All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Tuesday, October 29, 2019

Impeachment Fairy left a dud



Democrats believe the Impeachment Fairy left under their pillow a smoking gun in the form of an Army officer who will testify against the commander-in-chief, Donald John Trump. The problem is that while on active duty, the officer may have worked for the old Ukraine government, which was replaced this summer by a reformer president.

At a minimum, this is messy.
The New York Times profiled Army Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, whom the Times alleged is "the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council," along with his twin brother, Yevgeny, who also serves

In fact, the Times profiled Alexander twice. On Monday the story was "Army Officer Who Heard Trump’s Ukraine Call Reported Concerns" by Danny Hakim.

Today's story is "Who Is Alexander Vindman? A Ukrainian Refugee Who Will Testify in Impeachment Inquiry" by Sheryl Gay Stolberg.

Her story began, "Alexander S. Vindman and his twin brother, Yevgeny, were 3 years old when they fled Ukraine with their father and grandmother, Jewish refugees with only their suitcases and $750, hoping for a better life in the United States." An older brother, Leonid, also fled with them 40 years ago.

Democrats leaked to Stolberg part of his secret interrogation by Adam Schiff's committee-turned-star chamber. Alexander Vindman said, "I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine."

However, Ukraine and the USA have for 20 years had an agreement to cooperate on investigations. And of course the Mueller investigators contacted the Ukranian government in their investigation of Paul Manafort. Oops.

The Hakim story offered more details that undermine the argument that Alexander Vindman is just a patriot who corroborates an anonymous whistle blower's story.

The problem is Vindman may have had improper contact with Ukranian officials.

Paragraph 31 said, "While Colonel Vindman’s concerns were shared by a number of other officials, some of whom have already testified, he was in a unique position. Because he emigrated from Ukraine along with his family when he was a child and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian officials sought advice from him about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani, though they typically communicated in English."



Hmm.

Earlier in the story, Hakim said, "He will be the first White House official to testify who listened in on the July 25 telephone call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine that is at the center of the impeachment inquiry, in which Mr. Trump asked Mr. Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr."

However, the transcript of President Trump's July 25 phone conversation with President Zelensky undercuts Vindman's assertion.

What Democrats allege is laughably hypocritical. Biden bragged in 2018 about withholding a billion dollars in aid unless Ukraine backed off on a criminal investigation of a Ukrainian company that paid his son $600,000 a year for a no-show job. The new Ukrainian government is investigating.

The Times story is troubling because it indicates at least one of the Vindman twins was too close to the Ukrainian government.

Meanwhile...

UPDATE: On top of that, Breitbart News reported, "A newly-released poll found less than 40 percent of registered voters believe House Democrats should vote to impeach President Donald Trump.

"A USA TODAY/Suffolk poll states 36 percent of respondents support the House voting to remove the president, while 22 percent say Congress should continue with its impeachment inquiry but should not vote to remove him. Further, 37 percent say lawmakers should end their impeachment probe, while four percent remain undecided on the matter. When it comes to a Senate impeachment trial, 46 percent are in favor of convicting President Trump and 47 percent are against.

"The poll, conducted by telephone, is made up of 1,000 registered voters and was taken between October 23rd and 26th. It has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points."

17 comments:

  1. Another Schiffty witness. Keep on digging.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The substance of the testimony shows the corruption of the Trump presidency.

    I get it. You have no choice but to attack the messenger.

    Any sense of decency sailed long ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What corruption is that exactly? Leveraging public office into a fortune for your child? Promising the Russians that you would have a freer hand after re-election? Just curious.

      Delete
    2. Joe and Hunter Biden!October 29, 2019 at 2:40 PM

      The substance of the testimony shows the corruption of the Trump presidency.

      I get it. You have no choice but to attack the messenger.

      Any sense of decency sailed long ago.
      _______________________________

      We know, right?1!??

      Delete
    3. I believe you're speaking of the Kennedy Administration.

      Or was it Franklin Roosevelt?

      The substance of the testimony shows the corruption of the Trump presidency.

      So far, there's nothing that's first hand and nothing incriminating. When you get somebody who was actually there, let us know.

      Delete
    4. "The substance of the testimony shows the corruption of the Trump presidency. "

      Links to the substance, please.
      Oh, that's right, Schifty hasn't done his anti-Trump leaks yet.

      Your TDS is showing.

      "Any sense of decency sailed long ago. "

      As soon as you started posting here.

      Delete
    5. "So far, there's nothing that's first hand..."

      LOL! So a witness is on the call. He documents what he heard, but supposedly there is nothing "first hand"? Stop being stupid and/or ignorant.

      Delete
    6. So now we have proof. Good. Impeach! Enough Schiff kabuki theater. I want Trump kabuki theater in a Senate trial, with a nationwide audience. Then we vote the Oscar November 2020.

      Delete
  3. It’s pretty obvious that the argument against Trump has become a metaphysical one. If we were to see inside the Star Chamber we would see God on his throne surrounded by 24 Elders.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still. And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work."

    We're pretty much at the point where the die is cast for many now.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The last time Democrats opposed a policy decision was with the election of Republican Lincoln.

    A Civil War began because Democrats refused to recognize the legitimate change of policy that Lincoln represented.

    Even worse, prior to violent, armed hostilities begun by Democrats, Democrats tore apart the Constitution and created a new country taking over US property.

    Even more worse, Democrats refused the national sovereignty of the US by putting their former slaves in third class status by law.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "The poll, conducted by telephone, is made up of 1,000 registered voters and was taken between October 23rd and 26th. It has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points."

    Anybody remember the first poll? I do. It was 1948 and the Gallup Organization predicted that Dewey would beat Truman. Of course, Truman won. Gallup explained that it was a telephone poll and it was wrong because only rich people had telephones. Which was true, but not many of us remember those days.

    Fast forward to the 21st century. Pew and other pollsters report that the response rate for their surveys is less than 10%. Everybody has at least two phones these days but 90% of us won't answer when the pollsters call. Why is that? Nobody knows, cause they ain't talking.

    That 3% accuracy they cite is pure science fiction. That's a theoretical number that's accurate only if they have a truly random sample of a normal (bell shaped curve) distribution. It ain't a random sample when 90% hang up on you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, it happened in 1936 when the magazine Literary Digest did a phone poll that predicted Alf Landon would beat FDR in a landslide. They used the phone poll excuse and their magazine went belly-up the next year.
      ---Fred

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the info. Before my time.

      Delete
  7. >>> Any American that wants to see the Mueller Report desperately and falsely put together and delayed to purposely affect the outcome of a U.S. National Election [e.g. 2018], can see the Impeachment fiasco metaphoric parallel,'Kabuki theater' acted out live by the Dems., Schiff and Pelosi vying to do the same Election damage in 2020. Zbest

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We are all old enough to remember a certain stupid troll who posted a 55% support for impeachment. Trolls don't lie, do they?

      Bwahahahah! Stupid trolls.

      Delete
  8. Blog comment stimulation 101:


    Read blog article.

    Specify tender points made in article.

    Stimulate tender points via comment contents most contradictory to said tender points.

    Truth is only of value in said stimulation if truth contradicts tender points of blog article.

    In loo of there being any truth in contradiction to said tender points, fabricate.

    When fabrication is the only source of stimulation suited to contradict tender points of blog article, no fabrication is too fake to not utilize!!!

    Quoting reliably fake fabricated web sites is not only recommended, it is mandatory!!!

    Quantity of stimulating contradictory qouted fabricated fake web sources is more valuable than quality thereof.

    More is always better!!!

    ReplyDelete