Vindman’s testimony reveals he may have been one of the whistleblower’s sources: Report

Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a member of the White House National Security Council (NSC), testified in a public impeachment hearing Tuesday about his concerns regarding President Donald Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky — a call that led to the so-called “whistleblower” complaint that sparked the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.

But according to Breitbart, Vindman and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) may have unwittingly revealed during the testimony that Vindman is one of the anonymous sources that the similarly anonymous “whistleblower” relied upon in drawing up the formal complaint about the call.

Vindman outs himself

The rather stunning moment came as Vindman was answering questions from Intel panel ranking member Devin Nunes (R-CA), who asked directly if Vindman, who listened in on the July 25 call, had discussed the contents of that call with any individual outside of the White House and his direct chain of command.

Vindman replied that he had discussed the call with two people he described as “cleared U.S. government officials, with appropriate need to know,” and went on to name the first individual as State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent, who testified in a public hearing last week. Vindman was a bit more circumspect with regard to the second official, however, and named that person only as “individual in the intelligence community.”

Nunes then asked: “As you know, the intelligence community has 17 different agencies. What agency was this individual from?”

But that question prompted an immediate interruption from Schiff. “I want to make sure that there’s no effort to out the whistleblower through the use of these proceedings,” Schiff said before turning to Vindman. “If the witness has a good faith belief that this may reveal the identity of the whistleblower, that is not the purpose that we are here for, and I want to advise the witness accordingly.”

Schiff’s interruption

But Nunes pointed out that Vindman had previously testified in his closed-door deposition that he didn’t know the identity of the “whistleblower,” to which Vindman concurred. Nunes then asked: “So how is it possible for you to name these people and then out the whistleblower?”

Vindman didn’t have an answer to that question other than to fall back on boilerplate statements from his attorney, as well as “instructions from the chairman.”

A stunning admission

This truly was a stunning moment during the hearing with Vindman. It strongly appeared, by virtue of both Schiff’s and Vindman’s own reactions to Nunes’ question, that the second individual he spoke to about the July 25 phone call could very well be the “whistleblower.”

If true, that means Vindman was the predominant anonymous source identified in the official complaint filed by the “whistleblower” — and it also indicates that Vindman violated the rules by going outside of his chain of command to discuss the confidential call with somebody who otherwise was not authorized to know about it, then lying about it under oath.

Once again, one of the Democrats’ “star” witnesses has ended up undermining the narrative they were supposed to help bolster.

Share on facebook
Share to Facebook
[ci-popup]

Latest News