Posted on Nov 19, 2019
The Authoritarian Smear Campaign Against Alexander Vindman
7.13K
381
245
15
15
0
Posted in these groups: 
LTC
LTC
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 24
15
15
0
The article lays out in detail about the patriotism of this fine officer, and the willful blindness of the Trump supporters.
Second, Charlie Brown made a comment on Vindman's OERs. The comment is BS, a lie. Officer OERs are not part of the public record, and while a search of the internet shows a bunch of constitutionally-challenged commentators saying what they would put on his OER, there is not a single copy of one of his OERs posted on the internet. Not one. Exactly how did Brown come across this information? My belief is that she made crap up.
And then you have a Trumpanzee throwing poo, claiming fake news and bemoaning the fact that he can't handle the truth.
Second, Charlie Brown made a comment on Vindman's OERs. The comment is BS, a lie. Officer OERs are not part of the public record, and while a search of the internet shows a bunch of constitutionally-challenged commentators saying what they would put on his OER, there is not a single copy of one of his OERs posted on the internet. Not one. Exactly how did Brown come across this information? My belief is that she made crap up.
And then you have a Trumpanzee throwing poo, claiming fake news and bemoaning the fact that he can't handle the truth.
(15)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett
MCM Applies:
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to “retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.” The Army source is AR 27-10 not sure about the Navy.
You are writing on RallyPoint with your Rank in your user name.
I am suprised this is unexpected by you..... but I suppose if you are not a retiree it would not fit.
MCM Applies:
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to “retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.” The Army source is AR 27-10 not sure about the Navy.
You are writing on RallyPoint with your Rank in your user name.
I am suprised this is unexpected by you..... but I suppose if you are not a retiree it would not fit.
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
LTC (Join to see) - it also doesn't fit if one is a reservist who is retired. Only retirees who are regulars are subject to the UCMJ (not the MCM), and even if it were a violation of Art. 88, it still would not be a violation of my oath. You may want to go back and read Art. 2 again. You'll want to look at (a)(4) to (a)(6). You'll also want to look at (d)(1) et seq.
You, as an active duty officer, cannot use contemptuous words towards the president or the other designated officials without being subject to a court-martial, but I can as a retired reserve officer. Additionally, any current reserve officer can do so, so long as he or she is not on active duty, or on inactive duty for training. Any National Guard officer can do so unless on duty in federal status, being at a National Guard drill doesn't suffice (although most states do have a state code of military justice, like Texas).
You stated that it was a violation of my oath, but you haven't provided anything to support that, just a mistaken assertion that I was committing a criminal violation of the UCMJ. So again, exactly how am I violating my oath?
You, as an active duty officer, cannot use contemptuous words towards the president or the other designated officials without being subject to a court-martial, but I can as a retired reserve officer. Additionally, any current reserve officer can do so, so long as he or she is not on active duty, or on inactive duty for training. Any National Guard officer can do so unless on duty in federal status, being at a National Guard drill doesn't suffice (although most states do have a state code of military justice, like Texas).
You stated that it was a violation of my oath, but you haven't provided anything to support that, just a mistaken assertion that I was committing a criminal violation of the UCMJ. So again, exactly how am I violating my oath?
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Sorry I even started talking, given that you are a barracks lawyer. Too smart for me.
If you receive Federal Money in Retirement and have not been retire for 30 years. It applies to you.
On a seperate note, you are on RallyPoint touting a retired rank of an officer but you disparage people and belittle them.
You are correct, no Honorable document like the MCM applies to people looking like you.
Sorry I even started talking, given that you are a barracks lawyer. Too smart for me.
If you receive Federal Money in Retirement and have not been retire for 30 years. It applies to you.
On a seperate note, you are on RallyPoint touting a retired rank of an officer but you disparage people and belittle them.
You are correct, no Honorable document like the MCM applies to people looking like you.
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
LTC (Join to see) - I'm not a "barracks lawyer", I'm an attorney in Texas. Second, I'm a retired ANG/USAFR captain, and yes, I'm drawing retirement pay. I am not subject to the UCMJ in retirement, unless I am then being hospitalized as a result of my service. I pointed you directly to the articles in the UCMJ that you should look at, or you can go to a law library and look it up in a US Code Annotated, in Title 10.
Second, you may want to look in the mirror. Our interaction started when you stated that I had violated my oath of office--this is the third time that I've asked you to explain exactly how I did that, so far without an answer. You could have clarified it at anytime that you were being rhetorical and not serious, but you haven't done that. Instead, you disparaged me and belittled me, and then you made another snide comment. None of it with any supporting facts, just your desire to put other people down.
If you want to have a responsible discussion, let me know. Otherwise I'm done with you.
Second, you may want to look in the mirror. Our interaction started when you stated that I had violated my oath of office--this is the third time that I've asked you to explain exactly how I did that, so far without an answer. You could have clarified it at anytime that you were being rhetorical and not serious, but you haven't done that. Instead, you disparaged me and belittled me, and then you made another snide comment. None of it with any supporting facts, just your desire to put other people down.
If you want to have a responsible discussion, let me know. Otherwise I'm done with you.
(1)
(0)
14
14
0
IMO, he deserves it. While his OERs are good, his previous raters admit he is partisan for the country he left and he allowed it to overrule his loyalty to this one.
(14)
(0)
SP5 Dennis Loberger
I was not aware that any of his OERs have been released other than the most recent one which he read
(1)
(0)
SSgt Boyd Herrst
Vindman steps up wirh Dems to help smear Trump because I think he’s thinking Dems will come out on top. The President fires back and caught
Vindman in a lie .. So now the liberal
Mud slinging machine slate is coming up to call the President out. Reminds me of that movie “ship of fools” ..
I think he can take them General stars back to the px and cancel that uniform order. And call that other outfitter and order a parka and mukluks.. for the new assignment....
Vindman in a lie .. So now the liberal
Mud slinging machine slate is coming up to call the President out. Reminds me of that movie “ship of fools” ..
I think he can take them General stars back to the px and cancel that uniform order. And call that other outfitter and order a parka and mukluks.. for the new assignment....
(1)
(0)
12
12
0
Here we go again. Typical Republican SOP; attack the messenger.
They will attempt to smear honest, honorable public servants to cover the wrongdoing of their messiah.
They will attempt to smear honest, honorable public servants to cover the wrongdoing of their messiah.
(12)
(0)
MAJ Byron Oyler
How do you expect people not to question after the Mueller report? Trump was not even sworn in before they started talking impeachment and here we are, three years later going down that path.
(1)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
MAJ Byron Oyler - OK, did you read the Muller report? Especially Vol II? That clearly spells out grounds for obstruction of justice charges. I just wish Congress had the balls to follow up on those charges.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
MSG Stan Hutchison
If they were that damning why are they not in the Articles of Impeachment?
Answer: Because they are very thin and ultimately unprovable.
Why are we Impeaching the President? Because of Quid Pro Quo? Ukrainian president said there was none. Any obstruction? No, the President released the transcript of the phone call.
This is purely a political stunt by the Democratic party leading into the primaries. I am afraid it will backfire.
We need to come together not get more divisive.
If they were that damning why are they not in the Articles of Impeachment?
Answer: Because they are very thin and ultimately unprovable.
Why are we Impeaching the President? Because of Quid Pro Quo? Ukrainian president said there was none. Any obstruction? No, the President released the transcript of the phone call.
This is purely a political stunt by the Democratic party leading into the primaries. I am afraid it will backfire.
We need to come together not get more divisive.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
MSG Stan Hutchison They ran with charges that were less than provable. If there was legal weight to the Mueller Report they would have used it.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google