ANALYSIS: Democrats Have A Colonel Vindman Problem

[Billiejeens]

Sometimes it’s best to step away from the telescope and look in a mirror.

And sometimes it's best to deal with unpleasant facts and news by ignoring them altogether.

That is their 1 true strength

 

[Billiejeens]

Sometimes it’s best to step away from the telescope and look in a mirror.

And sometimes it's best to deal with unpleasant facts and news by ignoring them altogether.

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.

OMG

I laugh

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

OMG

I laugh

I know....right?

 

[Billiejeens]

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?

You just quoted your boy John Kerry
Why?

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

He did correct a spelling error

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Trump did something wrong, even his republican supporters admit that

This is the whole heart of the matter and you act as though it's all settled.
And no supporters admit Trump did something wrong. It hasn't been demonstrated he has but the party is lousy with backstabbers eager to condemn him who also thought he had thrown in with Russia.
And we all know how that ended up.

So far all we've heard is Schiff's managed and orchestrated kangaroo court's side of things. It's been a Soviet show trial up to this point and the media has been shouting very loudly for Trump's head but as we all know a lie can run around the world before the truth can get it's pants on.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

He did correct a spelling error

Not a fact. A spelling error.

 

[Billiejeens]

He did correct a spelling error

Not a fact. A spelling error.

I think that's his ceiling though.

 

[DGS49]

Just for the record, the President MAKES foreign policy. The people who work for the State Department are not employed to disagree, criticize, undermine, or thwart the President's initiatives. If they want to give advice in advance, and that is part of their job description, fine, do it in private. If they disagree with his actions or policies, they can go get a real job someplace, and don't let the door hit them in the ass on their way out - not that any of them ever does that.

 

[Slade3200]

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.
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.

I’m just gonna stop at that first paragraph and respond to that...

First off, I didn’t say anything close to that so stop lying. Second, I actually quite enjoy it when distinguished service members are questioned. They are typically refreshingly straightforward and forthright without the political spin talk.

Are you against this guy because you think he said something inappropriate or just because his testimony is negative towards Trump?

 

[Meister]

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.

Sometimes you just have to admit that you lost the election and move on.

 

[Slade3200]

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.
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.

As for what specifically I take issue with regarding York’s article... the answer is nothing. I haven’t read the 340 page testimony so I’m not in a position to critique York’s analysis and he is entitled to his interpretation. I’ll watch the public testimony and keep in mind the points that York made to see if anything comes out. I see many of the disgusting comments in this thread regarding service members and just see them as over emotional partisan ignorance. None of us were there so we are all ignorant. Need to slow our roll.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I’m just gonna stop at that first paragraph and respond to that...

First off, I didn’t say anything close to that so stop lying. Second, I actually quite enjoy it when distinguished service members are questioned. They are typically refreshingly straightforward and forthright without the political spin talk.

Are you against this guy because you think he said something inappropriate or just because his testimony is negative towards Trump?

I am against Vindman because he is a perfect manifestation the Deep State that supposedly does not exist (if one were to listen to leftists).
His allegiance is to this "Interagency", which is the virtual Deep State, above all else.
He refuses orders from the President and in reality has no business wearing a uniform and pretending he is a good patriot.

Why he hasn't been brought up on charges from the Military Code of Conduct is beyond me.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

As for what specifically I take issue with regarding York’s article... the answer is nothing. I haven’t read the 340 page testimony so I’m not in a position to critique York’s analysis and he is entitled to his interpretation. I’ll watch the public testimony and keep in mind the points that York made to see if anything comes out. I see many of the disgusting comments in this thread regarding service members and just see them as over emotional partisan ignorance. None of us were there so we are all ignorant. Need to slow our roll.

There is nothing at all in ANY of York's verbiage you take contention with?
Nothing? That's, umm, remarkable.

I won't personalize this but I find your comment hard to swallow.

 

[Slade3200]

Trump did something wrong, even his republican supporters admit that

This is the whole heart of the matter and you act as though it's all settled.
And no supporters admit Trump did something wrong. It hasn't been demonstrated he has but the party is lousy with backstabbers eager to condemn him who also thought he had thrown in with Russia.
And we all know how that ended up.

So far all we've heard is Schiff's managed and orchestrated kangaroo court's side of things. It's been a Soviet show trial up to this point and the media has been shouting very loudly for Trump's head but as we all know a lie can run around the world before the truth can get it's pants on.

are you kidding? Thornberry outright said it was wrong yesterday and just about every republican, except this ones who’s heads are stuck up Trumps butt, Ive seen interviewed either dodges or spins away from the question when asked about the phone call.

Republican: You Can’t Impeach Trump for a Crime He Does ‘All the Time’

 

[Slade3200]

Just for the record, the President MAKES foreign policy. The people who work for the State Department are not employed to disagree, criticize, undermine, or thwart the President's initiatives. If they want to give advice in advance, and that is part of their job description, fine, do it in private. If they disagree with his actions or policies, they can go get a real job someplace, and don't let the door hit them in the ass on their way out - not that any of them ever does that.

What are they supposed to do if they see something that they think is illegal or a breach of protocol?

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Sometimes you just have to admit that you lost the election and move on.

im not a dem and I didn’t vote for Hillary so I guess I’ll have to say “Trump won the election, let’s move on” hows that?

 

[Slade3200]

I’m just gonna stop at that first paragraph and respond to that...

First off, I didn’t say anything close to that so stop lying. Second, I actually quite enjoy it when distinguished service members are questioned. They are typically refreshingly straightforward and forthright without the political spin talk.

Are you against this guy because you think he said something inappropriate or just because his testimony is negative towards Trump?

I am against Vindman because he is a perfect manifestation the Deep State that supposedly does not exist (if one were to listen to leftists).
His allegiance is to this "Interagency", which is the virtual Deep State, above all else.
He refuses orders from the President and in reality has no business wearing a uniform and pretending he is a good patriot.

Why he hasn't been brought up on charges from the Military Code of Conduct is beyond me.

Maybe it’s because the facts don’t line up with the analysis you’ve been fed about the situation.

 

[Slade3200]

As for what specifically I take issue with regarding York’s article... the answer is nothing. I haven’t read the 340 page testimony so I’m not in a position to critique York’s analysis and he is entitled to his interpretation. I’ll watch the public testimony and keep in mind the points that York made to see if anything comes out. I see many of the disgusting comments in this thread regarding service members and just see them as over emotional partisan ignorance. None of us were there so we are all ignorant. Need to slow our roll.

There is nothing at all in ANY of York's verbiage you take contention with?
Nothing? That's, umm, remarkable.

I won't personalize this but I find your comment hard to swallow.

well that’s good, I don’t recommend swallowing... York has a right to his opinion and analysis of the testimony he read. I haven’t read it so I’m not in a place to Conway anything. That doesn’t mean I agree with him. I’ll make my judgement after I hear for myself what Vindman has to say

 

[Slade3200]

As for what specifically I take issue with regarding York’s article... the answer is nothing. I haven’t read the 340 page testimony so I’m not in a position to critique York’s analysis and he is entitled to his interpretation. I’ll watch the public testimony and keep in mind the points that York made to see if anything comes out. I see many of the disgusting comments in this thread regarding service members and just see them as over emotional partisan ignorance. None of us were there so we are all ignorant. Need to slow our roll.

There is nothing at all in ANY of York's verbiage you take contention with?
Nothing? That's, umm, remarkable.

I won't personalize this but I find your comment hard to swallow.

Id also wager that few to none on this board have the 340 page testimony from Vindman so all those who are so quick to agree with one guys analysis are being willfully ignorant stooges