Following Trump attacks, veterans rally behind Lt. Col. Vindman

Once an Eagle. This is the new Courtney Masengel.

Cpl Jeff N. None in my circle either

None in my circle either.

I'm not saying I'm right I'm stating the facts. The Articles don't change the fact that he has been removed and the Department of Defense Inspector General hasn't initiated an investigate for the reprisal of a "Whistleblower."

You must have gotten bored and not read my entire post. I did say he may even been able to argue "Whistleblower" statutes after the fact had he said he believed the president was guilty of Gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a crime. Which was the case the House was trying to make, and even tried to lead him there, but his testimony never closed the loop. He might have even been able to argue "Whistleblower" statutes after the fact had he testified to this. He came close, he insinuated, gave examples of how the Ukrainians might believe they must provide evidence against the Bidens even if there was none. However when pressed by both sides of House to say the presidents actions were a Gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a crime he didn't.

Ok, Maybe he can self report to the IG after the fact and see if the DOD IG agrees. Maybe? Lets say the IG grants him "Whistleblower" status. The Majority of "Whistleblower" lose in the end anyways.

"The list of negative consequences to whistleblowing seems endless: broken promises to fix the problem, disillusionment, isolation, humiliation, formation of an "anti-you" group, loss of job, questioning of the whistleblower's mental health, vindictive tactics to make the individual's work more difficult and/or insignificant, assassination of character, formal reprimand, and difficult court proceedings (Ahern & McDonald, 2002; Brodie, 1998; Fletcher et al. , 1998; Wilmot, 2000)."

He not Erin Brockovich. He didn't expose a Hazardous Waste. He dove right into Hazardous Waste curated by both sides (Dems and Reps). Servicemen need to stay out of political battles and stick to advising. If they/we can't say with 100% certainty they/we weren't given an unlawful order follow it. Dr. Hill gave him a Positive OER before leaving the NSC but also testified he was not suited for a purely political environment or political situation like this was becoming.

1SG (Join to see) - Sorry it took me a bit to answer. I had similar Phone/PC issues (Apparently you can't leave a response window open on your computer to long or it will zap your answer). - Good answers I like when an RP member thinks and posts their personal opinion rather than regurgitating anything that can be easily google (Although I will do some of that below :(~ ). I tip my hat to you. First, let me address why your post caught my attention. You ended your initial post with, "There are no longer any Brothers in Arms, only Trump loyalists or enemies of Trump." I disagree, and I disagree with you on your opinion on Vindman. Although I disagree with you on your opinion of Vindman it doesn't mean I don't respect you or your opinion. Your view and that of others on RP are important whether I agree, disagree, or think they may be in left field (I don't find yours to be in left field, but I do disagree).

I don't know you, but to me, we are Brothers in Arms. If were in action together, there were an enemy's life, yours, mine, or ANY RP member's life at stake. I'm not hesitating to drop that enemy combatant and risk your life or that of any other fellow Servicemen/womenans because I hesitated. We all committed to serving for the same reason to protect this country and die for it if necessary. That's why I would risk my life for anyone on here. Ok for some, I might think again then commit to risking it ;). All kidding aside, I would be there for you or anyone here. I believe most members would, too, even if they are overzealous in their responses for or against you in this debate. That's why I feel we are still Brothers in Arms. Yes, there are a select few Trump loyalists or Never Trumper's or, those Suffering from server Trump Derangement Syndrome who may not or can no longer think clearly or critically. But I think they are the minority on here. The rest of us have these views for our own reasons, each as important as the other regardless if we agree or not or slam each other overzealously. Mine as I have said comes from LTC Vindman's testimony and my experience over a 34 almost 35-year career and holding similar positions. Also, because I believe EVERYONE regardless of who they are should receive equal rights and due process including the president. The house hearings were a sham and disgrace. I thought they were when the republicans pulled it with Clinton as well. I don't believe LTC Vindman should be court-martialed, but I do believe he stepped outside his command, was derelict in his duties, acted with bias, didn't protect himself, and as a result deserves to pay the consequence. As would any of us had we done the same.

Ok diving in, no, I don't believe this was a perfect call. However, I do not accept any crime was proven either. Not by the transcript or the testimony of LTC Vindman or other witnesses. All the witnesses only confirmed the transcript accuracy, though maybe not 100% word for word, they all said it was an accurate account of the call. None of them had any first-hand knowledge of the president's intent or expressed he committed a crime.

You posted that: Vindman denied sharing information with the Whistleblower and listed those he raised his concerns with, and other than that, his communications were based on normal briefing activity.

However, "when Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., suggested Vindman had contact with the whistleblower, despite having said in his closed-door testimony that he did not know the identity of the whistleblower. Both times on during his televised testimony, Vindman said he'd simply spoken with someone in the intelligence community. His lawyer also interjected to advise his client not to answer. Schiff also cut in on both occasions to instruct everyone present that the “committee will not be used this to out the whistleblower.” How could he out the "Whistleblower” If he didn't know who he was? How many intelligence community personnel could testify this closely to Vindmans recollections 2nd hand?

Ok, so maybe I'm thinking to critically? Perhaps he just inadvertently provided an intelligence community/CIA employee the information to name him (LTC Vindman) as a key witness to the July 25th call. But that would mean he discussed the call with more than just his twin brother, John Eisenberg’s senior NSC legal counsel, deputy Michael Ellis, and an intelligence community colleague. In his testimony, Vindman referred to his brother, and the NSC legal counsel, as his Chain of Command. However, the JAG and legal counsel are not part of his chain (Also, we all know family can't be in our immediate chain of command). At no time did he discuss the call with Mr. Morrison, his rater, his Senior Rater, or their leadership who were in his chain. He also tried to say his conversations with Mr. Eisenberg was privilege because he was speaking with counsel. It's not, especially when claiming that counsel is in ones chain of command.

You stated; When asked if he thought Trump's or other's actions were illegal, he stated he isn't an attorney and hasn't made that determination. That's is not accurate:

When Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe, a former U.S. attorney, Asked: "I'm trying to find out if you were reporting it because you thought there was something wrong with respect to policy or there was something wrong with respect to the law, and what I understand you to say is that you weren't certain that there was anything improper with respect to the law, but you had concerns about U.S. policy. Is that a fair characterization?"

Vindman: "So I would recharacterize it as I thought it was wrong and I was sharing those views, and I was deeply concerned about the implications for bilateral relations, U.S. national security interests, in that if this was exposed, it would be seen as a partisan play by Ukraine. It loses the bipartisan support. And then for — "

Ratcliffe: "I understand that, but that sounds like a policy reason, not a legal reason."

LTC Vindman agreed to that assertion, and at no time did he ever accuse the president of committing a crime either. During all of his testimony his prime assertion was that he felt there was a violation of policy, and he was deeply concerned. You can read LTC Vindmans tesitimonal transcript via the link I pasted below (Also I watch all of LTC Vindmans testimony. His tone was just also a factor I considered. He was condescending, had a high personal opinion, and spoke as if the President had to adhere to his talking points or he was wrong...).

You also wrote: His first contact with NSC counsel was Eisenberg. Second NSC counsel was, in fact, his brother, on ethics. Their familial relationship has no relevance with regard to the truthfulness or propriety of said contact.

It has relevance because it demonstrates he skipped his chain of command. He never told Mr. Morrison his rater or anyone else above Mr. Morrison. During his testimony, Mr. Morrison said he wished LTC Vindman had come to him first with this. Instead he went to Mr. Eisenberg Senior NSC Legal Counsel, his brother, and Mr. Ellis, Mr. Eisenberg's deputy. Again his brother, and the NSC legal counsel, are not in his Chain of Command.

With regard to the truthfulness, LTC Vindman refused to tell Congress, particularly the House Minority, everyone he shared details of the call with. Additionally, During the televised questioning we learned, President Trump called President Zelensky on April 21, 2019, to congratulate him on winning Ukraine’s presidential election that day. LTC Vindman prepared the readout of that call and there were errors and omissions in the April 21 call readout. When asked we learned he was responsible for the errors and omissions in the readout. Maybe he was sloppy, or careless, or made a few mistakes while preparing the readout. But it called his truthfulness and motives into question well before the July 25th call.

NOTE: Many confuse his errors and omissions on the April 21st call as having been on the July 25th call. To date no one involved with the call has asserted he made any errors or omissions on the July 25th call. I think it was Bright Bart that wrongfully confused the two and accused LTC Vindman of entering erroneous information on the July 25th call.

Here's a past From LTC Vindmans deposition on his actions after the July 25th call:

A: After the call I—per the exercise in the chain of command and expressing concerns, I immediately went to the senior NSC legal counsel and shared those concerns.
Q: Okay. Back to John Eisenberg?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. Who was in that meeting?
A: It was my twin brother and I and then—
Q: How did your twin brother get there?
A: Because I also pulled him in.
Q: Okay. You picked him up on the way to Eisenberg?
A: It’s roughly adjacent offices. A couple offices in between.
Q: Okay. So you have a meeting with your brother, Mr. Eisenberg. Anybody else in that meeting?
A: At some point Michael Ellis, the deputy, John Eisenberg’s deputy joined.

You also posted I draw inference from the personal attack on the US Ukrainian Ambassador, use of Sondland and Guiliani to communicate demand for investigation announcement into Biden and Burisma, this alternative shadow state led by the President's personal attorney. That inference is the actions were nefarious, and meant to advantage President Trump, not the Nation.

I disagree. Is it possible you are correct? Yes, however, we have no proof. The president has always expressed concern with corruption in the Ukraine and possibly wasting money by aid not being used properly or as intended. Not only did he withhold to the Ukraine aid but that of other countries as well. Lebanon comes to mind, but I know there are also a few others (Maybe he wanted dirt from them too). In fact, the Washington Post reports "The Trump administration has tried multiple times to cut billions from foreign aid programs to several countries, not just Ukraine." The Post also reported, "In its 2020 budget request, which was released in March of last year, the White House again sought to streamline a number of overseas democracy assistance and foreign aid accounts under one larger umbrella, hoping that by doing so, they would save more than $2 billion." That's quit the saving to the US. If you step back and look at this Strategically, not just county by county, there's an overall pattern of President Trump trying to cut foreign aid. Make other countries in their regions step up, and pay more of their fair share in aid to their neighbors, the EU in particular.

Was he seeking dirt? Maybe no one has proven this only inferred it, or had first-hand knowledge of his intent... Perhaps the president was the victim of a "Whisper Campaign," maybe not. However, if you repeat erroneous information enough times, it human nature to assume it true. No one disputes what was said in the call to President Zelensky. In the July 25th call, he never asked for dirt. He asked that President Zelensky see if Biden did anything wrong when dealing with The Ukrainian Prosecutor (Yes, I'm paraphrasing). He should have let the AG deal with that or brought it up at a different time. For that, I could support censure but not impeachment. It was poor judgment, not a crime. Biden being a political candidate, isn't shielded from corruption. It's almost like people are saying he can't be investigated for a crime because he's running for President. No, if anything, we should want to know more. Would it benefit the president if an investigation found a crime? Possible, but Biden would have to be the guaranteed nominee. Biden wasn't and wasn't/isn't as strong a candidate as the media (All stations Fox, CNN, MSNBC, ABC CBS...) would have you believe. The "Schiff Show" just expedited his demise. He should have stayed in retirement rather than fail for the 3rd time.

I have no opinion of the former Ambassador to the Ukranian. There's out enough there to formulate an opinion, either way, One can deduce, that she was a patriot who got "Rail Roaded" or a Rogue diplomate who was sacked for disparaging the president to her host country. President Zelensky didn't care for her either, so no matter what, her days were numbered. It doesn't affect my opinion of LTC Vindman one way or the other. I still believe his actions were improper.

You facetiously posted; There has still been no meeting at the WH visit, but that's just coincidence, and that was sarcasm.

You are correct. However, after the "Schiff Show" and the rest of this debacle, we'll never know if there would have been one. After all, that's happened, it will be a while before one occurs now. The real casualties here are Ukraine and the Biden campaign. Like I said, his aspirations where weak to begin with. After his first speeches and public appearances, he started dropping in the poles, these hearings sped that up. He constantly gaffs when speaking, loses his train of thought, always seems tired, argues with his supporters... Politically he done, but he's a multi-millionaire, so personally, he's ok.

House Democrats failed when they opted to pursue the subpoenas. I infer that one reason is they want the next Democratic President to be able to obstruct Congress.

I agree. With one exception, he didn't obstruct. Congress purposely failed in a key step (possible for future purposes). They fail/purposely neglected to use the courts. In the Clinton impeachment (Which I also disagreed with) whenever the administration refused to provide evidence, witnesses... Congress/Ken Starr went to the courts and, in some instances, won, and the information was provided, sometimes not till after a few appeals. The courts are there to be the arbiter between two equal branches of government. The house can't say we want X, and when the administration refuses to provide X, can't just say, see you're a crock, in contempt, and walk away. Had this not be so political, partisan, and full of TDS, more members of Congress and senators on both sides would not have supported this till all the proper steps were taken, and all the evidence was presented. House Democrats purposely avoided the courts to avoid the losses, or delays in receiving information, and curtailment of information obtained.

When you refuse to respond with discovery and subpoenas, it's difficult to claim you're cooperating.

Not when keys steps are skipped. Had the House used the courts, the courts ordered the release of information and then the administration refused. I would agree with you. When you're being sued, the plaintive can't say give me the information I want/need. The burden of proof is on them. You can refuse because you have the right to be safe in your papers and safe from self-incrimination. The courts have to order you to provide that information. Once ordered, if you refuse, then you're in contempt. Not before. We still live in the United States and have the right to defend ourselves by refusing to cooperate with a plaintive or prosecution in the absence of a court order.

You closed with, I believe Trump is a liar, thief, serial, sexual predator, con man, who will ultimately face justice...

He's not even the 3rd or 4th sexual predators or womanizer we've had in the office, so I'll skip that. As for as being a criminal... he could be, but I'll wait till I see hard evidence of a crime. Till more information besides this hysteria presents its self, and I see more than conjecture or opinions. It will be a while before I jump on that bandwagon. I'm not saying he's not. I'm just saying I haven't seen evidence yet. "Show Me."

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/08/777514772/read-testimony-of-alexander-vindman-the-white-houses-ukraine-specialist

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

LTC Joe Anderson I appreciate your civil, and thorough, responses. I agree we both have drawn our own inferences, and have some opinions that differ. I appreciate responses that are based on fact, as you provide.
For example, I missed LTC Vindman's referencing NSC counsel as chain of command. I do not accept a LTC not knowing the COC, and counsel or JAG aren't in the COC. Now, I'm forced to be more critical of everything else he says.
I don't have your experience in a related field, but I understand roles. As a 1SG, my commander and I didn't agree 100% of the time. If I disagreed with the COA he wanted to take, I made my case. Sometimes he elected to change the COA, others, he didn't. When we left his office, and I stood in front of the company, it was always, "We will....." It was never, "The commander said..." My role was 1SG, not commander.
It's possible LTC Vindman stepped outside of his role. I would expect a LTC to know to raise an issue with the COC, and, if the COC was unresponsive, the IG or MOC. Admittedly, if I were going to report something, and believed the COC would be unresponsive, I would report it to the IG or MOC, AND notify my COC of that contact to protect myself. I now have to draw the inference that LTC Vindman's actions may have been political.
Best Regards.

1SG (Join to see) - I try to stay civil. Especially when given a well thought out response like yours. I do fail on some of my post. You're a critical Thinker. I like that. We may have some opinions that differ but no reason we can't debated or even disagree. In the end your all still my fellow Soldiers and Servicemen and Women. We've all followed orders we didn't agree with in our careers but if they were lawful we followed them. Yes there are things we won't agree on but its our diversity, heritages, difference of opinions, and thoughts that make us such a great Military. I don't think I'm wrong about our fellow RP members. We/they maybe be down right brutal or rude at times, bit I think off this site, in an enemy verse us situation, we would all have each other back. I hope I've help restore your faith that we are still Brothers in Arms.