Posted on Feb 8, 2020
Mobster At Work: Vindman Escorted From White House For Telling the Sordid Truth
2.35K
82
59
12
12
0
The son of Jewish refugees who came to the U.S. when he was three after his family fled Ukraine, Vindman served multiple tours overseas and was wounded by a roadside bomb in Iraq, earning him a Purple Heart. He went on to earn a master’s degree in Russian from Harvard, served at US embassies in Kyiv and Moscow and was highly regarded as the NSC's top expert on Ukraine.
Mobster At Work: Vindman Escorted From White House For Telling the Sordid Truth
Posted from commondreams.org
White House
Ukraine
Judaism
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 10
7
7
0
SSgt Richard Kensinger
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel - Either they do not care at all and/or it is just to painful to admit they are repeatedly internalizing his Grand Illusion.
Rich
Rich
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
Hey, this guy put himself on the line to say what he thought was a wrong move on the part of POTUS did something that totally wrong. Hey, now he’s feeling that he did what was right. How do you figure? Now you want to fire him, when he did what was right. He was an military man who’s was wounded for our country. I feel really disappointed with the way someone who has put himself in danger to defend us and then people belittle him. It’s like returning from RVN and being called all kinds of names, even being spit on by my countrymen. Shame, shame,shame. It is one of the worse things I have experienced in my life. I can see how he feels, for doing right.
I salute you. God bless you.
I salute you. God bless you.
(4)
(0)
LTC Joe Anderson
LTC Vinman wasn't a/the Whistle Blower. He could have been but opted not to. Instead he fed information to the Whistle blower who was a CIA employee, agent/operative (which doesn't mean he represented the CIA or his actions were condoned by the CIA). One doesn't not have to serve IOT question a servicemen's duty or patriotism. Our uniform is not a shield. Service men do wrong too and can be unpatriotic even after distinguished service. As an independent since 1988, I've voted for 2 Democrats, 2 Republicans (One Republican twice for a total of 3 Republican votes), and 2 Independent (I didn't care who they were I just wasn't voting for either the Democrats or Republicans nominees those years). The two-party system is killing us. I'm glad when people vote off party!!!! I wish more people did. We should vote for the person, not the party. — Too much party loyalty over the country. As far as the next election goes, I'm not committed but only like one of the present Democrats who most probably won't get the nomination.
My opinion on LTC Vindman and this entire impeachment subject comes from his testimony (and that of others but I'll only address Vindman's at this time) not “Blind” support for 45. Having served in a similar position at SOUTHCOM for four years and EUCOM for two years (Working on the "High Side") grant me some familiarity with this subject as well. Additionally he may have come through my JOC in Germany in 2015-16 (If I’m not mistaken which I doubt I am I was not impressed by him). We both served as a staff officer (at different times), our duties were/are to advise our military leadership, Host nation Security forces, his case Host Nation Military, and Host Nation civilians on US Foreign policy not to create policy or complain when a civilian to be specific the president acts contrary to the policy we preferred or had been executing during a prior administration. He smugly and arrogantly testified the president didn't use his talking points as if the president had to confer with him 1st. He has forgotten the president sets Foreign policy, and it doesn't necessarily carry over from administration to administration. In my position as the Partnership Coordinator and Later Director, I never forgot this.
LTC Vindman stated that the President's statements and actions conflicted with NSC policy towards Ukraine, and this made him uncomfortable. So he sought legal counsel and attempted to change the text of the call record. He did not believe any action by the President was unlawful, but it made him uncomfortable. Additionally, the NSC advises and executes they don't set Foreign Policy either. We had/have a duty to raise our concerns with our bosses, which he failed to do if no unlawful order is given, we need to execute them. If he could not do so, then his duty was to resign or retire. LTC Vindman also testified that he advised Ukrainian delegates, including the Ukrainian President, on how they should collaborate with the US. He even urged them to disregard some of the President's requests. He had NO authority or right to provide this advice and counsel to a foreign government. We Officers and NCO's are forbidden from providing counsel to a foreign government on how to deal with our government. That's the job of the POLI and Protocol Officers (Side Bar- Although I've worked with a Rogue Protocol Officer before, unfortunately, they tend to have a background from the Host Nation and want to side with them more than our own government).
LTC Vindman's own testimony has shown he has a high personal opinion and was operating beyond the scope of his authority and was derelict by providing advice and counsel to a foreign government. As an independent, if someone had done this to President Obama, I would say the same thing and hope that that Officer were removed from duty for their dereliction regardless of past awards and merits. I would have expected no less to happen to me had I crossed the line. On active duty, we really should avoid political position if we can't stay neutral. There are way too many pitfalls when a military member doesn’t. Like being relieved from your NSC advisory position with a negative OER from the POTUS.
Yes the Orange Man can be an A$$, at times a downright A$$ Hol3, yes can be rude, yes he should bite his tongue sometimes (but that's not happening), yes he should avoid attacking a dead McCain (I didn't like or vote for him either but he's gone and his military Service while in captivity was good)… However, the President has done more than just lip service for the military. Other than what I just stated, I have no real issues with the actual job he's done. He hasn't committed a crime we know of. Yet there's constant fishing for a crime. If the police suspect you committed a crime but didn't know what you have done but were poking around your house, searching you papers/records, talking you your friends, searching, asking to speak with you, asking question about your chartered, trying to talk to your lawyer... without reasonable suspicion of a particular crime and later probable cause, your civil rights would have been violated. Like the guy or not, he deserves the same rights you and I have. If they want to go after him, they should at least have reasonable suspicion. I could get behind reasonable suspicion; probable cause would be nice but reasonable suspicions a good start (They don't have it this the fishing). I can't support fishing. Did he commit a crime, maybe? Perhaps not. But what crime (Bribery? There has been an attempt to established this crime without reasonable suspicion, and the parameters set are too broad and fail to establish the elements of the crime (See below))? We can't/shouldn't impeach, convict, or investigate on maybe or perhaps. Why? Because one day, the "maybe or perhaps" might refer to you or me. I could even get behind censure but not this act of political theater.
Opinions by those more learned than I:
Alan Dershowitz: is an American lawyer and academic. He is a scholar of United States constitutional law and criminal law who has been described as a "noted civil libertarian".
Alan Dershowitz has stated (November 11, 2019): "I don't know what's in the second transcript. But there are two issues: What happened on those phone calls, and is there any possibility that there is an impeachable offense? Let's get to the second one first — the answer is no. There is no possibility. Take the worst, worst, worst-case scenario — the president abused his foreign policy power to gain political advantage. How many presidents have done that over time? It's not among the listed impeachable offenses. It's not a crime. It's not any kind of a crime. It may be a political sin — that's a good reason for deciding who to vote for — but it's not a good reason for removing a duly-elected president. The Framers had a debate about this, and they rejected the concept of "maladministration" as a ground for impeachment. You need to show bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. And even in the worst-case scenario by the phone call, it's not there."
Alan Dershowitz: "Look, I'm a liberal Democrat. I think the worst thing the Democrats can do is have a vote for impeachment. Then the president wins in the Senate. He then uses that to help him win the election, and the Democrats no longer have anything to hold over him for the second term — because nobody's going to go forward with a second impeachment. So it's the most foolish thing, from a Democratic point of view, to impeach the president. But the Democrats have shown that they're prepared to engage in foolishness, for minimum political advantage, so he may be impeached..."
Alan Dershowitz (December 4, 2019): "The Democratic witnesses have wrongly said that Congress cannot move forward because President Trump has resisted Congressional subpoenas. Of course, they can. Simply go to court and get a judicial order. That is the proper course, not impeachment for invoking separation of powers."
Jonathan Turley (a Dem): is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. Disagrees with Impeaching the president and complained about the partisanship on display at the hearing — something that was highlighted in his initial questioning (4 Dec.2019). He differed with the other experts who testified, saying he doesn't think Democrats have enough evidence that Trump committed bribery in his dealings with Ukraine, and the "record does not establish obstruction in this case." He urged Democrats to do a more thorough investigation. "Fast is not good for impeachment," he said...
Brennan Hughes: The Crucial "Corrupt Intent" Element in Federal Bribery Laws recognized this danger is particularly acute among federal anti-corruption statutes. The cluster of federal criminal laws that can be described as anti-bribery statutes are alarmingly easy to violate. Many people want favors from public officials, many people treat public officials generously, and public officials do favors for each other. That is
simply how the system works (This is what the President's CoS was trying to say before he blundered it so badly). Sometimes, however, these favors can resemble illegal gratuities and quid pro quos. When individuals and groups influence public officials, how can courts and juries distinguish political corruption from mere political effectiveness? Admittedly, real bribery-bribery that harms the integrity of the political process-is a critical issue that should be vigorously prosecuted. However, courts should construe anti-corruption laws narrowly so public officials and donors need not live in fear that their legitimate campaign contributions or shrewdly executed backroom deals may expose them to criminal liability. Accordingly, this article argues that the "corrupt intent" element found in many bribery statutes, requiring juries to use their own moral reasoning to determine if a benefit given to or from a public official was given with an evil mind, is crucial. Without this "evil mind" element, swaths of benign political activity would be criminal. For this reason, the United States Supreme Court has stated that anti-corruption laws should be narrowly construed. The best way to construe them narrowly is to ensure that corrupt intent remains a robust element of these offenses (You would have to crawl inside Trump's head to know this not infer or as witnesses have done assume.)
Justice Harlan: in Griswold v. Connecticut, the word "corruptly" in the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b), sits on its own bottom. 3 This article specifically argues that the adverb "corruptly" must carry some meaning in addition to the quid pro quo described by the other statutory elements. Breathing life into "corruptly" is necessary to avoid the rule against surplusage and to comply with the United States Supreme Court's desire, expressed in United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, that criminal anti-corruption statutes be narrowly construed to avoid capturing
1. See infra Part I (discussing United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal.,
526 U.S. 398, 406-07 (1999)).
2. See infra Part II (discussing judicial application of anti-corruption laws).
3. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 500 (1965) ("The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment stands, in my opinion, on its own bottom."). 26 [Vol. 513 Hughes: The Crucial "Corrupt Intent" Element in Federal Bribery Laws, 2014 2014] "CORRUPT INTENT" ELEMENT IN FEDERAL BRIBERY LAWS 27 benign political activity. 4 The corrupt intent element achieves this end by demanding that juries, in addition to uncovering a quid pro quo, exercise their moral intuition and find that the defendant offered or accepted the bribe with an evil and blameworthy purpose...
Sorry, it so long, but certain Bloggers on here like to pick apart post because it's your opinion and they feel they're smarter than you... They have even referred to our fellow members on here as Chimpanzees by calling them Trumpanzees. It's ok to disagree but common now no need to belittle or for name calling...
If you want him out, vote him out.
My opinion on LTC Vindman and this entire impeachment subject comes from his testimony (and that of others but I'll only address Vindman's at this time) not “Blind” support for 45. Having served in a similar position at SOUTHCOM for four years and EUCOM for two years (Working on the "High Side") grant me some familiarity with this subject as well. Additionally he may have come through my JOC in Germany in 2015-16 (If I’m not mistaken which I doubt I am I was not impressed by him). We both served as a staff officer (at different times), our duties were/are to advise our military leadership, Host nation Security forces, his case Host Nation Military, and Host Nation civilians on US Foreign policy not to create policy or complain when a civilian to be specific the president acts contrary to the policy we preferred or had been executing during a prior administration. He smugly and arrogantly testified the president didn't use his talking points as if the president had to confer with him 1st. He has forgotten the president sets Foreign policy, and it doesn't necessarily carry over from administration to administration. In my position as the Partnership Coordinator and Later Director, I never forgot this.
LTC Vindman stated that the President's statements and actions conflicted with NSC policy towards Ukraine, and this made him uncomfortable. So he sought legal counsel and attempted to change the text of the call record. He did not believe any action by the President was unlawful, but it made him uncomfortable. Additionally, the NSC advises and executes they don't set Foreign Policy either. We had/have a duty to raise our concerns with our bosses, which he failed to do if no unlawful order is given, we need to execute them. If he could not do so, then his duty was to resign or retire. LTC Vindman also testified that he advised Ukrainian delegates, including the Ukrainian President, on how they should collaborate with the US. He even urged them to disregard some of the President's requests. He had NO authority or right to provide this advice and counsel to a foreign government. We Officers and NCO's are forbidden from providing counsel to a foreign government on how to deal with our government. That's the job of the POLI and Protocol Officers (Side Bar- Although I've worked with a Rogue Protocol Officer before, unfortunately, they tend to have a background from the Host Nation and want to side with them more than our own government).
LTC Vindman's own testimony has shown he has a high personal opinion and was operating beyond the scope of his authority and was derelict by providing advice and counsel to a foreign government. As an independent, if someone had done this to President Obama, I would say the same thing and hope that that Officer were removed from duty for their dereliction regardless of past awards and merits. I would have expected no less to happen to me had I crossed the line. On active duty, we really should avoid political position if we can't stay neutral. There are way too many pitfalls when a military member doesn’t. Like being relieved from your NSC advisory position with a negative OER from the POTUS.
Yes the Orange Man can be an A$$, at times a downright A$$ Hol3, yes can be rude, yes he should bite his tongue sometimes (but that's not happening), yes he should avoid attacking a dead McCain (I didn't like or vote for him either but he's gone and his military Service while in captivity was good)… However, the President has done more than just lip service for the military. Other than what I just stated, I have no real issues with the actual job he's done. He hasn't committed a crime we know of. Yet there's constant fishing for a crime. If the police suspect you committed a crime but didn't know what you have done but were poking around your house, searching you papers/records, talking you your friends, searching, asking to speak with you, asking question about your chartered, trying to talk to your lawyer... without reasonable suspicion of a particular crime and later probable cause, your civil rights would have been violated. Like the guy or not, he deserves the same rights you and I have. If they want to go after him, they should at least have reasonable suspicion. I could get behind reasonable suspicion; probable cause would be nice but reasonable suspicions a good start (They don't have it this the fishing). I can't support fishing. Did he commit a crime, maybe? Perhaps not. But what crime (Bribery? There has been an attempt to established this crime without reasonable suspicion, and the parameters set are too broad and fail to establish the elements of the crime (See below))? We can't/shouldn't impeach, convict, or investigate on maybe or perhaps. Why? Because one day, the "maybe or perhaps" might refer to you or me. I could even get behind censure but not this act of political theater.
Opinions by those more learned than I:
Alan Dershowitz: is an American lawyer and academic. He is a scholar of United States constitutional law and criminal law who has been described as a "noted civil libertarian".
Alan Dershowitz has stated (November 11, 2019): "I don't know what's in the second transcript. But there are two issues: What happened on those phone calls, and is there any possibility that there is an impeachable offense? Let's get to the second one first — the answer is no. There is no possibility. Take the worst, worst, worst-case scenario — the president abused his foreign policy power to gain political advantage. How many presidents have done that over time? It's not among the listed impeachable offenses. It's not a crime. It's not any kind of a crime. It may be a political sin — that's a good reason for deciding who to vote for — but it's not a good reason for removing a duly-elected president. The Framers had a debate about this, and they rejected the concept of "maladministration" as a ground for impeachment. You need to show bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. And even in the worst-case scenario by the phone call, it's not there."
Alan Dershowitz: "Look, I'm a liberal Democrat. I think the worst thing the Democrats can do is have a vote for impeachment. Then the president wins in the Senate. He then uses that to help him win the election, and the Democrats no longer have anything to hold over him for the second term — because nobody's going to go forward with a second impeachment. So it's the most foolish thing, from a Democratic point of view, to impeach the president. But the Democrats have shown that they're prepared to engage in foolishness, for minimum political advantage, so he may be impeached..."
Alan Dershowitz (December 4, 2019): "The Democratic witnesses have wrongly said that Congress cannot move forward because President Trump has resisted Congressional subpoenas. Of course, they can. Simply go to court and get a judicial order. That is the proper course, not impeachment for invoking separation of powers."
Jonathan Turley (a Dem): is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. Disagrees with Impeaching the president and complained about the partisanship on display at the hearing — something that was highlighted in his initial questioning (4 Dec.2019). He differed with the other experts who testified, saying he doesn't think Democrats have enough evidence that Trump committed bribery in his dealings with Ukraine, and the "record does not establish obstruction in this case." He urged Democrats to do a more thorough investigation. "Fast is not good for impeachment," he said...
Brennan Hughes: The Crucial "Corrupt Intent" Element in Federal Bribery Laws recognized this danger is particularly acute among federal anti-corruption statutes. The cluster of federal criminal laws that can be described as anti-bribery statutes are alarmingly easy to violate. Many people want favors from public officials, many people treat public officials generously, and public officials do favors for each other. That is
simply how the system works (This is what the President's CoS was trying to say before he blundered it so badly). Sometimes, however, these favors can resemble illegal gratuities and quid pro quos. When individuals and groups influence public officials, how can courts and juries distinguish political corruption from mere political effectiveness? Admittedly, real bribery-bribery that harms the integrity of the political process-is a critical issue that should be vigorously prosecuted. However, courts should construe anti-corruption laws narrowly so public officials and donors need not live in fear that their legitimate campaign contributions or shrewdly executed backroom deals may expose them to criminal liability. Accordingly, this article argues that the "corrupt intent" element found in many bribery statutes, requiring juries to use their own moral reasoning to determine if a benefit given to or from a public official was given with an evil mind, is crucial. Without this "evil mind" element, swaths of benign political activity would be criminal. For this reason, the United States Supreme Court has stated that anti-corruption laws should be narrowly construed. The best way to construe them narrowly is to ensure that corrupt intent remains a robust element of these offenses (You would have to crawl inside Trump's head to know this not infer or as witnesses have done assume.)
Justice Harlan: in Griswold v. Connecticut, the word "corruptly" in the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b), sits on its own bottom. 3 This article specifically argues that the adverb "corruptly" must carry some meaning in addition to the quid pro quo described by the other statutory elements. Breathing life into "corruptly" is necessary to avoid the rule against surplusage and to comply with the United States Supreme Court's desire, expressed in United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, that criminal anti-corruption statutes be narrowly construed to avoid capturing
1. See infra Part I (discussing United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal.,
526 U.S. 398, 406-07 (1999)).
2. See infra Part II (discussing judicial application of anti-corruption laws).
3. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 500 (1965) ("The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment stands, in my opinion, on its own bottom."). 26 [Vol. 513 Hughes: The Crucial "Corrupt Intent" Element in Federal Bribery Laws, 2014 2014] "CORRUPT INTENT" ELEMENT IN FEDERAL BRIBERY LAWS 27 benign political activity. 4 The corrupt intent element achieves this end by demanding that juries, in addition to uncovering a quid pro quo, exercise their moral intuition and find that the defendant offered or accepted the bribe with an evil and blameworthy purpose...
Sorry, it so long, but certain Bloggers on here like to pick apart post because it's your opinion and they feel they're smarter than you... They have even referred to our fellow members on here as Chimpanzees by calling them Trumpanzees. It's ok to disagree but common now no need to belittle or for name calling...
If you want him out, vote him out.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
LTC Joe Anderson
MSG Stan Hutchison - A good source is actually watching the hearing. I did and Vindman testified to this order of events/sequence. LTC Vindman stated that the President's statements and actions conflicted with NSC policy towards Ukraine, and this made him uncomfortable. So he sought legal counsel and attempted to change the text of the call record. He did not believe any action by the President was unlawful, but it made him uncomfortable... LTC Vindman also testified that he advised Ukrainian delegates, including the Ukrainian President, on how they should collaborate with the US. He even urged them to disregard some of the President's requests. He had NO authority or right to provide this advice and counsel to a foreign government. This is violation of the UCMJ and a clear dereliction of duties. Officer in the Military don not have the authority to advise foreign official to disregard some of the President's requests. Especially as an advisor to the POTUS in the NSC. If he could do that it was his duty to resign.
(0)
(0)
LTC Joe Anderson
His brother also works at the pleasure of the POTUS and can be relieved with or without cause. In this case the President felt he doesn't represents his goals and administration well and let him go. Like it or not the president chooses who work in the NSC. These two made their own beds. Had I done the same thing under President Obamas watch I would have and should have been relieved as well. Not being comfortable with a lawful order doesn't equate to protecting the constitution. Anyone with over fives years of service has followed an order they weren't comfortable with. But they were lawful orders so we followed them.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google