The New York Times has an opinion piece today titled, “The Disorienting Defenses of Donald Trump”. It’s filled with the typical Liberal codswallop. At the very bottom of the article it mentions Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, decorated war hero.

Of course, every “defense” that President Trump uses against the Deep State is disorienting to the Left. The subtitle of the article is “The president and his allies ask Americans to reject the evidence before their eyes.” I read the transcript of the July 25 phone call from President Trump to President Zelensky that triggered this latest impeachment inquiry. What else do I need to know? There is no quid pro quo, actual or implied. And, even if there was a quid pro quo, I don’t know what else diplomacy if not quid pro quo. Nations work with other nations to protect and further their own self-interests. I do this for you and you do this for me. Quid pro quo.

Which brings us to Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Vindman was on the July 25 phone call as a Ukraine expert for the National Security Council. Alexander Vindman was concerned about the phone call, as reported by the Washington Post:

Several days after President Trump’s phone call with the leader of Ukraine, a top White House lawyer instructed a senior national security official not to discuss his grave concerns about the leaders’ conversation with anyone outside the White House, according to three people familiar with the aide’s testimony.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified that he received this instruction from John Eisenberg, the top legal adviser for the National Security Council, after White House lawyers learned July 29 that a CIA employee had anonymously raised concerns about the Trump phone call, the sources said.

Vindman had grave concerns because he heard a quid pro quo in the phone call. Let’s turn to his testimony down in the Super Secret Schiff SCIF. CNN reported:

While much of the focus on the quid pro quo has been over the $400 million in security aid, Vindman said that the July 25 call was “all about getting the bilateral meeting,” because the Ukrainians were unaware at that point the aid was frozen.
Vindman said he was first aware of the hold on Ukraine aid by July 3, and later learned that it came from Mulvaney’s office. He said that when the Ukrainians learned the aid had been held up, he they asked whether it was true and “what do we need to do?”
“So my impression is that they were under pressure,” Vindman testified.
Vindman said that he had raised concerns about the July 25 call to NSC lawyers, and that the process that was used for placing the call transcript on a highly secure server was abnormal. Vindman has proposed edits to the rough transcript that was released by the White House — adding references to Burisma and recordings of Biden — that were not ultimately included in the White House’s release. But Vindman testified that he believed there was no “malicious intent” behind his proposed edits being left out, saying he agreed that the White House’s rough transcript was a “very accurate” depiction of the call.

So, Alexander Vindman didn’t like the transcript that the the transcribers in the Situation Room wrote. He heard the “Burisma” and “recordings of Biden”. Since there is a recording of Biden saying he demanded the prosecutor be fire before aid was released, it’s possible that’s what Vindman heard in his own mind.

Vindman didn’t like Trump’s “demand” of Ukraine. Here is the MSNBC explanation with Chris Matthews:

Trump “demanded” in the transcript? Well, it’s not there.

ALSO: GOP Rep. Ratfcliffe challenged Vindman yesterday to show investigators where the word “demand” appeared in Trump's call record w/Zelensky. Vindman compared it to how he would take it if a general were to ask him to do something—implicitly a demand. https://t.co/eOBF1raK7J

— Natasha Bertrand (@NatashaBertrand) October 30, 2019

We don’t care how you would take it. President Zelensky didn’t take anything as a demand and that is what is germane.

According to the New York Times, we may not question Colonel Vindman’s account, the disorienting defenses of Donald Trump include:

This is a coup by the Deep State! A decorated American soldier is a Ukrainian agent! The witnesses who have testified are “Never Trumpers”!

I am sure that Vindman is not a Ukrainian agent. I resent being told that I cannot question the word of any other citizen because that citizen is a decorated American soldier. I honor his service. He is not elected. Reading the transcript of Vindman’s testimony, I got the impression that his biggest gripe is that he disagrees with Donald Trump’s foreign policy, particularly in regard to Ukraine. My response is too bad, so sad. Salute smartly and move on.

We, the American people hired Donald Trump because we liked his ideas. We elected him. We did not elect Vindman. We don’t care what he thinks. Decorated or not.

Photo Credit: wikimedia commons/ Адміністрація Президента України/Creative Commons SA 4.0