Alexander Vindman Admits Making up Parts of Trump Call Summary

National Security Council aide Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testifies before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2019, during a public impeachment hearing of President Donald Trump's efforts to tie U.S. aid for Ukraine to investigations of his political opponents. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

By Charlie Spiering

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman admitted he made up elements of President Donald Trump’s call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky in an official summary.

Prior to the call, Vindman included a discussion about corruption in the talking points provided to the president but Trump did not use them in the call.

The summary Vindman wrote after the call read:

President Trump underscored the unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – within its internationally recognized borders – and expressed his commitment to work together with President-elect Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people to implement reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption.

CAP

But Vindman clarified during his testimony that the president did not bring up the topic rooting out corruption during the phone call, but he included it in his summary of the call anyway.

When asked by the Democrat counsel about whether the summary he wrote was false, Vindman hesitated.

“That’s not entirely accurate, but I’m not sure I would describe it as false, it was consistent with U.S. policy,” Vindman said.

Vindman said he included the rhetoric about corruption as a “messaging platform” to describe U.S. policy toward Ukraine, even though it was not discussed on the call.

Vindman Testified Earlier That He DID NOT Know the Identity of the Whistleblower But Nunes Just Caught Him (VIDEO)

 

On Tuesday NSC leaker Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and Jennifer Williams testified on day 3 of the Adam Schiff Show Trial.

Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes (R-CA) straight up asked Vindman if he discussed the July 25 Trump-Zelensky phone call with anyone outside of the White House.

Vindman testified on Tuesday that he spoke two people about Trump’s call to Zelensky — George Kent, a State Department employee and ‘someone in the intelligence community’ about Trump’s phone call — Vindman would not name the second person.

House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) quickly interjected when Nunes began to drill down to find out which agency this second anonymous person worked for.

Schiff said he wanted to “protect the whistleblower” and wouldn’t let Vindman answer.

Nunes then pointed out that Vindman previously testified in a closed-door deposition that he DID NOT know the identity of the whistleblower and if that were true then how would he know to keep the second person’s name private?

WATCH:

Vindman testified behind closed doors recently that he has no idea who the whistleblower is.

“I want the committee to know I am not the whistleblower who brought this issue to the CIA and the committee’s attention. I do not know who the whistleblower is, and I would not feel comfortable to speculate as to the identity of the whistleblower,” Vindman previously said under oath.

Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Secrity and Governmental Affairs Ron Johnson (R-WI) blasted Lt. Col Vindman in an 11-page letter written to ranking member of the House Intel Committee Devin Nunes and Rep. Jim Jordan and accused Vindman of illegally leaking contents of Trump’s phone call with Zelensky.

Suspicions are growing on The Hill that Lt. Col Alexander Vindman was also the source of leak of the suspension of US aid story published by far-left Politico in August.

UNREAL: Far-Left ACLU Gives ‘Courage Award’ to Kavanaugh Accuser Christine Blasey Ford

This is the opposite of what a real civil liberties organization would do.

By Shane Trejo

Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault last year without evidence, received the Rodger Baldwin Courage Award from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Southern California on Sunday.

She appeared at the Beverly Hills event to once again present her sob story, as her failed attempt to impede Kavanaugh’s SCOTUS confirmation has made her an icon in the minds of millions of leftists who do not believe in due process and the presumption of innocence.

“When I came forward last September, I did not feel courageous. I was simply doing my duty as a citizen. I understood that not everyone would welcome my information, and I was prepared for a variety of outcomes, including being dismissed,” she said.

Blasey Ford continued her mission as a Democratic political advocacy during the speech, where she also spoke in favor of the ongoing impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

She has become a hero to the empowered women of the feminist Left, who are dedicated to creating anti-constitutional witch hunts in the age of #MeToo.

Activists played Blasey Ford’s testimony outside of an event hosted by the Federalist Society featuring a keynote speech from Kavanaugh just last week:

A vast hall filled with members of the conservative Federalist Society on Thursday night welcomed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh as a conquering hero, while outside on a large screen protesters played video from Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing of testimony by Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused him of sexual misconduct.

His appearance marked the first time since joining the bench that Kavanaugh addressed the group that played a key role in his confirmation process. Grinning with pleasure, he delivered an address that was largely a laundry list of people to whom he offered “gratitude” for securing his “new job”— as a justice on the nation’s highest court…

His appearance Thursday did not go off without a hitch. Protesters twice interrupted Kavanaugh’s speech, the shrill sounds of whistles cutting through his words. At one point, there appeared to be a fight for control of the room’s sound between the protesters’ whistles and the crowd’s applause.

In day-to-day life here in the nation’s capital, where Kavanaugh was raised, people express both ardent approval and intense dislike for the justice. The Washington Post reported that Kavanaugh has been met with both insults and applause from other diners at a quiet French restaurant in his suburban Maryland neighborhood.

Even at invitation-only, conservative-friendly events, Kavanaugh meets critics. “You should be ashamed,” yelled a young woman at Kavanaugh at The Ronald Reagan Institute’s celebration of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Kavanaugh had come to the event to listen to his fellow justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, speak about the legacy of O’Connor’s life as the first female Supreme Court justice.

The ACLU, an organization that claims to support the Bill of Rights, has chosen to honor a woman who made a mockery of the 5th Amendment with her unfounded, politically-motivated sexual assault accusations against Kavanaugh. The ACLU serves as a glaring example that no leftist group can be trusted.

Twitter’s ‘ban’ on political ads has a gaping, legacy media-shaped loophole

CAP

 

Trying to stay ahead of spurious allegations of enabling ‘Russian meddling’ into US elections, Twitter has outlawed all political advertising – but left an exemption most US legacy media, though partisan, will easily sail through.

“Twitter globally prohibits the promotion of political content. We have made this decision based on our belief that political message reach should be earned, not bought,” the company announced Friday, sharing the details of its ad ban.

See the source image

Elaborating on the decision in a thread, Twitter’s head of legal, policy and Trust & Safety Vijaya Gadde effectively admitted that the ban was driven by concerns over digital advertising “driving political outcomes” – even though the effects of micro-targeted ads “are not yet fully understood.”

CAP

The ban is scheduled to go into effect on November 22. In addition to banning candidates, parties, and affiliated groups like political action committees (PACs) from advertising, Twitter is also ruling out ads that are about influencing votes, parties, ballot initiatives or elections. “Cause-based ads” will be allowed with certain restrictions, but again not when coming from candidates, parties or politicians.

If this sounds convoluted, banning both people and content, that’s because it is. However, the policy has a sizeable exemption for “news publishers” who can run ads referencing “political content and/or prohibited advertisers,” so long as there is no advocacy for or against.

To qualify, a publication’s website must have “a minimum of 200,000 monthly unique visitors in the US,” the ability to contact its editors and reporters online, have a searchable archive, and not be a user-generated platform or aggregator. Nor can the publication be dedicated to advocating on a single issue.

These parameters clearly skew the playing field in favor of US legacy media – despite its open partisanship over the past several years. Not only have the legacy media and Democrats blamed the social media for enabling the election of President Donald Trump, they have also led the charge in pressuring Twitter, Facebook and others to “deplatform” any alternative voices they might find unsavory.

As voice after voice gets purged from social media, still think there’s no censorship?

CAP

Most recently, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-California) actually demanded Twitter suspend Trump’s account as part of her pitch for the 2020 presidential nomination – so far, without effect.

In August, Twitter rolled out a ban on ads from “state-controlled news media entities,” using a convoluted definition that also carves out exemptions for well-established legacy outlets in the West.

(Full disclosure: Twitter banned RT ads long before that, without explanation or process, following the initial 2017 congressional hearings into social media platforms, and the revelation that it proposed a multi-million dollar deal to RT during the 2016 election, which was declined.)

The vast majority – about 86 percent – of Twitter’s revenue comes from advertising, with data licensing and other sources accounting for the rest. The company turned an annual profit for the first time in 2018, five years after going public.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑