Colonel Vindman Tells Ukraine to Ignore Requests From His Boss President Trump.

a reply to: Grimpachi

It is quite clear that Lt. Col. Vindman was totally taken aback by the Representative Ratcliffe (the jokes tell themselves folks) when he initially suggested that Vindman had disobeyed orders from the President. (If you don’t know Ratcliffe, he’s the nutjob that Trump appointed to DNI and then withdrew five days later. E.g. the guys too obnoxious even for Trump).

It’s obscene to treat a member of the Armed Forces this way, it’s just dumb to suggest that VIndman’s warning his counterpart to stay out of politics is ... sedition, treason or any of the rest of the crap tossed against the wall.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Ok this authors opinion is that the rissia interfernce was worse. he does not deny ukranain interfertnce happened.

Youve already stated any interference is serious and should be investigated.

So why would it be wrong for trump to want to investigate this?

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ok this authors opinion is that the rissia interfernce was worse. he does not deny ukranain interfertnce happened.

Youve already stated any interference is serious and should be investigated.

So why would it be wrong for trump to want to investigate this?

It’s not wrong for Trump to investigate anything. He’s the President of the United States.

It seems that this guy does make it clear that the talking points that right-wing media churned up (that you’re repeating here) regarding the alleged Ukrainian election interference is VERY different from what the Russians did.

a reply to: Gryphon66

What is obscene is for an unelected official to admit he told his counterpart to not listen to a request from the president, because it would be getting involved in domestic politics.

What is obscene for that mans lawyers to treat a member of congress with such disdain.

a reply to: Gryphon66

His opinoon is its differnet, thats fine.

Nonetheless, if trump has the right to investigate this interference, then there is no case at all ofr impeachment, nor for someone like Vindman to act out because he felt there shouldnt be an investigation.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

What is obscene is for an unelected official to admit he told his counterpart to not listen to a request from the president, because it would be getting involved in domestic politics.

What is obscene for that mans lawyers to treat a member of congress with such disdain.

VIndman’s counterpart is far down the chain of decision making. Kind of like me telling you to talk to Congress about your bones regarding the impeachment.

Oh, members of Congress should be revered now? When they’re attacking someone like Lt. Col. Vindman?

Whatever.

I think we’ve put the lie to your contention that any alleged Ukrainian interference was significantly like what the Russians did.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha


A lot of people think it did, including several lawmakers. "Quid pro quo" isn't what Trump is being accused of though. Bribery/extortion is.

Basically same thing in this case...once again do you see it in his phone conversation in anyway....The vast majority do not, people on the call say no, and the President of Ukraine said he was never told the funds could be held back for anything.

Quid pro quo happens all the time and in this case they want to show that Trump pushed it to take only Biden out being maybe a front runner and that is what would have been wrong in this case. What happened in the end is it did not happen at all, much less to take Biden out. Trump and team most likely talked about it to push an investigation to figure out the 2016 elections, which Biden happened to be a part of....and his son...and a good number of other people that I'm sure Trump would love to see them all fry for 2016, and that is also OK.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

His opinoon is its differnet, thats fine.

Nonetheless, if trump has the right to investigate this interference, then there is no case at all ofr impeachment, nor for someone like Vindman to act out because he felt there shouldnt be an investigation.

No case at all for impeachment? You seem to forget that civil officers get impeached for abuse of power, misconduct, dishonesty, etc.

As I’ve said ad nauseam, the Trump-Zelensky call is a very weak hook, but as far as impeaching Trump on any of the above?

LOL.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Show me once saying what ukraine did was the same as what russia did.

Its was like what russia did, in that they were both foreign election interference. I never spoke of similarities other than that. Vindman, the ukranian expert, somehow knows less about the Ukraine and election interference than me. Perhaps I should be called to testify.

And saying it was ok for Vindman to tell a counter part to ignore trumps request becaise that counterpart was low level is not a defense of Vindman.

And Ratcliffe was right to point this out, and should not be berated by unelected officals who think they have the rigt to decide foreign policy over the eleceted leader.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Basically same thing in this case...once again do you see it in his phone conversation in anyway....The vast majority do not, people on the call say no, and the President of Ukraine said he was never told the funds could be held back for anything.

Mick Mulvaney said that they held up the money to force an investigation, at a presser.
President Trump admitted that he expected Zelinskiey to open an investigation into the Bidens.

Quid pro quo happens all the time and in this case they want to show that Trump pushed it to take only Biden out being maybe a front runner and that is what would have been wrong in this case.

Trump isn't being accused of a quid pro quo, this for that, exchange. He's being accused of an extortion, do this or else, exchange.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

His opinoon is its differnet, thats fine.

Nonetheless, if trump has the right to investigate this interference, then there is no case at all ofr impeachment, nor for someone like Vindman to act out because he felt there shouldnt be an investigation.

Vindman “acted out” now? He did his job. He followed orders. He made observations appropriately through chain-of-command. In other words, Lt. Col. Vindman did everything by the book and the OP totally misrepresented it.


Yeah, the guys position on the hoo-ha over alleged Ukrainian interference is different than yours surely.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

His opinoon is its differnet, thats fine.

Nonetheless, if trump has the right to investigate this interference, then there is no case at all ofr impeachment, nor for someone like Vindman to act out because he felt there shouldnt be an investigation.

No case at all for impeachment? You seem to forget that civil officers get impeached for abuse of power, misconduct, dishonesty, etc.

As I’ve said ad nauseam, the Trump-Zelensky call is a very weak hook, but as far as impeaching Trump on any of the above?

LOL.

If there was a reaosn to invetsigate ukranian election interference, then there was no abuse of power by trump.

The clearly was a reason to investigate.

Hence no abuse of power.

The dems are claiming any investigation of anyone in their party, or election interference that benefited them should be off limits.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

Show me once saying what ukraine did was the same as what russia did.

Its was like what russia did, in that they were both foreign election interference. I never spoke of similarities other than that. Vindman, the ukranian expert, somehow knows less about the Ukraine and election interference than me. Perhaps I should be called to testify.

And saying it was ok for Vindman to tell a counter part to ignore trumps request becaise that counterpart was low level is not a defense of Vindman.

And Ratcliffe was right to point this out, and should not be berated by unelected officals who think they have the rigt to decide foreign policy over the eleceted leader.

VIndman knows less about Ukraine according to you and your opinion that is apparently based on other opinions[/b] ... like the Politico article.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

His opinoon is its differnet, thats fine.

Nonetheless, if trump has the right to investigate this interference, then there is no case at all ofr impeachment, nor for someone like Vindman to act out because he felt there shouldnt be an investigation.

If Biden and son were not involved in any part with Ukraine would anything the President has done seen as anything outside of what any President would normally do? I think most would say it would be normal political operations, and the only difference is Biden and son ARE involved and the left wants to turn that into something else outside the main point they would be part of any Ukraine investigation.

It is funny we hear nothing from the left as to what may have gone down with election tampering from Hillary and DNC with Obama to follow up with FISA and finally what seems to be private money deals with Biden.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Show me how telling his counter part to not follow the presidents request is him following orders.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

His opinoon is its differnet, thats fine.

Nonetheless, if trump has the right to investigate this interference, then there is no case at all ofr impeachment, nor for someone like Vindman to act out because he felt there shouldnt be an investigation.

No case at all for impeachment? You seem to forget that civil officers get impeached for abuse of power, misconduct, dishonesty, etc.

As I’ve said ad nauseam, the Trump-Zelensky call is a very weak hook, but as far as impeaching Trump on any of the above?

LOL.

If there was a reaosn to invetsigate ukranian election interference, then there was no abuse of power by trump.

The clearly was a reason to investigate.

Hence no abuse of power.

The dems are claiming any investigation of anyone in their party, or election interference that benefited them should be off limits.

Pretty big “if” there ... one which is not borne out by the evidence currently available. I think you’ve made it clear that it is your opinion that Trump should not be impeached, and that’s valid based on your opinion.

Based on the facts? We’ll see.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

Show me how telling his counter part to not follow the presidents request is him following orders.

Show me where he was given any orders not to talk to his counterpart as he has been doing as part of his job at NSC.

Show me where he said anything about politics to his counterpart after he heard the Trump-Zelensky phone call.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Wait, y’all think Biden is connected to Grambler’s election interference with Paul Manafort? Or whatever it’s supposed to be?

How so? I’m really fascinated to hear this.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

Show me once saying what ukraine did was the same as what russia did.

Its was like what russia did, in that they were both foreign election interference. I never spoke of similarities other than that. Vindman, the ukranian expert, somehow knows less about the Ukraine and election interference than me. Perhaps I should be called to testify.

And saying it was ok for Vindman to tell a counter part to ignore trumps request becaise that counterpart was low level is not a defense of Vindman.

And Ratcliffe was right to point this out, and should not be berated by unelected officals who think they have the rigt to decide foreign policy over the eleceted leader.

VIndman knows less about Ukraine according to you and your opinion that is apparently based on other opinions[/b] ... like the Politico article.

Its not my opinion or politicos, is quotes from the ukranian who was interfering, in addition to many other peopkle with first hand knowledge of the black ledger they released about manafort to harm trump.

I love the dems supporters stance now.

Trump and zelensky say no quid pro quo, they must be lying.

Biden admits he did a quid pro quo that got shokin fired; biden is lying and we shouldnt believe him. Biden says he had no knowledge of his sons business, we must believe him.

Leschenko admits to interfering in the 2016 election, we cant believe that, this is just his opinion.

Unbelievable.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Trump isn't being accused of a quid pro quo, this for that, exchange. He's being accused of an extortion, do this or else, exchange.

Can you show me the official statement that suggests this?

When Biden told the Ukraine President he would not give 1 billion in aid unless he fires a prosecutor within 6 hours...what do you call that, what do you call it when we find out that one of the cases the prosecutor was working on was about the company his son was getting money from at a crazy level for doing nothing but being the VPs son.

Once again show me in the transcript that suggests anything you said...its not there...Then tell me what Biden did was just great...