Discussion in 'United States' started by Lucifer, Feb 7, 2020.
Well his boss said these did.
So there is no proof Vindman was leaking but was only the target of vicious Morrison lies.
Unless my reading of the law is greatly mistaken 'raising concerns' and 'worrying' that someone may have committed an offense is not proof of anything, hell its not even hearsay. Once again - no proof anywhere that he leaked and no request by the White House for any kind of formal investigation into his conduct. Trump wanted him gone, end of story.
He's a security risk and lost the confidence of the President, good riddance.
Again, he was 'suspected' (no proof required) and no sign of any investigation into those suspicions. Suspected is such a lovely word, anyone can be 'suspected' of being anything. Of being an alcoholic, a pervert, a traitor ... you name it. And the best part is you don't have to pony up with slightest bit of evidence unless you decide to make a formal complaint and an inquiry is conducted.
In these circumstances these 'suspicions' are just the window dressing used as an excuse to get rid of him.
Again, wheres the proof he was a security risk? Any proof will do. One more time, Trump wanted him gone, that's all. Which is fine, he can do that - I just wish people would stop trying to dress up his decision by insisting (without the slightest bit of proof) that Vindman had committed some breach of law or regulation that required his dismissal.
In the end to comes down to the fact Trump supporters, in their own minds literally have to find some reason to besmirch Vindman's character because by doing so they turn Trump's actions from an act of revenge into reasonable necessity. If Vindman is a villain then he deserves what he got.
Have him being marched out the door as someone who followed all due process while reporting what he believed at the time to be Presidential misconduct (even if he was mistaken) potentially makes him out to be a good guy. And there can only ever be one good guy in these stories. Trump, because everyone he 'punishes' deserves it.
Vindman is not a security risk.
He ratted out the President is the reason he is leaving the WH.
Damn right he was a risk to the political security of Donald Trump, but a true patriot for Team USA.
Why are you misrepresenting what I stated? Your arguments that weak?
Yes he is and insubordinate.
I have already cited the testimony of his superior I have no obligation to keep repeating myself.
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president." Do you agree?
No but you are under an obligation to show where that testimony proved Vindman 'leaked' or committed some other serious official breach of duty. After all I've already shown where he expressly and publicly denied any such claims.
I also note his Morrison's testimony contained not one shred of proof that Vindman actually did leak. As noted previously 'worry' and 'concern' is not proof. If anything its a call to action - so if Morrison was worried and concerned prior to Vindman testifying, well the onus is on his to have done something about it then not wait till now. Only he didn't do anything about it did he? So if his concerns were as serious as he claimed under oath then that sought makes Morrison negligent doesn't it? He had what he thought were legitimate concerns about Vindman's integrity but did nothing about it .
But no Vindman is the one who has to 'walk' because he might have, maybe, could have 'leaked'. Using that kind of 'iron clad' logic every staffer in the White House down to the janitors should have been made to walk the plank. The place should be empty.
They want the man to go? well then tell him to go, just don't besmirch the mans character in the process. It could have been you or any other US citizen in his shoes.
if trump had balls he would have fired Vindman before he testified
ok Vindman is a liar
have Barr charge him with perjury
then prove he committed perjury and lock him up
any chance of that happening??
Whether or not Vindman committed perjury could be established fairly easily. All the White house would have to do is produce the certified transcript of the Trump's telecon with the Ukrainian government with the relevant sections highlighted. And that isn't happening - for some strange reason. Failing that its just the Trump White House's word against Vindman's so any criminal charges are off the table.
You are preferring vague hearsay over sworn, direct evidence.
Of course you are, because that is what fits your narrative best.
Morrison stated under oath that Vindman went outside of his chain of command. Based on Vindman's own testimony, it verifies that Morrison wasn't informed by Vindman of his concerns.
When an officer doesn't follow protocol, it is a clear violation of Article 98 of the UCMJ and is actually grounds for an immediate conduct review.
Chuck Schumer can cry about Vindman all he wants, but as a military officer Vindman is bound by the regulations that he is required to follow while holding a commission in the US Army.
Bottom line: Vindman went rogue!
If you are correct why then has the US Army shown not the slightest interest in launching any kind of formal proceedings against Lt Col Vindman. Apparently the Army disagrees with you for some reason.
That was his direct supervisors direct testimony of his concerns about his insubordination, insolence and leaking of information.
You didn't listen to the tesimony and realize that as soon as it was over he would be gone? Now let's hear from him when he is in front of Graham's committee. Just like the Hunter Biden scandal we need to find out who leaked the Ukraine classified information and to whom it was leaked and to whom they leaked it to.
That will be for the DoD to determine and for all we know they may be investigating if it involved a military chain of command. We know he did so within the State Dept. and should have been reassigned a long time ago.
His direct supervisor said some people had raised concerns about Vindman. No specifics, and there is absolutely zero evidence that he leaked anything about the call.
The president has the right to get rid of the guy. No question.
What is reprehensible is that Trump and his supporters tarnish Vindman’s reputation. It isn’t necessary in order to fire him and it isn’t deserved.
What military conflict did Obama try and avoid?
That can be argued, Esperance, but no one in the admin agrees with you.
None that I am aware of. He seemed to like getting us more involved
Vindman doesn't appear to have done anything strenuous in quite a while. By all appearances his body and brain are fallowed globules of fatty tissue rendered so through atrophy.
Separate names with a comma.