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

a reply to: Gryphon66

I wasn’t asking you to read any minds, the comment wasn’t even directed at you it was silly originally

As far as Vindman claim he didn’t disobey, his own words prove that’s not the case

But fine

Trump said he had a perfect call

Therefore it must be perfect

So no need to have others interpret if his actions actually show that to he the case

Nope we just have to believe trump, he said it was perfect

So Vindman is wrong to say there was a problem with the call

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Foreign election interference is a threat to the US. Investigating credible threats is valid.

Now twist that if you can.

Great.

Asd shown, Ukranians interfered.

This was publicly admitted by them in the msm.

Vindman, the "expert" on Ukraine, is so incompetent or corrupt at his job he claims he didnt see evidnce of that, and thus was against any investigation into ukranian election interference.

Good to know you are willing to lie about an American soldier so blithely. You think a policy expert is going to read a rag like the Financial Times????

Absurdity at maximum for me dawg. Taa taa.

I think a policy expert on the Ukraine should be aware that Ukrainian politicians were admitting to interfering in the us election

I think when the financial times, Politico, Poroshenko, the Atlantic Council, and many other people were publicly discussing this knowledge, an expert on the Ukraine should have known about it

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Why do you believe the Whistleblower left the White House in 2017?

And if they did, how do you suppose that the ICIG determined the complaint was valid?

Are you suggesting he isn't Eric Ciaramella? Even Schiff has basically leaked it now. Ciaramella first worked for Obama/Biden starting in 2015 and has ties to the whole investigation of President Trump by Ukraine, you know that DNC, Hillary, Obama, Biden, FISA, FBI, CIA, 40 million dollars thing? He was removed from the White House as part of Obama holdovers in 2017, typical move for all Presidents.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

Coached testimony? Or all telling the same story which requires no studying or coaching because it's the truth?
Funny how when you tell a lie you have to work so hard to keep up with it but when you tell the truth it just comes natural.

Perjury is a strong charge to lay.

""teetering edges of perjury"" means lawyers have coached these "witnesses" 😃

a reply to: Xtrozero

Why would the ICIG validate the complaint?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Why would the ICIG validate the complaint?

Why do you not agree or disagree with my post? You put a whole lot of importance on the word "validate" as in the word is suggesting some kind of truth or something, which it doesn't. The validation is to start the investigation that pretty much ended after the President released the records.

We also have a problem that Schiff and co were involved before the complaint was officially processed... BTW anyone can make a complaint and an investigation will tell us whether the complaint is true or not. What in Trump's call "validates" the complaint?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Perhaps you'll tell me in the future how you'd like me to respond. Silly me.

The Intelligence Community Inspector General verified the Whistleblowers complaint as required by law.

If you are correct I don't see how that would happen.

a reply to: Grambler

Perhaps an expert in the subject matter doesn't concur with your OPINION?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xtrozero


The Intelligence Community Inspector General verified the Whistleblowers complaint as required by law.

If you are correct I don't see how that would happen.

Ok this is good

So you would be skeptical if it was Ciaramella and he left the white house in 2017 ( i honestly need to look up and see if he did leave in 2017) because it would be strange for the ICIG to validate his complaint.

Fair enough.

So if it comes it this is in fact what happened, I am sure you will find it odd that the public documents for IC whistle blowing were changed right before this complaint to allow second had reporting to file a complaint, and this entire complaint was from a guy who didnt personally hear the call and had been out of the whitehouse since 2017

We shall see i guess.

a reply to: Grambler

I would find it VERY odd if the current ICIG validated a complaint from a IC member who left the White House in 2017.

Wouldn’t you?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Perhaps an expert in the subject matter doesn't concur with your OPINION?

IOt not my opinion.

Its a ukranian politician openly admitting he and the NABU interfered in the 2016 election to help hillary.

Him being an expert doesnt mean his OPINION somehow outweighs an admission.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

I would find it VERY odd if the current ICIG validated a complaint from a IC member who left the White House in 2017.

Wouldn’t you?

Yes! I wiould question why this would happen, and if this was possibly a setup up to take down trump from the begining.

I would further find it suspicious given we know days before the whistle blower filed their statement, the ICIG changed the whistleblower forms to now include second hand knowledge as reason to file a complaint, when the criteria before had been first hand knowledge.

All the more reason to find out who the whstleblower is I guess.

If it ciarmella, I am glad this will make you skeptical.

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.

In what stage of the chain of command is "tell what you know to some dude in hopes he tells congress"? I admit I only did 6 years, but I just don't remember that.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Perhaps you'll tell me in the future how you'd like me to respond. Silly me.

I just want to know what you mean and using the one word "validates" as you main and only point makes it hard, so let me help you....geez

The Intelligence Community Inspector General verified the Whistleblowers complaint as required by law.

If you are correct I don't see how that would happen.

To verify by law this means....

1. The law required that the Complainant be “an employee of an element of the intelligence community, an employee assigned or detailed to an element of the intelligence community, or an employee of a contractor to the intelligence community.

2. The law also required that the Complainant provide a complaint or information with respect to an “urgent concern".

3. In addition, the law required the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community within 14 calendar days to determine whether information with respect to the urgent concern in a preliminary review.

4. As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix.

In summary,

a. The whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019.
b. The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information.
c. The whistleblower is an employee
d. The whistleblower in the 14 day review was determined to be a subject matter expert related to the urgent concern


There is your validation by law....Which really mean jack sh!t in whether the President did anything wrong or not...Then we go back to the transcript that the IGIG didn't have and the whole thing is moot now.

While in Uniform this seditious piece of crap does this.

Vindman should NEVER be shown the respect a REAL soldier is due.

He's a body in a uniform and that's it. A political operative of the left sullying the uniform I wore while serving HIS preferred political masters without nary my own examples of sedition to show for it.

a reply to: projectvxn

Even worse, his bosses in the military are not calling him out for what he did.

a reply to: carewemust

They won't.

His "buddies" have more integrity than he does. Vindman will end his career in shame.

a reply to: Xtrozero

There is your validation by law....Which really mean jack sh!t in whether the President did anything wrong or not...Then we go back to the transcript that the IGIG didn't have and the whole thing is moot now.

been around that bush a few times
it is well trod ground
when they have to use that as justification you know how deep in they are

you are correct imo
it is bs

a reply to: Xtrozero

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the process outlined in the actual law?

Start with Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act. Then you will find a host of EOs and follow up legislation.

Or you might realize that I chose the word “validate” because that’s the terminology used in the code.

Or you might keep trying to show us much ado about nothing.

originally posted by: projectvxn
While in Uniform this seditious piece of crap does this.

Vindman should NEVER be shown the respect a REAL soldier is due.

He's a body in a uniform and that's it. A political operative of the left sullying the uniform I wore while serving HIS preferred political masters without nary my own examples of sedition to show for it.

Are you kidding? Are you just going along with the flow or are you really making that evaluation of a fellow soldier?