Boxer's little tirade in the video was irksome. However, what was more bothersome was that a GO in the US Army seemed to be truly nervous and so easily agitated by a smart ass Senator. While I understand that he couldn't mouth off to her I would hope he would have displayed slightly more backbone.
Did LTC Vindman serve the country with honor?
7,731 Views |
54 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Get Off My Lawn
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.
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.
Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting.
Steve McQueen
Steve McQueen
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ndVhRw0utMyLayMaMaPvGakVaUCMJxAe_-nvls9BgiQ/edit#Quote:
As military veterans, we have worn the uniform proudly, representing hundreds of years of collective experience and all five branches of the military. We have served Commanders-in-Chief of both parties on whose orders some of us have deployed into battle. We have all served our country; some of us have bled, while all of us recall friends who made the ultimate sacrifice.
For many of us, it is not often that we inject our voices into the national dialogue, but this is a moment that demands it. That is because we consider President Trump's sustained attacks on an active duty Army officer, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, to be an affront to the Constitution that we have all sworn to uphold. We are speaking out precisely because neither LTC Vindman nor his fellow active-duty service members can.
The President's actions and insults towards LTC Vindman are not only wrong, they carry dangerous implications. The dismissal of LTC Vindman and his brother, also an Army Lieutenant Colonel, from the National Security Council staff appears to be motivated by nothing more than political retribution and deprives the White House of expertise necessary to defend our collective national security. The manner of these dismissals suggests that the Commander-in-Chief has prioritized a personal vendetta over our national security.
The President's slander of LTC Vindman, moreover, further undermines military discipline and public trust in an institution for which there are few more precious commodities. The President's attacks and suggestion that the Defense Department should investigate him take aim at the long-standing military code of conduct that demands that service members report wrongdoing and illegal acts through proper channels. LTC Vindman did just this. That these attacks come on the heels of President Trump's pardoning of and campaigning with war criminals, his public threats of war crimes, and his minimization of Traumatic Brain Injury, a debilitating scourge on so many veterans, only compounds the implications.
President Trump believes that he can assail LTC Vindman with impunity, knowing that the latter is, by law, barred from speaking out. The President should know, however, that, despite taking aim at one Army officer, he has targeted anyone who currently wears or has worn the uniform. Our service members and veterans deserve the confidence of knowing that our elected leaders will come to their defense, just as they remain vigilant for ours.
LTC Vindman and all of his colleagues should know that we stand with them even when their Commander-in-Chief does not. For all of us, right still matters, just as we know it does for them, too.
Signatories as of February 19
(If you are a military veteran and wish to add your name to this statement, you may do so here.)
Over 1,100 signatories so far.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/02/18/veterans-coalition-condemns-trumps-continued-attacks-on-army-officer-who-testified-against-him/Quote:
The effort, organized by the anti-Trump group National Security Action, includes signatures from prominent figures such as former U.S. Army Europe Commander Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, former Under Secretary of Defense Frank Kendall and former Connecticut Army Reserve Brig. Gen. Shepard Stone.
It also features a host of veterans activists connected to both the Truman National Security Project and Common Defense, whose leaders said their goal is to protect military members from harassment and abuse from the White House.
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.
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.
“It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. It merely required no character.”
Joseph Heller, Catch 22
Joseph Heller, Catch 22
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.
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.politico.com/news/2020/02/13/john-kelly-defends-vindman-114801
John Kelly defends Vindman: 'He did exactly what we teach them to do'
John Kelly defends Vindman: 'He did exactly what we teach them to do'
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.
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.
Maroon and White always!
EKU/TAMU
Where in the text I if the phone call did Trump ask for said political favor? And don't quote me the Schiff version.
Maroon and White always!
EKU/TAMU
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.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.
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.
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?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.
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 ******.
“It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. It merely required no character.”
Joseph Heller, Catch 22
Joseph Heller, Catch 22
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.japantiger said: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?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.
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 ******.
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.
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."artty said:
There is no evidence whatsoever that Vindman was leaking.
He implicated himself in House testimony.artty said:
There is no evidence whatsoever that Vindman was leaking.
“It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. It merely required no character.”
Joseph Heller, Catch 22
Joseph Heller, Catch 22
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.Quote: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:
There is no evidence whatsoever that Vindman was leaking.
Did he follow proper protocol to share this information? Sounds like you are familiar with this world. As am I.
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.
Obviously Trump didn't break the law because Biden admitted to doing what Trump is accused of doing with Ukraine74OA said:
Did he listen in during Trump's Ukraine phone call as part of his job? Yes.
Did he inform his military chain of command about his concern that Trump broke the law during the call? Yes.
Did his chain take any action? No.
Did he only then inform Congress? Yes.
Did Congress issue a subpoena that he was lawfully bound to obey? Yes.
Did he testify truthfully? Yes.
Does he stand to gain professionally or personally from testifying? No.
Is an officer's oath to defend the Constitution or Donald Trump? ????.
So Vindman didn't tell these folks to check up their chains of command, didn't tell them to go read the transcript, didn't get approval from his command to bring others into the fold, acted outside of his command's direction, and he just figured he'd pass his version of the a peice of the message along to a random underling and an Obama holdover who was probably already letting the shady "Biden thing" slip due to his post and apparent lack of action on the matter?artty said: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.Quote: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:
There is no evidence whatsoever that Vindman was leaking.
If one honestly reviews the audience and the delivery option Vindman opted for - about the best a person could say is that he displayed poor judgement by interjecting himself unnecessary and gossipping about a potential political concern that was not also a military concern.
Featured Stories
See All
Any direct path to Atlanta for Texas A&M goes through South Carolina
by Olin Buchanan
42:43
18h ago
4.8k
5:17
12h ago
2.4k
6:21
15h ago
2.1k
Key Matchups: No. 10 Texas A&M at South Carolina
by Olin Buchanan
EastTX_Aggie
A&M & t.u. Still Working 5-Star OU Commit Michael Fasusi
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
14