IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, "Army colonel "A More difficult witness to dismiss than civilians"

[real Cannabis calm]

Last edited Tue Oct 29, 2019, 08:41 AM - Edit history (1)

White House Ukraine expert to testify he reported concerns about Trump-Zelensky call
By Zachary Cohen, Jake Tapper and Paul LeBlanc, CNN
Updated 1:10 AM ET, Tue October 29, 2019

Washington (CNN)The National Security Council's top Ukraine expert plans to tell House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that he was so troubled by President Donald Trump's July phone call with Ukraine's President that he reported his concerns to a superior, according to a copy of his opening statement obtained by CNN.

The expert, Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, plans to say he felt an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and the Ukrainian natural gas company connected to Biden's son, Hunter, would undermine US national security. Trump pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for such an investigation multiple times during that July 25 call. There is no evidence of wrongdoing by either Joe or Hunter Biden.

"I was concerned by the call. 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," Vindman plans to tell lawmakers, according to his opening statement, which was first reported by The New York Times. "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."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/28/politics/alexander-vindman-nsc-impeachment-testimony/index.html

Army Officer Who Heard Trump’s Ukraine Call Reported Concerns
By Danny Hakim

The top Ukraine expert at the White House will tell impeachment investigators he twice reported concerns about President Trump’s pressure tactics on Ukraine, acting out of a “sense of duty.”

WASHINGTON — A White House national security official who is a decorated Iraq war veteran plans to tell House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that he heard President Trump appeal to Ukraine’s president to investigate one of his leading political rivals, a request the aide considered so damaging to American interests that he reported it to a superior.

The colonel, a Ukrainian-American immigrant who received a Purple Heart after being wounded in Iraq by a roadside bomb and whose statement is full of references to duty and patriotism, could be a more difficult witness to dismiss than his civilian counterparts.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/us/politics/Alexander-Vindman-trump-impeachment.html?te=1&nl=morning-briefing&emc=edit_NN_p_20191029§ion=topNews?campaign_id=9&instance_id=13446&segment_id=18324&user_id=cd25229822fb6350f11c6cb7ab0d25e8®i_id=90467985tion=topNews

[rzemanfl]

1. Please check subject line. n/t

[real Cannabis calm]

4. Thanks, I just awoke

I should have wiped the sleep from my eyes.

[Tarc]

2. "colonel"

[real Cannabis calm]

10. thanks, I fixed the spelling error.

[ritapria]

3. Fox News is starting to call him a spy

Guilty of Espionage ...They're sick …….

[real Cannabis calm]

5. Like my first headline, now you have a spelling error...

I "report, you decide."

It's always been Faux News.

[NewJeffCT]

6. disgusting smear

by Blonde Hannity, aka Laura Ingraham

[real Cannabis calm]

9. How can ANYONE, except Trumpeters, who want to avoid REAL news, watch Faux lies?

I watched the liars, a few time, years ago and those talking heads made me nauseous

[uponit7771]

14. +1, except they'll pose such label as a question cause they're slimy

[real Cannabis calm]

17. How can you watch those "lies"?

FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2007/7/31/364678/-

[yellowcanine]

7. Yet Ingraham and Yoo accuse him of "espionage" and being a "double-agent"

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/oh-my-god-msnbcs-morning-joe-torches-fox-news-for-disgusting-spy-slurs-against-new-impeachment-witness/

Fox News host Laura Ingraham broadcast a segment suggesting the Ukraine-born Vindman was a double agent, and guest John Yoo — a former Bush administration staffer who authored the infamous “Torture Memos” — accused the NSC expert of “espionage.”

Yoo is infamous for authoring the "torture memo" during the G.W. Bush era and Ingraham is well, just infamous.

[maxsolomon]

11. See, that's "opinion", not "news".

I'm sure you can see the clear distinction, just like Fox regular viewers can.

[real Cannabis calm]

18. From my perspective, it looks like PLENTY of "Fox viewers, replied to this OP

None of them responded to my valid questions, either.

[tblue37]

8. They've dismissed a CIA officer, an intelligence officer under three presidents (Fiona Hill), a

respected ambassador (William Taylor), and others you'd think they'd honor. They'll easily dismiss this guy, too--especially since he was born in Ukraine. Laura Ingram and John "Torture" Yoo have already suggested he is guilty of espionage!

[Ms. Toad]

12. Why the military worship?

The credibility of witnesses should be based on their character and their experience - not whether or not they are a member of the military, or their rank.

Recognizing quid pro quo is not something that the military has any better inherent ability to recognize than civilians.

[Kingofalldems]

13. He received a Purple Heart in combat.

The guy questioning his credibility is a five time draft dodger.

How does that sound?

[Ms. Toad]

15. Earning a purple heart has nothing to do

with being an authority on quid pro quo - or even on his general credibility.

To put a finer point on it, I would not want him operating on my heart merely because he won a purple heart. That fact is completely irrelevant as to his credibility on this matter.

[Kingofalldems]

16. Well I kinda believe him over Trump.

What about you?

[Ms. Toad]

19. Of course -

but that was not the point of the OP I responded to.

The title of the OP was, an "Army colonel" was "A More difficult witness to dismiss than civilians."

This particular colonel was poised to testify about the conversation being about a quid pro quo. Holding the rank of colonel in the army gives one no better credentials as to that as to recognizing quid pro quo, so the Army colonel shoudl be just as easy (or just as hard) to dismiss as anyone else with similar expertise on the subject of quid pro quo.