(November 29, 2019)
The title question would seem to be just about the most obvious one that a person could raise, considering Alexander Vindman’s background, his associations, and his most recent behavior. The fact that hardly anyone seems to be making it is just one more reason, I believe, that he very likely is working for the CIA and has been throughout his military career. Actually, very much to his credit, Rush Limbaugh has observed that Vindman appears to be employed by people other than those in his chain of command. He just stops short of speculating as to who, exactly, that might be, like, say, the CIA.
We’re talking about the Jewish Ukrainian American military officer in the middle of the ginned-up Adam Schiff-Nancy Pelosi-MSM impeachment inquiry. From all indications, he is the man who shared his supposed concerns about President Donald Trump’s July 25, 2019, telephone conversation with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky with the “whistleblower.” The latter person has been widely identified as the Yalie, CIA analyst, and Democratic Party partisan, 33-year-old Eric Ciaramella. On its face, Vindman would appear to be acting in an insubordinate fashion toward the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces, of which he is a part. At the same time, if we have learned nothing more from the entire Russiagate fiasco, it is that the U.S. intelligence community, abetted by the Operation Mockingbird press, has been in a state of almost open revolt against Donald Trump for quite some time now. What could explain the man’s behavior better than that he is a part of that crowd?
Taken at face value, Vindman’s actions would appear to be an absolute career killer. What incredible effrontery for a United States military officer to sneak around behind the back of the United States President, providing what should be considered classified information to said President’s obvious political enemy, to be leaked to the enemy press and the enemy Congress to put the President in the worst possible light! Even worse, the bad-light-shining is accomplished by mischaracterizing the core information being leaked. Yet, Vindman, this obvious careerist-to-the-core even followed up with a willing performance before the President’s chief Congressional antagonist, Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
2 thought on “Is Lt. Col. Vindman CIA?”
He has no fears. The Deep State takes care of its own. Google nomenklatura.
Well, if your post gets mysteriously removed, or your website crashes today and this particular post completely disappears, we’ll know the answer for sure, won’t we?
Seriously, though, I was already convinced when I read Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s Nov. 22 twitter post, where she said simply, “Vindictive Vindman is the ‘whistleblower’s’ handler.” What got my attention wasn’t just the post itself; it was the SCREAMING OBVIOUS coordination among all the responses her post quickly got.
Although they apparently come from all sorts of different twitter accounts–suggesting of course that they came from all sorts of different individuals–it’s fascinating to see that they practically all take exactly the same tone, and coordinate so perfectly when they agree with each other.
Their strategy is clear. One says to Sen Blackburn, “you’re a deplorable!” and another quickly responds, “unfortunately she’s my senator, we’re stuck with her.” Then a third chimes in, “you have to vote her out next election!” And this happens again, and again, and again, with only slight variations–pretty odd considering that none of it has anything to do with the substance of her original tweet.
My point is, it’s laughably clear that the deep state trolls, with Twitter’s help, went after Sen. Blackburn on this post. My bet is that Twitter would have taken her post down completely, if they weren’t already sure she would publicly protest, and bring even more attention to the subject of Vindman and the Clowns in America. The moral of the story is, both you and she are onto something, and the deep state doesn’t want anybody to pay attention.