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.
Anonymous wrote:So Ukraine received the $$ and there was no negative report because there wasn't anything there. Resolved. So the issue is that he asked and was told there wasn't anything there. Are we incensed because Trump asked?
Anonymous wrote:I keep wondering why the phrasing is aid was withheld for a report. The aid wasn't withheld, it was delayed and that's quite common with close to $400 M being offered. I'm also wondering if the WH actually received the report on Biden. By all accounts, it hasn't received anything related to the demanded investigation of Biden, good or bad.
Anonymous wrote:So Ukraine received the $$ 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?
Anonymous wrote:So Ukraine received the $$ and there was no negative report because there wasn't anything there. Resolved. So the issue is that he asked and was told there wasn't anything there. Are we incensed because Trump asked?
Anonymous wrote:So Ukraine received the $$ 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
Anonymous wrote:^^^ yet do not want to shred military person without => yet have no shame to shred military person without