- Moderator
- #401
The problem with that is when determining truth is how do you know any of that is why he really did it?...it's just more misdirection...If someone who is a plant by the opposition would do and claim exactly what Vindman did and the above would still hold true even if it was completely false...the above also makes it clear that Vindman was free to give and use his "ownopinion" as to whether it was questionable, and questionable does not = wrong.This oath means that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman had a duty to report activity he considered to be legally questionable and was within this duty to testify before Congress
When does questionable become wrong?
Who determines it?