Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LtCol Vindman States...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • LtCol Vindman States...

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

    A national security official called in to testify before House committees on the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump says a diplomat specifically mentioned that the Ukrainians would have to investigate the Bidens.


    Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman says in testimony that there was "no ambiguity." He says the conversation happened during a White House meeting with Ambassador Gordon Sondland, Ukrainian officials and others. A transcript of Vindman's testimony was released Friday. Vindman is an Army officer assigned to the National Security Council.
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Massena View Post
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp
    A national security official called in to testify before House committees on the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump says a diplomat specifically mentioned that the Ukrainians would have to investigate the Bidens.




    Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman says in testimony that there was "no ambiguity." He says the conversation happened during a White House meeting with Ambassador Gordon Sondland, Ukrainian officials and others. A transcript of Vindman's testimony was released Friday. Vindman is an Army officer assigned to the National Security Council.
    Other testimonies corroborate that there was no ambiguity

    According to another National Security Council member (Hill)

    https://www.npr.org/2019/11/08/77751...olicy-official

    “This is a direct quote from Ambassador Bolton: ‘You go and tell Eisenberg that I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this,’”

    John Eisenberg is the top lawyer for the National Security Council
    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

    Comment


    • #3
      Vindman gives his OPINION,which is something meaningless : he is an executant : his job is to execute orders, not to give his opinion .

      Comment


      • #4
        As a commissioned officer, his duty is to obey only legal orders. The US armed forces are not Prussians. And it is his duty to report material or actions that are questionable or illegal.
        We are not now that strength which in old days
        Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
        Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
        To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

        Comment


        • #5
          Vindmann also ripped John Solomon for his false reporting. Now John works at Fox. Uhoh.

          Comment


          • #6
            https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

            In vivid and at times contentious testimony before House impeachment investigators, the senior White House official responsible for Ukraine described what he believed was an unambiguous effort by President Trump to pressure the president of Ukraine to open investigations targeting American politicians in exchange for a coveted Oval Office meeting.

            Under questioning from Rep. Peter Welch (Vt.) and other Democrats, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman said “there was no doubt” about what Trump wanted when he spoke by phone July 25 with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — particularly in contrast with an April call between the two leaders shortly after Zelensky’s election.

            “The tone was significantly different,” Vindman said, according to a transcript of his Oct. 29 deposition released Friday. Vindman, who as a senior White House official listened in on both calls, went on to tell Welch: “I’m struggling for the words, but it was not a positive call. It was dour. If I think about it some more, I could probably come up with some other adjectives, but it was just — the difference between the calls was apparent.”

            Welch asked Vindman if he had any doubt that Trump was asking for investigations of his political opponents “as a deliverable” — in other words, as part of a quid pro quo.

            “There was no doubt,” Vindman said.

            We are not now that strength which in old days
            Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
            Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
            To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ljadw View Post
              Vindman gives his OPINION,which is something meaningless : he is an executant : his job is to execute orders, not to give his opinion .
              The perception of an insider is not meaningless. Appearing to seek QPQ is materially relevant because the law includes as a crime an INDIRECT QPQ

              https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201



              (b)Whoever—

              (2)being a
              public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
              (A)
              being influenced in the performance of any
              official act;
              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Massena View Post
                As a commissioned officer, his duty is to obey only legal orders. The US armed forces are not Prussians. And it is his duty to report material or actions that are questionable or illegal.
                NO : his duty is to obey all orders, unless they can be proved to be illegal .

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ljadw View Post

                  NO : his duty is to obey all orders, unless they can be proved to be illegal .
                  No. All legal orders are to be obeyed. And Illegal orders are not. And commissioned officers are not Prussians; they are supposed to use their judgment and decide if an order is questionable, whether or not it is illegal.

                  Have you ever served in the armed forces? And if you have, were you an officer? If so, then you would understand what is being explained to you.

                  LtCol Vindman did his duty and he answered the subpoena as he should have. Standards are higher for commissioned officers. He followed his oath of service.
                  We are not now that strength which in old days
                  Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                  Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                  To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Vindman is , period.

                    During his closed door testimony, he was instructed to read the transcript of the actual call and show when the quid pro quo occurred. He couldn't do so, instead he stuttered like the idiot he is.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Nikki View Post
                      Vindman is , period.

                      During his closed door testimony, he was instructed to read the transcript of the actual call and show when the quid pro quo occurred. He couldn't do so, instead he stuttered like the idiot he is.
                      ? Where did you hear that?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Vindman should be the last to be chosen for the function of Ukraine expert,given that he is too committed and can't be neutral :he is the son of an Ukrainian immigrant,and one knows the expression about immigrants : they have learnt nothing, they have forgotten nothing .
                        Besides, he is a crypto Democrat who wants ! that Trump would adjust his foreign policy on the foreign policy of the Democrats : the so-called bipartisan foreign policy .
                        Everyone knows the results of this bipartisan foreign policy .
                        The Democrats have the right to oppose Trump's Ukraine policy; Vindman has not this right .

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                          Vindmann also ripped John Solomon for his false reporting. Now John works at Fox. Uhoh.
                          There is no proof that Solomon's reporting was not correct : all we have is a claim from a crypto Democrat . Thus something very suspect .

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Jim Hickman,who was Vindman's superior ,said that Vindman was a partisan democrat who ridiculed America in front of Russian military and that he reprimanded him verbally .This is corrobated by the superior of Hickman, Tom Lasch .

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by pamak View Post

                              The perception of an insider is not meaningless. Appearing to seek QPQ is materially relevant because the law includes as a crime an INDIRECT QPQ

                              https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201



                              (b)Whoever—

                              (2)being a
                              public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
                              (A)
                              being influenced in the performance of any
                              official act;
                              You mean Schiff who in 2000 received $ 100000 from Soros' Move On. for his election campaign ?

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X