ANALYSIS: Democrats Have A Colonel Vindman Problem

Doc7505

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2016
15,449
27,139
2,430
ANALYSIS: Democrats Have A Colonel Vindman Problem



ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem
November 11, 2019 ~ By Byron York
House Democrats conducted their impeachment interviews in secret, but Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman still emerged as star of the show. Appearing at his Oct. 29 deposition in full dress uniform, the decorated Army officer, now a White House National Security Council Ukraine expert, was the first witness who had actually listened to the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that is at the heart of the Democratic impeachment campaign. Even though lawmakers were forbidden to discuss his testimony in public, Vindman's leaked opening statement that "I did not think it was proper [for Trump] to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen" exploded on news reports. Vindman has not yet been scheduled to appear before the Democrats' public impeachment hearings. When that happens, he will undoubtedly again play a prominent role. But there will be a difference. The public now has a transcript of Vindman's deposition. And those who have taken the trouble to read the 340-page document will have a different picture of Vindman's testimony than the one presented in early media reports.
Yes, Vindman testified repeatedly that he "thought it was wrong" for Trump, speaking with Zelensky, to bring up the 2016 election and allegations of Ukraine-related corruption on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. But the Vindman transcript also showed a witness whose testimony was filled with opinion, with impressions, who had little new to offer, who withheld important information from the committee, who was steeped in a bureaucracy that has often been hostile to the president, and whose lawyer, presumably with Vindman's approval, expressed unmistakable disdain, verging on contempt, for members of Congress who asked inconvenient questions. In short, Vindman's testimony was not the slam-dunk hit Democrats portrayed it to be.



Comment:
How many times has a President had his confidential phone calls put out in the public domain right after he took office? No wonder President Trump does not trust the State Department along with other agencies.
From the beginning, I've given Vindman the benefit of the doubt because of his military service. My opinion then was influenced by an article I read urging Republicans to lay off of him when he first came onto the scene. At this point, though, things just don't feel right. A Ukranian born man spending his time-sharing under the table advisement to Ukraine in order to handicap U.S. foreign policy he didn't like is a bridge too far. If we can spend two years accusing Trump of being a Russian again, I think Vindman is probably fair game. I don't care if you don't like the decisions of the President, they are the elected party in this equation. High-minded, arrogant bureaucrats are not supposed to be running this country.
Being removed from the NSC is the least of Vindman's worries. When he's done being a pawn for the Progressive Marxist Socialist Left and especially Adam Schiff, he's almost certainly going to bear scrutiny under the UCMJ and/or by the DOJ for his illegal leaking. What he shared with the whistle-blower was top secret information and Vindman has no special immunity to go outside of the chain of command with his complaints.
This guy needs to be nailed to the wall. Letting someone subvert the Office of the Presidency the way he did, including likely committing crimes, can not stand. For the sake of everyone's trust in our institutions, a message must be sent that this won't be tolerated.
 
ANALYSIS: Democrats Have A Colonel Vindman Problem



ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem
November 11, 2019 ~ By Byron York
House Democrats conducted their impeachment interviews in secret, but Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman still emerged as star of the show. Appearing at his Oct. 29 deposition in full dress uniform, the decorated Army officer, now a White House National Security Council Ukraine expert, was the first witness who had actually listened to the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that is at the heart of the Democratic impeachment campaign. Even though lawmakers were forbidden to discuss his testimony in public, Vindman's leaked opening statement that "I did not think it was proper [for Trump] to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen" exploded on news reports. Vindman has not yet been scheduled to appear before the Democrats' public impeachment hearings. When that happens, he will undoubtedly again play a prominent role. But there will be a difference. The public now has a transcript of Vindman's deposition. And those who have taken the trouble to read the 340-page document will have a different picture of Vindman's testimony than the one presented in early media reports.
Yes, Vindman testified repeatedly that he "thought it was wrong" for Trump, speaking with Zelensky, to bring up the 2016 election and allegations of Ukraine-related corruption on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. But the Vindman transcript also showed a witness whose testimony was filled with opinion, with impressions, who had little new to offer, who withheld important information from the committee, who was steeped in a bureaucracy that has often been hostile to the president, and whose lawyer, presumably with Vindman's approval, expressed unmistakable disdain, verging on contempt, for members of Congress who asked inconvenient questions. In short, Vindman's testimony was not the slam-dunk hit Democrats portrayed it to be.



Comment:
How many times has a President had his confidential phone calls put out in the public domain right after he took office? No wonder President Trump does not trust the State Department along with other agencies.
From the beginning, I've given Vindman the benefit of the doubt because of his military service. My opinion then was influenced by an article I read urging Republicans to lay off of him when he first came onto the scene. At this point, though, things just don't feel right. A Ukranian born man spending his time-sharing under the table advisement to Ukraine in order to handicap U.S. foreign policy he didn't like is a bridge too far. If we can spend two years accusing Trump of being a Russian again, I think Vindman is probably fair game. I don't care if you don't like the decisions of the President, they are the elected party in this equation. High-minded, arrogant bureaucrats are not supposed to be running this country.
Being removed from the NSC is the least of Vindman's worries. When he's done being a pawn for the Progressive Marxist Socialist Left and especially Adam Schiff, he's almost certainly going to bear scrutiny under the UCMJ and/or by the DOJ for his illegal leaking. What he shared with the whistle-blower was top secret information and Vindman has no special immunity to go outside of the chain of command with his complaints.
This guy needs to be nailed to the wall. Letting someone subvert the Office of the Presidency the way he did, including likely committing crimes, can not stand. For the sake of everyone's trust in our institutions, a message must be sent that this won't be tolerated.
Sometimes it’s best to step away from the telescope and look in a mirror.
 
ANALYSIS: Democrats Have A Colonel Vindman Problem



ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem
November 11, 2019 ~ By Byron York
House Democrats conducted their impeachment interviews in secret, but Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman still emerged as star of the show. Appearing at his Oct. 29 deposition in full dress uniform, the decorated Army officer, now a White House National Security Council Ukraine expert, was the first witness who had actually listened to the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that is at the heart of the Democratic impeachment campaign. Even though lawmakers were forbidden to discuss his testimony in public, Vindman's leaked opening statement that "I did not think it was proper [for Trump] to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen" exploded on news reports. Vindman has not yet been scheduled to appear before the Democrats' public impeachment hearings. When that happens, he will undoubtedly again play a prominent role. But there will be a difference. The public now has a transcript of Vindman's deposition. And those who have taken the trouble to read the 340-page document will have a different picture of Vindman's testimony than the one presented in early media reports.
Yes, Vindman testified repeatedly that he "thought it was wrong" for Trump, speaking with Zelensky, to bring up the 2016 election and allegations of Ukraine-related corruption on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. But the Vindman transcript also showed a witness whose testimony was filled with opinion, with impressions, who had little new to offer, who withheld important information from the committee, who was steeped in a bureaucracy that has often been hostile to the president, and whose lawyer, presumably with Vindman's approval, expressed unmistakable disdain, verging on contempt, for members of Congress who asked inconvenient questions. In short, Vindman's testimony was not the slam-dunk hit Democrats portrayed it to be.



Comment:
How many times has a President had his confidential phone calls put out in the public domain right after he took office? No wonder President Trump does not trust the State Department along with other agencies.
From the beginning, I've given Vindman the benefit of the doubt because of his military service. My opinion then was influenced by an article I read urging Republicans to lay off of him when he first came onto the scene. At this point, though, things just don't feel right. A Ukranian born man spending his time-sharing under the table advisement to Ukraine in order to handicap U.S. foreign policy he didn't like is a bridge too far. If we can spend two years accusing Trump of being a Russian again, I think Vindman is probably fair game. I don't care if you don't like the decisions of the President, they are the elected party in this equation. High-minded, arrogant bureaucrats are not supposed to be running this country.
Being removed from the NSC is the least of Vindman's worries. When he's done being a pawn for the Progressive Marxist Socialist Left and especially Adam Schiff, he's almost certainly going to bear scrutiny under the UCMJ and/or by the DOJ for his illegal leaking. What he shared with the whistle-blower was top secret information and Vindman has no special immunity to go outside of the chain of command with his complaints.
This guy needs to be nailed to the wall. Letting someone subvert the Office of the Presidency the way he did, including likely committing crimes, can not stand. For the sake of everyone's trust in our institutions, a message must be sent that this won't be tolerated.

Byron York??!!
You read his drivel?
You'll be quoting news busters next.
Ah well
"If you are not smart enough to get a real job, join the military.
Great indoctrination and socialist benefits"
I presume you are a vagina grabbing and teen peeking supporter?
 
How the hell did this guy make Colonel? The effin traitor can't even be loyal to his commander in chief, and it's all because he doesn't agree with his style or substance. But what makes that pasty looking lard ass think he knows anything? Trust is one of the biggest qualities a person can have and this POS will never have that outside of his little band of coup co-conspirators.
 
ANALYSIS: Democrats Have A Colonel Vindman Problem



ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem
November 11, 2019 ~ By Byron York
House Democrats conducted their impeachment interviews in secret, but Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman still emerged as star of the show. Appearing at his Oct. 29 deposition in full dress uniform, the decorated Army officer, now a White House National Security Council Ukraine expert, was the first witness who had actually listened to the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that is at the heart of the Democratic impeachment campaign. Even though lawmakers were forbidden to discuss his testimony in public, Vindman's leaked opening statement that "I did not think it was proper [for Trump] to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen" exploded on news reports. Vindman has not yet been scheduled to appear before the Democrats' public impeachment hearings. When that happens, he will undoubtedly again play a prominent role. But there will be a difference. The public now has a transcript of Vindman's deposition. And those who have taken the trouble to read the 340-page document will have a different picture of Vindman's testimony than the one presented in early media reports.
Yes, Vindman testified repeatedly that he "thought it was wrong" for Trump, speaking with Zelensky, to bring up the 2016 election and allegations of Ukraine-related corruption on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. But the Vindman transcript also showed a witness whose testimony was filled with opinion, with impressions, who had little new to offer, who withheld important information from the committee, who was steeped in a bureaucracy that has often been hostile to the president, and whose lawyer, presumably with Vindman's approval, expressed unmistakable disdain, verging on contempt, for members of Congress who asked inconvenient questions. In short, Vindman's testimony was not the slam-dunk hit Democrats portrayed it to be.



Comment:
How many times has a President had his confidential phone calls put out in the public domain right after he took office? No wonder President Trump does not trust the State Department along with other agencies.
From the beginning, I've given Vindman the benefit of the doubt because of his military service. My opinion then was influenced by an article I read urging Republicans to lay off of him when he first came onto the scene. At this point, though, things just don't feel right. A Ukranian born man spending his time-sharing under the table advisement to Ukraine in order to handicap U.S. foreign policy he didn't like is a bridge too far. If we can spend two years accusing Trump of being a Russian again, I think Vindman is probably fair game. I don't care if you don't like the decisions of the President, they are the elected party in this equation. High-minded, arrogant bureaucrats are not supposed to be running this country.
Being removed from the NSC is the least of Vindman's worries. When he's done being a pawn for the Progressive Marxist Socialist Left and especially Adam Schiff, he's almost certainly going to bear scrutiny under the UCMJ and/or by the DOJ for his illegal leaking. What he shared with the whistle-blower was top secret information and Vindman has no special immunity to go outside of the chain of command with his complaints.
This guy needs to be nailed to the wall. Letting someone subvert the Office of the Presidency the way he did, including likely committing crimes, can not stand. For the sake of everyone's trust in our institutions, a message must be sent that this won't be tolerated.


So it's known, dirt bags fit in army uniforms to. He is just another government shit sack. Fuck him, fuck his uniform. All it is is a prop to people like him and Schiff.
 
How the hell did this guy make Colonel? The effin traitor can't even be loyal to his commander in chief, and it's all because he doesn't agree with his style or substance. But what makes that pasty looking lard ass think he knows anything? Trust is one of the biggest qualities a person can have and this POS will never have that outside of his little band of coup co-conspirators.
how dare he give honest testimony to Congress!!! He should either not say anything or better yet lie to make Trump look good like any loyal puppet should do!!! Take his stripes!!!!!
 
ANALYSIS: Democrats Have A Colonel Vindman Problem



ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem
November 11, 2019 ~ By Byron York
House Democrats conducted their impeachment interviews in secret, but Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman still emerged as star of the show. Appearing at his Oct. 29 deposition in full dress uniform, the decorated Army officer, now a White House National Security Council Ukraine expert, was the first witness who had actually listened to the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that is at the heart of the Democratic impeachment campaign. Even though lawmakers were forbidden to discuss his testimony in public, Vindman's leaked opening statement that "I did not think it was proper [for Trump] to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen" exploded on news reports. Vindman has not yet been scheduled to appear before the Democrats' public impeachment hearings. When that happens, he will undoubtedly again play a prominent role. But there will be a difference. The public now has a transcript of Vindman's deposition. And those who have taken the trouble to read the 340-page document will have a different picture of Vindman's testimony than the one presented in early media reports.
Yes, Vindman testified repeatedly that he "thought it was wrong" for Trump, speaking with Zelensky, to bring up the 2016 election and allegations of Ukraine-related corruption on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. But the Vindman transcript also showed a witness whose testimony was filled with opinion, with impressions, who had little new to offer, who withheld important information from the committee, who was steeped in a bureaucracy that has often been hostile to the president, and whose lawyer, presumably with Vindman's approval, expressed unmistakable disdain, verging on contempt, for members of Congress who asked inconvenient questions. In short, Vindman's testimony was not the slam-dunk hit Democrats portrayed it to be.



Comment:
How many times has a President had his confidential phone calls put out in the public domain right after he took office? No wonder President Trump does not trust the State Department along with other agencies.
From the beginning, I've given Vindman the benefit of the doubt because of his military service. My opinion then was influenced by an article I read urging Republicans to lay off of him when he first came onto the scene. At this point, though, things just don't feel right. A Ukranian born man spending his time-sharing under the table advisement to Ukraine in order to handicap U.S. foreign policy he didn't like is a bridge too far. If we can spend two years accusing Trump of being a Russian again, I think Vindman is probably fair game. I don't care if you don't like the decisions of the President, they are the elected party in this equation. High-minded, arrogant bureaucrats are not supposed to be running this country.
Being removed from the NSC is the least of Vindman's worries. When he's done being a pawn for the Progressive Marxist Socialist Left and especially Adam Schiff, he's almost certainly going to bear scrutiny under the UCMJ and/or by the DOJ for his illegal leaking. What he shared with the whistle-blower was top secret information and Vindman has no special immunity to go outside of the chain of command with his complaints.
This guy needs to be nailed to the wall. Letting someone subvert the Office of the Presidency the way he did, including likely committing crimes, can not stand. For the sake of everyone's trust in our institutions, a message must be sent that this won't be tolerated.


So it's known, dirt bags fit in army uniforms to. He is just another government shit sack. Fuck him, fuck his uniform. All it is is a prop to people like him and Schiff.
Is it any wonder why people are disgusted by Trump supporters like yourself?! #ProudAndDeplorable
 
ANALYSIS: Democrats Have A Colonel Vindman Problem



ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem
November 11, 2019 ~ By Byron York
House Democrats conducted their impeachment interviews in secret, but Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman still emerged as star of the show. Appearing at his Oct. 29 deposition in full dress uniform, the decorated Army officer, now a White House National Security Council Ukraine expert, was the first witness who had actually listened to the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that is at the heart of the Democratic impeachment campaign. Even though lawmakers were forbidden to discuss his testimony in public, Vindman's leaked opening statement that "I did not think it was proper [for Trump] to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen" exploded on news reports. Vindman has not yet been scheduled to appear before the Democrats' public impeachment hearings. When that happens, he will undoubtedly again play a prominent role. But there will be a difference. The public now has a transcript of Vindman's deposition. And those who have taken the trouble to read the 340-page document will have a different picture of Vindman's testimony than the one presented in early media reports.
Yes, Vindman testified repeatedly that he "thought it was wrong" for Trump, speaking with Zelensky, to bring up the 2016 election and allegations of Ukraine-related corruption on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. But the Vindman transcript also showed a witness whose testimony was filled with opinion, with impressions, who had little new to offer, who withheld important information from the committee, who was steeped in a bureaucracy that has often been hostile to the president, and whose lawyer, presumably with Vindman's approval, expressed unmistakable disdain, verging on contempt, for members of Congress who asked inconvenient questions. In short, Vindman's testimony was not the slam-dunk hit Democrats portrayed it to be.



Comment:
How many times has a President had his confidential phone calls put out in the public domain right after he took office? No wonder President Trump does not trust the State Department along with other agencies.
From the beginning, I've given Vindman the benefit of the doubt because of his military service. My opinion then was influenced by an article I read urging Republicans to lay off of him when he first came onto the scene. At this point, though, things just don't feel right. A Ukranian born man spending his time-sharing under the table advisement to Ukraine in order to handicap U.S. foreign policy he didn't like is a bridge too far. If we can spend two years accusing Trump of being a Russian again, I think Vindman is probably fair game. I don't care if you don't like the decisions of the President, they are the elected party in this equation. High-minded, arrogant bureaucrats are not supposed to be running this country.
Being removed from the NSC is the least of Vindman's worries. When he's done being a pawn for the Progressive Marxist Socialist Left and especially Adam Schiff, he's almost certainly going to bear scrutiny under the UCMJ and/or by the DOJ for his illegal leaking. What he shared with the whistle-blower was top secret information and Vindman has no special immunity to go outside of the chain of command with his complaints.
This guy needs to be nailed to the wall. Letting someone subvert the Office of the Presidency the way he did, including likely committing crimes, can not stand. For the sake of everyone's trust in our institutions, a message must be sent that this won't be tolerated.


So it's known, dirt bags fit in army uniforms to. He is just another government shit sack. Fuck him, fuck his uniform. All it is is a prop to people like him and Schiff.
Is it any wonder why people are disgusted by Trump supporters like yourself?! #ProudAndDeplorable


Trump supporter? No. Trump policy supporter? Mostly. Little gubmet queer who had to dress up and play army to be taken seriously supporter? Absolutely not. Fuck him, fuck his uniform, and fuck his purple hart.
 
i disagree with that. You should always be able to give an objective look at the facts. If not you shouldn’t be in the conversation.
Yes, I agree with you. You shouldn't be here.

You haven't addressed a single fact in favor of snarky biased put downs. Your lack of self awareness is shocking.
 
Last edited:
ANALYSIS: Democrats Have A Colonel Vindman Problem



ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem
November 11, 2019 ~ By Byron York
House Democrats conducted their impeachment interviews in secret, but Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman still emerged as star of the show. Appearing at his Oct. 29 deposition in full dress uniform, the decorated Army officer, now a White House National Security Council Ukraine expert, was the first witness who had actually listened to the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that is at the heart of the Democratic impeachment campaign. Even though lawmakers were forbidden to discuss his testimony in public, Vindman's leaked opening statement that "I did not think it was proper [for Trump] to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen" exploded on news reports. Vindman has not yet been scheduled to appear before the Democrats' public impeachment hearings. When that happens, he will undoubtedly again play a prominent role. But there will be a difference. The public now has a transcript of Vindman's deposition. And those who have taken the trouble to read the 340-page document will have a different picture of Vindman's testimony than the one presented in early media reports.
Yes, Vindman testified repeatedly that he "thought it was wrong" for Trump, speaking with Zelensky, to bring up the 2016 election and allegations of Ukraine-related corruption on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. But the Vindman transcript also showed a witness whose testimony was filled with opinion, with impressions, who had little new to offer, who withheld important information from the committee, who was steeped in a bureaucracy that has often been hostile to the president, and whose lawyer, presumably with Vindman's approval, expressed unmistakable disdain, verging on contempt, for members of Congress who asked inconvenient questions. In short, Vindman's testimony was not the slam-dunk hit Democrats portrayed it to be.



Comment:
How many times has a President had his confidential phone calls put out in the public domain right after he took office? No wonder President Trump does not trust the State Department along with other agencies.
From the beginning, I've given Vindman the benefit of the doubt because of his military service. My opinion then was influenced by an article I read urging Republicans to lay off of him when he first came onto the scene. At this point, though, things just don't feel right. A Ukranian born man spending his time-sharing under the table advisement to Ukraine in order to handicap U.S. foreign policy he didn't like is a bridge too far. If we can spend two years accusing Trump of being a Russian again, I think Vindman is probably fair game. I don't care if you don't like the decisions of the President, they are the elected party in this equation. High-minded, arrogant bureaucrats are not supposed to be running this country.
Being removed from the NSC is the least of Vindman's worries. When he's done being a pawn for the Progressive Marxist Socialist Left and especially Adam Schiff, he's almost certainly going to bear scrutiny under the UCMJ and/or by the DOJ for his illegal leaking. What he shared with the whistle-blower was top secret information and Vindman has no special immunity to go outside of the chain of command with his complaints.
This guy needs to be nailed to the wall. Letting someone subvert the Office of the Presidency the way he did, including likely committing crimes, can not stand. For the sake of everyone's trust in our institutions, a message must be sent that this won't be tolerated.


So it's known, dirt bags fit in army uniforms to. He is just another government shit sack. Fuck him, fuck his uniform. All it is is a prop to people like him and Schiff.
Is it any wonder why people are disgusted by Trump supporters like yourself?! #ProudAndDeplorable


Trump supporter? No. Trump policy supporter? Mostly. Little gubmet queer who had to dress up and play army to be taken seriously supporter? Absolutely not. Fuck him, fuck his uniform, and fuck his purple hart.
It’s Purple Heart smart guy. Back to the bunker with you, your kind is just noise pollution.
 
It takes a real dweeb to be taken in by this bogus impeachment charade. It's all so obviously contrived.
Trump did something wrong, even his republican supporters admit that. The Dems wanted him fired for it plus his 3 years of antics. I think it’s a bad political move but the constitution grants them the authority to try and do so. We shall see if they can make a compelling case.
 
i disagree with that. You should always be able to give an objective look at the facts. If not you shouldn’t be in the conversation.
Yes, II agree with you. You shouldn't be here.

You haven't addressed a single fact in favor of snarky biased put downs. Your lack of self awareness is shocking.
That’s fair, I’m at troll level thus far in this thread, but I took this thread as a bash on the guy in uniform thread... I’m happy to come above board and discuss specifics though. Where do you want to take it?
 
ANALYSIS: Democrats Have A Colonel Vindman Problem



ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem
November 11, 2019 ~ By Byron York
House Democrats conducted their impeachment interviews in secret, but Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman still emerged as star of the show. Appearing at his Oct. 29 deposition in full dress uniform, the decorated Army officer, now a White House National Security Council Ukraine expert, was the first witness who had actually listened to the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that is at the heart of the Democratic impeachment campaign. Even though lawmakers were forbidden to discuss his testimony in public, Vindman's leaked opening statement that "I did not think it was proper [for Trump] to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen" exploded on news reports. Vindman has not yet been scheduled to appear before the Democrats' public impeachment hearings. When that happens, he will undoubtedly again play a prominent role. But there will be a difference. The public now has a transcript of Vindman's deposition. And those who have taken the trouble to read the 340-page document will have a different picture of Vindman's testimony than the one presented in early media reports.
Yes, Vindman testified repeatedly that he "thought it was wrong" for Trump, speaking with Zelensky, to bring up the 2016 election and allegations of Ukraine-related corruption on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. But the Vindman transcript also showed a witness whose testimony was filled with opinion, with impressions, who had little new to offer, who withheld important information from the committee, who was steeped in a bureaucracy that has often been hostile to the president, and whose lawyer, presumably with Vindman's approval, expressed unmistakable disdain, verging on contempt, for members of Congress who asked inconvenient questions. In short, Vindman's testimony was not the slam-dunk hit Democrats portrayed it to be.



Comment:
How many times has a President had his confidential phone calls put out in the public domain right after he took office? No wonder President Trump does not trust the State Department along with other agencies.
From the beginning, I've given Vindman the benefit of the doubt because of his military service. My opinion then was influenced by an article I read urging Republicans to lay off of him when he first came onto the scene. At this point, though, things just don't feel right. A Ukranian born man spending his time-sharing under the table advisement to Ukraine in order to handicap U.S. foreign policy he didn't like is a bridge too far. If we can spend two years accusing Trump of being a Russian again, I think Vindman is probably fair game. I don't care if you don't like the decisions of the President, they are the elected party in this equation. High-minded, arrogant bureaucrats are not supposed to be running this country.
Being removed from the NSC is the least of Vindman's worries. When he's done being a pawn for the Progressive Marxist Socialist Left and especially Adam Schiff, he's almost certainly going to bear scrutiny under the UCMJ and/or by the DOJ for his illegal leaking. What he shared with the whistle-blower was top secret information and Vindman has no special immunity to go outside of the chain of command with his complaints.
This guy needs to be nailed to the wall. Letting someone subvert the Office of the Presidency the way he did, including likely committing crimes, can not stand. For the sake of everyone's trust in our institutions, a message must be sent that this won't be tolerated.


So it's known, dirt bags fit in army uniforms to. He is just another government shit sack. Fuck him, fuck his uniform. All it is is a prop to people like him and Schiff.
Is it any wonder why people are disgusted by Trump supporters like yourself?! #ProudAndDeplorable


Trump supporter? No. Trump policy supporter? Mostly. Little gubmet queer who had to dress up and play army to be taken seriously supporter? Absolutely not. Fuck him, fuck his uniform, and fuck his purple hart.
It’s Purple Heart smart guy. Back to the bunker with you, your kind is just noise pollution.
ANALYSIS: Democrats Have A Colonel Vindman Problem



ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem
November 11, 2019 ~ By Byron York
House Democrats conducted their impeachment interviews in secret, but Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman still emerged as star of the show. Appearing at his Oct. 29 deposition in full dress uniform, the decorated Army officer, now a White House National Security Council Ukraine expert, was the first witness who had actually listened to the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that is at the heart of the Democratic impeachment campaign. Even though lawmakers were forbidden to discuss his testimony in public, Vindman's leaked opening statement that "I did not think it was proper [for Trump] to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen" exploded on news reports. Vindman has not yet been scheduled to appear before the Democrats' public impeachment hearings. When that happens, he will undoubtedly again play a prominent role. But there will be a difference. The public now has a transcript of Vindman's deposition. And those who have taken the trouble to read the 340-page document will have a different picture of Vindman's testimony than the one presented in early media reports.
Yes, Vindman testified repeatedly that he "thought it was wrong" for Trump, speaking with Zelensky, to bring up the 2016 election and allegations of Ukraine-related corruption on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. But the Vindman transcript also showed a witness whose testimony was filled with opinion, with impressions, who had little new to offer, who withheld important information from the committee, who was steeped in a bureaucracy that has often been hostile to the president, and whose lawyer, presumably with Vindman's approval, expressed unmistakable disdain, verging on contempt, for members of Congress who asked inconvenient questions. In short, Vindman's testimony was not the slam-dunk hit Democrats portrayed it to be.



Comment:
How many times has a President had his confidential phone calls put out in the public domain right after he took office? No wonder President Trump does not trust the State Department along with other agencies.
From the beginning, I've given Vindman the benefit of the doubt because of his military service. My opinion then was influenced by an article I read urging Republicans to lay off of him when he first came onto the scene. At this point, though, things just don't feel right. A Ukranian born man spending his time-sharing under the table advisement to Ukraine in order to handicap U.S. foreign policy he didn't like is a bridge too far. If we can spend two years accusing Trump of being a Russian again, I think Vindman is probably fair game. I don't care if you don't like the decisions of the President, they are the elected party in this equation. High-minded, arrogant bureaucrats are not supposed to be running this country.
Being removed from the NSC is the least of Vindman's worries. When he's done being a pawn for the Progressive Marxist Socialist Left and especially Adam Schiff, he's almost certainly going to bear scrutiny under the UCMJ and/or by the DOJ for his illegal leaking. What he shared with the whistle-blower was top secret information and Vindman has no special immunity to go outside of the chain of command with his complaints.
This guy needs to be nailed to the wall. Letting someone subvert the Office of the Presidency the way he did, including likely committing crimes, can not stand. For the sake of everyone's trust in our institutions, a message must be sent that this won't be tolerated.


So it's known, dirt bags fit in army uniforms to. He is just another government shit sack. Fuck him, fuck his uniform. All it is is a prop to people like him and Schiff.
Is it any wonder why people are disgusted by Trump supporters like yourself?! #ProudAndDeplorable


Trump supporter? No. Trump policy supporter? Mostly. Little gubmet queer who had to dress up and play army to be taken seriously supporter? Absolutely not. Fuck him, fuck his uniform, and fuck his purple hart.
It’s Purple Heart smart guy. Back to the bunker with you, your kind is just noise pollution.


image.jpeg



Military Medals


Wonder if that's where John Kerry bought his to? Libtards are big on that. Buying medals to spruce up their uniforms.
 
It takes a real dweeb to be taken in by this bogus impeachment charade. It's all so obviously contrived.
Trump did something wrong, even his republican supporters admit that. The Dems wanted him fired for it plus his 3 years of antics. I think it’s a bad political move but the constitution grants them the authority to try and do so. We shall see if they can make a compelling case.


No they didn't. If they did they would support impeachment. None do.
 
ANALYSIS: Democrats Have A Colonel Vindman Problem



ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem
November 11, 2019 ~ By Byron York
House Democrats conducted their impeachment interviews in secret, but Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman still emerged as star of the show. Appearing at his Oct. 29 deposition in full dress uniform, the decorated Army officer, now a White House National Security Council Ukraine expert, was the first witness who had actually listened to the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that is at the heart of the Democratic impeachment campaign. Even though lawmakers were forbidden to discuss his testimony in public, Vindman's leaked opening statement that "I did not think it was proper [for Trump] to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen" exploded on news reports. Vindman has not yet been scheduled to appear before the Democrats' public impeachment hearings. When that happens, he will undoubtedly again play a prominent role. But there will be a difference. The public now has a transcript of Vindman's deposition. And those who have taken the trouble to read the 340-page document will have a different picture of Vindman's testimony than the one presented in early media reports.
Yes, Vindman testified repeatedly that he "thought it was wrong" for Trump, speaking with Zelensky, to bring up the 2016 election and allegations of Ukraine-related corruption on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. But the Vindman transcript also showed a witness whose testimony was filled with opinion, with impressions, who had little new to offer, who withheld important information from the committee, who was steeped in a bureaucracy that has often been hostile to the president, and whose lawyer, presumably with Vindman's approval, expressed unmistakable disdain, verging on contempt, for members of Congress who asked inconvenient questions. In short, Vindman's testimony was not the slam-dunk hit Democrats portrayed it to be.



Comment:
How many times has a President had his confidential phone calls put out in the public domain right after he took office? No wonder President Trump does not trust the State Department along with other agencies.
From the beginning, I've given Vindman the benefit of the doubt because of his military service. My opinion then was influenced by an article I read urging Republicans to lay off of him when he first came onto the scene. At this point, though, things just don't feel right. A Ukranian born man spending his time-sharing under the table advisement to Ukraine in order to handicap U.S. foreign policy he didn't like is a bridge too far. If we can spend two years accusing Trump of being a Russian again, I think Vindman is probably fair game. I don't care if you don't like the decisions of the President, they are the elected party in this equation. High-minded, arrogant bureaucrats are not supposed to be running this country.
Being removed from the NSC is the least of Vindman's worries. When he's done being a pawn for the Progressive Marxist Socialist Left and especially Adam Schiff, he's almost certainly going to bear scrutiny under the UCMJ and/or by the DOJ for his illegal leaking. What he shared with the whistle-blower was top secret information and Vindman has no special immunity to go outside of the chain of command with his complaints.
This guy needs to be nailed to the wall. Letting someone subvert the Office of the Presidency the way he did, including likely committing crimes, can not stand. For the sake of everyone's trust in our institutions, a message must be sent that this won't be tolerated.


So it's known, dirt bags fit in army uniforms to. He is just another government shit sack. Fuck him, fuck his uniform. All it is is a prop to people like him and Schiff.
Is it any wonder why people are disgusted by Trump supporters like yourself?! #ProudAndDeplorable


Trump supporter? No. Trump policy supporter? Mostly. Little gubmet queer who had to dress up and play army to be taken seriously supporter? Absolutely not. Fuck him, fuck his uniform, and fuck his purple hart.
It’s Purple Heart smart guy. Back to the bunker with you, your kind is just noise pollution.
ANALYSIS: Democrats Have A Colonel Vindman Problem



ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem
November 11, 2019 ~ By Byron York
House Democrats conducted their impeachment interviews in secret, but Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman still emerged as star of the show. Appearing at his Oct. 29 deposition in full dress uniform, the decorated Army officer, now a White House National Security Council Ukraine expert, was the first witness who had actually listened to the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that is at the heart of the Democratic impeachment campaign. Even though lawmakers were forbidden to discuss his testimony in public, Vindman's leaked opening statement that "I did not think it was proper [for Trump] to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen" exploded on news reports. Vindman has not yet been scheduled to appear before the Democrats' public impeachment hearings. When that happens, he will undoubtedly again play a prominent role. But there will be a difference. The public now has a transcript of Vindman's deposition. And those who have taken the trouble to read the 340-page document will have a different picture of Vindman's testimony than the one presented in early media reports.
Yes, Vindman testified repeatedly that he "thought it was wrong" for Trump, speaking with Zelensky, to bring up the 2016 election and allegations of Ukraine-related corruption on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. But the Vindman transcript also showed a witness whose testimony was filled with opinion, with impressions, who had little new to offer, who withheld important information from the committee, who was steeped in a bureaucracy that has often been hostile to the president, and whose lawyer, presumably with Vindman's approval, expressed unmistakable disdain, verging on contempt, for members of Congress who asked inconvenient questions. In short, Vindman's testimony was not the slam-dunk hit Democrats portrayed it to be.



Comment:
How many times has a President had his confidential phone calls put out in the public domain right after he took office? No wonder President Trump does not trust the State Department along with other agencies.
From the beginning, I've given Vindman the benefit of the doubt because of his military service. My opinion then was influenced by an article I read urging Republicans to lay off of him when he first came onto the scene. At this point, though, things just don't feel right. A Ukranian born man spending his time-sharing under the table advisement to Ukraine in order to handicap U.S. foreign policy he didn't like is a bridge too far. If we can spend two years accusing Trump of being a Russian again, I think Vindman is probably fair game. I don't care if you don't like the decisions of the President, they are the elected party in this equation. High-minded, arrogant bureaucrats are not supposed to be running this country.
Being removed from the NSC is the least of Vindman's worries. When he's done being a pawn for the Progressive Marxist Socialist Left and especially Adam Schiff, he's almost certainly going to bear scrutiny under the UCMJ and/or by the DOJ for his illegal leaking. What he shared with the whistle-blower was top secret information and Vindman has no special immunity to go outside of the chain of command with his complaints.
This guy needs to be nailed to the wall. Letting someone subvert the Office of the Presidency the way he did, including likely committing crimes, can not stand. For the sake of everyone's trust in our institutions, a message must be sent that this won't be tolerated.


So it's known, dirt bags fit in army uniforms to. He is just another government shit sack. Fuck him, fuck his uniform. All it is is a prop to people like him and Schiff.
Is it any wonder why people are disgusted by Trump supporters like yourself?! #ProudAndDeplorable


Trump supporter? No. Trump policy supporter? Mostly. Little gubmet queer who had to dress up and play army to be taken seriously supporter? Absolutely not. Fuck him, fuck his uniform, and fuck his purple hart.
It’s Purple Heart smart guy. Back to the bunker with you, your kind is just noise pollution.


View attachment 289492


Military Medals


Wonder if that's where John Kerry bought his to? Libtards are big on that. Buying medals to spruce up their uniforms.
What do you know about service to country? Do you have experience or are you just the peanut gallery?
 
It takes a real dweeb to be taken in by this bogus impeachment charade. It's all so obviously contrived.
Trump did something wrong, even his republican supporters admit that. The Dems wanted him fired for it plus his 3 years of antics. I think it’s a bad political move but the constitution grants them the authority to try and do so. We shall see if they can make a compelling case.


No they didn't. If they did they would support impeachment. None do.
That’s not how it works. Sorry but your wrong.... again
 
That’s fair, I’m at troll level thus far in this thread, but I took this thread as a bash on the guy in uniform thread...
I see. :icon_rolleyes:
Can't bear to see anyone in uniform questioned or doubted eh? That's quite a metamorphosis for the left just in the last decade or so when our military was seen as killer lackeys for the Bush and Cheney war machine.

We are seeing quite a few sudden reversals since the Obama years. I never thought I'd see the left defending the CIA AND the military but here we are (the few exceptions like Kerry and McCain notwithstanding).

Alex Vindman Is Living Proof That The Deep State Exists, And Is Corrupt
He's a puffed up company man, loyal to the "Interagency", and perfectly at peace with ignoring orders from the President if, in his judgement, those orders conflict with the interests of
the Interagency. There is deep state written all over this man.

I’m happy to come above board and discuss specifics though. Where do you want to take it?
You can start by detailing what it is specifically that you take issue with in Byron York's analysis of Vindman.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top