr. Meadows, he’s the chainman. He finishes.

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Meadows, when I’m finished.

MR. MEADOWS: I have a point of order.

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Meadows, you may make your —

MR. SWALWELL: He’s the chainman. He finishes.

MR. MEADOWS: Shut up.

THE CHAIRMAN: Hey, Mr. Meadows, you –

MR. MEADOWS: I have a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Meadows, you’11 be recognized after I finish what I have to say.

[….]

[….]

MR. JORDAN: Why are you instructing him that way, counsel?

MR. VOLKOV: Because –

MR. JORDAN: I don’t cane what you say Mr. –

THE CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Jordan, you’re not recognized.

MR. JORDAN: It’s our time.

THE CHAIRMAN: You are not recognized, and your time has expired.

MR. JORDAN: You told us you were going to give us extra time, what you took from us.

THE CHAIRMAN: And you’ve used it. And you’ve used it.

MR. JORDAN: There’s a question on the table, Mr. Chairman.

THE CHAIRMAN: It is the ruling of the chain that the witness shall not identify employees, detailees, on contractors of the intelligence agency, or provide information that may lead to the revelation of the identity of the whistleblower, someone whose life has been put at risk. The majority canes about this, and we are determined to protect the night of that whistleblower to remain anonymous. And we will not allow bad faith efforts to out this whistleblower.

[….]

There’s a whole lot more.

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…

Recent Posts

  • TACO Tuesday
  • TACO or Mushrooms?
  • So much winning
  • What good is the 25th Amendment if it’s never used when we need it?
  • Wholly War

Recent Comments

What good is the 25t… on We are the only people on the…
Michael Bersin on Wholly War
Michael Bersin on Wholly War
Campaign Finance: Ju… on Campaign Finance: Isn’t…
No Kings – War… on Warrensburg, Missouri – No Kin…

Archives

  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 1,037,718 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

 

Loading Comments...