***** OFFICIAL TRUMP IMPEACHMENT THREAD *****

983,576 Views | 9220 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by Pizza
geoag58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chimmy said:


Quote:

Opening Statement of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman

Before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the House Committee on Oversight and Reform

October 29, 2019

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you for the opportunity to address the Committees concerning the activities relating to Ukraine and my role in the events under investigation.


Background

I have dedicated my entire professional life to the United States of America. For more than two decades, it has been my honor to serve as an officer in the United States Army. As an infantry officer, I served multiple overseas tours, including South Korea and Germany, and a deployment to Iraq for combat operations. In Iraq, I was wounded in an IED attack and awarded a Purple Heart.

Since 2008, I have been a Foreign Area Officer specializing in Eurasia. In this role, I have served in the United States' embassies in Kiev, Ukraine and Moscow, Russia. In Washington, D.C., I was a politico-military affairs officer for Russia for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs where I authored the principle strategy for managing competition with Russia. In July 2018, I was asked to serve at the National Security Council.

The privilege of serving my country is not only rooted in my military service, but also in my personal history. I sit here, as a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army, an immigrant. My family fled the Soviet Union when I was three and a half years old. Upon arriving in New York City in 1979, my father worked multiple jobs to support us, all the while learning English at night. He stressed to us the importance of fully integrating into our adopted country. For many years, life was quite difficult. In spite of our challenging beginnings, my family worked to build its own American dream. I have a deep appreciation for American values and ideals and the power of freedom. 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 twenty 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.


Introduction

Before recounting my recollection of various events under investigation, I want to clarify a few issues. I am appearing today voluntarily pursuant to a subpoena and will answer all questions to the best of my recollection.

I want the Committees to know I am not the whistleblower who brought this issue to the CIA and the Committees' attention. I do not know who the whistleblower is and I would not feel comfortable to speculate as to the identity of the whistleblower.

Also, as I will detail herein, I did convey certain concerns internally to National Security officials in accordance with my decades of experience and training, sense of duty, and obligation to operate within the chain of command. As an active duty military officer, the command structure is extremely important to me. On many occasions I have been told I should express my views and share my concerns with my chain of command and proper authorities. I believe that any good military officer should and would do the same, thus providing his or her best advice to leadership.

Furthermore, in performing my coordination role as a Director on the National Security Council, I provided readouts of relevant meetings and communications to a very small group of properly cleared national security counterparts with a relevant need-to-know.


My Service on the National Security Council

When I joined the White House's National Security Council ("NSC"), I reported to Dr. Fiona Hill, who in turn reported to John Bolton, the National Security Advisor. My role at the NSC includes developing, coordinating, and executing plans and policies to manage the full range of diplomatic, informational, military, and economic national security issues for the countries in my portfolio, which includes Ukraine.

In my position, I coordinate with a superb cohort of inter-agency partners. I regularly prepare internal memoranda, talking points, and other materials for the National Security Advisor and senior staff.

Most of my interactions relate to national security issues and are therefore especially sensitive. I would urge the Committees to carefully balance the need for information against the impact that disclosure would have on our foreign policy and national security.

I have never had direct contact or communications with the President.


The Geopolitical Importance of Ukraine

Since 2008, Russia has manifested an overtly aggressive foreign policy, leveraging military power and employing hybrid warfare to achieve its objectives of regional hegemony and global influence. Absent a deterrent to dissuade Russia from such aggression, there is an increased risk of further confrontations with the West. In this situation, a strong and independent Ukraine is critical to U.S. national security interests because Ukraine is a frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression.

In spite of being under assault from Russia for more than five years, Ukraine has taken major steps towards integrating with the West. The U.S. government policy community's view is that the election of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the promise of reforms to eliminate corruption will lock in Ukraine's Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy and economic prosperity.

Given this perspective and my commitment to advancing our government's strategic interests, I will now recount several events that occurred.


Relevant Events

When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration's policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects, this alternative narrative undermined U.S. government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.

April 21, 2019: President Trump Calls Ukraine President Zelenskyy

On April 21, 2019, Volodymyr Zelenskyy was elected President of Ukraine in a landslide victory. President Zelenskyy was seen as a unifying figure within the country. He was the first candidate to win a majority in every region of the country, breaking the claims that Ukraine would be subject to a perpetual divide between the Ukrainian- and Russian-speaking populations. President Zelenskyy ran on a platform of unity, reform, and anti-corruption, which resonated with the entire country.

In support of U.S. policy objectives to support Ukrainian sovereignty, President Trump called President Zelenskyy on April 21, 2019. I was one of several staff and officers who listened to the call. The call was positive, and President Trump expressed his desire to work with President Zelenskyy and extended an invitation to visit the White House.

May 21, 2019: Inauguration Delegation Goes to Ukraine

On May 21, 2019, I was directed by Ambassador Bolton and Dr. Hill to join the delegation attending President Zelenkskyy's inauguration. When the delegation returned, they provided a debriefing to President Trump and explained their positive assessment of President Zelenskyy and his team. I did not participate in the debriefing.

Oleksandr Danylyuk Visit July 10, 2019

On July 10, 2019, Oleksandr Danylyuk, the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council for Ukraine, visited Washington, D.C. for a meeting with National Security Advisor Bolton. Ambassadors Volker and Sondland also attended, along with Energy Secretary Rick Perry.

The meeting proceeded well until the Ukrainians broached the subject of a meeting between the two presidents. The Ukrainians saw this meeting as critically important in order to solidify the support of their most important international partner. Amb. Sondland started to speak about Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the President, at which time Ambassador Bolton cut the meeting short.

Following this meeting, there was a scheduled debriefing during which Amb. Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma. I stated to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push. Dr. Hill then entered the room and asserted to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate.

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.

Election Call July 25, 2019

On July 21, 2019, President Zelenskyy's party won Parliamentary elections in a landslide victory. The NSC proposed that President Trump call President Zelenskyy to congratulate him.

On July 25, 2019, the call occurred. I listened in on the call in the Situation Room with colleagues from the NSC and the office of the Vice President. As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said.

I was concerned by the call. 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 6 the U.S. government's support of Ukraine. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC's lead counsel.


Conclusion

The United States and Ukraine are and must remain strategic partners, working together to realize the shared vision of a stable, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine that is integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community. Our partnership is rooted in the idea that free citizens should be able to exercise their democratic rights, choose their own destiny, and live in peace.

It has been a great honor to serve the American people and a privilege to work in the White House and on the National Security Council. I hope to continue to serve and advance America's national security interests.

Thank you again for your consideration, and now I would be happy to answer your questions.
No new revelations.






The bolded word destroys any credibility vindman might have had. We all have the transcript of President Trump"s call. Everyone with even an ounce of intelligence can see there was no demand.

This entire episode is nothing but a shiffsham




agsfan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We don't have a transcript.
Rockdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
lol better and better!
geoag58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
agsfan said:

We don't have a transcript.


If you don't have or haven't seen a transcript of the call about which vindman lies when he claims President Trump made the "demand" you may be the only zhe or zho in the universe without one.

chimmy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
agsfan said:

We don't have a transcript.
That's semantics.

Is this illogical argument being used by Dems? IOWs, are you disputing the record of the event made public by the WH or trolling?

will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
agsfan said:

We don't have a transcript.
What the President release was EXACTLY a transcript. From Merriam Webster:



Quote:

transcript
noun
transcript | \ tran(t)-skript\
Definition of transcript

1a: a written, printed, or typed copy
especially : a usually typed copy of dictated or recorded material
b: an official or legal and often published copy
// a court reporter's transcript

more...

A court reporter is a person whose occupation is to transcribe spoken or recorded speech into written form, using shorthand, machine shorthand or voice writing equipment to produce official TRANSCRIPTS of court hearings, depositions and other official proceedings.



So it is EXACTLY a transcription of spoken word to written language, which is EXACTLY what the definition says.

You can drop your silly point about it not being a transcription because that is what it is.
chimmy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
leftcoastaggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
will25u said:

agsfan said:

We don't have a transcript.
What the President release was EXACTLY a transcript. From Merriam Webster:



Quote:

transcript
noun
transcript | \ tran(t)-skript\
Definition of transcript

1a: a written, printed, or typed copy
especially : a usually typed copy of dictated or recorded material
b: an official or legal and often published copy
// a court reporter's transcript

more...

A court reporter is a person whose occupation is to transcribe spoken or recorded speech into written form, using shorthand, machine shorthand or voice writing equipment to produce official TRANSCRIPTS of court hearings, depositions and other official proceedings.



So it is EXACTLY a transcription of spoken word to written language, which is EXACTLY what the definition says.

You can drop your silly point about it not being a transcription because that is what it is.


So you refuse to read the memo?
Phog06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Is this **** ever going to end?! Democrats are pure scum, period. They hated Trump ever since election night 2016 when he "stole" the election from Hillary because it was simply "her time" and the ol hag had to cheat with the help of the DNC to even become the nominee. Pathetic. They hate Trump because he is an outsider who can't be bought and suffocated by the "swamp". He doesn't bend to anyone and they can't stand that. There are swamp rats with an R that hate that as well in particularly Mitt Romney, which I can say, I am ashamed for ever having voted for that spineless RHINO.

If any of you cant see this charade that has been on-going the past three years is nothing more than a political stunt to undermine you, the American People, then i do not know what to tell you. They simply do not give a damn about the American People. They don't care that TRUMP was duly elected. They dont care. They care about two things...overturning an election and POWER. Lets face it, they haven't done a damn thing since winning the house in 2018 that would help us. NOTHING has been done with healthcare, insurance reform, drug crisis, infrastructure. NOTHING. I'll say it again...they are after one thing and one thing only and that is POWER.

They don't care about facts, they are pursuing an outcome that satisfies their agenda and their thirst for power. They only care about uncovering or in this case creating "corruption" and "illegal activity" when they feel they can gain politically from it. Where was this same diligence and pursuit to uncover corruption and lawlessness from 2008 to 2016? We all know the answer to that question.

I hope in 2020 the American People show up in droves and send one strong message to Pelosi and her band of miscreants --- You can stick that gavel up your anti-american asses!!!
leftcoastaggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chimmy said:




You really going to take the word of some human scum combat vets over a guy who donated $1 million to buy an ambassadorship?
backintexas2013
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Who has proof? That will be the question. I know you already decided to believe your side but I would like to see emails that raise the concern. They have to be out there.
Gary Johnson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What's the play in smearing this guy? Let's just assume he really is a biased actor.

The cat's out of the bag now anyway. Nothing he says or does has any bearing on the inquiry.
chimmy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
backintexas2013 said:

Who has proof? That will be the question. I know you already decided to believe your side but I would like to see emails that raise the concern. They have to be out there.
Vindman's opening statement identifies Fiona Hill as a corroborating witness. Deep State sticks together.

ETA, There should also be a record with the NSC's lead counsel.
Quote:

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.
EKUAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
leftcoastaggie said:

chimmy said:




You really going to take the word of some human scum combat vets over a guy who donated $1 million to buy an ambassadorship?


You are getting ridiculous.

If my fellow soldiers have alterior motives, then they need to be show to determine if they are accurate in their statements or not.
FTAG 2000
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
leftcoastaggie said:

chimmy said:




You really going to take the word of some human scum combat vets over a guy who donated $1 million to buy an ambassadorship?
We all read (or some of us chose to do so anyway) the transcript of the call in question.

I don't care if they trot all of the Joint Chiefs under Obama out there to say it bothered them, who cares?

The left just looks more desperate by the day.
leftcoastaggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
EKUAg said:

leftcoastaggie said:

chimmy said:




You really going to take the word of some human scum combat vets over a guy who donated $1 million to buy an ambassadorship?


You are getting ridiculous.

If my fellow soldiers have alterior motives, then they need to be show to determine if they are accurate in their statements or not.


I agree. That's the whole point and part of that is taking a persons credibility, motivation and collaboration into account.
leftcoastaggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Gary Johnson said:

What's the play in smearing this guy?.


Because that SOP of the GOP.
backintexas2013
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hmmm didn't you believe ***** Ford?
captkirk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
agsfan said:

We don't have a transcript.
Joe Exotic
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I fully expect leftcoastaggie to completely believe and agree with Dan Crenshaw from now on because of his combat vet status.
geoag58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Gary Johnson said:

What's the play in smearing this guy? Let's just assume he really is a biased actor.

The cat's out of the bag now anyway. Nothing he says or does has any bearing on the inquiry.


The dimtards have been trying to disenfranchise me and everyone else who voted for President Trump since the day he was elected. Anyone who throws in with this bunch of traitors need to be ruined.
nu awlins ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bo Darville said:

I fully expect leftcoastaggie to completely believe and agree with Dan Crenshaw from now on because of his combat vet status.
Yup, me too, well except Flynn, he hated him.
-------------------------------------------------------
[You aren't talking about anything on here until tomorrow. -Staff]

nu awlins ag

LMAO

Nu Awlins Ag for New TAMU President!!!!!!!
MouthBQ98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Oh, the irony.
Gary Johnson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OK. He's ruined. But the impeachment investigation goes on with the transcript Trump released. Nothing changes.
agsfan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just be accurate. If the president's defense is the content of the call summary, him and his defenders shouldn't have to lie and call it a 'word-for-word transcript' like he does in every speech/press conference he gives.
MouthBQ98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Everyone is affected by confirmation bias, and picks out the information that confirms their preconceptions.

The question is what exactly was done, and is there anything specifically unlawful about it?

So far the answer is nothing unlawful, because the president has wide latitude regarding carrying out foreign policy and making and executing the terms of treaties. You can argue all day long about the ethics of hardball politics, but it isn't unlawful unless a specific action violates a specific constitutionally validated law.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Honest question...

OK, this might be hard for some... Lets assume that Kamala is guilty of something in another country. Corruption, or bribery, or even just stealing a candy bar. Should no one investigate this? Is she a protected class now that she is running for President?

Is this a loop hole in our laws? Can anyone just say they are running for President to escape justice?

Shouldn't she have to face Lady Justice for her crimes?

richardag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
agsfan said:

Not a transcript
To quote Lt. Col. Vindman's opening statement:

Quote:

On July 25, 2019, the call occurred. I listened in on the call in the Situation Room with colleagues from the NSC and the office of the Vice President. As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said.
Note: my bold of a significant word.

Seems it is a transcript according to Vindman and since he is a veteran, therefore has unimpeachable character, it must undoubtedly be a transcript.
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
agsfan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If he did it to help his campaign, that is illegal.
Tom Hagen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Gary Johnson said:

What's the play in smearing this guy? Let's just assume he really is a biased actor.

The cat's out of the bag now anyway. Nothing he says or does has any bearing on the inquiry.
Because he is a double agent and a traitor.
MouthBQ98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And the best part is we have 3 solid years of large amounts of evidence of various specific Democrat politicians and political operatives and entities working with foreign agents and foreign officials or government entities to dig up damaging personal or political information, or even fabricate political information to be used against the Trump administration, and the people doing that often did not have the constitutional mandate the president of the United States would have to do so.
leftcoastaggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
backintexas2013 said:

Hmmm didn't you believe ***** Ford?
Pull those posts buddy. Four blue stars for your lie. Can't debate the content so you lie about me. Pretty low for a fellow aggie. Not surprised though since that is all you guys know at this point. Hope you find your moral compass one day.
MouthBQ98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
He is not running against Hunter or Joe Biden at this time.

This is primary season.
He is running against Mark Sanford, Joe Walsh, and Bill Weld.
Plus, given the various political intrigues between the Democrats and Ukraine, and many unresolved potential criminal issues, the president does have a responsibility to see that those issues are resolved. For all we know, Ukraine will exhonerate the Bidens if they've done nothing wrong, and that would help them politically.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
MouthBQ98 said:

Everyone is affected by confirmation bias, and picks out the information that confirms their preconceptions.

The question is what exactly was done, and is there anything specifically unlawful about it?

So far the answer is nothing unlawful, because the president has wide latitude regarding carrying out foreign policy and making and executing the terms of treaties. You can argue all day long about the ethics of hardball politics, but it isn't unlawful unless a specific action violates a specific constitutionally validated law.
Let's assume everything these so-called whistle blowers are saying actually happened, I am not seeing which law was violated. Nor does the conduct of foreign policy ever rise to being a violation of a federal statute unless it specifically applies to the President, as foreign policy is an Article II enumerated duty of the President.

chimmy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MouthBQ98 said:

He is not running against Hunter or Joe Biden at this time.

This is primary season.
That is about as bad of an argument as 'it's not a transcript.'
First Page Last Page
Page 30 of 264
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.