Whistleblower identified

[Tassman]

Even the staunchly anti-Trump New York Times has admitted that the things that Vindman (who appears to be the source for the first whistleblower) wanted added to the transcript in no way changed its meaning and therefore still doesn't show Trump strong arming Ukraine.

Not according to the NY Times I read. You obviously read the NY Times through Trump-tinted glasses.

“Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman had the courage to put the country’s interests before his own. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, came forward to tell the truth about President Trump’s actions, despite the obvious risks to his career”.

“Vindman reportedly told impeachment investigators that the White House record of Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s president contained deliberate omissions. “Every charge against the president has proved true as the investigation has progressed, and not a single witness so far has provided countervailing evidence,” the former Justice Department official Matthew Miller wrote”.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/o...p-ukraine.html

[oxmixmudd]

Not according to the NY Times I read. You obviously read the NY Times through Trump-tinted glasses.

“Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman had the courage to put the country’s interests before his own. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, came forward to tell the truth about President Trump’s actions, despite the obvious risks to his career”.

“Vindman reportedly told impeachment investigators that the White House record of Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s president contained deliberate omissions. “Every charge against the president has proved true as the investigation has progressed, and not a single witness so far has provided countervailing evidence,” the former Justice Department official Matthew Miller wrote”.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/o...p-ukraine.html

The problem, as I see it, is that people like Rogue, who is an intelligent man, can still post what you are responding to as a 'summary' of what the times said. What can cause a persons perception to be so completely altered to the point they can no longer see what is right before them?

[oxmixmudd]

His opinion - other legal experts disagree.



Interesting that you eliminated the possibility of recommendation for impeachment, and dealt only with the concept of indictment.

Jim, with all due respect, you have not demonstrated yourself to be very knowledgeable in how the law actually works.

What do you think Meuller was doing when he stated that he can't indict but Congress can? It was as strong a 'recommendation' as was permissible under his guidelines. Anything stronger would have been an implicit indictment, which he was not allowed to do.

A lot of these conversations are kind of like a kid that is told "don't touch the cookie jar", who then eats all the cookies in it and then claims "well, you didn't tell me not to eat the cookies inside!" It's just all plays on words ignoring the realities and hoping that people will buy that the plays on words are 'get out of jail free' cards.

The big question here CP is why will you stand behind arguments aimed at protecting a man that clearly has broken he law. Over and over again.

Why will you stand behind a man that is abusing the constitution and playing every trick in the book to get away with what is plainly illegal?

[oxmixmudd]

Ah, deflection. OK, I'll play...

I'm multi-tasking. I'm responding to you and others, but I'm also praising God in the things He has done in and around me, in my daughter who was living in rebellion, but was gloriously brought back to the Lord and is serving Him...

So, your turn.

Let me give you a real answer here CP.

I am here - at least in civics - because I am seeing good people support evil. And I cannot give up hope that somehow, if I just keep bringing to the forefront the moral compromise of it all, the consciences of all those good people supporting evil will kick in. That is why I keep trying. But what I am learning is truly disheartening. It does appear that most people, regardless of the profession of faith in Christ, are willing to compromise truth and morality to get what they want. To the point it distorts their perception of the world. To the point, in the extreme cases (not you) they are willing to cast aspersions on the righteous that stand up for what is good and true. And I just can't quite accept that is reality. Not of Christian people. And so I just keep trying and probably will never stop. Because until we are all dead, there is always to possibility of repentance and restoration.

[Cow Poke]

Let me give you a real answer here CP.

I am here - at least in civics - because I am seeing good people support evil. And I cannot give up hope that somehow, if I just keep bringing to the forefront the moral compromise of it all, the consciences of all those good people supporting evil will kick in. That is why I keep trying. But what I am learning is truly disheartening. It does appear that most people, regardless of the profession of faith in Christ, are willing to compromise truth and morality to get what they want. To the point it distorts their perception of the world. To the point, in the extreme cases (not you) they are willing to cast aspersions on the righteous that stand up for what is good and true. And I just can't quite accept that is reality. Not of Christian people. And so I just keep trying and probably will never stop. Because until we are all dead, there is always to possibility of repentance and restoration.

I appreciate the straight answer, Jim.

[carpedm9587]

But you can be PROUD of me, Carpe, cause I have been so much kinder and gentler with JimL, as kind of an experiment to see if he could do likewise, and I think it has cut the traffic on this site by about 63.275%!

I have not been watching - but I would say that is a good thing and you should be proud of you. My opinion counts for squat in this equation.

How the basic teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth have become so poisoned I will never understand.

And no - I don't want to engage in a back and forth on the "true meaning" of Jesus' teachings. I prefer to try to live out the best of them as I understand them. I have found that this is not a good place to do that, sadly enough.

[Mountain Man]

Not according to the NY Times I read. You obviously read the NY Times through Trump-tinted glasses.

“Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman had the courage to put the country’s interests before his own. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, came forward to tell the truth about President Trump’s actions, despite the obvious risks to his career”.

“Vindman reportedly told impeachment investigators that the White House record of Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s president contained deliberate omissions. “Every charge against the president has proved true as the investigation has progressed, and not a single witness so far has provided countervailing evidence,” the former Justice Department official Matthew Miller wrote”.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/o...p-ukraine.html

According to the Associated Press, the supposed omissions were one or two words at most: "Vindman also told investigators he tried to change the White House’s rough transcript of the call by filling in at least one of the omitted words, 'Burisma'..." so nothing significant. Furthermore, there was nothing in Vindman's prepared opening statement that questioned the accuracy of the official transcript.

Vindman’s prepared statement indicates he believes that the released transcript is accurate. He said: “As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said.” If Vindman had contended that the transcript was not accurate, then his recollection might be material. But that is not what he claimed.

Although some left-leaning media outlets now claim the transcript has omissions and is not accurate, Vindman did not make that claim or dispute the accuracy of the transcript. If he later changes course and claims, contrary to his prepared statement, that the transcript is not accurate, then such a shift would raise obvious credibility issues. But that discussion is for another day, if it happens.

And worst of all for the impeachment co-conspirators, Vindman's testimony did add any new facts. All we got from him were opinion and hand-wringing appeals to emotion...

Vindman’s testimony about the July 25 call between the two presidents does not add any new facts. So, what does he say? He offers his opinions about the wisdom of the call. That’s it. His testimony about the substance of that call consists of five sentences at the end of his prepared testimony. Those five sentences basically comprise two opinions.

Here is what he said: “I was concerned by the call. [1] 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. [2] 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.”

The two portions preceded by my bracketed numbers are Vindman’s opinions. Let’s analyze what he said. It is important to remember that he was not speaking off-the-cuff or just responding to questions. This was a carefully prepared opening statement that had been closely vetted by lawyers and others.

Regarding his first opinion, he says, “I did not think it was proper…” That is pure opinion, not fact. Moreover, if it is improper to ask a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen, that would no doubt come as a big surprise to many in government.

Vindman’s statement is, in short, an unfounded and unsupported opinion. And the notion that the president could not properly ask a foreign country to investigate a U.S. citizen who may have engaged in illegal activity is nonsense; Joe Biden does not get a pass from investigation just because he is candidate for the nomination of his party.

There is nothing improper or illegal about an investigation into potentially illegal actions, much less anything that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor. The notion that it does is so much tommyrot.

So, absent personal knowledge of a high crime or misdemeanor, Vindman’s first personal opinion is immaterial. I think most voters not swirling around in the vortex of Trump hatred care more about the opinions of the president and the secretary of State than those of a mid-level officer, at least on this topic.

Vindman’s second opinion is that if Ukraine investigated the Bidens as President Trump suggested, it would lose the support of Democrats in Congress. That may well be, but in addition to being a personal opinion, it is a pure political concern. It is properly the concern of the presidents of the United States and of Ukraine.

If he disagrees with the president’s approach and harbors a fear that Ukraine will lose Democrat votes if it investigates the Bidens, Vindman’s proper role is to give his best advice and then shut up. His proper role is not to volunteer to go before a congressional committee and complain about why he disagrees with the president.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/01...onal-opinions/

[JimL]

The problem, as I see it, is that people like Rogue, who is an intelligent man, can still post what you are responding to as a 'summary' of what the times said. What can cause a persons perception to be so completely altered to the point they can no longer see what is right before them?

Group think, tribalism, not ever wanting to admit that their side, thus themselves, could be guilty of anything. A sort of blind patriotism to the team.

[Cow Poke]

I have not been watching - but I would say that is a good thing and you should be proud of you. My opinion counts for squat in this equation.

Oh, not TRUE -- I value your opinion.

How the basic teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth have become so poisoned I will never understand.

Ya know, He could be pretty sharp with his critics and antagonists - I wouldn't soft pedal His uses of "snake" and "viper" and "whited wall" and such - and even implying that the Jewish leaders were bastards.

And no - I don't want to engage in a back and forth on the "true meaning" of Jesus' teachings. I prefer to try to live out the best of them as I understand them. I have found that this is not a good place to do that, sadly enough.

So, kinda of a Cafeteria Jesus approach. If you're gonna pick your own standard, why does it even matter what Jesus said?

[Cow Poke]

What do you think Meuller was doing when he stated that he can't indict but Congress can? It was as strong a 'recommendation' as was permissible under his guidelines. Anything stronger would have been an implicit indictment, which he was not allowed to do.

A lot of these conversations are kind of like a kid that is told "don't touch the cookie jar", who then eats all the cookies in it and then claims "well, you didn't tell me not to eat the cookies inside!" It's just all plays on words ignoring the realities and hoping that people will buy that the plays on words are 'get out of jail free' cards.

The big question here CP is why will you stand behind arguments aimed at protecting a man that clearly has broken he law. Over and over again.

Why will you stand behind a man that is abusing the constitution and playing every trick in the book to get away with what is plainly illegal?

Show me your best example of me "standing behind Trump" as opposed to standing up for the truth. As I have stated numerous times, Trump has actually done enough on his own to warrant criticism without people making stuff up, or going to extremes like declaring him a criminal when that hasn't yet been established. It MAY! But he's entitled to the same presumption of innocence as the rest of us.

Show me where I have excused or defended Trump's evil, please.

I believe in truth and decency, Jim.

[JimL]

His opinion - other legal experts disagree.

They can disagree all they want, it's the OLC ruling. Btw, your autocratic president agrees with him and goes further in arguing that the President is above the law, period. His lawyer argued in court that the president can not be indicted or investigated by anyone, including Congress, for anything whatsoever, including shooting someone on 5th ave in broad daylight.

Interesting that you eliminated the possibility of recommendation for impeachment, and dealt only with the concept of indictment.

I didn't eliminate it, It isn't his responsibility. His job in this case is to investigate, gather the evidence, and turn it over to Congress in order that they make the determination as to whether to Impeach or not.

Jim, with all due respect, you have not demonstrated yourself to be very knowledgeable in how the law actually works.

With all due respect, CP, you have demonstrated the reverse to be true.

[Cow Poke]

They can disagree all they want, it's the OLC ruling. Btw, your autocratic president agrees with him and goes further in arguing that the President is above the law, period. His lawyer argued in court that the president can not be indicted or investigated by anyone, including Congress, for anything whatsoever, including shooting someone on 5th ave in broad daylight.


I didn't eliminate it, It isn't his responsibility. His job in this case is to investigate, gather the evidence, and turn it over to Congress in order that they make the determination as to whether to Impeach or not.

With all due respect, CP, you have demonstrated the reverse to be true.

This post gave me a chuckle. The sad part is that you actually believe what you typed.

[Cow Poke]

And that opinion appears to be a decidedly minority one.

That's totally beside the point if it happens to be the opinion that supports a narrative.

[JimL]

This post gave me a chuckle. The sad part is that you actually believe what you typed.

Which is it that you don't believe? I take it that you don't believe that Trumps lawyer argued in court that while president, Trump is above the law. They probably didn't report that on Trump tv.

[Cow Poke]

Which is it that you don't believe? I take it that you don't believe that Trumps lawyer argued in court that while president, Trump is above the law. They probably didn't report that on Trump tv.

Back to your old ways. Not surprised in the least.