Why didn’t Trump fire the Deep State or Obama holdovers?
Readers Digest version: OLD NEWS! IOW we’ve known this for ages.
And where are the military standards regarding this wimpy little fat creep?
Were I to be his commanding officer, his officer efficiency report would be banned due to an excess of colorful descriptors.
Things have changed with Obama , the Dems now have Spies everywhere
I hope that next time he wears the same uniform he did for his so-called testimony will be when he is being buried in the ground.
The dynamic has become clear in recent days. The career people in govt see themselves as the permanent stewards of the machine, while the elected people are the overnight guests.
But, but, but - he wears a uniform!
And Vindman is UKRANIAN!!#!
I see a Court Martial headed his way.
“I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency”
So the president himself, the commander in chief, is an outsider?
This is insubbordination of the highest order and the whole interagency clique should be court martialled
He’s also proof it reaches very low
In DC, a LTC staffer makes copies and fetches coffee unless they leech onto a power figure
This precisely goes to the source of policy. For the Deep State bureaucrat, policy is determined by the aggregate of bureaucratic procedure. Policy is what ever the functionaries in the government determine it to be. The Constitution says otherwise.
The Constitution places policy squarely on the President’s desk. The elected officer of the Executive branch is the sole arbiter of policy. This is the precise struggle in which our nation is engaged.
Vindman needs an Article 92.
Pillsbury Dough Boy should not be prancing around in a uniform that is two sizes too small
If the colonel was not the insidious, unethical, rebellious political activist that he is, he would have resigned right after Trump was elected.
Instead he desired to, and chose to be a disloyal employee - disloyal to the elected government - attempting to undermine the government he took an oath to serve.
I’ve been typing up Ratcliffe’s questioning of Vindman, but gave up as too labor intensive. Here’s what I have:
_____________________________
MR. RATCLIFFE: All right. So you did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen. You used the work “demand,” it was not proper to demand. Where in the transcript do you believe that the President made a demand to investigate a U.S. citizen?
LT. COL. VINDMAN: So, Congressman, the power disparity between the President of the United States and the President of Ukraine is vast, and, you know, in the President asking for something, it became — there was — in return for a White House meeting, because that’s what this was about. This was about getting a white House meeting. It was a demand for him to fulfill his — fulfill this particular prerequisite in order to get the meeting.
MR. RATCLIFFE: Okay. Well, and I understand that based on that answer that your opinion is that it was a demand. I’m looking for where in the transcript you think there are words used that justify the use of that term, “demand,” as opposed to what you just said, which was ask for.
LT. COL. VINDMAN: You know, I guess I didn’t — frankly, Congressman, I didn’t parse the words all that clearly. This is, you know — I’m not — I guess I — I’m not an attorney by training. This is — I just wrote it the way I kind of felt it. And that’s the way I described it.
MR. RATCLIFFE: Fair enough. The reason I’m asking you, though, is the word when we’re talking about an allegation that there was a quid pro quo has significance, and demand has a specific connotation. And in this case, President Trump has said there was no demand. President Zelensky has said there was no demand. Secretary Pompeo has said there was no demand. Vice President Pence has said there was no demand.
But, Colonel Vindman, it’s your opinion that there was a demand, and so I’m asking where in the transcript do you find words used that justify that term?
LT. COL. VINDMAN: Sure, I guess, Congressman, I’d go back to the fact that, you know, this whole matter has been unfolding over the course of months. On the 10th of July, this — it bacame completely apparent what the deliverable woudl be in order to get a White House Meeting.
That deliverable was reinforced by the President. There was no, oh, it’s okay — you know, I guess in my mind, there was no it’s okay, if you don’t want to do the investigation we can still do a White House meeting. The demand was, in order to get the White House meeting, they had to deliver an investigation. That became clear as time progressed from how this thing unfolded through the 10th all the way through the conclusion.
That’s my – I mean, that’s just the way I – it seemed clear to me, and that’s my – that’s why I said what I think. That’s just the way it seemed to me.
MR. RATCLIFFE: Okay. So, again, clear to you, but you cannot point me to a specific place in the July 25th phone call that justifies the use of the word “demand.”
LT. COL. VINDMAN: If you give me a minute, Congressman, I’ll just –
MR. RATCLIFFE: Take as long as you want.
LT. COL. VINDMAN: And I’ll take a look and see if I can find something.
MR. RATCLIFFE: What the time? I just want to reflect how long the witness is looking for wirds to justify demand and the record reflect that.
What’s the time? All right. I’m going to let the record reflect that I’ve given the witness several minutes to look for words that justify the use of the word “demand.”
Have you found anything at this point?
LT. COL. VINDMAN: I think so.
MR. RATCLIFFE: Okay. What is it?
LT. COL. VINDMAN: So I’m going to read the President’s words as they were in this – as they were transcribed in this record.
I would like you to do –
MR. RATCLIFFE: What page?
LT. COL. VINDMAN: This is page 3, Congressman. I would like you to – top of the page. I would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine. They say CrowdStrike. I guess you have one of t hose – one of your wealthy people, the server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, and the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like you to have the Attorney General call – I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.
I’ll go on. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they cay a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you do, it’s very important that you do it – that you do it if that’s possible.
And then next time he speaks at the bottom of the page, good, because I heard you had a prosecutor –
MR. RATCLIFFE: Okay. Let me stop you right there, just to address it paragraph by paragraph. In that sentence, does the President mention anything about Biden or Burisma? Does the President mention anything about Biden or Burisma?
LT. COL. VINDMAN: No. No, Congressman.
MR. RATCLIFFE: Okay. Are the President’s comments in that paragraph that you just read where he asked for a favor that you’re interpreting as a demand relate specifically to the 2016 election and whether there was interference involving the DNC server?
LT. COL. VINDMAN: Sure, Congressman, I’ll simply say – I’ll simply say that the demand, the way I wrote it in the – my testimony or opening statement is my assessment of the entirety. I just read the first paragraph. It’s the entirety of what the President communicated. And when the President of the United states makes a request for a favor, it certainly seems – I would take it as a demand.
MR. RATCLIFFE: Fair enough.
LT. COL. VINDMAN: As a military officer, Congressman, as a military officer, if my superiors tell me to do something, I take that not as a request, I take that as a demand.
MR. RATCLIFFE: Okay. Do you know whether it’s proper for a President, whether he is asking or demanding assistance, to investigate a U.S. citizen?
LT. COL. VINDMAN: The – so, Congressman, when I spoke to Mr. Eisenberg, I was expressing concerns about the entirety of the conversation. I was relaying to him my concerns. Was I making a judgement on anything outside of that, for instance, criminality? No. All I was doing was, through the chain of command, expressing concerns.
MR. RATCLIFFE: Okay.
LT. COL, VINDMAN: Did I in any way foresee that this was going to unfold the way it did and it was going to be in the public record? No. I was just expressing concerns.
And frankly, there was a reason for this. Because these are senior officials within the Department that provide him counsel. That they could then say, Mr. President, this – you know, we might want to stay away from this topic. And that’s what I’m doing when I provide my best advice.
MR. RATCLIFFE: I appreciate the explanation, but the answer is that you didn’t know, correct?
LT. COL. VINDMAN: I thought it was wrong. I thought it was wrong for the President of the United States to call for an investigation of – call a foreign power to investigate a U.S. citizen.
Benedict Arnold thought he was serving the interests of the country too.
Vindman was always the designated whistleblower. Ciarmella’s only function was to blow a hole in a wall that Vindman could not breach without being courtmartialed because of his military status.
Anonymity is needed for Ciarmella in order to protect Vindman.
The whole thing is putrid.
Corrupt Deep State - bump for later....