And again, it's obvious that the whistleleaker wasn't motivated by an overarching concern for the nation, he was concerned that
his involvement and coordination with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa would be exposed by any investigation into the in
Ukraine interference in our 2016 election, which is directly attributable to Chalupa's actions.
It is obvious that the whistleleaker was given a readout of the call by Vindman. After Vindman admitted he gave multiple people copies of the readout, Rep. Jordan asked him who he gave copies to; Schiff immediately shut down questioning and ordered Vindman not to answer, claiming the identity of the whistleleaker was at risk.
Vindman was the genesis of all this and his stated motivation, that he was, "
deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by the President to subvert U.S. foreign policy" is either a ruse or an act of insubordination.
Doesn't this dumb clerk understand that the President is the sole authority to establish and implement US foreign policy? Whatever Vindman's subjective characterization is of the President's performance during the call, Vindman's opinion of it is of zero consequence or importance.
Vindman's actions, by sharing the "troubles" he had with the call, was and is the real subversion of US foreign policy. That he shared the classified readout of the call with other (yet unnamed) subversives, should be treated as the criminal offense it is, under both civilian law and the UCMJ.
.
Threaded Mode