Fellow Soldiers SLAM Col. Vindman For Testifying In Uniform Against The President

I thank the Col. for testifying; a true soldier that placed his country and the truth above the president, and his monumental lies.

DOD regulations prohibit military personnel from wearing a uniform in a political proceeding. In reading the transcript, Rep. Ratcliffe questioned the Col. and all he could say was, "I assumed...I guessed.... I thought...I believed." A piss poor performance.
The man is a disgrace to the uniform.. His actions bring discredit to the armed services. I see a court marshal in the not to distant future as he has already been reassigned to a non classified position as his security clearances have been revoked.
Vindman gave closed door testimony.
The only way anybody would know about that testimony would be release of transcript. Wouldn't it be the responsibility of those who released the testimony, if it contained classified info?
Vindman admitted, during testimony, that he did in fact disclose classified information to Ciaramella, the whistle blower, who had no need to know nor was he cleared to obtain or posses top secret information as it was classified at the time..

Vindman admitted to an act of TREASON, by a line officer in the US Armed Forces, in his testimony.

Vindman is done... He will never be trusted again..

Liar.

Show us in the testimony.
READ: Testimony Of Alexander Vindman, The White House's Ukraine Specialist
 
Sure seems pretty common to me...

2-1-img621.jpg

Those are dress greens. Unit patches are not worn on the shoulders of blues.

.
I think the Army recently introduced the ASU "Dress Blues" and that dress blues are NOT for just formal events, they are for office visits or a business situation and yes, going to testify before congress or in court as examples... daytime business actions, they wear their ribbons and not medals on their chest, for formal occasions in the evening, they wear a black bow tie instead of a regular straight black tie and they wear their medals on their chest daytime or evening, instead of their ribbons....

b471cb6fee19ccfd61e11e1b2c6cb9a6.jpg


I think the Col. wore the proper attire... according to their rules on wearing the blues...
 
He displayed the honesty and integrity our military is known for. He earned the right to wear that uniform, and screw any snot nosed punk that doesn't recognize that.
He's a douche who said nothing more than "orange man bad."
 
He displayed the honesty and integrity our military is known for. He earned the right to wear that uniform, and screw any snot nosed punk that doesn't recognize that.
He's a douche who said nothing more than "orange man bad."
It was more on the line of Giuliani is bad, having a shadow State department is bad, and defeats the purpose and goal of our National Security.
 
How embarrassing that our president is telling the Ukraine president and the world that the Ukraine is corrupt and corruption is bad blah blah blah, while the president is using his office and perceived power, over the Uke President's head, to do what the US president wanted as a favor.... same corruption that was happening at one time in the Ukraine only with businesses.

And then Giuliani and his goons get a strong and good diplomat removed because she sees Giuliani's corruption, and the corruption that the goons have been a part of, with them and Rick Perry, using their perceived power on the Ukraine, to get some board members removed, that were FINALLY CLEAN AS A WHISTLE BOARD members from a huge natural gas company, so that they could insert in to this natural gas company their own Texas personal friends, on that board... and she speaks out because it HARMS the US policy and goals with the Ukraine...

This admin is soooooooo CORRUPT, it is sickening.... honestly, it really is...
 
Last edited:
every single thing Trump has done in the Ukraine, benefits Putin... why is that...? Seriously?
 
I thank the Col. for testifying; a true soldier that placed his country and the truth above the president, and his monumental lies.

DOD regulations prohibit military personnel from wearing a uniform in a political proceeding. In reading the transcript, Rep. Ratcliffe questioned the Col. and all he could say was, "I assumed...I guessed.... I thought...I believed." A piss poor performance.
The man is a disgrace to the uniform.. His actions bring discredit to the armed services. I see a court marshal in the not to distant future as he has already been reassigned to a non classified position as his security clearances have been revoked.
Vindman gave closed door testimony.
The only way anybody would know about that testimony would be release of transcript. Wouldn't it be the responsibility of those who released the testimony, if it contained classified info?
Vindman admitted, during testimony, that he did in fact disclose classified information to Ciaramella, the whistle blower, who had no need to know nor was he cleared to obtain or posses top secret information as it was classified at the time..

Vindman admitted to an act of TREASON, by a line officer in the US Armed Forces, in his testimony.

Vindman is done... He will never be trusted again..
If Vindman gave the whistleblower classified information, it would then be responsibility of the whistleblower to properly handle that information. Both Vindman and whistleblower had clearance to be exposed to classified information, thats why the procedures for reporting violations of laws or rules are specific for national security agencies:

For employees of the 17 intelligence agencies, collectively known as the intelligence community, the options are limited — both because the information they’re dealing with could be classified or because the president might want to withhold certain information from lawmakers.

Those employees can take a complaint to someone in their chain of command, or they can go to the inspector general of their agency or of the intelligence community. To take a complaint directly to Congress, they would need to seek permission from their agency.

As you can see, its impossible for classified information to be leaked when procedures are followed. And if it were leaked, then somebody violated the rules. But the higher-ups on the chain of command or IG has authority to decide if information is too sensitive to be public.
 
I thank the Col. for testifying; a true soldier that placed his country and the truth above the president, and his monumental lies.

DOD regulations prohibit military personnel from wearing a uniform in a political proceeding.
You are flat full of shit. You parroting dumb fucks are being led around by the nose.

No wonder you are so easily conned. You haven't had a single independent thought in years.
 
This is incredible, posters arguing about the clothes a military colonel wore to testify. I say he should have worn the clothes of an admiral. But if he wore the wrong clothes that has to prove something, but what? Strange few mentioned the Infantry Combat Badge or the Purple Heart.
He could be anointed king of the army but his actions and words have made him a traitor.
 
This is incredible, posters arguing about the clothes a military colonel wore to testify. I say he should have worn the clothes of an admiral. But if he wore the wrong clothes that has to prove something, but what? Strange few mentioned the Infantry Combat Badge or the Purple Heart.
His acts of treason pretty much make me disregard his service record. UCMJ strictly prohibits political activities of any kind while in uniform.
And we've been told repeatedly that impeachment is a political process, not a legal proceeding. That gem has been used to deny the President due process. Of course, we are all also aware of the double standard being applied constantly, depending on what the left wants.
 
Remember Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North? Testified in dress "greens," as I recall, in a blatant attempt to come across as a super-patriot. Dress greens are a working uniform for an office environment. I don't recall anyone giving him any grief about the uniform.

Vindman, on the other hand, came in in dress BLUES, which are NOT a working uniform. His attire was the equivalent of wearing a prom dress (or a tuxedo) for a job interview.

The essence of his testimony was a rebuke to his Commander in Chief. Not cool.
No, his attire was the equivalent of putting on your best suit for testimony before Congress.
Are you suggesting that a colonel cannot afford to purchase a decent suit and must resort to wearing his military uniform for such occasions?
Certainly not.

I'm telling you that even if he's got a closet full of Armani his dress blues are still his best suit.
Well, I won't argue with that statement. The question is, wouldn't one of the Armani suits have been a better choice?
You think appearing before Congress isn't the right occasion for your best suit?
I think participating in a political coup against your Commander in Chief in your military uniform is treason, at least in this country. But if this guy really is of foreign national origin, then it may be pretty typical where he comes from. After all, it is pretty common for the military to overthrow their government leadership in other countries. Hopefully, we haven't degenerated so far that it will become part of our political process.
 
and I did hear that 'vindman; will be moved along shortly . Just a comment .
 

Forum List

Back
Top