Hostile Witness: NSC Official Who Listened to Trump/Zelinsky Call Reported 'Concerns' to NSC's Lead Counsel to Testify Tuesday

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, speaks after a closed meeting on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, June 6, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)



House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff must be licking his chops ahead of today’s testimony from Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a Director of National Security Affairs at the National Security Council. Vindman, a direct witness to the July 25th conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, reported his concerns to the NSC’s lead counsel, John A. Eisenberg.

Fox News has obtained Vindman’s prepared statement in which he wrote:

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. Following the call, I… reported my concerns to NSC’s lead counsel.

I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend our country, irrespective of party or politics.

For over 20 years as an active-duty United States military officer and diplomat, I have served this country in a nonpartisan manner, and have done so with the utmost respect and professionalism for both Republican and Democratic administrations.

According to Fox, he will also testify that Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, “made political demands of the Ukrainians during a July 10 visit to Washington.” In his prepared remarks, Vindman writes that, “Following the debriefing meeting, I reported my concerns to the NSC’s lead counsel. Dr. Hill also reported the incident to the NSC’s lead counsel.”


Sondland appeared before Schiff’s committee on October 17th and, unless one reads the New York Times’ reports on his testimony, he was said to have essentially defended the President’s position.

Perhaps Vindman and Dr. Hill should be asked if they spoke to the whistleblower after the call.

For every hostile witness with impressive credentials Schiff hauls before his Kangaroo court, the Republicans could present an equally accomplished friendly witness. The way one chooses to interpret the contents of the Trump/Zelensky call is purely subjective.

If we place the Republicans, who consider the call to have been innocuous (as I do) on a continuum at number one, and the Democrats, who have fabricated a case to impeach the President based on the call at number ten, the truth will obviously lie somewhere in between. For every American who sees it as a two or a three, there will be another who believes it’s an eight or a nine. And this process of pitting a two against a nine or a four against a seven could go on indefinitely.

Democrats are holding President Trump to an impossible standard. If a president can be impeached based upon something so subjective and so minor, it’s a wonder all presidents aren’t impeached.


Unfortunately, the American people are only allowed to hear what Schiff chooses to leak. Schiff has cherry picked his witnesses in the same way he filters the sound bites he releases to the press. In his zeal to destroy Donald Trump, he has denied him of his most fundamental constitutional rights. I don’t believe there is a precedent in modern U.S. history where an American citizen accused of wrongdoing has ever faced such injustice.

Last week, conservative radio and television host Mark Levin said that the left treats President Trump worse than they would a terrorist or a mass murderer. We need only to look at the Washington Post’s “obituary” for Abu Bekr al-Baghdadi where the editors tie themselves into knots to treat him with respect. Al-Baghdadi, a monster who is responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people, is called an “austere religious scholar.” Yet Trump is described as a lawless president who has betrayed his oath of office, our national security and the integrity of our elections.

Just as Attorney General William Barr has tasked U.S. Attorney John Durham to examine the origins of the Trump/Russia investigation, he should assign a prosecutor to scrutinize the events and relationships responsible for thrusting this latest travesty upon a President who has been hunted by the Democrats because of their blind hatred for him since his candidacy.


Although they were delivered in a clumsy manner, there’s a lot of truth in acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney’s recent remarks. He said: “What you’re seeing now, I believe, is a group of mostly career bureaucrats who are saying, you know, ‘What I don’t like are President Trump’s politics, so I’m going to participate in this witch hunt that they’re undertaking on the Hill.’ ”

That’s exactly what we’re seeing.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos