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

a reply to: Grambler

So you're upset that Vindman was honest? Vindman is not responsible for what the Dems say is he?

Vindman is honest about his expertise in policy not in law. That's also offensive to you?

a reply to: Grambler

He then gives his opinion, which he admits is open for interpretation, on what he feels trump meant in his call with Zelensky.

I was just about to edit my post to add this part in, but will just add it below.

At another point, Castor asked Vindman whether he was interpreting Trump's words in an overly alarmist way, especially when Vindman contended that Trump issued a "demand" to Zelensky.

"The president in the transcript uses some, you know, words of hedging from time to time," Castor said. "You know, on page 3, he says 'whatever you can do.' He ends the first paragraph on page 3, 'if that's possible.' At the top of page 4, 'if you could speak to him, that would be great.' 'So whatever you can do.' Again, at the top of page 4, 'if you can look into it.' Is it reasonable to conclude that those words hedging for some might, you know, lead people to conclude that the president wasn't trying to be demanding here?"

"I think people want to hear, you know, what they have as already preconceived notions," Vindman answered, in what may have been one of the more revealing moments of the deposition. "I'd also point your attention to 'whatever you can do, it's very important to do it if that's possible.'"

"'If that's possible,'" Castor stressed.

"Yeah," said Vindman. "So I guess you can interpret it in different ways."

Same source as above

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Any indication that Lt. Col. Vindman usurped the chain of command?

That's the false claim of the OP.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Vindman only counselled his counterparts to "stay out of American politics" BEFORE Trump made it policy to ask Ukraine to investigate Biden.

Before that (when Lt. Col. Vindman made these comments) the matter was a plot hatched by Rudy Guiliani that the NSC felt was not contributive to American national interests in Ukraine.

The OP is dishonest.

'
Thats not true.

Page 159 to 161 of the transcript specifically show that after Trumps July 25 phone call, Vindman talked to his counter part on July 31.

There he told them to stay out of US politics, directly contradicting what trump asked of the Ukraine on the phone call.

You are either misinformed or being dishonest.

a reply to: carewemust

So anyone who tells what happened is a traitor?

This is not a working theory its a work of fiction.

Imagination.

It should be against t and c to post lies as truth.

Whoever this person is who is mearing Colonel Vindeman is themselves trash.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

So you're upset that Vindman was honest? Vindman is not responsible for what the Dems say is he?

Vindman is honest about his expertise in policy not in law. That's also offensive to you?

No what is offensive to me is unelected intel officials undermining the president of the US because they disgaree with his policies.

It also shows that Vindman, the star witness for the dems, has no more of an expertise to say what trump did was illegal or improper than any other person without a legal expertise, such as myself.

a reply to: Sillyolme

If that was against t and c, you'd never be allowed to post.

Hows that steele dossier you still believe is the truth doing?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Any indication that Lt. Col. Vindman usurped the chain of command?

That's the false claim of the OP.

I never made such a claim. Just posting the facts I discovered today. I've been trying to stay out of this topic until after they vote on impeachment and the Senate can cross-examine witnesses.

a reply to: xuenchen

WHO "made" him do this ?

lol
Well that's easy enough...
everyone who testified after him who included information he himself omitted.

Once he realized others were including certain compelling insistent language he had not mentioned he thought he should include a statement about it. You know... or face prison time.

That would make me do it. You?
👁👁

a reply to: carewemust

Hardly. It was the testimony that came after his.

He realized they were including stuff he left out to protect the president.

He realized that could get him in trouble if it looked like he had lied.
So he didnt change his testimony he added something to it. Some language that suggested Zelenski had little choice.

a reply to: xuenchen

Great example...Who is the "Anthony" pointing the finger in this case? Because we all know Anthony was not a good boy at all.
Rather selfish and self absorbed and mean if I recall.

From IMDB

On an isolated family farm, a young boy with vast mental powers, but lacking emotional development, holds his terrified family in thrall to his every juvenile wish.

Lets read this as in an isolated house in Washington DC an old man with vast political powers, but lacking emotional development etc...
About covers what the rest of us see.

Seems the bs artists are outed again.
Leaking classified info to the "whistleblower" is a crime.
As the leaker is under the ucmj it will be the rare case in which double jeopardy laws will not apply.

The peach mint rug continues to unravel before our very eyes.

a reply to: carewemust

This whole debacle can be solved easily,all trump and his admin needs to say is 'look all you want, we've nothing to hide.'

But they didn't, now they look like the guilty party by obfuscating and blaming the left, it's not the left's fault they are being investigated for misdemeanors.

In hindsight, trump should've nipped this in the bud years ago, but then he went all 'fake news!!!' Denial is a clear admittance of guilt 90 percent of the time.

Trump is scared. He could've said 'you've got nothing on me' but he went Clinton and pretty much is saying 'i did not have sexual relations with that woman.'

Guess how that turned out.

a reply to: shooterbrody

The whistle blower probably came by the information in the course of his or her job. I doubt it was the cleaning lady or even a secretary who types letters.
Weak sauce.
You have no proof.

More on Vindman

He claims to be an expert on Ukraine.

Yet he also claims the reason he had a problem with Trump trying to investigate Ukrainain election interference in the 2016 election was that he has seen no proof of that.



Now Im just some rando with no expertise in the Ukraine, but somehow I was able to find evidence of Ukrainian officials publicly admitting before the 2016 election that they were interfering to help hillary.

For years, Serhiy Leshchenko, a top Ukrainian anti-corruption campaigner, worked to expose kleptocracy under former president Viktor Yanukovich. Now, he is focusing on a new perceived pro-Russian threat to Ukraine: US presidential candidate Donald Trump.

The prospect of Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine’s arch-enemy Vladimir Putin, becoming leader of the country’s biggest ally has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev’s wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a US election.

...

Mr Manafort, who vigorously denies wrongdoing, subsequently resigned from his campaign role. But Mr Leshchenko and other political actors in Kiev say they will continue their efforts to prevent a candidate — who recently suggested Russia might keep Crimea, which it annexed two years ago — from reaching the summit of American political power.

“A Trump presidency would change the pro-Ukrainian agenda in American foreign policy,” Mr Leshchenko, an investigative journalist turned MP, told the Financial Times. “For me it was important to show not only the corruption aspect, but that he is [a] pro-Russian candidate who can break the geopolitical balance in the world.”


...

If the Republican candidate loses in November, some observers suggest Kiev’s actions may have played at least a small role.

“Ukraine’s anti-corruption activists have probably saved the Western world,” Anton Shekhovtsov, a western-based academic specialising in Russia and Ukraine, tweeted after Mr Manafort resigned

www.ft.com...

So this expert on the Ukraine didnt even know Ukrainians like Leschenko were publicly admitting in August of 2016, right before the election, that they were interfering in the election to help hillary because they hated trumps policies?

He is either a liar or so ignorant of happenings in the Ukraine that his testimony is worthless.

a reply to: carewemust

You ever think that he told Ukraine to ignore Trump to save him from himself?

From reading the Mueller report, it sounds like Trump keeps asking people to do questionable things that they know could land him in jail. So they ignore those requests.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

What is trump hiding? he released the transcript of the call, which I have never seen a president do before.

Meanwhile, the dems are hiding Hunter and joe biden, and refusing to allow any investigation of their actions in the Ukraine.

This whole debacle can be solved easily, all biden and the dems need to say is 'look all you want, we've nothing to hide.'

But they didn't, now they look like the guilty party by obfuscating and blaming trump, it's not thetrump's fault they are being investigated for misdemeanors.

a reply to: Grambler

If the Republican candidate loses in November, some observers suggest Kiev’s actions may have played at least a small role.

Well except that the republican candidate didnt lose did he?
What only your side can have no harm no foul? Standard hyprocracy.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: carewemust

You ever think that he told Ukraine to ignore Trump to save him from himself?

From reading the Mueller report, it sounds like Trump keeps asking people to do questionable things that they know could land him in jail. So they ignore those requests.

Thats not his job. Unelected bureaucrats dont get to undermine the elected president because they feel they know better.

Meanwhile, Vindman admits he has no legal background, so he had no expertise on trying to save trump from legal trouble. If thats what he was doing, why would he also report this to someone.

he had a problem with trumps policy, because he and the rest of the deep state are covering up for crimes of the Obama admin that they loved, and will do anything to make sure they arent investigated.

Heck as I posted, this Ukranian expert didnt even know Ukrainian officials publicly admitted to interfering in the 2016 election, and was against trump trying to investigate that election interference. (more like he did know and was fine with it because it helped hillary)

So why should someone so uniformed be undermining the President based on the assumption he knew better and was prtecting the President?

a reply to: grey580

And its the reason Zelenski still has not made any announcements.
The only big mouth is Shokin. The guy that got fired for not investigating corruption. And he only started his crap after trump did his little song and dance about the Bidens.
You just cant make this stuff up.