Iraq war veteran to testify that he heard Trump pressed Ukraine president to investigate Biden

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

He’s active duty and is expected to wear a uniform when a civilian would wear a suit. He’s comfortable in it, which is good since he answers questions for 10+ hours, and probably is justifiably proud of his service. It’s not for optics - he doesn’t care about the optics, he cares about the honor, which is why he was brave enough to show up and then head back to work at the White House.

Pictures of him at the White House show him wearing a suit. That is not unusual for military officers. DH wore a suit when he worked at a facility that was mostly civilian. He was directed to wear a suit--maybe so he would blend in? Interesting that the LTC chose to wear a uniform yesterday.

Don't know the protocol on this, but DH has great trouble with the guy testifying at all. Of course, DH is old school. The President is CIC. He has the right to set foreign policy. From his opening statement, the LTC confirms what was written in the transcript. So, he testified to his opinion of the foreign policy. His job as a military officer is not to set foreign policy. Period.

So if your DH were subpoenaed to testify before Congress, he would ignore that subpoena?

He needs to re-read the Constitution he took an oath to support and defend.

[Anonymous]

Trump on the call transcript: "... word for word, comma for comma...," ellipses for words I didn't want you to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apparently VIndman said that the July phone call summary omitted key phrases mentioning Biden.

Let's see the verbatim transcript!

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/468048-white-house-official-says-transcript-of-ukraine-call-omitted-key-phrases

I want to know what else is on that improperly used top secret server, as we have been told that they put all sorts of similar calls on there. What else is there?

[Anonymous]

So if your DH were subpoenaed to testify before Congress, he would ignore that subpoena?

No. But, he also would not have been blabbing to others in the White House about the phone call. He would not share information with those not involved. Those are the rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So if your DH were subpoenaed to testify before Congress, he would ignore that subpoena?

No. But, he also would not have been blabbing to others in the White House about the phone call. He would not share information with those not involved. Those are the rules.

You mean notify the higher ups of wrongdoing? It's not against the rules to do that. It's the right thing to do, although it all-too-often is detrimental to the career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So if your DH were subpoenaed to testify before Congress, he would ignore that subpoena?

No. But, he also would not have been blabbing to others in the White House about the phone call. He would not share information with those not involved. Those are the rules.

All of your posts have been a long way of saying that your DH is very lucky not to be in that position. Maybe he realizes it, and just hasn't told you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So if your DH were subpoenaed to testify before Congress, he would ignore that subpoena?

No. But, he also would not have been blabbing to others in the White House about the phone call. He would not share information with those not involved. Those are the rules.

All of your posts have been a long way of saying that your DH is very lucky not to be in that position. Maybe he realizes it, and just hasn't told you.

You only report if something is illegal. The president gets to set foreign policy. Period. Those are the rules. And, it sounds like this guy might have been freelancing into diplomacy. That was not his job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So if your DH were subpoenaed to testify before Congress, he would ignore that subpoena?

No. But, he also would not have been blabbing to others in the White House about the phone call. He would not share information with those not involved. Those are the rules.

All of your posts have been a long way of saying that your DH is very lucky not to be in that position. Maybe he realizes it, and just hasn't told you.

You only report if something is illegal. The president gets to set foreign policy. Period. Those are the rules. And, it sounds like this guy might have been freelancing into diplomacy. That was not his job.

You must have constant vertigo with all that spinning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So if your DH were subpoenaed to testify before Congress, he would ignore that subpoena?

No. But, he also would not have been blabbing to others in the White House about the phone call. He would not share information with those not involved. Those are the rules.

All of your posts have been a long way of saying that your DH is very lucky not to be in that position. Maybe he realizes it, and just hasn't told you.

You only report if something is illegal. The president gets to set foreign policy. Period. Those are the rules. And, it sounds like this guy might have been freelancing into diplomacy. That was not his job.

Yeah, you're a POS troll. I doubt you even have a DH, let alone one that is an officer in the military. Weirdo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So if your DH were subpoenaed to testify before Congress, he would ignore that subpoena?

No. But, he also would not have been blabbing to others in the White House about the phone call. He would not share information with those not involved. Those are the rules.

All of your posts have been a long way of saying that your DH is very lucky not to be in that position. Maybe he realizes it, and just hasn't told you.

You only report if something is illegal. The president gets to set foreign policy. Period. Those are the rules. And, it sounds like this guy might have been freelancing into diplomacy. That was not his job.

Coercing a foreign government to assist the Trump campaign is not U.S. foreign policy, and Trump cannot make that an aim of U.S. foreign policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So if your DH were subpoenaed to testify before Congress, he would ignore that subpoena?

No. But, he also would not have been blabbing to others in the White House about the phone call. He would not share information with those not involved. Those are the rules.

All of your posts have been a long way of saying that your DH is very lucky not to be in that position. Maybe he realizes it, and just hasn't told you.

You only report if something is illegal. The president gets to set foreign policy. Period. Those are the rules. And, it sounds like this guy might have been freelancing into diplomacy. That was not his job.

This is just completely false and I hope no one is learning from you. He reported information that he knew to be unethical and potentially illegal to his superiors. Every single ethics briefing for positions of trust I have ever had show that to be the correct course of action. Military members are not to engage in wrong behavior just because a superior says to do it. You’re just incorrect, and I hope you’re just misinterpreting you DH’s position, or else I hope he is never in a position to witness corrupt behavior and intent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So if your DH were subpoenaed to testify before Congress, he would ignore that subpoena?

No. But, he also would not have been blabbing to others in the White House about the phone call. He would not share information with those not involved. Those are the rules.

All of your posts have been a long way of saying that your DH is very lucky not to be in that position. Maybe he realizes it, and just hasn't told you.

You only report if something is illegal. The president gets to set foreign policy. Period. Those are the rules. And, it sounds like this guy might have been freelancing into diplomacy. That was not his job.

And that's exactly what LTC Vindman did. Please at least know the facts.

"I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC’s lead counsel."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So if your DH were subpoenaed to testify before Congress, he would ignore that subpoena?

No. But, he also would not have been blabbing to others in the White House about the phone call. He would not share information with those not involved. Those are the rules.

All of your posts have been a long way of saying that your DH is very lucky not to be in that position. Maybe he realizes it, and just hasn't told you.

You only report if something is illegal. The president gets to set foreign policy. Period. Those are the rules. And, it sounds like this guy might have been freelancing into diplomacy. That was not his job.

And that's exactly what LTC Vindman did. Please at least know the facts.

"I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC’s lead counsel."

c'mon people, you cannot expect a Trumpster to know the difference between what is legal and illegal.

[Anonymous]

As other have noted, he did exactly the correct things. Period.

If you sense something is illegal, you report it to counsel in your office, which he did. That entirely internal process is not "freelancing into diplomacy." (Nice phrase though, I'm sure that will get picked up and misused.)

The POTUS does not have cart blanche to do illegal things, "foreign policy" or not. This ruse that he is above the law and, "Yeah, he did it, but it was OK because he's the president," is very dangerous territory. Be careful how far you want to spin this. Calling illegal and corrupt conduct "foreign policy" doesn't make it OK -- the primary issues outlined in the Constitution as impeachable involve conduct with foreign nations, and thus could be called "corrupt foreign policy."

[Anonymous]

Per Trump's lawyers, "he could shoot someone on 5th ave", and that would not be considered "illegal". That is Trumpster logic.