Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a military officer at the National Security Council, center, arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 29, 2019, to appear before a House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Committee on Oversight and Reform joint interview with the transcript to be part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Democrats and media have been trying to make a lot of the alleged testimony of Alexander Vindman, an Army lieutenant colonel and National Security official.

But his testimony, at least that which we know, appears to be little more than expressing his opinion. But we already have the transcript of what was said and the Ukraine President said he wasn’t pressured which is Democrats whole theory of the case. So as my colleague, Bonchie, has noted, Vindman’s testimony is largely irrelevant opinion.

But if we look at that opinion, it also reveals part of the problem that we also have seen from others.

From Daily Caller:

“[Vindman] told lawmakers that he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy and an improper attempt to coerce a foreign government into investigating a U.S. citizen,” The Washington Post reported Friday, referring to the NSC official’s Tuesday impeachment inquiry testimony.

First, that isn’t supported by the transcript. Asking if the investigation into Burisma was properly closed, what the transcript actually says, is not “trying to coerce a foreign government into investigating a U.S. citizen,” it’s trying to see if that government was improperly coerced to close the investigation because of corruption. An important difference. And completely, legally within the power of the president to ask.

But the other problem with Vindman’s opinion, as journalist Brit Hume points out, is Vindman’s claim that he thought it might be an attempt by the president to “subvert foreign policy.” The president is the one who sets foreign policy, of course, so by definition he cannot subvert it. But it isn’t the place of an Army colonel/NSC person to set policy, it is the job of the president. And you don’t try to take out the president because you’re unhappy with his approach to policy.

This is the same problem we saw with former acting CIA Director John McLaughlin as well as former Obama CIA Director John Brennan. They both basically said “thank God for the Deep State,” confirming an effort of some in the intelligence community/FBI/DOJ officials who have aligned themselves against Trump because they don’t want him there. You don’t get to take him out because you don’t like that he won or you don’t like what he does. That’s subverting the will of the people to their duly-elected president whether you like him or not.

Of course, for some, like Brennan, it’s more than that, that they’re unhappy that their own actions in 2016 are being investigated so they have to do all they can to disparage Trump now and deflect from the Durham and IG investigations that are bearing down.

But now Trump has suggested that there may also be something more interesting coming about Vindman.

According to Newsmax, Trump was asked if he regretted calling Vindman a “Never Trumper.”

His response was, “Well, you’ll be seeing very soon what comes out and then you can ask the question in a different way.”

Sounds like there’s more on the way.

And that wouldn’t be much of a surprise given how this whole thing has unfolded from Democrats with the questionable contacts with the whistleblower and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) as well as the whistleblower allegedly working with Joe Biden in the White House and being connected to John Brennan.