More on Vindman

| November 13, 2019 | 113 Comments

The article below says that Vindman should not fear retaliation for testifying against the President.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/11/13/pentagon-chief-says-vindman-should-not-fear-army-retaliation-in-trump-inquiry/

Didn’t he volunteer to rat out his boss?

From the article:  Vindman is the Ukraine specialist at the White House’s National Security Council who was on the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelenskiy. Vindman testified about concerns that Trump was delaying military aid to the Eastern European country while pressing the country to investigate his political rivals.

That phone call, and Trump’s request for a “favor” from Ukraine are the basis of the impeachment inquiry. – article

 

Category: "The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves", "Your Tax Dollars At Work", Politics

Comments (113)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. The Other Whitey says:

    Some lefty outlets have falsely claimed that Vindman has been removed from his post, then did the back-page retraction when called out. And they claim “fake news” isn’t a thing…

  2. Slow Joe says:

    Isn’t this dude of Ukrainian origin or descend?

    Why do we keep hiring people for critical diplomatic or intelligence positions who have sympathies for the countries we are engaging?
    From his testimony, it seems he is more concern about the Ukraine than the US.

    American interests first, or the get the frack out.

    • LC says:

      He moved here when he was three. If foreign-born people are a threat to US security, what’s the magical cut-off? If you’re second-generation, you’re fine? Third generation? And does that mean FLOTUS’s allegiance is to Slovenia? Or that Sebastian Gorka’s allegiance is to the UK, or possibly Hungary? Both of those two have spent far more time in their home countries than Vindman, and both have considerable access to the White House and sensitive information.

      And Vindman’s concern, which you’d think would be echoed by many, was that politicizing Ukrainian aid, which has up until now enjoyed bipartisan support, would jeopardize it in the long run. And that’s definitely not good for the US. It’s not good for Ukraine, either, but the first point is critical here.

      • OWB says:

        Well. So glad that you asked.

        The answer to your question is NEVER! Everyone is suspect. All the time.

        Were you foreign born? I was. Of US citizens, from a family of US citizens going back to way before the US separation from the crown. I am questioned about my loyalty anyway. If I don’t particularly like it, tough. It’s going to happen, and likely will continue until they bury me.

        To that I will add: If that is the worst that happens in OWB world, I will continue to consider myself extremely lucky to be here instead of there. Got lots of stuff more important to worry about.

      • JacktheJarhead says:

        Only if they were Communists. Ukraine? Hmmm, Yup. Should be always considered a threat.

      • SFC (R) Blizz says:

        LC – you made the point. “And Vindman’s concern, which you’d think would be echoed by many, was that politicizing Ukrainian aid, which has up until now enjoyed bipartisan support, would jeopardize it in the long run.” See that’s called an opinion, not a fact. The President dictates what our country’s foreign policy is and how it’s conducted, not some random LTC who’s job is to execute that foreign policy.

      • SGT Ted says:

        Oh I dunno, maybe the cut off is when he’s trashing the USA while in an official capacity representing the nation while wearing the uniform.

        Vindmans “concerns” are bullshit because they are not in his fucking job description at all. The POTUS sets policy. Dweebs like Vindman are there to carry it out to the best of their ability, or they can resign. Not try to sabotage it at the behest of an opposition political party. As far as I’m concerned, Vindman should be removed from the Army for what he’s doing.

        • SFC D says:

          When you take the King’s schilling, you do the King’s bidding. It’s that simple.

          • SteeleyI says:

            Thank God we don’t have a king, right?

            • SFC D says:

              It’s a metaphor, get it? Or are you intentionally being obtuse? You do understand that a LTC takes his direction from the CinC, he does not set policy for him?

              • SteeleyI says:

                Of course I get it. It’s just that your metaphor runs counter to the point you are trying to make.

                Vindman, as a constitutional officer nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, has a duty to the constitution, not the president (or the King). Read the officer’s oath of office and compare it to the enlistment oath. There are some key differences.

                Also, not a small point in this case, we aren’t talking about the King’s schilling or Trump’s money, we are talking about taxpayer money appropriated by Congress for Ukraine.

                Of course the president sets policy, and Vindman takes his direction from the president. Again, the president’s authority does not allow him to commit crimes.

                Those ordered to commit illegal acts are required by their oath to the constitution to refuse those orders and report if they are carried out by other means.

                • SFC D says:

                  Was there a crime?

                • timactual says:

                  ” There are some key differences.”

                  I didn’t see any “key” differences. Perhaps you could point them out.

                  ” has a duty to the constitution, not the president”

                  True, and the Constitution says that the President makes foreign policy, not the NSC or State dept.

                  ” the president’s authority does not allow him to commit crimes.”

                  Again, true, but Vindman doesn’t have any proof that a crime was committed. He and others have a foreign policy disagreement reinforced and exaggerated by gossip. Classic “echo chamber”.

                • USMC Steve says:

                  Vindman as well as all commissioned officers, SERVES AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT. That means he can be shitcanned at any time for any reason, or no reason at all. As for the money you referred to, is that the taxpayer money that dipshit Biden illegally used to blackmail the Ukrainian government to keep his son from being investigated? You see, Biden did exactly what the left claims Trump did, and is trying to frame him for doing. That stupid fuck Biden is even on a youtube video admitting to that particular crime.

              • Firebase says:

                You missed the point that Steeleyl was making, and he wasn’t speaking in metaphors. The United States of America is not ruled by a sovereign monarch, who was anointed to his position via divine right from Almighty God. He was elected, by the people (and the Electoral College). There is no “King’s Schilling” in this country; that Schilling is from the people, the taxpayers, via our Federal income taxes. We do not swear oaths in this country to our “Lord-Protector,” but to the Constitution.

                • SFC D says:

                  Negative. You all missed the point I was making. The president sets foreign policy and is the Commander in Chief. Commissioned officers follow the orders of the Commander in Chief. If you cannot carry out those orders because you find them at odds with your political views, you are in the wrong line of work and need to seek employment elsewhere.

                  • Firebase says:

                    That sounds very much like the excuse that the Nazi and SS officers were using when they were up on the stand during the Nuremberg Trials. “I vas only following orders.” That’s how it works in a dictatorship. Fortunately for us, we don’t live in Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia. We’re better than that, or should be.

                    • SFC D says:

                      Kindly point out where I said anything about following an illegal order. I said if you can’t carry out your duties because you disagree politically, it’s time to resign.

                    • timactual says:

                      BS. For one thing, German officers swore an oath of personal loyalty to Hitler, not their Constitution. For another, Vindman was not asked to follow an unlawful order. Even if the was, the question is settled at a court martial; it is not a ‘get out of jail free’ card.

                    • rgr769 says:

                      Ooh, so you decided to play the Nazi card. I guess Trump ordered Vindman to gas several thousand Jews, but Vindy (being so fearless) said, “NOooo!” You must have been channeling our favorite ex-mollusk, Chthulu, aka the seagull known as Squidward, cuz that is his kind of thinking. For the benefit of the Clueless, this whole fiasco was orchestrated at Langley and with the Shiffhole group of D-rat soft-coup plotters. And contrary to your beliefs, Vindman and his fellow plotters are not Von Staufenberg and the generals who attempted to assassinate Hitler.

        • rgr769 says:

          Very perceptive of you, as another commenter here was a direct witness to the heroic Vindman bad mouthing the USA to several Russian Army officers at an Army training base in Germany when Vindman was still a major.

      • timactual says:

        “politicizing Ukrainian aid”

        Good golly, man, of course aid to a belligerent in a war is political. As it should be and has been forever. I rather like the idea of me having a say whether my country gets involved in foreign wars.

        Further, Vindman’s well publicized foreign policy differences with the President are not grounds for anything except possible disciplinary action against Vindman .

      • USAF E-5 says:

        You say that, yet the first weapons weren’t given until this President (Trump,) sent them. At least according to the receipts I saw. Now as for the LtC’s testimony, looked to me like a pretty clear case of the LtC telling his cohort not to get involved in US Politics when the Presidents of both countries has said they would look into possible corruption allegations. That’s violation of a lawful order, conduct unbecoming, and give me 5 minutes and I could gen up another 6 or 7 additional charges. I’d get him his very own Court Martial, with a side trip to Leavenworth. Oh if Only I’d yanked a little harder.

      • DaveP says:

        It’s amazing to me how the most absurd shit gets passed out in the name of Orange Man Bad. The President MAKES foreign policy, whatever the President says IS the official policy, and anyone who says that some unelected light colonel can second guess the President on his Constitutional authority either isn’t actually familiar with the Constitution… or doesn’t much care about what it says.

      • Garold says:

        “And Vindman’s concern, which you’d think would be echoed by many, was that politicizing Ukrainian aid, which has up until now enjoyed bipartisan support, would jeopardize it in the long run.”

        Are you referring to Biden and his threat to withhold aid? Other than that, Ukraine received military aid promised.

        Beyond that, why are their borders more important that ours?

    • Anonymous says:

      The whole State Dept is that way. McCarthy was right about ’em.

  3. A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

    I’m certain that this too will turn out to be yet another fat nothingburger which crowds of TARDOs will still screech about anyway!

  4. SteelyI says:

    If the guy you hired to paint your kitchen refused to paint it the color you wanted, you are well within your rights and authority to fire the painter. That is not punishment or reprisal, it’s simply that you get to choose the color of your kitchen and therefore the guy that paints it.

    As an NSC staffer Vindman was that painter. He works for the President in formulating policy. He gets to give advice, but the president ultimately sets policy. It is absolutely critical that he has the complete confidence of the President for him fulfill this role. The president gets to decide what color the kitchen will be.

    Once Vindman voiced his concerns he had to go- there is absolutely no way he could continue to be effective as a policy advisor at that point. This is not a punishment or reprisal. He is still an active duty officer, and his career will play out however it will play out. He is a FAO, which automatically limits his promotion potential, but who knows. Something tells me he will retire as soon as he is eligible, but I never met the guy.

    In fact, I would bet that Vindman is fine with this decision. He is an active duty Army officer and serves wherever the Army tells him to. A detail to work on the National Security Council is just that, a detail. Details are temporary in nature.

    That said, he did nothing wrong in reporting what he believed to be illegal behavior. If Vindman thought the president was committing a crime it was his duty to report it within proper channels. By all reports, disputed by none, he did just that- he went to the NSC Counsel, then to the IG and ultimately Congress. This is the system set up for this purpose.

    There has to be a procedure for this. Presidents have a lot of power and authority, but it is not absolute. There has to be a mechanism for Congress to provide oversight and for the sworn public servants to report illegal activity.

    Rats report illegal activities. Using that term for Vindman implies that the presidents activities were illegal, and that the Trump administration is a criminal syndicate. I think we should re-think using it.

    • timactual says:

      ” If Vindman thought the president was committing a crime it was his duty to report it within proper channels.”

      True. And he must also suffer the consequences if it is determined that his opinion is wrong. If he is court martialed or disciplined for insubordination or whatever he can attempt to use that reason as a justification, but it is not a “get out of jail free” card.

      • SteeleyI says:

        What consequences should someone suffer if they, in good faith, report what they believe to be a crime?

        Now, if he lied or knowingly withheld information, or mishandled classified information, by all means, court martial away.

        When you were in command or in a leadership position either in the military or out, did you punish people who spoke their minds and/or reported what they believed to be criminal activity through proper channels?

        • rgr769 says:

          What crime would that be? Because they all have several essential elements that have to be proved. I have yet to hear one, let alone see any proof. You got one?

          • SteeleyI says:

            The person reporting what they believe to be illegal activity doesn’t determine if there was actually a crime.

            If you saw someone break a car window, would you call the police? It could be a crime, it could be that the guy locked his keys in the car.

            If you read Vindman’s testimony, he repeatedly says ‘I thought it was improper’.

            He reported it to his immediate supervisor and the NSC Legal Counsel. He didn’t go to the press, he didn’t go to Wikileaks, he Tweet about it. He reported through his chain of command.

            • timactual says:

              Depends on the circumstances.

              ” It could be a crime, it could be that the guy locked his keys in the car.”

              Yep, and I would wait around long enough to determine which it was before I accused him of a crime.

              ‘I thought it was improper’.

              Really? That’s the standard? So is eating your salad with the dinner fork.

              “He reported it to his immediate supervisor and the NSC Legal Counsel”

              And what did they say? Why didn’t they file complaints?

  5. Anonymous says:

    Ah, LTC Butterball again…

  6. A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

    Vindman looks like a pecker-puffer to me.

  7. Club Manager, USA ret. says:

    All of the media reports I’ve seen about Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman as “a decorated Army officer”. In the House Committee, where his testimony at a hearing in apparent contravention of supervisory guidance effectively confirming one word on his promotion orders to lieutenant colonel – PERMANENT, he was described as a “distinguished officer”.

    I read a summary of the released transcript of his testimony and did not see any smoking gun held by President Trump. There was plenty pointing at Gordon Sondland, the US’s ambassador to the EU and former White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Sondland was described as (my words not Vindman’s) a loose cannon. My takeaway was Vindman duly reported his concerns to higher authority but then wanted to substitute his personal belief and judgement for those of those above him in the chain of command – because he did not agree with theirs.

    I was curious to find out exactly what this Infantry officer in the grade of lieutenant colonel after 29 years of active military service did to warrant those two accolades. So of course the first thing was to review his rack.

    Years of service 1999–present
    Battles/wars Iraq War
    Personal Awards:
    Purple Heart Medal
    Defense Meritorious Service Medal
    Meritorious Service Medal
    Army Commendation Medal (4)
    Army Achievement Medal (2)
    The converted National Defense Service Medal
    Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal
    Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
    Korean Defense Service Medal,
    Army Service Ribbon,
    Overseas Service Ribbon (4th award), The Army says 4 awards but he displays “5”

    Unit Awards:
    Valorous Unit Award,
    National Intelligence Meritorious Unit Citation,
    Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation,
    Navy Unit Commendation.

    Combat Infantry Badge, Parachutist Badge, Expert Infantryman Badge and Ranger tab.

    Presidential Service Badge, Joint Chiefs of Staff identification Badge

    What is missing is any award for valor or anything higher than a staff position Meritorious Service Medal. He apparently was a good staff officer. The Purple Heart was the result of an IED attack in Iraq and he was able to complete that deployment.

    Conclusion: A disloyal sniveling sonovabitch who knew he faced mandatory retirement because he was not going to be promoted to O-6 having never held a battalion command position.

    • Anonymous says:

      Retained because where’re short. Ass-kissing staff officer who knows better must must be a low-density, high-demand MOS.

      • Anonymous says:

        And, I forgot… Kaw kaw:

      • rgr769 says:

        He is a FAO- foreign area specialty officer. Ukraine is one of his specialties. He is an 0bama holdover. He is a rat. His CIB is likely from the same IED bang that got him the PH. He likely spent most of career as a staff puke. And he has the face of a rat. I wouldn’t trust him with giving me the correct time.

      • SteeleyI says:

        Isn’t his whole involvement in this fiasco due to the fact that he refused to kiss ass but stuck to his principles as he saw them?

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          No. He decided to defy his Commander in Chief, and sabotage the President’s efforts. Lieutenant Colonels do not set US Policy. The President does. That is his job under the Constitution. Vindman’s objections could be stated to his chain of command, but the moment “obey” was not in his ability, resignation was required.

          He chose instead “Disobedience” and “sabotage”. So be it.

          Mutiny, in simple words, and apparently encouraging others to mutiny. I hope he is so charged. I think it essential tot he maintenance of good order and discipline that he is charged. To me he is a disgrace to the Army.

          Had he any courage, he would have stood up and loudly said “No way!” Or some such. There is a process for that. They are taught that prior to commissioning.

          One more time. Officers of the US Armed Forces do -not- set US Foreign Policy, nor does the State Department. The President, elected by the States, sets US Foreign Policy per the US Constitution.

          You know, the one that Vindman swore to uphold.

          • Club Manager, USA ret. says:

            BINGO!!! This sonovabitch had an excellent education and is a smart man. He knowingly violated his Oath but as I said, it was calculated because he had nothing to lose other than a decent award upon retirement. He more than likely has a book plan. This may come as a shock to many, it was to me, but listing military awards on a resume is not done by professional resume writers.

            • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

              I have no doubts about him having a book deal, but what’s to say it will likely be as big a FLOP as Das Hildebeast’s, editions of which were selling for prices cheaper than toilet paper!

          • SteeleyI says:

            He refused to kiss ass and reported what he thought was illegal activity through proper channels.

            Most of your post is completely unsupported by facts. When did Vindman disobey orders and sabotage anything? The record shows that he reported what he thought was wrongdoing first to the NSC legal counsel, then to the IC Inspector General.

            What evidence do you have that he refused a lawful order or encouraged others to do the same? I have seen nothing substantiating that claim.

            Where did Vindman say he gets to set US foreign policy? I haven’t seen anything that supports that, either.

            What I have seen is that he was concerned that the phone call (that he actually listened to) was improper and that the NSC legal counsel was attempting to compartmentalize that information, potentially to conceal a crime.

            AMB Taylor never said he thought there was a crime. What he did say was the president established an ‘irregular’ channel to Ukraine that was pursuing what could potentially undermine the president’s own stated policy, and may constitute criminal leveraging of taxpayer money for personal political gain.

            • Mick says:

              “Where did Vindman say he gets to set US foreign policy? I haven’t seen anything that supports that, either.”

              Well, there is this telling little gem about Vindman’s perception of who is entitled to set US foreign policy that was published by The Washington Post on 1 Nov 2019:

              https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-official-who-heard-trumps-call-with-ukraine-leader-testified-that-he-was-told-to-keep-quiet/2019/11/01/dbed7fae-fc07-11e9-ac8c-8eced29ca6ef_story.html

              ‘[…]

              The top Ukraine expert at the White House, Vindman was one of several officials who listened to the Trump-Zelensky call from the White House situation room.

              He told lawmakers that he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy…

              […].’

              Looks like Vindman does in fact believe that he (Vindman) is empowered to make decisions about who will set US foreign policy after all.

              • SteelyI says:

                And?

                The story says Vindman believed the president was acting in contravention of US policy towards Ukraine.

                In other words, Vindman was concerned that the president was acting against the presidents own policy. No surprise there. I doubt the president knew what his policy was.

                This was happening for a few reasons: First, the Trump administration is like a clown car for senior advisors. There is not even a ringleader or senior clown to keep them all in check. The president’s go to team for Ukraine policy consisted of a fellow hotelier with no experience in foreign policy, and his personal attorney, who is unaccountable to the American people and also has no relevant experience.

                Second, he kept the actual career diplomats THAT THE HE HIMSELF HIRED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE JOB out of the loop.

                Finally, it was all seat of the pants, make it up as you go along diplomacy.

                For the record (again), I don’t believe the president committed a crime here. He gets to set policy, he gets to change policy on a whim. He’s the president.

                I do believe that this just shows that he has no idea what he is doing in the Oval Office, has no appreciation for the actual duties and responsibilities of the office, has surrounded himself with yes men, and has fired anyone that contradicted him or tried to give structure to the office.

                The NSC was established by law for a reason- to give the president advice on National Security issues. The president has an obligation to carefully weigh the best advice of the members of the NSC. This testimony shows that he is making it up as he goes along, often motivated more by personal interest than US interest.

                Is that a crime? No. Is it impeachable? We’ll find out. My money is on ‘yes’. Either way, this is generating a lot of sound bites for the election.

            • timactual says:

              “the NSC legal counsel was attempting to compartmentalize that information, potentially to conceal a crime.”

              His own brother?

              ” never said he thought there was a crime…. may constitute criminal leveraging of taxpayer money for personal political gain”

              You don’t see the contradiction there?

              “an ‘irregular’ channel to Ukraine that was pursuing what could potentially undermine the president’s own stated policy,”

              That’s just ridiculous. Just one example; Nixon sent Kissinger to China– definitely “irregular”, and it certainly undermined the stated foreign policy of the time. President’s are allowed to do that.

              • SteeleyI says:

                His own brother?

                No. The NSC legal counsel is John Eisenberg (or was at the time. I have a feeling that a lot of guys are looking for new jobs).

                ” never said he thought there was a crime…. may constitute criminal leveraging of taxpayer money for personal political gain”

                “Nixon sent Kissinger to China– definitely “irregular”,. Are you referring to Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s Secretary of State AND National Security advisor? THat’s kind of his job. No, this would be more like if Nixon sent Kissinger to China to formalize relations but send G. Gordon Liddy a week later to get them to investigate McGovern.

                Your use of ellipses is more confusing than the NSCs attempt to hide wrongdoing in the Ukraine transcript. I have no idea what you are talking about.

                • timactual says:

                  I have read that he consulted his own brother, also a lawyer at NSC. How many people did he “consult”, anyway? Did any of them agree with him? Evidently not, as they did not file complaints.

                  ” THat’s kind of his job.”

                  Kissinger was National Security Advisor at the time, and a secret trip to China was definitely irregular.

                  Perhaps this will refresh your memory—

                  “AMB Taylor never said he thought there was a crime. What he did say was the president established an ‘irregular’ channel to Ukraine that was pursuing what could potentially undermine the president’s own stated policy, and may constitute criminal leveraging of taxpayer money for personal political gain. ”

                  To paraphrase your words; Amb. Taylor never said he thought there was a crime, but what the President was doing may constitute a crime. Sounds contradictory to me.

    • Thunderstixx says:

      So you won’t be sending him a Christmas card this year….
      I take it…..

    • Jus Bill says:

      And he (POG) is a legend in his own mind…

    • David says:

      1999 to date is not 29 years.

    • SteeleyI says:

      FAOs don’t command battalions.

      Vindman was probably on a pretty fast track as a FAO- he had at least two Joint Duty List assignments, which are all nominative, prior to now, to include the Joint Staff, which is a pretty big deal. On top of that, he , and he was selected to serve on the NSC, which is a really big deal.

  8. Stacy0311 says:

    There will not be any official Army retaliation for what he’s done.
    But want to bet that his name will not be on the promotion list for Colonel?

    But never fear, he’ll be hired at CNN as a military affairs correspondent immediately upon retirement.

    • Jus Bill says:

      Knowing his type of puffed up buffoon, he’ll start that gig almost immediately, on “his own time” after duty hours. If not in uniform, then with his rank displayed PROMINENTLY alongside his name.

  9. ninja says:

    IMPEACH SCHIFF, THE DIRTBAG!

  10. H1 says:

    After dropping a dime on the POTUS I suspect he has been frozen out. And, driving a desk somewhere he cannot be a further problem.

  11. SteeleyI says:

    I think you guys need to come up with a better insult for Vindman. ‘Rat’ implies that the Trump administration is like a mob family.

    Vindman was probably doing pretty well up to this point. He was a FAO, so battalion command is not a requirement for promotion. The fact that he was detailed to the NSC speaks pretty highly of him as a FAO, so he probably had a good chance at COL.

    As far as his loyalty, he would have had a TS clearance since he became a FAO (I assume soon after making captain), with a PR every 5 years since. Working on the NSC probably means he went through a few extra levels of vetting as well.

    Finally, none of you want to hear this, but Vindman was duty bound to report what he thinks is illegal activity through channels, which is exactly what he did. He didn’t go to the press or wikieaks, he went to the NSC counsel and then the IG. T

    His loyalty is to the constitution and the nation, not to the president. He didn’t rat the president out, he reported what he thought was a crime.

    • SFC (R) Blizz says:

      What he did was report his interpretation of a call that did not coincide with his personal agenda. That’s the difference. It’s a fine line. His job was to execute what the president wanted, not attempt to prevent what he believed was a mistake. The president sets foreign policy. Not congress, not bureaucrats, and certainly not a LTC in the Army. The guy has disgraced his uniform. He believed that what the President was doing could affect future aid to the Ukraine negatively. He believed that the president shouldn’t do it. So, he found a way to try and stop him. He’s a registered democrat and a outspoken liberal. While there is nothing wrong with that, when you’re in uniform, it stops at the door. He forgot to draw the line between his personal beliefs and who he works for. Imagine a new commander stepping into a new command. He starts establishing his policies and procedures. Some SSG in his Troop decides he doesn’t like the new commander nor his policies. So he decides to tell his chain of command. They tell him the commander can set his policies as he wants. He then goes to the IG, who tells him the commander has done nothing wrong. Unsatisfied, the SSG calls his congressman, who has an agenda against the guy to begin with and try’s to warp what was going on into a crime. That’s what is happening with this guy. I believe he should be held accountable. He’s trying to hide behind the whistle blower statutes but I think he’s going to find he’s outside the regulations here. Everyone is afraid right now. The democrats have frozen our government. I remember reading how Jefferson fired every military officer that was in the opposing political party. I’m starting to appreciate the reasons why. The deep state as it’s called is against the president. The entrenched bureaucrats and mid level managers that believe that they know better then the guy that was elected by the masses. If I ever became President, I/m thinking I would do something similar, every member of the state, defense, justice, ect… would come under scrutiny and be let go if I detected a hint of politics in their actions.

      • rgr769 says:

        The Clinton regime knew what to do with dissenters, they immediately got rid of them one way or the other. In fact, upon taking office, Clinton fired every US attorney in the country and replaced them all with loyal D-rat lawers.

      • Dennis - not chevy says:

        I remember a TSgt in my unit when Carter was President. The TSgt went to the Squadron Commander and resigned informing the Commander he could not serve the President. He also said if officers could resign so should he be able to resign. He was gone in about a month.
        This is how it’s done; if one cannot do what one is told to do, one goes home. There may be a stop over in a disciplinary barracks along the way; but, the TSgt did nothing insubordinate. If an E-6 could figure this out, why couldn’t an O-5?

      • SteeleyI says:

        Wow, this is a lot. Let me try to answer.

        FIrst, in Vindman’s mind it wasn’t just a difference of opinion; he thought the president was potentially acting illegally.

        If you look at his testimony, he actually says the words: “He’s the President. He can handle the call any way he wants”. He could be wrong in that, but he is duty bound to report. It is up to the IG and Congress to decide if was a crime.

        I’m with you, there is a fine line. Vindman thought that what the president was not only making a terrible policy mistake, but it was also inappropriate, and possibly illegal.

        Two points about your anecdote:

        1). Not liking the new commander or his policies is one thing. Thinking that the commander is committing crimes or that his policies are illegal is a different matter entirely.

        2). Your anecdote about going to Congress happens all the time. I probably responded to 6 Congressional Inquiries in two years as a company commander, and had a part in many more on staff. It’s a pain in the ass, but not a crime. I never remotely considered reprisals against Soldiers for exercising their rigthts.

        Vindman is not the whistleblower. He reported through his normal chain of command. He doesn’t have to hide behind anything because he hasn’t committed a crime.

        I think you are referring to the Military Peace Establishment act of 1802. Jefferson greatly reduced the military, and it resulted in almost 2/3 of officers being discharged.

        I think a mass purge of the officer corps based on party affiliation would be a horrible idea, counter to American values, and probably illegal. As Americans we look at that as a sure sign of totalitarianism. Why would we do it here?

        Political appointees are another matter completely. The president should pick his cabinet, and they should pick their senior deputies. The problem with the Trump administration is that he was slow to fill his positions, and he can’t hold on to the ones he did hire.

        Entrenched bureaucrats and mid level managers have approximately zero authority that matters at a level that can stymie the president’s policy- unless he violates the law and/or hires people who do.

        What this whole inquiry is exposing is just how dysfunctional the White House actually is, and how incompetent some of the senior political appointees actually are. The President makes this worse by listening to anyone who tells him what he wants to hear. That and Twitter.

    • Sj says:

      I’m a dinosaur so am not current. In the dark ages officers had a primary and alternate MOS. Mine was Tactical Signal and Operations-Plans. You had to get tickets punched in both to be competitive. I’m pretty sure FAOs had that too…then. And, then, if you didn’t have a successful O5 command you’d never pin on a bird.

      This no longer true? And BTW, Joint Staff wasn’t that selective. Evidence is that I was “selected” and did a tour in what is now J6.

      • SteeleyI says:

        FAO is a functional area for Army officers. They do not command battalions, and they single track these days. The dual track was dropped years ago because officers were failing at both.

        There are joint staffs and there is The Joint Staff. Each Combatant Command and other joint organizations have a joint staff. So, EUCOM, CENTCOM, etc., as well as Joint Task Forces will have a joint staff with J1-9.

        The Joint Staff is the staff that works directly for the Chairman in the Pentagon. Being on the Joint Staff, the Army Staff, Air Staff, etc., is kind of a big deal, as is being on a Combatant Command staff.

        Officers are only selected for Joint Duty List assignments at the field grade level after they are fully qualified for promotion at that rank. Most officers do their first JDL assignment as majors. Note: There are enlisted personnel and company grade officers working on joint staffs. These are not JDL assignments, and they don’t qualify the officers for Joint Duty qualifications.

        Once a field grade successfully completes both a 24 month (it used to be 36 back when it was hard) JDL tour they are designated as having Joint Duty experience (ASI 3A). That plus Joint Military Education Level II makes them Joint Staff Qualified (ASI 3L).

        By law, 3A and 3L officers must be promoted at or above the same rate as other officers in their cohort. The services therefore send only people they are pretty sure will be promoted in their career field already- if they send duds it will screw up the promotion rates for the entire year group (plus, the Joint Staff can send them back) to the service and demand a replacement. Thus, Joint Duty Assignments are all nominative.

        • Sj says:

          I didnt fall off the turnip truck. I was on THE Army Staff (ODCSOPS) and have the Liver Patch as it was called then. I was in THE OJCS and have that badge too. I have done augmentation tours in both THE Army Operations Center and THE National Military Command Center. Sadly, I have too much time on the E Ring.

          So, ole Vindy is not the water walker you ascribe to him. I and many other officers have most of his creds and we were not water walkers, just good officers. His medal rack seems lacking compared to most every other officer I’ve seen of his era. I exceed his (except for the PH) and I had a pedestrian career in peace time except for Viet of the Nam. Vindy probably got on the NSC because of his language fluency.

          • SteeleyI says:

            I don’t think Vindman was a water walker- I think he was simply due course for his career, and probably had a good shot at COL.

            Your experience depends on when you were walking the halls of the Pentagon (which I avoided like the plague).

            Jointness was baked into law with Goldwater-NIchols precisely because the services were not consistently sending quality officers to serve in Joint positions.

            I’m sure that the language skill was a major factor in the NSC job, but he was also a fully qualified FAO with extensive experience in Eastern Europe.

    • DaveP says:

      Ok.
      I prefer “Mutineer”.
      That is what you call it, when a subordinate officer joins an insurrection against his commander, isn’t it?
      And what, throughout history, has been the just desserts of mutiny?

      • SteeleyI says:

        I don’t know, strawberries?

        Insurrection isn’t part of the UCMJ. Article 94 includes mutiny and sedition. I think if anything the charge would be sedition. Mutiny would be him refusing to obey a lawful order, and there is no evidence of that.

        If we are going to dig into the UCMJ, we should also look at Article 104, which includes altering public records, and Article 131c, misprision of an offense (basically not reporting a crime when you see one) and 131d, wrongful refusal to testify.

        • rgr769 says:

          I guess you are ignoring conveying classified information to people not entitled to access it. The call was so highly classified its transcript had to be stored in a SCIF, and was so stored when Vindman leaked it in late July or August to others without access. But hey, he is a 0bama deep stater, so he should get a pass on that felony.

        • timactual says:

          “I don’t know, strawberries?”

          */snork*

    • OldSoldier54 says:

      In YOUR mind “…it implies…” a mob connection.

  12. SteeleyI says:

    In response to TimActual:

    I didn’t see any “key” differences. Perhaps you could point them out.”

    Sure. I posted both oaths at the bottom here, but the enlistment oath includes a passage about obeying the orders of the president and the officers appointed over me. The commissioning oath replaces that with language about well and faithfully executing the duties of the office.

    This is because constitutional officers are presumed to be executing US sovereignty, especially in combat, in foreign lands, on the high seas, or in the air. They are expected to sometimes act in the absence of orders.

    True, and the Constitution says that the President makes foreign policy, not the NSC or State dept. Yes, he does. No one, especially me, is disputing that. However, the president, by establishing a shadow diplomacy channel, was dancing dangerously close to criminal activity that would actually undermine his own stated policy.

    Again, true, but Vindman doesn’t have any proof that a crime was committed. He and others have a foreign policy disagreement reinforced and exaggerated by gossip. Classic “echo chamber”. Two points here: 1). Vindman reported what he thought was potentially a crime after discussing it with legal counsel and the IC IG. His duty is done at that point. It is up to the IG and others with oversight responsibilities like the House Intelligence Committee to decide if it is evidence of a crime.

    2). No, it’s not an echo chamber. It’s the way organizations dealing with complex issues work. You have 25-30 people all trying to help the president enact his foreign policy. At any given time, only two or three are interacting with the president, while others are interacting with Ukrainian leaders, while others are analyzing intel. By design, they share notes and compare their expert opinions on what is going on so they can come to a consensus on effective (and legal) policy recommendations for the president.

    This is the enlistment oath:
    “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    This is the commissioning oath:
    “I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

    • timactual says:

      “by establishing a shadow diplomacy channel”

      He isn’t the first and he probably won’t be the last. Harry Hopkins for FDR and “Colonel” House for Wilson, for example. As far as I know there is no law prohibiting who the President can use as his diplomats. Ambassadors were often, so legend has it anyway, personal friends, supporters, and benefactors of the President as well as being his personal representatives.

      No matter what the State dept. bureaucracy may think, they do not have exclusive authority over foreign relations or policy.

      Still don’t see any “key” differences relevant to this issue.

  13. rgr769 says:

    Here are some facts people commenting here seem to be ignoring in their defenses of Vindman. He leaked some of the contents of a highly classified phone call to someone who had not been authorized to hear it or read the transcript. At the time he did it, Vindman did not know that Trump would declassify it and release it several months later. Everyone in the District of Criminals knows the so-called whistleblower is a CIA officer who was fired from the White House or NSC for leaking to the media long before the subject classified phone call between Trump and Zelensky. Vindman or his brother are the source of info used by this CIA officer as a basis for his complaint, drafted back in August, which was all orchestrated by the Shiffhole and his staff of Lawfare lawers and the ex-NSC staffers he has hired.

    But riddle me this, if I as an Army officer had access to top-secret info, like say the plans to some top-secret weapon, but I thought the world and my country would be better off if I gave it to Communist China or the ol’ USSR because I disagreed with our foreign policy toward those countries, and thought it would say prevent a war or something, would I be a heroic man of conscience, like some of you are portraying Vindman? Buehler? Anyone?

    At the time Vindman did his “grassing,” everything in that phone call had been classified and stored in a SCIF. The D-rats were counting on the fact the classified call transcript would never be released and they could make up anything they wanted as to what was said. Trump blew up their little “impeachment” conspiracy when he declassified and released the transcript.

    • rgr769 says:

      Also, what makes this such a bizzaro D-rat parallel universe is that they are accusing Trump of doing exactly what Biden admitted, on video, that he did to the last government of Ukraine, i.e., extorting them into firing a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma. Biden did it with a threat of cancelling one billion dollars in aid if it didn’t comply within six hours. But I guess we aren’t supposed to believe our lying eyes and ears, and we should pretend it never happened, like they do. (Maybe the Steely-eye was closed for that clip)

    • SteeleyI says:

      Sounds like a good premise for a bad spy novel, but there is no basis in fact here- you know, things that are known or proven to be true?

      Again, VIndman spoke to other members of the NSC about the call. He also spoke to other NSC staffers and members of the Intel Community about the contemporary situation in Ukraine and US policy there. You know, cuz that’s their job and whatnot.

      So, back to your story. That sounds a lot like Snowden and Wikileaks to me. I thought Snowden was a traitor, and Assange is an enemy of the United States (and women in general, it turns out). You know who loves Assange? Donald J. Trump.

      You are also throwing out a few straw men and false choices here. I am not a Vindman supporter or hater. I think he did what he thought was right, and it should probably end his career, which has been honorable. I don’t think the president committed a crime- disrupting your own policy is not a crime. I do think the president will be much better at his job if he does three things:

      1) Read the stuff the staff brings you instead of watching Fox News.
      2) Fire the yes men and hire people with relevant experience. Did you know that his ‘social media coordinator/Tweeter in Chief is his former caddy? No, I’m not making that up:https://www.businessinsider.com/dan-scavino-bio-trump-golf-caddie-turned-social-media-director-2018-4
      3). Stop tweeting.

      • rgr769 says:

        I am just responding to your false assertion he could not have committed any crime. And you have no idea who he leaked this classified info to, and whether they had any authorized access to it. Your Steely-eye is truly blind if you don’t know what has been going on since about April of 2016 to take down Trump. You Progs and Never-Trumpers always conveniently ignore the wrongdoing involved in Spygate, and now the Ukraine Hoax. Another one of your ilk is now crowing about the conviction of Roger Stone for lying to Congress. (Hell with a DC jury, I could convict a ham sandwich.) But for some reason it is OK for Holder, Clapper, and Brennan to lie to Congress. And it was OK for Hillary Clinton to have hundreds of classified emails (that we know about) on her illegal server, which were often printed out by her maid, an alien national. But hey, you stick to your facts, I’ll stick to mine.

        • SteeleyI says:

          Interesting that you end your post with us each having our own facts, then follow it up with a discussion of things that could be possible.

          I never said VIndman COULD not have committed any crime- I said there is no evidence before us that he did commit a crime. Big difference, because that’s how legal proceedings work

          If you don’t have facts or evidence, you can’t use it to sustain an argument. Your logic is that since we don’t know that Vindman did not leak, then we can assume he is committed a bunch of crimes because we really don’t like him and it seems like something he would do. By that same logic, the democrats can imagine all sorts of things Trump might have done because they dont like him and it seems like something he would do.

          I am not a Prog or Never Trumper. You have no idea of my views on any of the issues you mention. Disagreeing with you and refusing to believe in conspiracy theories without facts doesn’t make me a bad person. For the record, people in America are allowed to be Progressive and Never Trumpers- not only is it one of the freedoms we enjoy, but it actually makes our system strong and resilient.

          You have no idea what my ilk is. As far as crowing about Roger Stone, I think it is sad that it came to that. Maybe he shouldn’t have, you know, committed a bunch of crimes. I don’t think there was a ham sandwich involved, but if you have the evidence go for it.

          But Stone, as well as Clapper, Brennan, and Holder, are different people. What they did has no bearing on the facts of this proceeding.

          Who said it was OK for them to lie to Congress? If they did, or if there is evidence they lied, they should be investigated, tried, and if the facts bear it, convicted.

          By the same token, what Hillary did has no bearing on this. No, it was not OK for her to have classified information on a private server. She got off on a technicality, and that is not right. I am all for a criminal investigation.

          • timactual says:

            “we can assume he is committed a bunch of crimes because we really don’t like him and it seems like something he would do. By that same logic, the democrats can imagine all sorts of things Trump might have done because they dont like him and it seems like something he would do”

            Nice description of Washington today. (place smiley face emoji here)

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          Steelyl, you’re missing something important about Vindman: he thrust himself into this mess because he is opportunistic and self-serving, and sees his “role” in this mess as a path to personal enrichment. If he’s sent to retirement, he’ll just wander on over to the media circus that hates Trump and grab all the publicity and cash he can get his hands on.

          That may seem cynical, but if I have to bring up Stormy Daniels, a paid porn whore, who stuck her oar into Trump’s public persona to get cash out of him, then you tell me just what is the real difference between Stormy Daniels and an Army officer who is looking for the same cash load and spotlight?

          Frankly, there IS no difference.

          Vindman will profit from this, just like Daniels did, and don’t think for one second she did NOT get paid to appear in public.

      • rgr769 says:

        I like how you conveniently leave out of your comment a couple of key facts about Scavino. First, he met Trump back in 1990 when he was a caddy. Second, he was 16 years old. You progs always pull shit like that.

        Finally, you want Trump to “stop tweeting” because he bypasses your beloved mainstream Progda.

        • OldSoldier54 says:

          Ding! Ding! Ding!

        • SteeleyI says:

          First off, dodgy use of quotation marks. If you intended to quote me, my meaning was lost in the selection of just two words without context. It makes the reader wonder if you meant it for emphasis or to indicate irony, both of which are improper.

          Secondly, I’m glad I got you to read something that wasn’t on Fox. Victory!

          But, on to your defense of a completely unqualified dude in charge of announcing the official policy of the United States.

          I didn’t conveniently leave anything out- if you want to get into it, Scavino’s background makes my point even more.

          He is in the job because he is absolutely loyal to Trump, never questions him, and seems to have a flair for capturing his voice in social media. Fair enough.

          The problem is that he has absolutely no education, training, or experience in public policy, the rule of law, or anything else that remotely qualifies him for the job, and shows no inclination to get any. He goes with his gut, and often ‘Trumps things up’. Fine for a political campaign, dangerous for a Chief Executive.

          Much of this debate has been about who gets to set policy. There is no doubt about that- the president.. The problem is that he makes major decisions by the seat of his pants and often tweets them before talking to any of the people who will have to execute it. Any and all public speech by the president constitutes official policy.

          Did you like it when officers made decisions without getting input from anyone?

          You like Trump’s tweets because they are in your face and bypass the media. He has been truly innovative in that regard. The problem is that he often gets in the way of his own policy and routines makes himself and the nation look ridiculous.

          By the way, I almost exclusively watch Fox News, but just for the entertainment value. I get my actual/factual news through a combination of left, right, and center outlets, to include Drudge, Daily Wire, and Brietbart on the right. I tend to read a story on Drudge, then go to a known left leaning outlet to read their take on the same story. I read both the New York and Washington Times, where I see this morning that Trump pardoned Lorance and Golsteyn, and ordered the promotion of Navy SEAL Edward R. Gallagher

          • timactual says:

            After having some personal experience with the results of “qualified” trained and experienced professionals making foreign policy decisions I have very few problems with “seat-of-the-pants” decision making by amateurs.

            You might also try CSPAN for an occasional reality check. Only occasionally, though, or you get too cynical.

  14. H1 says:

    This is an interesting read.
    http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-plundering-of-ukraine/

    “Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually its founder and owner Mr Nicolai Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners into the company’s board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko’s appetites. He had brought in Biden’s son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it didn’t help him.

    Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney General Shokin to investigate Burisma trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these ‘stars’ between 50 and 150 thousand dollar per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the Ukrainian tax code; it can’t be recognised as legitimate expenditure.

    At that time Biden the father entered the fray. He called Poroshenko and gave him six hours to close the case against his son. Otherwise, one billion dollars of the US taxpayers’ funds won’t pass to the Ukrainian corruptioners. Zlochevsky, the Burisma owner, paid Biden well for this conversation: he received between three and ten million dollars, according to different sources.”

  15. ArmyATC says:

    Folks, correct me if I’m wrong, but is the entire case against Trump based on hearsay? Someone was told something that someone else allegedly heard? Is that correct? It seems to have gotten so bad that a Democratic Congressman, Mike Quigley said, “Countless people have been convicted on hearsay because the courts have routinely allowed and created needed exceptions to hearsay. Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct, as we have learned in painful instances, and is certainly valid in this instance.”

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Normally, hearsay is not allowed as evidence.

      But in this case, the bulk of it, from what I’ve seen reported on the news, IS based on hearsay and not on documentation.

      • rgr769 says:

        Oh, hearsay can be admitted, but only if it meets all the elements of specific exceptions to the rule. But the multi-level hearsay BS put out by the D-rats would never be admitted over objection in any court other than a kangaroo court.

  16. HM3(FMF) says:

    Sorry to hijack in here, but I’ve been reading the “Valor Vulture” post for several months now. There has been no updates to new post. Last post was Ken Woerheide June of 2019. How can I find the new post to valor vultures?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *