- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Who is Vindman and what did he do?
Posted on 11/20/19 at 8:45 am to Palmetto08
Posted on 11/20/19 at 8:45 am to Palmetto08
quote:
Never heard much praise or adoration for military from these people until now. Strange.
Yesterday’s baby killers are today’s resistance. #ProgressivenessWorks
0
Posted on 11/20/19 at 8:46 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I would consider the chief counsel for the NSC to be one of his superiors.
And you would be wrong.
quote:
He seems to have worked within the existing, official framework of the NSC.
But he did not. He bypassed his immediate supervisor and discussed the issue with someone outside of his direct chain of command....as a military officer.
Again, do you think this is normal behavior?
quote:
The NSC is not a military unit.
But he is a military officer, and as such operates under military customs and courtesies. Let me say it one more time:
YOU DO NOT GO OUTSIDE YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND AS AN OFFICER. Period. Ever. Even if you feel your direct superior is going to react negatively, you immediately inform him you went around him after you do. And there is zero evidence Miller would have had any negative reaction to Vindman consulting him first. Miller was blindsided. You just don't do that. I can't stress this enough. And the fact he did tells me all I need to know about Vindman as an officer.
quote:
He had a concern with an issue having legal implications, so he apparently talked to his brother (also an attorney at NSC), who referred Vindman to the chief in-house attorney, who seems to have recommended a course of action. That does not strike me as being outside the normal hierarchy..
That is COMPLETELY outside the normal hierarchy.
This post was edited on 11/20/19 at 8:47 am
Posted on 11/20/19 at 8:46 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I mean no offense, but you were doing exactly what I specifically asked that we not do in this thread – speculating. Do you have any objective evidence to this effect?
Your false “I’m being reasonable” shtick is well worn and hilarious.
Please keep doing it!
Posted on 11/20/19 at 8:49 am to The Mick
quote:I am not assessing credibility either way. I am simply attempting to sort objective fact from speculation, opinion and hyperbole.
So you want to give credibility to his opinion or his impression but not consider his partisan views and history?
Posted on 11/20/19 at 8:52 am to Centinel
quote:Apparently, he testified that he attempted to contact Morrison, but was unsuccessful. He then went to the NSC counsel, who gave him advice and instructed him not to discuss the matter with anyone else. He complied with that instruction/advice.
Let me reiterate AggieHank:
His first stop for voicing his concerns wasn't his direct supervisor, it was a lawyer.
Do you think that is normal behavior?
Yes, I think that would be perfectly normal behavior in most hierarchical organizations.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 8:53 am to AggieHank86
you would be wrong. again.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 8:54 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Yes, I think that would be perfectly normal behavior in most hierarchical organizations.
And you're wrong. It is highly irregular.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 8:54 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Rightly or wrongly, he was concerned about the propriety of certain elements of that call, and he reported those concerns to his superiors at the NSC.
He avoided expressing his concerns to his direct superior, (who was "unavailable") implying he did so because his concerns were so immediate and worrisome they compelled him to see the lawyer. So he went outside chain of command.
I think the conflict you note between a subpoena and an order from the C in C is a calculation of the Committee. Intentionally straining the C in C's authority and expanding dangerously Congress's. What may be a valid exercise of Congressional power now will be used as precedent and leverage in other instances less valid or warranted. I doubt the President or his advisers desire to force the issue with LTC Vindman's testimony.
Mr. Schiff will not ever allow you to find out what crimes or improprieties LTC Vindman is involved. All under the catch all of "protecting" the whistleblower. It seems likely he and the whistleblower have both actively conspired with the Committee, its chairman, and Democrat staffers to advance the impeachment narrative.
We can know all the people LTC Vindman spoke with except one? Why? Did he speak with this mystery person before or after the attorney told him not to speak with anyone else about the matter?
Vindman is a career officer who had an inflated sense of his importance and authority. He had a reputation for being the kind of person who lacked judgment and broke chain of command. He was not a compelling witness.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 8:59 am to AggieHank86
It never ceases to amaze me how insanely stupid liberals can be AND, the lies they believe and regurgitate.
Vindman does not deserve the uniform he wears OR the protection it provides him.
Vindman does not deserve the uniform he wears OR the protection it provides him.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:01 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Revise what? The only potential discrepancy is a quibble over whether chief counsel for the NSC is technically a “superior” of an NSC staffer.
He testified to his chain of command. He personally laid it all out.
He lied under oath 3 times
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:06 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I mean no offense, but you were doing exactly what I specifically asked that we not do in this thread – speculating. Do you have any objective evidence to this effect?
This is rich!
The whole Democrat Kangaroo Court Schiff Shite Show is based upon SPECULATION!
Q, Did Trump tell you to quid pro quo?
A, No, but I speculated that he did and that’s my opinion testimony!
PEACH 45!
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:09 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I am simply attempting to sort objective fact from speculation,
No you are not. He testified that:
- he did not go to Morrison and broke chain of command because Morrison was not available.
- That he was going to go to Morrison as soon as Morrison was Available until the attorney came back a week later and told him not to.
- The lie in that is that FOR FACT(that thing you want so you claim) is he did meet with Morrison. He gave him the edits personally in Morrison's office. THE SAME DAY.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:10 am to AggieHank86
quote:
speculating.
Lmao, that isn't speculation you putz... he is one record that he talked to three other people outside of his chain...
Let me guess, if your opinion that isn't leaking...
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:10 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Apparently, he testified that he attempted to contact Morrison, but was unsuccessful.
ANd he lied. records show he met with Morrison and gave him the edits the same day.
Why do you keep ignoring it?
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:11 am to Jjdoc
quote:LibbyHank needs to protect Vindman.
Why do you keep ignoring it?
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:14 am to Jbird
Vindmans injury was probably a frag - not an IED.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:18 am to Jbird
He does that on a regular basis when facts are given to him.
Next he will attack the source that links the video of it all.
Next he will attack the source that links the video of it all.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:20 am to Jjdoc
quote:I think there may be some problems with our timeline. Remember that there was an earlier meeting on July 10 between Bolton and the Ukrainian national security advisor.
He testified that:
- he did not go to Morrison and broke chain of command because Morrison was not available.
- That he was going to go to Morrison as soon as Morrison was Available until the attorney came back a week later and told him not to.
- The lie in that is that FOR FACT(that thing you want so you claim) is he did meet with Morrison. He gave him the edits personally in Morrison's office. THE SAME DAY.
Vindman was concerned in that meeting about Sondman linking a presidential meeting to a Biden investigation, and apparently he went to the chief NSC Council after that meeting.
It is not clear to me whether the instruction/advice about not speaking to anyone other than the NSC attorney arose from the July 10 meeting or the July 25 call.
Can you elucidate?
This post was edited on 11/20/19 at 9:34 am
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:23 am to AggieHank86
quote:But not his boss, then ran to Cris and told him, then they ran to Schiff.
and apparently he went to the chief NSC Council after that meeting.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:25 am to AggieHank86
I gave you the video sir of the testimony. I literally linked you to it.
Page 3 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News