Double, Double, Toil and Trouble….
Lt. Col. VIndman was set to testify in the House’s Secret Squirrel goings-on, until a group or Republicans stormed into the Secret Squirrel hearings by the Democrats and demanded an open hearing.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/467216-gop-protest-overshadows-impeachment-hearing
I do not know exactly what is going on with this nonsense, other than the Democrats feeding their worthless egos and thinking they have control of anything, when they can’t even control their own bowel movements, never mind the rest of their sordid crapweasel stuff. But The Pot is bubbling and boiling and there is a scent in the air that was not there before. And we all know that there is a witch or two in Congress….
I hope it boils over. The timing on this is so odd…. So very, very odd…. It’s as if the Democrats are huddling together to hide something, isn’t it?
I don’t usually quote anything from the Scottish play, because it’s supposed to be bad luck to even mention it by name during a production, but in this case, and because All Hallows Eve or Samhain or Hallowe’en (take your pick) is next door, and you’re not supposed to open the door in this time period when someone pounds on it, it was such significant timing that I see no reason to not quote the Scottish play, just this once. And these lines are about ambition, a fitting subject.
Macbeth is fascinated by the prospects of being the most powerful man in all of Scotland. He wonders how the throne will come to him. He sees the prospects of doing an evil deed to get it:
My thought, whose murder yet is but fantastical,
Shakes so my single state of man that function
Is smother’d in surmise. (Act 1, Scene 3)
I have no spur to prick the sides of my intent, but only
Vaulting ambition, which o’erleaps itself
And falls on the other. Act 1, Sc. 7
Happy Hallowe’en. Don’t open the door unless you know who is knocking.
Category: "The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves"
Obama holdover saying Orange Man bad.
Film at 11.
For some reason he inspires me to quote R. Lee Ermey:
What NHSparky said, I wonder how soon this too will turn into yet another jumbo nothingburger?
When’s the last time the LTC passed a PT test?
My understanding is that he’s retired.
That being said, trot him out in a uniform so that anyone who dares criticize him gets flamed for picking on veterans. Yeah, that wasn’t a coincidence.
Don’t think so Sparky. My understanding he was detailed to the NSC in his alternate MOS. NSC doesn’t wear uniforms. I haven’t seen a (RET) behind his name. But, you may be right and I’ll owe you an adult beverage.
He’s being reported everywhere as being on AD, detailed to NSC.
That said, wearing his uniform to a sh1tshow on national TV isn’t the smartest move he ever made.
Whatever has lardass career can handle…
Odds are pretty good he has reached his terminal rank. Probably gonna be non select for O6. Regardless of politics, Big Army doesn’t like to look like they’re involved in partisan political issues.
He’s still on active duty – and, per his own testimony, sees this as a national security issue, and felt honor-bound to testify truthfully.
Whoops, that was to be in reply to NHSparky above.
To testify he heard what? The transcript has been released. At that point all “whistle blowers” and others that have an “inside track” on what was said become irrelevant, yes? What is gained by trotting them in front of a panel of Democrats to hear their interpretation of what was said? Their ability to mind read the President is not something that anyone should care about – unless they have getting rid of Trump as their ultimate goal.
The only purpose is to confuse and/or obfuscate. Nothing else.
The current mission of the left is the same as it has always been. The methods remain basically the same because they have worked in the past. They are not as effective as they once were because more Americans have realized that instead of being a few annoying gnats, the left has grown into something very deadly that will not be sated until the country is destroyed.
Unfortunately, this likely will become even uglier before it is over.
Except that, according to Vindman’s testimony, the release of the ‘transcript’ was the thing designed to confuse and/or obfuscate, since it a) wasn’t an actual transcript, and b) omitted stuff like the President specifically mentioning Biden.
In this case, you can keep blaming the Left… or you can look at the facts. Right now, given that Vindman’s testimony lines up with Taylor’s (though stand in opposition to Sondland’s), it doesn’t look good for the administration.
There’s kind of a problem with the facts right now. Schiff only releases what is helpful to him, leaving everyone in the dark when it comes to facts. We’re not getting facts, only what Schiff deems factual.
Shiff has repeatedly blocked the R’s on his committee from asking questions. He is running his “hearings” like the he is head of the old KGB. I am waiting for the show trial after the vote.
Actually, at this point, I’d say that at best we now have a “he said-he said” situation. While the left obviously gives more weight to Vindmans statements than to those of the President, and objective court of law would likely weight them the same.
Schiffs refusal to allow questions following up on his statement that on multiple occasions he voiced his concerns, to determine WHO he voiced them to is problematic, for a number of reasons, such as why didn’t those superiors act on the information, and if they were not his superiors, were they cleared to receive such information. In addition, SFC points out below that there are many issues with the dictatorial manner in which Schiff is conducting his interviews. At this point i’d say that it doesn’t look good for We the People.. if what the left says is true, we have a President that needs to be removed. If the appearances of underhanded dealings by the left are true, we have an entire political party, aided and abetted by a willing media and deep state bureaucrats that are working to engineer a coup against a duly elected President. Neither of these bodes well for the future of our Republic.
Naturally, I’ll disagree – if it were just Vindman, sure, but now he and Taylor have told the same story, with the only testimony opposing that being Sondland’s. Now, by the math, it’s 2-1, and your mileage may vary, but I’m inclined to give more credit to a career Army officer who followed proper protocols and a life-long government servant with an impeccable record over a guy who donated a lot of money to get his job – one he has no experience in.
I don’t have to agree with Schiff’s way of running this, but that’s going to go away as early as tomorrow, assuming the Democrats have the votes. Taylor has said he’s happy to testify publicly. Let’s not confuse one’s frustration with how the Democrats are running this with the news that’s coming out of the hearings.
I’m not sure what underhanded dealings of the Left you’re referring to (not that I think the Left is above that, mind you), but I don’t think anything has risen to the level of, oh, holding off military aid to Ukraine until they do target a President’s political rival. Holding private hearings was all the rage back during the many Benghazi hearings – it’s those laws that the Republicans put in place in 2015 that gives them the power they’re now using. And that flaming liberal Trey Gowdy agrees that this is the way to do it.
I’m sure we’ll learn more as the days go on. Skippy refers to some less-than-savory things about Vindman, and every day has brought new revelations. So let’s see what happens. Tomorrow is a big vote.
LC,
You’re right that tomorrow could be a big day. As to the private hearings, that’s one thing, but the constant leaks, and not allowing witnesses to answer questions posed by Republican members, are the underhanded dealings I was referring to, and what makes them different from Benghazi (though i do recall the “what difference does it make” being an open hearing. Also, the fact that Schiffs office worked point and helped write the the “whistleblower”s complaint.
To the comment ” Let’s not confuse one’s frustration with how the Democrats are running this with the news that’s coming out of the hearings.”, if they were actually closed hearings, NOTHING should be coming out of them yet.. hence the underhanded leaking of information that cannot be verified. Which also leads to trusting that Vindman DID in fact follow protocols, since the Republicans were not allowed to ask who he told.
Lastly, by my math it would be 3-2, since in addition to Sondland, we also have the statements and transcript from President Trump, as well as the statement by the President of Ukraine.
I agree that if what Skippy suggests is accurate, that could change the whole face of things, and the LTC’s brother being a Ukrainian agent is something that should be looked into as well.
Well, I guess the ‘leak’ things works both ways here – look, if Republicans were stopped from asking valid questions, I agree that’s not so good (even if within the rights of the Democrats running things). But the fact that you’re hearing that means they’re … leaking that from private hearings, no? And the Democrats claim that the Republicans were asking questions to identify the whistle-blower, not that he or she really even matters now.
And yes, that Clinton hearing was public, but not all the Benghazi hearings were. Just as we’re soon to get some public hearings here, too, though not all of them will have been. These are, quite literally, the rules the Republicans put into place, the Democrats are simply abiding by them. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but as I said, Trey Gowdy (R) does, as he thinks it’s a better way of getting the facts.
And I’m keeping the math at 2-1, since it’s testimony, under oath. Trump constantly lies, and Zelensky has a vested interest in downplaying things, given they need good relations with the current administration. Neither of them were under oath and thus subject to perjury charges – recall that that’s what got Clinton impeached, not the other stuff.
You do make fair points, and we will have to see how things play out. small point, the Benghazi hearings were not an impeachment, and we’ll have to agree to disagree about the President lying. As to the “under oath”, are these witnesses? (honest question, I don’t know, though Hillary was NOT during Benghazi hearings)
Would it have mattered if she was under oath? She’s clearly above the law and has no qualms about lying bold faced through her teeth.
1. a single party “impeachment” process is a soviet kangaroo process.
2. The stories don’t line up with the facts OR the timeline.
3. The transcript is a transcript and wishful thinking doesn’t change that…or are you accusing EVERYONE who works in WHCA of being an agent of Trump?
4. This is all a political scheme to change an outcome the left doesn’t like. It is morally bankrupt and politically stupid.
5. Trump isn’t in trouble. But someone is. His name is Brennan.
They’re calling it a president seeking information against a political rival. I call it a president looking for criminal activity from an American citizen and his son. It was a legitimate question to them and current information lends credence to possible criminal activity.
Strangely, he is the first and only witness so far to mention a) and b). It sure would be useful for the prosecution to get the names of those other actual “listeners” who chatted about that classified information with the original “whistleblower”. Seems to me Schiff would be foaming at the mouth to get him to testify and name his sources.
He’s the first one we heard from that said that, yes. But not all the facts are out there yet – let’s see what develops.
We are already a long ways from the whole ‘no quid pro quo!’ rants, though. In my experience, when the goalposts keep moving, it’s not a good sign.
LC,
Here’s a question, to which I honestly don’t have the answer. How can we determine if a quid pro quo, or any of the rest of the conversation is “inappropriate or unprecedented”, to use language I’ve heard from the left, when this is the only transcript of a conversation between a President and a leader of a foreign nation that we’ve ever seen? If, as I suggested to Commissar, we were to get the transcripts of phone calls between Obama and Iran, or Obama and Russia after his “more flexibility” comment, or maybe FDR and Stalin, wouldn’t we have something to compare this one to, and determine if those adjectives are appropriate?
Let me give you my perspective – and I’ll remind you that I’m not a Democrat, nor do I identify with the ‘Left’. So I can’t speak for them. I think it’s inappropriate for a President to ask for a foreign country to conduct investigations into a political rival, doubly so without any evidence to that effect. The only evidence I’ve seen comes from the prosecutor who Biden bragged about getting fired – even though he wasn’t fired when Biden was there (Biden fibbed), and it wasn’t a personal mission – the US, EU and IMF all wanted the guy gone. There’s no corroborating evidence of anything there – and other Ukrainian prosecutors have said the investigation into Burisma was already over. Add on top of that this ‘secondary’ State Department that’s Rudy Giuliani, in essence, and things start to stink. The message seems to be, “Find some evidence against my political opponent, or I’m holding up this aid..”. Don’t believe me? The Trump administration was already told there was no evidence of wrong-doing, yet they persisted in this agenda. On top of that, the funds for Ukraine had already been approved by Congress. So let me reverse it – do you think that is appropriate? That POTUS should be able to leverage US foreign policy for personal vendettas? Or do you feel Trump was truly targeting corruption, and by some small coincidence, it just so happened to be the only possible corrupt people he mentioned are the family of his chief political rival? And when Warren was rising, he says China should investigate Biden and Warren! Amazing! The two top targets for corruption happen to be the two people he might be running against? What are the chances? As for Obama, I’d love to hear what those words meant too. I can’t say that was nothing, and conservatives certainly made a big deal out of it then, so why the double standard now? But I’ll point out nobody, let alone multiple people, filed whistle-blower complaints or raised issues with Congress. So I’m inclined to think it was less severe… Read more »
LC, Thanks for the reply. I’d say my opinions on the whole situation are much more complicated than just supporting the president. If it is truly just a political vendetta, then I’m against it, hence the reason i’m against impeachment, since the dems were talking about it BEFORE the election, so in my opinion, this whole thing is exactly that, nothing more than “orange man bad”. Since the Mueller report didn’t get them what they wanted, they moved on to plan B, or whatever they’re up to now. There’s plenty of evidence that “cloudstrike” came from Ukraine, and was part of the hillary clinton bought and paid for Steele Dossier, so investigating that is completely appropriate. I agree that no concerns were raised by people in Obama’s inner circle, but I believe there are at least two reasons for this. Anyone that raised any concern about him was immediately attacked and labeled a racist, and he replaced virtually everyone when he took office ( something President Trump SHOULD have done, to remove all these committed leftists). I truly believe that if honest and open hearings are held by the senate, much more damaging information will come out about them dems than the President .. Pelosi’s Chinese agent driver, the Lawfare operatives hired by her, Schiff, and Nadler, Bidens actions, those of Clinton, the Steels Dossier, Strozk, Comey, Brennan, etc… Obviously we disagree on this, but that fact that illegal surveillance of a presidential candidate was what Obama / Clinton did to Trump in 2015, and this whle impeachment / “Contingency” plan was started even before the election was over, so yes, I believe that this whole thing is a corrupt “soft” coup, and that the democrats are terrible wanna be dictators. I do not think that the President is a saint by any means, but I also doubt that the people telling the President that there was no wrong doing were telling him the truth. As for it being coincidence that he was looking into corruption by Biden and Warren, you seem to be saying that because they are running… Read more »
I don’t have time to respond in detail, but having a bit of knowledge about computer security, I’ll tackle this angle:
Where is this evidence? It’s “CrowdStrike”, not Cloudstrike, and it’s a US company founded by two American citizens (one born in Russia) and it’s a highly-respected cybersecurity firm that was contracted to do the investigation into the DNC hack. There’s no real evidence suggesting otherwise, and plenty of evidence -including various convictions of Russians per the Mueller report- of Russia’s involvement in that hack. This is also the consensus of even Trump’s DNI.
Once again, I can dislike Obama telling Putin he’d have more room after elections, I can detest Warren getting preferential treatment for claiming native heritage, and I can absolutely loathe Biden’s son making tons of money because his name lends credit to a company, even if nothing shady went on. I can dislike tons of things about the Democrats, but that doesn’t mean I can make up additional things against them.
And no, I’d have been fine with an investigation into Biden’s son had it been done because some evidence was found, and initiated via the proper channels. I don’t like the Dems either; I’m just not entitled to changing the facts of thee things based on my likes and dislikes.
Sorry, it’s been a long day, I misspoke saying cloudstrike rather than Crowdstrike.. And I agree, we don’t need to make things up against the Dems, they’re shady enough without that. Fair hearings in the senate would expose much of that. Hopefully we’ll get that.
“… that was contracted to do the investigation into the DNC hack.”
Contracted by who? I believe much, if not all, the fuss is because the FBI did not do its own investigation and was never able to examine the computer.
“-including various convictions of Russians per the Mueller report-”
I was under the impression that although Mueller indicted a number of Russian entities there have been no trials. The last I read only one company (Concord something?) even bothered to respond to the indictment, and the Mueller team scrambled as fast as they could in order to avoid discovery.
He was a officer from one of my old units
Not very well like because he has a issue
With sticking his nose up the drown hole
In fact our group
Has been talking about his theatrical performance yesterday and people are not shocked to hear that it’s him
There is more to come out about him
And none of it is good
I agree I seen that mug some where in GO Briefings! Just can get that finger on it yet! The say he has a Brother? Twin
That aside I think any officer back dooring the CIC should hang it up! Every rock he has been under will get a look!
Bet he likes the Magic Finger exam…
It certainly is a national security issue. All those highly placed folks gossiping about their opinions of a classified phone call between two heads of state. At the very least they should all lose their security clearances.
” felt honor-bound to testify truthfully”
About HIS INTERPRETATION of a classified communication.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but he didn’t gossip, he talked to his brother (a lawyer on the NSC team), and they went and brought it up to Eisenberg, the top NSC lawyer.
And he heard the conversation. It’s his interpretation much the same way as if I say, “Hi, I’m LC”, and you say I’m LC, I can just sat that’s your interpretation. He was on the call. He heard the words. You want to argue semantics in how he interpreted those words, go nuts.. but that seems a stretch.
Was he authorized to talk to his brother and disclose classified information? And what of the original “whistleblower’, who did not hear the words but claimed to have discussed the phone call with a number of other unknown people.
Gossip—-
“casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true.”
I’d say it fits.
I’m not on the NSC team, so I can’t answer for certain, but I’d guess that if someone on the NSC had an ethics question, the first person they talk to is an NSC lawyer who deals with ethics – which is exactly what his brother does.
So, almost certainly, yes.
The original whistle-blower hardly matters now, no? You want to argue that was gossip, fine, go crazy. But now first-hand accounts have backed up the whistle-blower’s account – he or she no longer matters.
If a cop hears a rumor -gossip, if you wish!- that Bobby is selling drugs, and they start asking around, and other people with first-hand knowledge confirm it, Bobby can’t just get everything waved away by saying the police only got turned on to him because of ‘gossip’. At a certain point, first-hand evidence takes over.
That’s true, but we’re talking classified information, so whoever passed that information to the whistleblower is guilty of criminal conduct if said whistleblower was not cleared for that info, or if whoever passed it was not cleared to share it, so in that respect, who they are, and where they got there info is VERY important… as to the impeachment circus, you’re right, probably not so much, but it still doesn’t mean that crimes involving that nfo should be ignored ( kinda like hillary and her illegal server)
“The original whistle-blower hardly matters now, no…”
Not if you don’t care about who is sharing classified information with unknown, possibly unauthorized people.
“But now first-hand accounts”
Plural? Who? And how many opposing first-hand accounts?
How about if Bobby has been accused of uttering terroristic threats on a phone call and there are witnesses to the same incident who say he didn’t, including both caller and callee?
This is not gossip, this is how the system works. You are acting like Vindman was in the other room surreptitiously listening on the extension with his hand over the mouthpiece. That is not at all what is happening here. Vindman was on the call for the express purpose of giving his opinion on phone calls between two heads of state. It was his job. (I certainly hope nothing classified was discussed, by the way. That would be an entirely different problem set since the President of Ukraine does not have a US clearance, and the line to his office would be insecure.) The whole system is designed to help the president maintain and execute consistent policy. Before a call like this there is an intense preparation effort to recommend what should be said, what issues to raise, and how to raise them, all based on the president’s policy guidance. The NSC principals and designated SMEs (VIndman was probably one of these) then have a prep session with the president to make sure he has the talking points he wants, and to anticipate any issues that may come up and how to respond. During the call the NSC details staff members to listen in and prepare notes, which they then compare. They do this to ensure that any tasks, promises, policy statements, agreements, etc. are recorded and disseminated amongst the entire staff. The staff has to ensure that all of the above are captured in speeches, documents, testimony, press releases, draft legislation, etc. This happens every time the president has an ‘on the record’ conversation with anyone, which essentially means any time he talks to a foreign head of state. This is to ensure that any guarantees the president makes are executed, he is consistent in his external dealings, and to keep him out of legal trouble. Imagine if he promised him extra Javelin missiles but no one followed through, or if he promised to do something else that he promised Germany that he wouldn’t do. This is complex stuff, the staff is there to help him manage it all.… Read more »
“(I certainly hope nothing classified was discussed, by the way”
You don’t think conversations between heads of state are classified?
“Vindman was on the call for the express purpose of giving his opinion”
Yep, as I said, it is his opinion.
” details staff members to listen in and prepare notes, which they then compare.”
Yep, which resulted in the transcript released to the public.
” Imagine if he promised him extra Javelin missiles but no one followed through”
That’s the theory, anyway. A while back he instructed his subordinates to prepare to withdraw from Syria. Did they? There seems to be a fair amount of “lack of followthrough” in our bureaucracy these days.
” It is not gossip”
It is when you discuss it outside the group authorized to discuss it and if you did not hear the actual conversation yourself.
Not in the way you imply. I doubt that the President of Ukraine has a US Secret STU or SVOIP phone on his desk. We have no way of guaranteeing that the Ukrainians did not record the call or make their own transcript and print it in their newspapers.
Right. You characterized it as gossip and implied that it was improper, when in fact it is (or was at the time) his job.
Part of Vindman’s testimony is that key words were left out of the transcript, which alarmed him because a) he believed the president’s actions were improper, and b) distributing an incomplete transcript to the rest of the staff would result in a flawed understanding of what was said among the NSC, which would lead to flawed and inconsistent policy.
Who knows what happened after the initial tweet on Syria? Maybe Esper ran in and convinced him to rescind the order. We know that Keane came in and showed him a map. Fox News reported that the president went off script during his call with Ergodan, which resulted in the pullout order: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-phone-call-erdogan-turkey-syria, which reinforces the wisdom
Vindman did hear the conversation himself. We covered this. It was part of his job, he was in a room with a group of NSC and other White House Staff there specifically to listen to the conversation and take notes. did not discuss anything outside of the group authorized to discuss it. He discussed it with other NSC staffers, then with the NSC legal team, then took it to the Congressional Committee charged with oversight of such matters. By definition, not gossip.
Vindman may be wrong, but he came across the information in the course of his duty, and since he is convinced there was wrongdoing, it is his duty to report it. He acted properly and within channels to do so. The congress gets to decide if it has any merit.
Now, if we find out that Vindman acted improperly on behalf of a foreign government or a political party, I am all for throwing the book at him.
Seems to me that he is there to offer his opinion, and that the CIC can say “thank you very much, now fuck off” or somthing to that effect. As a Fire department officer, if one of my firefighters comes to me with their opinion, I will listen to it, assess it, and decide if it should change my actions / opinions, but in the end, it is MY decision, not theirs, and by virtue of my position, I have every right to tell them they’re wrong, and my decision will stand. That’s the way I see this, and the fact that a LTC thinks his opinion carries more weight that that of the President just strikes me as him being a whiny little bitch…regardless if he is more experienced, etc, rank trumps.. as you pointed out in another thread, Chief Gallagher had a duty to follow lawful orders, no matter how stupid they were, or he felt they were. You were correct in that assertion, and should apply the same logic to this situation.
One of the reports coming out of the testimony is that part of the problem is Trump didn’t even know who Vindman was. Why? Because some unqualified guy convinced the President that he was the expert, and Bolton and Hill didn’t want to ‘confuse’ POTUS. Really, this is a wild read:
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/10/30/nunes-acolyte-misrepresented-himself-to-trump-as-ukraine-expert-061763
Definitely in the ‘unconfirmed’ area for now, but wild. And in a day and age when the official White House statement on John Kelly is that he ‘was totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great President’, I think anything is possible. That’s a North Korea-like statement, in my opinion:
https://www.businessinsider.com/john-kelly-trump-white-house-genius-2019-10
IMHO, it is, much of the time, hard to determine if some of the Presidents statements are his actual beliefs, or simply hyperbole / trolling to enrage the left. without question, they accomplish the second, the only question is what is the basis of those comments. I wish I could say with certainty.. He no doubt has inflated opinion of himself (not unusual among politicians), but he also knows or seems to know how to play his enemies… no doubt those who hate him believe that he’s a narcissist, and “North Korea like” as you state..The extreme on the other side claims he’s playing 4 dimensional chess against opponents playing checkers.. for me, I believe the truth lies somewhere in between.. If you’ll recall, claiming a Republican is an idiot is stock in trade for the left, such as Bush vs. Gore, regardless of the fact that President Bush’s grades were significantly better than Al Gores…I can recall such comments about every Republican candidate or President since Reagan..(when I was old enough to pay attention).. Funny how they’d attack Bush Jr’s misstatements as stupidity, but are quick to explain away Obama’s “58 states”, or Bidens innumerable gaffes…
After reading your first link, I agree that this is something that should be investigated, and if true, would be concerning (though not grounds for impeachment)., right now, we have Vindmans claims, I’d like all the facts before making a decision.
” Because some unqualified guy convinced the President that he was the expert,”
Did Trump post a job opening, go through the resumes, interview the candidates, and hire Patel? I think, rather, that he was presented to Trump as an expert by someone on the NSC who hired him. Oddly enough Vindman was told this by the senior director for European and Russian affairs on the NSC.
” Vindman also testified that he was told…”
There seems to be a lot of that “I don’t know but I was told” stuff going around these days. Some of us call it gossip. I learned many years ago to discount anything preceded by “I was told…”.
“The White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, told reporters Saturday that former chief of staff John Kelly “was totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great president.”
Bullshit. The remark may have been made by a White House official, but I doubt it was *The* “official White House statement”. Show me some actual evidence. Up to this I didn’t think you were stupid or particularly ignorant, but this remark is starting to change my mind.
“Part of Vindman’s testimony is that key words were left out of the transcript”
That certainly differs from other testimony, including the four who prepared the official transcript. So, as far as I can tell, it’s Vindman’s *opinion* that key words were left out.Key sentences actually. At least, because words, even “keywords”, without a context are gibberish. At least four disagree with Vindman. Are they lying?
“Vindman did hear the conversation himself.”
I never said he didn’t.
” [Vindman} did not discuss anything outside of the group authorized to discuss it.”
And you know this because…? Somebody discussed it with the whistleblower, and I doubt he was part of that group.
It’s still just a he-said-she-said case until someone can produce a verbatim transcript of the call.
Can someone please explain how this f*cktard earned ranger tabs,and also what the other ribbons signify perhaps?
Most of his stuff are pretty standard awards, the only thing I see which makes me raise an eyebrow is that he has a GWOT expeditionary medal instead of a theater specific campaign medal (Iraq or Afghanistan). Usually you get that for Kuwait or Qatar (or someplace where it isn’t so actively shooty). He has a CIB which means he had to be somewhere personally under fire, and he would have qualified for either an Iraq or Afghanistan campaign medal for that action, so it’s curious (though not really wrong) that he doesn’t wear either one.
There is a Purple Heart. I read he caught an IED but no mention of how bad he was hit. In Viet of the Nam I saw guys get them for running into stuff during a mortar attack. Pissed me off that they did get one for scratches when grunts on patrols were getting tore up.
I had a small sliver in the
back of my hand from a mortar attack. My company medic removed it and gave me a bandaid. No PH’s were awarded cuz there were no WIA’s reported.
I’ll bet he was whackin’ in the latrine when it got blown over.
just lurkin:
He served in Iraq from September 2004 to POSSIBLY September 2005. He was wounded in October 2004, so don’t know if he stayed in Iraq or in the AO (for example, Kuwait).
Reference the GWOT Medal.
“The Iraq Campaign Medal replaced the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal (GWOT-EM) for service in Iraq from 19 March 2003, through 30 April 2005. Personnel who previously received the GWOT-EM for Iraq service were given the option to exchange the medal for the Iraq Campaign Medal. The medals were not authorized for the same period of service in Iraq, and any Iraq service which followed the Iraq Campaign Medal’s creation was recognized only with the ICM.”
It looks as if he chose to wear the GWOT Medal versus the Iraqi Campaign Medal.
He has a Purple Heart, which means he did serve in Iraq as stated. Not sure how long he stayed in Iraq.
There is a clause in the reg that says that all you need for a “theater specific” campaign medal is to have been “actively engaged by the enemy” (I once used this to get a troop an ICM who didn’t otherwise meet the time requirements). So he ought to qualify for an ICM just for the IED attack irrespective of how long he was in Iraq. He can choose not to wear it, but it seems a little odd (no campaign stars on GWOTEM for instance, where he could wear at least one for an ICM) Ironically they were rejecting some CIBs and CMBs early in the war because IEDs were not considered “direct fire” but rather “indirect fire” (trust me on this an ALARACT was issued in 2008 where they altered the reg to make IEDs direct fire attacks, I know because we had to use that to appeal a decision on some awards for troops when I was in an ACR in 2004-05).
Just Lurkin:
Again, it looks as if he was in Iraq in September 2004, was wounded in October 2004 and stayed in the AO until September 2005.
Most likely, he chose to wear the GWOTEM versus the ICM.
A Soldier cannot wear both for the same Campaign.
We all have our reasons as to why we choose one Medal over the other.
Thanks just lurkin
“Most of his stuff are pretty standard awards”
And yet CNN have described him as an incredibly decorated officer. Yeah I know, CNN…but still…
I would love to see a FOIA on his lard-ass
His FOIA will most likely show that all of his Awards/Decorations are Legit.
The News Media depicted him as “incredibly decorated Officer.”
I seriously doubt the depicted himself that way.
They are no doubt using a civilian definition of “decorate”—
1.
“make (something) look more attractive by adding extra items or images to it.
Similar:
ornament
adorn
trim
embellish
garnish
furnish ”
I think “incredibly embellished” would also be a good fit, here.
Maybe a mortar round hit next to his FOB and shut off the power to his laptop. Every officer with an Infantry MOS gets a CIB.
It has been my standard practice for a number of decades to downgrade every decoration won by a company grade officer by one level, e.g. silver star to bronze star, field grade and up by at least two levels. Over the years I have seen no reason to alter my procedure .
The ACM and ICM weren’t instituted until 2005. Those who deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq prior to mid-2005 received the GWOTEM. Ater the ACM and ICM were created, recipients of the ACM and ICM for early tours in Iraq and Afghanistan were allowed to EITHER (a) keep the GWOTEM for the previous tour, or (b) exchange it for the appropriate campaign medal. Many early recipients elected to keep the GWOTEM.
I found it odd he’s wearing infantry rifles and blue trim if he’s in an intel assignment.
As for the awards and decs;
PH for being hit by an IED from Iraq (which is presumably where he earned the CIB). That he doesn’t have the Iraq campaign medal is interesting, but he is wearing the GWOT expeditionary medal, which was issued before there were dedicated Iraq and Afghan campaign medals.
In with his Army unit awards he’s got a Navy Unit Commendation and what might be an Air Force Meritorious Unit Award (but the colors don’t look quite right for that).
Mason,
He wears Cross-Rifled and the Blue Cord because he IS Infantry.
He became a Foreign Area Officer (FAO) in the US Army. That is considered a Functional Area in the US Army that are given to Officers after they reach O3/CPT if they choose.
Being a FAO has nothing to do with the Intel Community.
One can be an Infantry Officer and have a Functional Area such as a Contracting Officer. The Infantry Officer STILL wears his Branch, INFANTRY even though they may end up working as a Contracting Officer for the rest of their Military Career. Field Artillery Officers fall into the same arena as well as Armor Officers.
I filled a FAO slot in one of my SF units. FAO is a specialty for any branch. One becomes a specialist in that region of the world, including attending language school. FAO’s are assigned to SF Groups according to which regions/countries the Group is tasked with working within. I would bet Vindman’s area of specialty area includes most of the old Soviet Union, including Ukraine, and he speaks Russian, via DLI. I have also heard he has Russian relatives.
From what I’ve dread he was born to Ukrainian Jewish parents in 1976 and emigrated to the US with them in 1979. So he doubtless knows Russian and Ukrainian, which are about as close as Texan and NewYorkese. I read he completed his tour after his wound, suggesting it was not terribly serious. PH and no Bronze Star? Sounds like another Kerry wound.
Copy that. I’m not Army, so it just looked weird to me.
Whizzbang,
He earned his RANGER Tab by completing RANGER School.
Thx ninja for the correction
Ain’t from these parts – way across the Atlantic, but still get a huge burr up my ass when I get a whiff of bullshit.
Something about this dude just doesn’t ring true.
Whizbang:
You are so welcome. Commend you for your honesty.
His awards/decoratios/qualification badges/tabs are all legit.
I speak from experience.
😉😊
Whizzbang,
ninja is one of ‘my’ ninjas, and she can fly with me any time. Stick around, they’re rather a lot of like-minded people here, whiff-of-bullshit wise.
In which case ninja I apologize ma’am, for using colorful language.
Thanks for your comments!
Whizzbag, no need for apologies. You did nothing wrong.
Keep those comments coming! Always refreshing to read other folks viewpoints and perspecives.
To AW1Ed: *grin*
😉😊
I think this dude is in trouble. No one cares what a LTC thinks of the President’s foreign policy. I hope he is looked at under the UCMJ once this is over. The Military should remain non-political. Add in the reports that he was assisting the Ukrainian government in dealing with Rudi Julianne and now we have big issues. I measly LCT doesn’t mean much up there. This is purely a political stunt
Tell LTC Oliver North that one little measly LTC on the NSC doesn’t mean much.
Ollie followed the orders of his CinC, and fell on his sword.
SFC D no doubt about Ollie falling on his sword. Assignments to the NSC (and other committees/boards/organizations) can sometimes have members making decisions or providing key input on issues that on the surface appear echelons above their pay grade. I’d be surprised to find that LTC Vindman operated outside of the left and right limits set by his superiors on the NSC.
How soon will Democrats complain this LtCol is being treated unfairly?
Not saying they’re branding him a military hero yet, since he hasn’t shown himself to be worthy of that accolade like Bradley Manning and Bowe Bergdahl did. /sarc off/
They already have, because some Republicans have questioned his loyalty.
Sir Adam Shiff, the liar of SCIFville.
Shiff is nothing less than a lying pisspants political SLUT.
To All:
Not defending the LTC, but his Awards/Decorations are all LEGIT.
He is still on Active Duty.
He has only been on Active Duty since 1999. He most likely may be chosen to go to War College in either PA or DC and from then on, he may end up being selected to be a Full Bird Colonel, still working in his Functional Area, Foreign Area Officer (FAO).
What is a FAO for those who are not familiar with FAOs:
http://www.faoa.org/FAO-What-is-a-FAO
Not if he gets knocked around for his foreign escapades for which any of the rest of us might find ourselves separated from the service. Or jailed.
True, OWB.
I guess time will tell.
Am speculating he went thru his Military Chain of Command on this situation.
Again, not defending the LTC. Am a Trump Supporter. Can’t stand Adam Schiff.
Would be nice if Schiff for brains allowed the LTC to answer the questions of who he reported his concerns to.. that might shed some light on the situation ( I know, I know, not something the dims will allow if they can get away with it)
An LTC should have a few more….
His career is over.
As it should be.
Or he’ll be promoted to COL with an special duty assignment to teach Military Ethics at West Point.
Heh. Had a BDE commander that got a DUI as a COL. From the outside looking in, he got away with a slap on the wrist. He later retired, still a COL, after serving as West Point Chief of Staff. He easily had at least two stars in his future.
Insh’Allah, bitch!
Like the Air Force Capt. at the Academy that just pleaded guilty to kidde porn??
There is nothing sketchy about what dems are doing. They are using rules passed by a Republican majority.
Also, there are 47 republicans on these committees who are participating in these inquiries and are given equal time to questions witnesses and equal staff to prepare. Including more than a dozen of the GOP reps who staged that frat boy pizza raid on the SCIF
This phase of an impeachment inquiry is not the trial phase. The trial phase, in the senate, will be in the open. This phase is the equivalent of a grand jury phase of an investigation which are always done in secret.
That being said, because republicans are dishonestly trying to spin this as some sort of unjust secret tribunal with no due process, the dems are moving toward a public inquiry phase in a few weeks. They know that low information people like ex-PH2 do not understand that the grand jury phase is done in private and can be easily confused by GOP talking points.
It says a lot that the White House this far has not offered a single defense for Trump’s actions. All they are doing is trying to attack the patriotism of witnesses.
Something so many of you so sycophantically have joined in doing.
Trump will be impeached. He did commit these acts. As well as a dozen crimes not being considered in this inquiry.
If we had a senate with integrity he would be removed from office. But because he GOP is full of feckless cowards and Trump toadies it is unclear whether the senate will convict him.
These is not question he is using his office for personal gain. There is not question he leveraged US security interests to try to compromise a ally into helping him dig up and even manufacture dirt on his political opponent.
Those are abuses of power. Not just executive overreach which has been an issue in the White House for decades, but a genuine betrayal of the public trust by putting his own interests over the national security interests of the United States.
Commissar:
What crime did POTUS committ that warrants an Impeachment Inquiry?
Can you please explain Adam Schiff and his lies?
Can you please explain the hypocrisy with the Dems reference Joe Biden?
Can you please explain your obssesion with POTUS?
What are you going to do when POTUS gets re-elected?
Do you have a Life?
FYI, I did not care for BHO or Bill Clinton. I did not let those two live in my head. An election is an election.
POTUS won fair and square.
Please don’t be a sore loser. You will have your chance again to vote in November 2020.
Don’t you think it is time to move on?
P.S. The post was about LTC Vindman, not POTUS.
😉😊
And BOOM!
Epic retort!
Whizzbang:
😉😊👏👏👍👍
“Also, there are 47 republicans on these committees who are participating in these inquiries and are given equal time to questions witnesses and equal staff to prepare. Including more than a dozen of the GOP reps who staged that frat boy pizza raid on the SCIF”.
Nope. Schiff is not allowing their witnesses to answer questions he doesn’t like, and/or coaches their answers. Not exactly what you’d call an unbiased investigation.
And that “SCIF” wasn’t locked, and contained zero classified anything. That makes it a conference room with a big lock and thick doors.
He only prevented them from asking questions clearly intended to determine who the whistleblower was. And they proved that was their intent, despite the denials, by holding a “Who is the whistleblower” press conference after the fact.
SCIFs do not become conference rooms just because there are no classified items being discussed at the moment. SCIF rules still apply with respect to bringing electronics.
SCIF’s are also not necessary for a committee such as this. It only adds to the political theater. Schiff has lied and leaked so much that his clearance should have been revoked long ago.
Commissar is aptly named.
“Also, there are 47 republicans on these committees who are participating in these inquiries and are given equal time to questions witnesses and equal staff to prepare.”.. It seems that Rep’s Scalise and Jordan would disagree with you on that point (and they’re in a much better position to speak knowledgeably on the subject..
“This phase is the equivalent of a grand jury phase of an investigation which are always done in secret.”… Wrong again, especially if you consider that Grand Juries ARE secret, and Schiff, Pelosi, et al leak crap worse than a busted toilet..
As for the rest of you post, as usual, it’s nothing but a bunch of wishful thinking of a would be dictator, along with a big helping of democrat talking points…
Lars you have finally lost your mind
There is more to come out about this LTC
The Dems are desperate to keep the truth
From coming out because of the BS
They pulled in 2016
I’m no trump fan I think he’s a idiot
But spying on a US citizens is BS
The stories were out in the summer of 2016
With a bunch of the intel nerds about the crap that was going on then I’m surprised it taken anyone this long to get to the bottom of what was going on
In fact there are people as I’m typing
That have been spilling the beans
About the BS in 2016
The DNC needs to make a clean
Break with the Clintons because
That crime family is bringing them down
Only then can they and this nation heal
From there BS
Whatever happened to collusion with Russia?
“. As well as a dozen crimes not being considered in this inquiry.”
A crime that (evidently) dares not speak its name.
Only I, Commie-Tsar, have all of the empiric data to prove to all of you, that ORANGE. MAN. BAD.
I posted this holding my talisman (THE FLACCID MICROMINIPENIS OF HATE) in between the index and middle fingers of my left hand.
For those of you that don’t believe me, you will when my newest socialist/communist hero (AOC) is in charge and I am allowed to run the reeducation camp that you all of you will be sent to for your sins…
Lars, you are full of shit.
1. You are full of shit now.
2. you have been full of shit at least 99.99% of the time in the past.
3. you will always be full of shit at least 99.99% of the time in the future, you impulsive, arrogant, impotent, imbecilic simpleton of a useful idiot!
HVE YOU EVER had even a tiny thought independent of the leftwing drivel spoon-fed to you by your kook professors at UC Berzerkely who have likely never held a job in the private sector?
The Extreme Liberal Democrats are trying to divide our Nation with their absurd tactics.
They just cannot accept the fact that Ole Hillary lost.
The Silent Majority will once again prevail as they did in 2016.
Never underestimate the power of the Silent Majority.
You all are free to love in your head in the sand bubble.
There is not enough of you to change the outcome.
EDT: You all are free to live in your head-in-the-sand bubble.
There is not enough of you to change the outcome.
You would be less confused if you were willing to hear facts you don’t like.
Looking in the mirror again genius?
I want ALL the facts, but I’m not given that opportunity. We’re only fed the gospel according to Schiff.
“There is not enough of you to change the outcome.”
http://metrocosm.com/election-2016-map-3d/
Bwahahahaha!!!
Oh, lordie, Lars, you just never seem to learn, boy.
And that map reflects this country before your party turned hard left…
And former Democrats like these in the burgeoning #Walkaway movement are going to turn that map even more red, Lars.
https://www.walkawaycampaign.com/videotestimonials
You can count on it.
You did not answer my questions, Commissar.
Why?
Perhaps YOU live in a “Sand Bubble”?
Come on. My questions are simple.
How about answering one question and then I will stop since this Post is about LTC Vindman and NOT POTUS:
What crime did POTUS committ that warrants an Impeachment Inquiry?
My apologies to Ex for half-hijacking her Post.
Oh, Commissar.
Am still waiting.
Perhaps you don’t know the crime?
Or are you researching the Internet for an answer?
Come on. Be a Man.
What are you afraid of?
Naw, he mentally lives in a parallel universe. Waste of effort to interface with him, all he does is spout their talking points; he never deviates from the party line on anything.
With him it is nothing but Orange Man Bad!! 24-7. He still believes Trump was playing golf when the supreme goat jumper died in the raids against ISIS.
Do you have an idea of what it is like to be embarrassed when you sneeze and fart at the same time, or laugh and fart at that same time? I sneezed and farted at the same time. It was a funny sight, covering my mouth but splattering all over my pants! When I laughed so hard and farted at the same time, I became the subject of laughter and ridicule. So excuse me if I have flaws in reasoning that I refuse to fix!
Is a fart lumpy? I think I shit myself, again..
“What crime did POTUS commits that warrants an Impeachment Inquiry?”
First, impeachment is inherently a political process, so the ‘crime’ could simply be failing to uphold the oath of office, which is a subjective judgement.
Also, that’s kind of the point of the inquiry, to gather evidence to determine if a ‘crime’ was committed or not.
Once the inquiry is over, Pelosi will have to decide whether to put it to a vote for impeachment or not. Either way it is a political ploy.
If the evidence is strong and damaging she will definitely go ahead with it. Even if the evidence is weak she may still go ahead with it because she most likely has the votes and the president will be impeached.
At that point we have a very public trial in the Senate. The Senate will probably vote to acquit, unless there is a whole lot more damaging evidence out there. Either way, it is a very public trial, and all of this evidence will be in the papers every day.
Regardless, the Democrats are proceeding with this because every day it goes on more damaging stuff comes out for Trump, and there is another opportunity for him to make himself and the administration he runs look bad with a tweet or public statement. True, his base loves it, but they are going to vote for him no matter what. But, it is not helping him with moderate republicans.
Steeleyl:
Ok.
So what is the Crime?
Failing to uphold the oath of office is inherently a subjective judgement. It includes words like ‘faithfully, best of ability, preserve”
We could argue for hours on what these words mean in this context and never agree. The house simply has to declare that the phone call or any number of public statements constitute a lack of faith or did not preserve or protect the constitution.
The House can argue that attempting to withhold funding after it was appropriated by the house subverts the constitution. Most democrats in the House will agree. Boom, the president is impeached and goes to trial in the senate, where he will be acquitted unless something really bad is out there that I am unaware of.
Impeachment is political, not criminal.
Well, you better hope he is not impeached and removed from office, because the economy will take a nose dive, and you won’t like what the D-rats do to our military and what your tax bill looks like for 2021 and 2022.
I don’t support the impeachment. I don’t like the way President Trump comports himself as president, but I do not think it rises to the level of impeachment because it is bad for the country for many reasons, the least of which is the economy, taxes, and what the next administration may do.
OK. Like I said, you are not going to like what happens if progressive D-rats take the White House and the Senate. I suggest you get a copy of 1984 or watch the movie. Surprising how prescient Orwell was.
OR the movie “Idiocracy” which was SUPPOSED to have been a comedy movie INSTEAD of a prophecy!!
Thanks for the tip, I looked it up on Wikipedia and I get the gist.
Orwell was prescient about many things, to include the concept of Doublethink, which the Trump admin clearly studied well.
You seem to think I am a progressive or a Democrqt. I am not. I’ve never supported Hillary or Obama, and I think most of the Dem candidates have very dangerous ideas and are either ignorant or deliberately Misleading the American people, which I’m think makes them unfit for office.
That is precisely why I am vocal when the current administration does the exact same thing.
“Once the inquiry is over,”
Dreamer. Like the Mueller inquiry, as soon as this one is over there will be another.
Now you are getting it. This is precisely what Pelosi and the DNC are trying to do.
The best thing for the Trump admin to do is 1). Stop arguing princess and 2) get to a public hearing and get the facts out as soon as possible, 3). Take Trumps phone away and make him stick to prepared remarks.
Process, not princess
Oh, no need for apologies, ninja. Go for the throat with that idiot. Fine by me.
I sat through the Watergate hearings in 1974, because there was literally nothing else on TV. They were broadcast to the public. None of that was behind closed doors. None of the charges against Bill Clinton were secrets. Those hearings were not behind closed doors, either. Since ALL of that was broadcast to TV audiences, anyone who wanted to could tune in and watch what was going on.
This “closed doors” stuff is baloney. Schiff is presenting himself in a far too Kafkaesque manner. He should get a does of his own medicine – that frequently works on control freaks like Schiff.
Nixon was never impeached. He resigned after the House Judiciary Committee recommended articles of impeachment but before the House vot d to impeach, and way before a Senate Trial.
What you saw on TV was a senate investigatio into election wrongdoing,, not an impeachment hearing.
S.Res.60 – A resolution to establish a select committee of the Senate to conduct an investigation and study of the extent, if any, to which illegal, improper, or unethical activities were engaged in by any persons, acting individually or in combination with others, in the presidential election of 1972, or any campaign, canvass, or other activity related to it.
93rd Congress (1973-1974)
She said Watergate hearings, not Nixon impeachment hearings. You attend the Lars Commissar School of PreReading Decision Making?
See below. Different procedures for different reasons. PH made a comparison, implying that the procedure in the Trump Impeachment Inquiry should be public, just like Watergate and the Clinton Impeachment trial in the Senate.
I am pointing out that the three examples she cites were different procedures initiated for different reasons, so her conclusion that the Trump Inquiry should be public is not supported by her argument.
I’m sure that by now you have all seen the raging liberal Andrew Napolitano explain that the proceeding is legal, so I won’t post it here.
Napolitano hates Trump for not giving him a federal judicial appointment. If Pelosi declared Trump should be caged and burned alive, ala ISIS, Nappy would affirm the legality of the proceeding.
So please, don’t try to use that turncoat turd as a source or example here at TAH–he just won’t float.
So, aside from personal attacks you don’t really have any logical response?
It was a position on the Supreme Court. Read Napolitano’s response, I find it very interesting. The supposed offer came when Napolitano was giving the president his input on the list of Supreme Court nominees-a fact that the president does not dispute.
If you have no respect for Napolitano’s legal opinions, what do you think of the fact that the President went to him for advice?
Napolitano has shown that his opinions are purely political and based on the degree of his personal butt-hurt. But he didn’t reveal what a snake he is until he was rebuffed by Trump
C’mon, a judge’s legal opinions suddenly go 180 from what he’s been saying for years and you still think his judicial opinions are based on the merits?
You tell me, is this a jurist you’d want presiding over your case?
Cat got your tongue there Steeley?
No, but my job did distract me for a while.
Napolitano is nowhere near qualified for a spot on SCOTUS, and he knows it.
I don’t watch Fox, so I have no idea what his opinions were before. To me he is a TV personality, which is why the thing I find most disappointing is the fact that Trump asked for his opinion on SCOTUS choices, a fact neither disputes.
At what point in his TV career did you not notice that lawyer Napolitano played the tune for which he was paid?
Seriously?
” the fact that the President went to him for advice?”
I am sure that over the years Trump, like all politicians, has asked people for advice purely to stroke their egos. It never hurts to have a television celebrity on your side. Napolitano would certainly not be my first choice for advice on Supreme Court nominees.
I KNOW that Nixon was not impeached. I was alive back then, you know. He resigned to AVOID being impeached. If you read what I posted, STeelyl, you’d know I did NOT say it was an impeachment hearing.
I did read what you wrote. You made a pretty clear comparison between the Senate Watergate investigation and hearings, Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial, and the Trump Impeachment Inquiry.
I am pointing out that they were different procedures initiated for different reasons.
The Watergate hearings were in the Senate, which has it’s own rules. Since it was a hearing, both sides had representation and the entire Senate heard all the evidence. Bill Clinton was actually impeached, so what America saw was his actual trial, which again allows for representation on both sides, and the entire Senate hears the evidence.
I was also alive for Watergate.
Difference in proceedings is immaterial, STeelyl.
The point is that in Watergate and Clinton, the public knew what was going on. This bidness with ‘behind closed doors’ is exactly the same thing as creating the rules for Obamacare without letting anyone know what it contains. There was ZERO reason for that, other than the control freaks in the House who knew it would be rejected if the text was available for scrutiny.
There is likewise ZERO reason for doing another ‘behind closed doors’ bunch of hearings about Trump, etc., unless the Democrats have something to hide, and the report is now that they are refusing to let Republicans in that meeting/hearing have a say in anything, period.
The “open session” stuff means they can’t control the proceedings the way they want to. Why else would other GOPs from the House try to get into those meetings? What is going on that is so slimey that no one who was not on that committee/group/whatever is allowed in?
The correct term is skullduggery, and that is what they are up to. It’s already been reported by various news sources. The Dems do themselves ZERO credit by acting like this. It is as smarmy as you can get.
THAT is my point.
Yes, it is material. Different procedures for different purposes.
First, Obamacare was legislation, not an investigation or a hearing. There was no alleged crime. It simply has nothing to do with this.
Secondly, this is not a hearing- it’s an inquiry. The house committee is interviewing witnesses to decide if there is enough evidence to proceed. This is like the police interviewing witnesses to a crime. The suspect doesn’t get to have an attorney present when they interview other people.
They are doing this behind closed doors to protect the witnesses and the whistleblower(s).
In addition, every member of the committee, regardless of party, is in the room. Re-read the reports you refer to and you will find that Schiff is allowing questions from Republicans, just not questions that are designed to unveil the whistleblower.
Finally, this is not the trial. It is not even the House hearing on impeachment. It is a preliminary hearing by one committee. If they recommend charges, all of that evidence will have to go before the entire House, and it will be public.
This is an adversarial system by design. What you are seeing is the prosecution’s process for building their case. The republicans have people in the room, and I am quite certain they are taking notes that will become part of the President’s defense strategy.
If there was actual impeachable wrongdoing, there would not need to be such shady maneuvering by Pelosi. The antics are damming.
This is about manufacturing enough damage to minimize the impact of the likely blowout in 2020. Also, trying to de-legitimize the incoming nuke aimed squarely at the appalling -Donk- wrongdoing in the 2016 election.
All because the Donks sold the party soul to the Clinton Corruption Machine.
If they were smart, they would “discover” the corruption and turn wrathfully on it.
They will instead double down on blaming everyone else for that -epic- own-goal of 2016.
In 1860, the Donks were willing to burn down the country rather than admit they were a) wrong and b) lost the election to the other side.
Here we are again.
Again.
Hey Lars,
The deep state persecution of LTG Flynn is starting to come apart:
https://ricochet.com/691701/the-kafkaesque-persecution-of-gen-flynn/
Why did the Dem partisans in the Justice Department illegally alter the records of Flynn’s deposition by the FBI and then conceal that from his defense team? Why do you defend such obvious corruption except that it helps to advance a political agenda with which you agree? Why don’t you try to resolve some of the problems in your rapidly declining “Golden State” before trying to impose your foolishness on the rest of us? I realize that you are the self-appointed ambassador to TAH from clown world, but maybe you should take a few days off from the honk.
FACT: You’re a deluded arrogant FOOL and a useful idiot.
“FACT: You’re a deluded arrogant FOOL and a Not so useful idiot”…
Fixed it for you API
Just one more great big pile of steaming crap. Enough is enough. These asinine, self centered, backstabbing, egotistical enemies of our Republic have wasted almost 3 years of taxpayer monies because that Skankapotomous, Bitch of Benghazi, lying, murderous, traitorous trash from hell was stymied in her attempt to complete the destruction of the Country. And horror of horrors, hell has frozen over. The seagull said something that I agree with him on…”GOP is full of feckless cowards…” but only that part of his fantasy. The ENTIRE Congress is full of feckless cowards that should be doing their damn jobs instead of bloviating their bovine excrement on self promotion. This is as distressing as scenes of Sarah wallowing around with that CIA weenie Webb. Sharpen the pitchforks and light the torches. We, The People, need to take our Government and our Country back.
I welcome an impeachment trial. Maybe then ALL of the filth that is our elected officials will come to light. Find me that one intelligent person who does NOT think that all of this is nothing more than a smoke screen to distract us from the evil that is the Swamp of Washington DC. That in a nutshell is why Trump is hated. The concern that We, The People, will rise up, totally disgusted with all of it and run them all out of town, tarred and feathered, on a rail. Bring to light how so many became millionaires on their salary. Look deeply into the actions of the Clintons, Obama, Kerry, McCain, Pelosi, Schiff, Blumenthal, Soros, The Bush and Kennedy Klans (sic), LBJ and the Kennedy Murders, the FBI, the CIA, The Military Industrial Complex, Seward’s Folly, The murder of Abraham Lincoln, The Lost Confederate Gold, need I go on.
And to the seagull; get lost and go find a life.
The “seagull” can’t find a life because Orange Man Bad!! plays endlessly in his brain-housing group. He’ll believe any story that supports that obsession.
Will somebody–Ex, Ed, Hondo–please help this old geezer sort out the trolls here? Lars and Commissar are the same entity are they not? Is LC an alternate manifestation of him/them/it? I tend to think not because LC occasionally makes some sense (not today) and tends not to call people shitheads; but then, I suppose it still could be Lars when he’s staying on his medication schedule.
Clarification, please…
Yes, Commissar IS Commissar. LC – no.
We’ve all shared that confusion. The biggest difference is that LC is often disagreed with but his opposing views are respected. The other guy… well…
“No, one does not have to believe everything is true, one only has to believe it is necessary.’
Looks like petty revenge to me.
Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment. Boohoohooey.
Clinton kept his job due to the lack of a single vote to provide a majority to remove him from office.
Just looks like the dumbocraps are having a ‘get even’ session, more than anything else, because ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!
Vindman, by all appearances, is legit. He is a FAO detailed to the National Security Council staff. As such, he went through all sorts of.vetting, both Security wise and to establish his credentials as a Ukraine expert and ability to translate the Presidemts policy into action.
The National Security Council works for the president, and the NSC staff analyzes intel and foreign affairs to enact the presidents policy. It was part of his job to know what was said in the phone call and provide advice. It sounds like he started this process because he thought the presidents actions were under,inning the presidents own policy. It was his duty to point out that he thought the presidents actions were illegal.
The fact that the president doesn’t know this is partly the presidents fault, and partly the Fault of the WH Choef of Staff and the NATIONAL security Advisor.
It is highly unusual for a serving officer to do this, which implies that he believes what the president did was illegal. He reported it through channels- first to the NSC leadership, and now it he is testifying to the House Intellige de committee, which has the legal charter to oversee this activity.
He may be wrong about the legality of the presidents actions, but he is performing his duty as he sees it.
He is not a spy or a traitor. A spy gathers. Information withoiut authorization and/or abuses their access to divulge this info to a known hostile foreign actor. A traitor acts on behalf of a foreign hostile actor to damage the security of the United States.
Btw,, Vendman is not as svelte as I would like to see in a serving officer. Perhaps he is just lazy, or perhaps he is on profile due to his wounds but was retained on activ duty because of his unique knowledge about Ukraine.
Vindman is a Russian émigré and speaks fluent Russian and Ukrainian. He grew up in Little Odessa in New York City His twin brother is also an LTC and JAG officer serving in the Whitehouse. His older brother is a moneyman with investments in Ukraine and Eastern Europe. In view of his ivy league educational background, I am smelling a progressive who is likely a secret member of the Orange Man Bad gang.
Reports on the Web say he’s a registered agent for Ukraine. How could an active duty officer possibly be registered as an agent for a foreign country?
Maybe they are confusing him with his older brother. He manages investments all over Eastern Europe.
I think you nailed it. Even so, with that sort of sibling relationship how are this guy and his twin embedded in the top tier of America’s security system?
The optics and olfactories are all wrong…
So, what does that have to do with his testimony?
Anyway, everything I’ve read says he was born in the Ukrainian, SSR- part of the Soviet Union, but not Russia.
He went to SUNY for his undergrad, and Harvard for grad school, probably as part of his FAO training. The Army encourages officers to go to prestigious schools.
Like it or not, Harvard is prestigious. Many officers go through the Kennedy School there (just like Bill O’Reilly).
Regardless, being a progressive , disliking the president, and speaking other languages are all perfectly legal, as is having brothers the Army and in business. There was a time in this country when we would have praised immigrant kids who became citizens and had successful careers.
If business ties to Ukraine concern you, were you worried when the President hired Paul Manafort? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/what-did-ex-trump-aide-paul-manafort-really-do-ukraine-n775431.
Slight correction Steeleyl, you write ” A spy gathers. Information withoiut authorization and/or abuses their access to divulge this info to a known hostile foreign actor. A traitor acts on behalf of a foreign hostile actor to damage the security of the United States.”.. Actually, it doesn’t need to be foreign, it could just as well be a domestic hostile actor that a spy or traitor is working for.
Good point… There are domestic enemies. The NSC counsel and US Congress are not among them.
My point remains that Vindman was authorized to listen to the call because he was the Ukraine guy on the NSC staff. It was his job to integrate whatever was said into NSC strategy and policy. This is why it was probably jarring to him when the summary did not match his notes or recollection.
Another sort of spy is the one fed bullshit with the intent of feeding it into the enemy’s thinking.
True, although that is more of a counterintelligence technique. But I don’t think there is any actual proof Trump was fed bullshit.
Take it for what it’s worth, but LC posted a link above describing an individual named Kash Patel, and the idea that he did just that.. again, not link, and can’t verify the info, but it’s above in this thread.
“There are domestic enemies. The NSC counsel and US Congress are not among them.”.. One would hope that’s true. It certainly should be.. But the nature of a domestic enemy would suggest that they would work to infiltrate such institutions, just as the left has infiltrated the “education” system in this nation. It starts surreptitiously, but eventually, if successful, they would move into the open. There was plenty of communist infiltration into all levels of government, during WWII, or even earlier.
Yes, it was Vindmans job to be on that call, and assuming that he is what he should be, that’s not an issue. But IF he has ulterior motives for his statements (be they deep state anti-trump, acting for a foreign power, or something else), then that is an issue. The reality is, we DON’T know all the facts yet. Hopefully fair hearings will reveal the truth
Be funny as hell if he had Drill Instructor
in his resume and wore this:
https://www.armedforcesinsignia.com/?p=8251&c=123
Very good, Beaner, very good…
Lars is back I see. Not banned.
Back to Ace where assholes like him get the axe quickly. Shame. I like most of you and your contributions.
But, TAH command group is free to do as they wish.
I don’t think we should ban Lars, Sj. You have to admit he gets the blood flowing around here. He inspires comments, mostly refutations, full of insights inspired by a hugely wide, deep and mostly military, experience base.
We should keep him around if for no other reason than as a barometer of what the thinking is on the loony left with respect to current events. Hell, if he so desired, I’d let him submit an occasional article if I were admin. Otherwise we’re just another conservative echo chamber.
What do the rest of you think? Is ol’ Poe off base here?
I agree Poe, know your enemy! In addition, as you point out, some folks do quite a bit of research, and in the process, educate all of us with their replies to the seagull
Poe, after 78 years my tolerance for bs is very low. If I gave a shit about Lar’s bs I would go to the sources (CNN, Huffpost, DNC, et al) and not to his blathering of those talking points. In my life ramp down I know nothing he says would change anything I believe and he, I’m sure feels the same. So with dwindling resources I’ll concentrate on what is important..,like chasing Mrs SJ. TAH younguns can fight the Lars fight.
I came to TAH for the phonies and military life humor. That seems to now be a low priority, right before who is first on Friday. That’s fine. I’m a dinosaur. Seems other dinosaurs are gone too…e.g., was thinking of an MCPO yesterday.
Time marches on.
Hey,brother, I understand. I’m your age and that fire no longer burns as bright as it did for all those long decades.
But every once in a while it flames up and ol’ Poe sucks up that heat and goes dancin’ across the keyboard.
Heh…
There are others here that argue the Left’s points with some thought and some basic respect. They generate plenty of posts.
How many readers, and possibly money-contributing patrons, are you losing due to Moonbat-turdposts?
Is that loss an intended result of moonbats? That is how moonbats often work. Drive off rational folk with the barking and turd-tossing.
He generates responses from the group that
are fact laden with “blunt” punctuation.
There is value in that. And humor.
“submit an occasional article”
You spelled communist manifesto wrong.
I agree. Every site needs at least one pet troll. Or perhaps a live virus vaccine.
I wouldn’t ban Lars. If nothing else, it’s amusing to guess if he’s going to have one of his random rare lucid moments.
Lars also helps fill in some of the progressive loopiness void since Claymore was covering Democratic Underground, but has now left the building.
So all this brouhaha revolves around the interpretation of a sentence or two in a phone call?
What is it called when a group of subordinates disagree with their leader and cooperate with each other (while violating security laws) to attempt to get him replaced?
Never did like Fred Macmurray.
You must be thinking of The Caine Mutiny. Bogie’s character was certifiable.
yeah, but he had balls.
AND he was always playing with them!
And strawberries.
But Fred was in Caine Mutiny…and brought Bogie down, IIRC.
For the win!
One of the few movies I have ever seen that were as good as the book. Jose Ferrer’s little speech at the end was quite memorable. And quite educational.
I’m not on the NSC team, so I can’t answer for certain, but I’d guess that if someone on the NSC had an ethics question, the first person they talk to is an NSC lawyer who deals with ethics – which is exactly what his brother does.
So, almost certainly, yes.
The original whistle-blower hardly matters now, no? You want to argue that was gossip, fine, go crazy. But now first-hand accounts have backed up the whistle-blower’s account – he or she no longer matters.
If a cop hears a rumor -gossip, if you wish!- that Bobby is selling drugs, and they start asking around, and other people with first-hand knowledge confirm it, Bobby can’t just get everything waved away by saying the police only got turned on to him because of ‘gossip’. At a certain point, first-hand evidence takes over.
Damn. My replies seem to be going all over the place. Feel free to delete this one; I’ll repost above where it belongs.