I think it depends whether you're a Democrat or a Republican.

Had I the misfortune to serve under the Obama administration and an opportunity came across my desk to legitimatly nail his ass to the wall I would have some decisions to make.

Personally I think Vindman was a tool. A fat ass disgrace who was way too comfortable in his assignment surrounded by non military personnel. I disagree with his politics, I think the President was well within his rights and responsibilities and I think Vindman's actions were as sloppy as his appearance.

I don't like him.

There are two types of officers in this situation...one is like Vindeman who says call me Lt Col....the other kind asks to be called by their 1st name.

Vindeman had no information to offer...none. This was pure political theater and he loved the spotlight. He didn't like the revised Ukraine policy. He should have resigned if he had no intention of carrying it out. He even is quoted as instructing the Ukrainians to ignore stated US policy. He's minimally an insufferable *****. He's certainly insubordinate. And he allowed himself to be used, politically, while in uniform; which is not something I'm cool with.

When I was called by my rank, or called Mr, I told folks to call me Phil. Lacking humility is a bad look for an officer working in the White House.

What he heard was not policy. He heard the president ask for a political favor from a foreign government to investigate a political rival. He thought that was wrong, reported it to his chain, and then kept going to work and doing his job. He may have testified that he didn't agree with the policy but no one stated at any point he didn't dutifully carry out his orders. You are allowed to disagree with the president in the military or government while still carrying out your orders and duties.

You may not like him or how he testified, and that is fine. But you can't say the guy didn't do his duty with no proof or conflate Trump's actions with official policy. Calling it a policy shift is what the administration did later to justify it. If you see the facts presented as anything other than what it obviously was, you have ignored the last three years of this presidency.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/timothy-morrison-alexander-vindmans-boss-reveals-problems-they-had-with-vindman

He skipped Morrison initially per link.

He didn't go to Congress. He went to the "whistleblower" who was not on the call. That person didn't have a need to know the contents of the call.

The whistleblower provisions do not cover leaking classified information.

Where in the text I if the phone call did Trump ask for said political favor? And don't quote me the Schiff version.

EKUAg said:

---

Where in the text I if the phone call did Trump ask for said political favor? And don't quote me the Schiff version.

---

When he asks him to find out all he can about Biden's son. That is right after he says that the U.S. has been generous to Ukraine and that has not been reciprocated, the former prosecutor should not have been stopped (the one who investigated Biden's company), and he should talk to Rudy Gulliani, who was telling them to investigate Biden.

Quote:

---

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you' re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.

The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman., was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing. There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it. It sounds horrible to me.

---

Victimist Righties aren't any better.

Federale01 said:

---

What he heard was not policy. He heard the president ask for a political favor from a foreign government to investigate a political rival. He thought that was wrong, reported it to his chain, and then kept going to work and doing his job. He may have testified that he didn't agree with the policy but no one stated at any point he didn't dutifully carry out his orders. You are allowed to disagree with the president in the military or government while still carrying out your orders and duties.

You may not like him or how he testified, and that is fine. But you can't say the guy didn't do his duty with no proof or conflate Trump's actions with official policy. Calling it a policy shift is what the administration did later to justify it. If you see the facts presented as anything other than what it obviously was, you have ignored the last three years of this presidency.

---

Vindeman also did not go to his boss, Tim Morrison; he admitted that under cross examination from Jim Jordan. He said he was just too busy that week; "just a busy week" he said. He should be fired for that comment alone. An officer who didn't tell his superior something of this supposed constitutional crisis level of importance because he was "busy"? Really? He instead went to a lawyer who told him not to tell anyone. So too busy to tell his boss; but not a lawyer? Really?

He then went outside his chain of command and admitted to telling 2 people not in the chain about his interpretation of the call. Not too busy for that. One was George Kent; the other was obviously the non-whistle blower-whistle-blower. Schiff wouldn't let him name the 2nd one because he was afraid he would "out" the whistle-blower that they all continue to swear they don't know his name (Eric Ciarimella). All this was revealed under cross examination from the House; not in his original deposition and not from Vindeman's prepared testimony. So he withheld his actions because; once he was confronted with this obviously profound moral crisis (sarcasm intended); well, he told everyone but his boss because; hey; I mean isn't that what chain of command means?

Vindeman had no additional facts beyond what was released in the transcript; his testimony said "I didn't think it was proper"...his opinion. So no facts; just his opinion. As they say; everyone has one. And the 2nd was a purely political calculation on his part that if the Ukraine assisted in investigating US corruption, it would hurt Ukraine Democrat congressional support. So this is a purely political consideration; and based off the fallacious and truly preposterous proposition that a president of the US doesn't have the authority or duty to enlist a foreign gov't to investigate US official corruption. Frankly, his judgement is just *****..hhmm, where have I heard that before? Oh yeah....

Apparently my opinion was shared by his boss; and his prior boss; as well. Morrison's testimony " I had concerns about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's judgmentAmong the discussions I had with Dr. [Fiona] Hill in the transition was our team, my team, its strengths and its weaknesses. And Fiona and others had raised concerns about Alex's judgment". Ouch. To the point Vindeman was specifically excluded from certain meetings and communications.

Had Vindeman been an honest broker; well, he wouldn't have done what he did to begin with...but given that, he would have showed up at the House and answered questions. Instead, he showed up; prepared statement; expressing his opinion; in hand. He said he came voluntarily (his words from his written testimony). He didn't dispute the call transcript; said we'd all read it. He works in civvies...he showed up in uniform. His actions after the call warrant sanction...you don't go outside the chain based on your half-assed opinion. His other actions just prove he's a ******.

japantiger said:

---

Federale01 said:

---

What he heard was not policy. He heard the president ask for a political favor from a foreign government to investigate a political rival. He thought that was wrong, reported it to his chain, and then kept going to work and doing his job. He may have testified that he didn't agree with the policy but no one stated at any point he didn't dutifully carry out his orders. You are allowed to disagree with the president in the military or government while still carrying out your orders and duties.

You may not like him or how he testified, and that is fine. But you can't say the guy didn't do his duty with no proof or conflate Trump's actions with official policy. Calling it a policy shift is what the administration did later to justify it. If you see the facts presented as anything other than what it obviously was, you have ignored the last three years of this presidency.

---

Vindeman also did not go to his boss, Tim Morrison; he admitted that under cross examination from Jim Jordan. He said he was just too busy that week; "just a busy week" he said. He should be fired for that comment alone. An officer who didn't tell his superior something of this supposed constitutional crisis level of importance because he was "busy"? Really? He instead went to a lawyer who told him not to tell anyone. So too busy to tell his boss; but not a lawyer? Really?

He then went outside his chain of command and admitted to telling 2 people not in the chain about his interpretation of the call. Not too busy for that. One was George Kent; the other was obviously the non-whistle blower-whistle-blower. Schiff wouldn't let him name the 2nd one because he was afraid he would "out" the whistle-blower that they all continue to swear they don't know his name (Eric Ciarimella). All this was revealed under cross examination from the House; not in his original deposition and not from Vindeman's prepared testimony. So he withheld his actions because; once he was confronted with this obviously profound moral crisis (sarcasm intended); well, he told everyone but his boss because; hey; I mean isn't that what chain of command means?

Vindeman had no additional facts beyond what was released in the transcript; his testimony said "I didn't think it was proper"...his opinion. So no facts; just his opinion. As they say; everyone has one. And the 2nd was a purely political calculation on his part that if the Ukraine assisted in investigating US corruption, it would hurt Ukraine Democrat congressional support. So this is a purely political consideration; and based off the fallacious and truly preposterous proposition that a president of the US doesn't have the authority or duty to enlist a foreign gov't to investigate US official corruption. Frankly, his judgement is just *****..hhmm, where have I heard that before? Oh yeah....

Apparently my opinion was shared by his boss; and his prior boss; as well. Morrison's testimony " I had concerns about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's judgmentAmong the discussions I had with Dr. [Fiona] Hill in the transition was our team, my team, its strengths and its weaknesses. And Fiona and others had raised concerns about Alex's judgment". Ouch. To the point Vindeman was specifically excluded from certain meetings and communications.

Had Vindeman been an honest broker; well, he wouldn't have done what he did to begin with...but given that, he would have showed up at the House and answered questions. Instead, he showed up; prepared statement; expressing his opinion; in hand. He said he came voluntarily (his words from his written testimony). He didn't dispute the call transcript; said we'd all read it. He works in civvies...he showed up in uniform. His actions after the call warrant sanction...you don't go outside the chain based on your half-assed opinion. His other actions just prove he's a ******.

---

Bingo. This is the fork between "doing his job" and "leaking classified / privileged information for a political purpose." It is this distonction that leads me to believe that he's a POS and should should be treated as the subversive that he has proven himself to be.

He isn't an innocent soldier who got swept up into this by circumstance and just happens to have a different opinion. He was integral to the leaking of classified information which lead to an attempt to remove a president who was elected in accordance with the Constitution that he swears to defend... based on a subjective concern. Give him a dishonerable for mishandling secret material and be done with him.

artty said:

---

There is no evidence whatsoever that Vindman was leaking.

---

No? How about his testimony about telling 2 people who were neither in his chain of command or the IG? Giving secret information to those without a need to know (even if they have clearance) is a form of "leaking."

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

There is no evidence whatsoever that Vindman was leaking.

---

No? How about his testimony about telling 2 people who were neither in his chain of command or the IG? Giving secret information to those without a need to know (even if they have clearance) is a form of "leaking."

---

Telling the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs and the CIA's Ukrainian analyst is not a 'form of leaking'. They had a need to know. It's their job.

Now that we've seen the transcripts, we know that there was nothing illegal or immoral during the phone call. LTC Vindman seems upset that the POTUS did not follow his talking points, as if he is the US rep, not the POTUS. As proof that it was not a valid concern, he abused his special access and illegally slipped classified information to a political operative.