Posted on Nov 3, 2019
Army releases statement on officer who testified in Trump impeachment inquiry hearing
3.08K
54
29
5
5
0
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 9
I found it odd that the good LTC wore his uniform to testofy. Especially since he doesnt wear it to work.
And I agree with the others who said LTCs dont set policy, and if they disagree with a president's policy, they can drive on in their job, they can request reassignment, or he can requset to etire or resign. He chose to protest in uniform trying to lend credence to his opinion. Which is wrong from the gitgo.
And I agree with the others who said LTCs dont set policy, and if they disagree with a president's policy, they can drive on in their job, they can request reassignment, or he can requset to etire or resign. He chose to protest in uniform trying to lend credence to his opinion. Which is wrong from the gitgo.
(8)
(0)
SSG Robert Mark Odom
LTC Trent Klug I feel the same way about having to type on the phone. Thanks for your comment.
(1)
(0)
The Army will back him until the moment he becomes a liability which unfortunately for him may be sooner rather than later. He may have had no choice but to testify but he should have chosen his words carefully. Disagreement with policy isn't within his purview. He isn't a lawyer so his concept of what might have been (in his mind) legal or illegal is not relevant or important.
The president sets foreign policy working with his sec of state and state department. Lt Col's don't set/drive/guide foreign policy.
The president sets foreign policy working with his sec of state and state department. Lt Col's don't set/drive/guide foreign policy.
(8)
(0)
CWO3 (Join to see)
Neither Lt Cols or private attorneys set/drive/guide foreign policy. Think Giuliani.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
CWO3 (Join to see) - The president's legal counsel is allowed to investigate anywhere he likes on behalf of his client. That is the way the system works Chief. Lt Col's on the NSC staff do not set policy they are advisers only.
(1)
(0)
CWO3 (Join to see)
Cpl Jeff N. - There's just an element of grey area to his involvement with activities in Ukraine IMO. What you say is true though. I'd be less concerned if POTUS did not refer to Ukraine folks potentially meeting with Giuliani about the "corruption" in the fonecon of note. He did mention "AG" so it is grey, but Giuliani would have met the bar for involvement in policy "if" he ever did meet, assuming they discussed "corruption". I'd prefer US politics and similar be kept in US and through/by the appropriate Agency. The legit way to involve a private attorney or anyone POTUS chooses into the non-personal/foreign policy loop is I believe, to declare them an Emissary or grant them a Commission to investigate as in the past. They would then be acting under official sanction, although in this climate it would not have been well received publicly. It would remove the grey, but then change treatment of Giuliani under the law, and thus might not be in best interest of POTUS and G. Thanks.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
MSG Stan Hutchison - Stan, maybe you aren't paying much attention around here. The non stop attacks from some go on everyday. It doesn't bother me that some do it to me. I am free to engage or disengage. I can walk away or not.
I can defend my positions, thoughts and posts without hiding behind a "block" and I certainly don't need some do gooder swooping in to defend me. Don't play the poor veteran card with me. Any veteran with too thin a skin for this website didn't learn much in the armed forces.
I can defend my positions, thoughts and posts without hiding behind a "block" and I certainly don't need some do gooder swooping in to defend me. Don't play the poor veteran card with me. Any veteran with too thin a skin for this website didn't learn much in the armed forces.
(2)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
Cpl Jeff N. - I know you don't insult others and I thank you for that.
It is not a matter of "thin skin." It is a matter of addressing the issues at hand. Not diverting the topic by making personal comments. Calling me "comrade" is a direct insult against my service and my patriotism. It does nothing for the issues. Diversion and distraction.
It is not a matter of "thin skin." It is a matter of addressing the issues at hand. Not diverting the topic by making personal comments. Calling me "comrade" is a direct insult against my service and my patriotism. It does nothing for the issues. Diversion and distraction.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
MSG Stan Hutchison it’s so Patriotic to insult the President of the United States.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
MSG Stan Hutchison - /Yawn Your argument is terrible. Being a veteran doesn't put you above criticism. it's the same logical fallacy that those who use children to hide behind their misbegotten beliefs. Most of the LTC statement is opinion. Without substantial proof, he is open to criticism.
Your also live in a free country, so you can criticize the sitting President. Just don't be as arrogant to believe that someone wearing the uniform is beyond criticism.
Your also live in a free country, so you can criticize the sitting President. Just don't be as arrogant to believe that someone wearing the uniform is beyond criticism.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next