Ten Reasons Vindman’s Testimony Was Bad for Democrats

[Doc7505]

Ten Reasons Vindman’s Testimony Was Bad for Democrats​

Ten Reasons Vindman’s Testimony Was Bad for Democrats | News and Politics
11/20/2019 ~ By Matt Margolis
Forget the Democrats' talking points. Forget the media spin. If you watched Lt. Col. Vindman's testimony today it was a total dud for the Democrats and their impeachment witch hunt. Need proof? I've compiled ten reasons that the show today did not advance the Democrats' narrative one bit.
Vindman admitted that the president, not unelected bureaucrats, sets U.S. policy. Admitted he never had contact with President Trump. Admitted having no firsthand knowledge of aid or an investigation and was just “following news accounts”. Admitted Trump was “well within his rights” to ask Ukraine for help in an investigation. Admitted that putting the transcript of the Ukraine call on a secure server was “definitely not unprecedented". Admitted the Trump-Zelensky transcript was “very accurate”. Which pretty much negates the entire need for this impeachment inquiry, doesn't it? If Trump was within his rights to seek assistance in an investigation, then he did nothing wrong.


Comment:
This corruption has been going on for decades. Corrupt, career bureaucrats serving their own best interests, not those of the country or taxpayers who have elected them and pay them. They are not about to squeal on anyone, knowing they are just as guilty.
The problem is the biased and complicit media feeding disinformation to brainwashed people out there that believe it. The idea is to confuse, load with so much information, lies or not, the people can’t keep up...and for most who pay little attention, it’s even worse. They're attempting to pin a corrupt government interfering in elections on Trump and the Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrats attempting to have a phony impeachment are corrupt to the core.
People Left and right tend to hear only what they want to hear. The facts are clear that Vindman is biased and his testimony shows that he factually had no evidence and leaked his version of information to the "Whistle-Blower that he claims he doesn't know. Yet, he's testified that he told Kent and one unnamed person within the intelligence community (The Whistle Blower) that he refused to name.
Vindman disgraces the reputation of the NSC and the military. The same for others in the FBI, Justice, and Intelligence Community. the more PMS/DSA Leftists try to use the 'Deep State' resources to get Trump, the more we see how far down the corruption goes. I don't know how these organizations will survive without a major purge of senior executives, and a more effective internal investigation. NOT an IG report suggesting more training.
IMO, as a veteran, Vindman is a disgrace to the uniform he wears. Who is his nutrition advisor... Michael Moore or Rosie O'Donnell? He looks like he's never walked past a buffet. I doubt that he could actually pass the PRT... waddling whatever distance he runs.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

One would think given the perceptual reality you live within that your problem would be resolved by voting Republican. Why does that not work out for you?

 

[The Original Tree]

Here are my 10 reasons why this entire thing is illegitimate

Procedural due process[edit]

Procedural due process requires government officials to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.[25]:657 When the government seeks to deprive a person of one of those interests, procedural due process requires the government to afford the person, at minimum, notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a decision made by a neutral decisionmaker.

This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials. The article "Some Kind of Hearing" written by Judge Henry Friendly created a list of basic due process rights "that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority".[26] These rights, which apply equally to civil due process and criminal due process, are:[26]

1. An unbiased tribunal.
2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
3. Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
5. The right to know opposing evidence.
6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
7. A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
9. Requirement that the tribunal prepares a record of the evidence presented.
10. Requirement that the tribunal prepares written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Here are my 10 reasons why this entire thing is illegitimate

Procedural due process[edit]

Procedural due process requires government officials to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.[25]:657 When the government seeks to deprive a person of one of those interests, procedural due process requires the government to afford the person, at minimum, notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a decision made by a neutral decisionmaker.

This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials. The article "Some Kind of Hearing" written by Judge Henry Friendly created a list of basic due process rights "that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority".[26] These rights, which apply equally to civil due process and criminal due process, are:[26]

1. 
   
   
   • An unbiased tribunal.
   • Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
   • Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
   • The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
   • The right to know opposing evidence.
   • The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
   • A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
   • Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
   • Requirement that the tribunal prepares a record of the evidence presented.
   • Requirement that the tribunal prepares written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

Why do you people strive so hard to not understand how impeachment works??

Do you think Ken Starr got approval from Clinton anytime he wanted to investigate something about him, call witnesses against him, etc etc etc??

For fuck sakes, the whitewater investigation was over a fucking land deal......but resulted in him being impeached for lying about a blow job

You people are pathetic.....