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

[Anonymous]

I keep wondering why the phrasing is aid was withheld for a report. The aid wasn't withheld, it was delayed and that's quite common with close to $400 M being offered. I'm also wondering if the WH actually received the report on Biden. By all accounts, it hasn't received anything related to the demanded investigation of Biden, good or bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ yet do not want to shred military person without => yet have no shame to shred military person without

Asking whether or not he was in uniform per regulation or choice is shredding him?

[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.

PP, these idiots will continue to go after you because they need Vindeman to be who they say he is

[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."

Nothing he says is illegal. He was concerned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Nothing he says is illegal. He was concerned.

Well, that's the crux of it, isn't it? Show us the entire transcript, then we'll decide. According to several people, there was a quid pro quo, and that is illegal.

Why am I talking to a wall. Trumpsters can't even tell the difference between what is illegal or not.

[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.

Hardly. Guiliani was freelancing on behalf of Trump and Guiliani. The person you are disparaging was trying to carry through the Congressionally mandated funds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I keep wondering why the phrasing is aid was withheld for a report. The aid wasn't withheld, it was delayed and that's quite common with close to $400 M being offered. I'm also wondering if the WH actually received the report on Biden. By all accounts, it hasn't received anything related to the demanded investigation of Biden, good or bad.

It was released when the whistleblower complaint was made public. And there wasn't anything related to the Bidens because there is nothing there, unless or until it is manufactured.

[Anonymous]

So Ukraine received the $$ and there was no negative report because there wasn't anything there. Resolved. So the issue is that he asked and was told there wasn't anything there. Are we incensed because Trump asked?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I keep wondering why the phrasing is aid was withheld for a report. The aid wasn't withheld, it was delayed and that's quite common with close to $400 M being offered. I'm also wondering if the WH actually received the report on Biden. By all accounts, it hasn't received anything related to the demanded investigation of Biden, good or bad.

The military aid was "delayed". It was all authorized by Congress. The Pentagon was preparing to sue to force the funds to be released. The aid was released when the whistleblower became known, when Schiff went nuclear. Wasn't that good of him?

It's not Mulvaney's job to delay congressional funds or military aid to a strategic ally. It's not quite common. Not common at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Ukraine received the $$ and there was no negative report because there wasn't anything there. Resolved. So the issue is that he asked and was told there wasn't anything there. Are we incensed because Trump asked?

Yes.

It's called abuse of office. Nixon was impeached for it. Do you think that was improper? Are you going to defend Nixon now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Ukraine received the $$ and there was no negative report because there wasn't anything there. Resolved. So the issue is that he asked and was told there wasn't anything there. Are we incensed because Trump asked?

1) the ask, in and of itself, is illegal
2) withholding the funds for personal gain is illegal
3) the cover up is illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Ukraine received the $$ and there was no negative report because there wasn't anything there. Resolved. So the issue is that he asked and was told there wasn't anything there. Are we incensed because Trump asked?

Yes, dear. He can't use US foreign policy to try to investigate political rivals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I keep wondering why the phrasing is aid was withheld for a report. The aid wasn't withheld, it was delayed and that's quite common with close to $400 M being offered. I'm also wondering if the WH actually received the report on Biden. By all accounts, it hasn't received anything related to the demanded investigation of Biden, good or bad.

The security assistance was held hostage. DoD, State, and Congress all asked what was holding it up and were stonewalled by the White House and OMB. It was not a common procedural delay. It was extortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Ukraine received the $$ and there was no negative report because there wasn't anything there. Resolved. So the issue is that he asked and was told there wasn't anything there. Are we incensed because Trump asked?

If Trump stands in 5th avenue fires a bullet at someone and the bullet misses and the man does not die- should he be charged for attempting to murder, or it is all hunky dory because the man did not die?

[Anonymous]

https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/status/1189608479998255106

NEWS: Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman told House investigators that a WH meeting and Ukrainian aid was “contingent” on Ukrainian officials carrying out multiple investigations -- including into Burisma, the Bidens, the 2016 election and Crowd Strike, sources tell @LACaldwellDC and me.