Whistleblower identified

[oxmixmudd]

That's wonderful.

I thought it was slightly petty, however, for him to insist on being addressed as "Lieutenant Colonel Vindman" in the hearing. It kinda reminded me of Col Jessup demanding that he be referred to by his rank in A Few Good Men - "I would appreciate it if he would address me as "colonel" or "sir." I believe I've earned it"

You are right there. He's lucky the late night comics attacked Nunes on that and not him. At the same time, I think he was right to stand up to the previous disrespect for the uniform, even if the choice of when to make the statement was awkward.

His rank of Lt. Col. does not change the fact that he is human, and can make mistakes, or change his testimony, or be partisan.
He appears to have overstated the significance of the president "making a demand", which was the language of the supposed whistle blower, and he had to dial that back.

Again, I agree the word choice was awkward. Extortion is the right word for what trump was doing IMHO. Demand is too 'in your face' for what Trump was up to.

And to respect Vindman for his courage, demonstrated here and on the battlefield, and his overall integrity is not to pretend he does not have flaws.

Witnesses change their testimony all the time, regardless whether they are in civvies or uniform.

I didn't see Vindman changing his testimony CP. Are you thinking of Volker?

[JimL]

Just because someone can put on a uniform doesn't automatically make him above reproach.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...mans-judgment/

Again, you only see what you want to see. Vindman in response to that accusation pulled out a letter from Dr Fiona Hill stating in what high eteem she held him. That's from the horses mouth. Besides that, Morrison, who was supposed to be the republicans witness, rather than commit perjury, was forced to admit to the Presidents quid pro quo/bribery/extortion demand. Guilty. Now all we need watch is whether the republican Senate will continue in its unamerican, corrupt defense, of this corrupt and treasonous President.

[Mountain Man]

good comeback, but it doesn't change the truth as it applies to you.

You falsely accused me of ignoring the facts in favor of smearing Vindman when all I did was quote someone else's sworn testimony.

Frankly, you can take that plank out of your eye and shove it up your... well, use your imagination.

[Mountain Man]

That's wonderful.

I thought it was slightly petty, however, for him to insist on being addressed as "Lieutenant Colonel Vindman" in the hearing. It kinda reminded me of Col Jessup demanding that he be referred to by his rank in A Few Good Men - "I would appreciate it if he would address me as "colonel" or "sir." I believe I've earned it"

His rank of Lt. Col. does not change the fact that he is human, and can make mistakes, or change his testimony, or be partisan.
He appears to have overstated the significance of the president "making a demand", which was the language of the supposed whistle blower, and he had to dial that back.

Witnesses change their testimony all the time, regardless whether they are in civvies or uniform.

I'm disappointed that Nunes didn't respond by saying:

"MISTER Vindman, will you please answer the question?"

[Mountain Man]

Morrison ... was forced to admit to the Presidents quid pro quo/bribery/extortion demand.

Provide a direct quote from Morrison's testimony, if you please.

Meanwhile, I'll just leave this here...

Asked by Republicans whether either of them had seen anything resembling bribery or extortion, both said no.

Morrison also added, in response to Republican counsel Stephen Castor, later that he had no concerns about the call.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...s-not-illegal/

And this...

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/19...r-impeachment/

And one more...

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/19...r-impeachment/

I'm not sure what fake news you've been reading, Jimmy, but your claim that "Morrison ... was forced to admit to the Presidents quid pro quo/bribery/extortion demand" appears to be false.

[Cow Poke]

I'm disappointed that Nunes didn't respond by saying:

"MISTER Vindman, will you please answer the question?"

That would have given the liberals tremendous joy.

[Cow Poke]

And to respect Vindman for his courage, demonstrated here and on the battlefield, and his overall integrity is not to pretend he does not have flaws.

You mean Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, right?

[Tassman]

Just because someone can put on a uniform doesn't automatically make him above reproach.

Anyone that "puts on a uniform" to serve his country, who has shrapnel embedded in his body acquired whilst in action and who is the recipient of a purple heart, has done more than Donald Trump has ever done.

[oxmixmudd]

You falsely accused me of ignoring the facts in favor of smearing Vindman when all I did was quote someone else's sworn testimony.

Frankly, you can take that plank out of your eye and shove it up your... well, use your imagination.

No MM. You are posting these things against Vindman because you want to participate in the smearing. And now of course, since I point out what you sre not comfortable with, you do exactly as I said, only now aimed at me. When the facts dont suit you, smear the person. It's just who you are.

[lilpixieofterror]

I'm disappointed that Nunes didn't respond by saying:

"MISTER Vindman, will you please answer the question?"

[Mountain Man]

When the facts dont suit you, smear the person.

What the heck are you talking about?

Yes or no: Was it testified under oath that Vindman's professional colleagues were concerned about his poor judgement, and that they believed him to be the source of leaks?

I'll give you a hint: The answer is yes!

It boggles my mind that you can persist in falsely accusing me of ignoring the facts when all I am doing is literally stating the facts. I don't think I have ever in my life encountered anyone as blatantly hypocritical as you. And, no, that's not a smear, it's a fact.

[oxmixmudd]

What the heck are you talking about?

Yes or no: Was it testified under oath that Vindman's professional colleagues were concerned about his poor judgement, and that they believed him to be the source of leaks?

I'll give you a hint: The answer is yes!

It boggles my mind that you can persist in falsely accusing me of ignoring the facts when all I am doing is literally stating the facts. I don't think I have ever in my life encountered anyone as blatantly hypocritical as you. And, no, that's not a smear, it's a fact.

No - you are not 'just stating the facts'. You are trying to smear the man - Along with the rest of the GOP - because you don't like his truthful testimony about what he saw and heard.

You can deny it all you want - there is no purpose in posting that gossip as it relates to his testimony other than to smear the man - thus your actions speak far louder than your words.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

You mean Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, right?

Sure - If I was to give a title - that would be the title I would use

[Teallaura]

Unless you mention it on introduction - we had an algebra teacher who went by his rank instead of mister. He told us on Day One and we called him Colonel Kirkpatrick ever since - no one thought he was being a jerk.

You look like a jerk correcting every little mistake or every person you talk to, however.

[Mountain Man]

No - you are not 'just stating the facts'. You are trying to smear the man - Along with the rest of the GOP...

In any legal proceeding, it is perfectly normal and expected to evaluate the credibility of a witness, and just because the plain facts as testified under oath are not favorable to Mr. Vindman does not make them a "smear".

But do keep up your hypocritical attack against me. Just be careful you don't dislocate your shoulder trying to pat yourself on the back.