Public Testimony of Vindman and Williams

[durangodawood]

Bad things happen when multiple people think they are better suited to conduct diplomacy.....which is why diplomacy is off limits to Congress......

Vindman didnt go to congress. Congress called him. Vindman just went "up the chain" as it were.

 

[mark46]

No quotations marks are needed. There are processes set within all organizations, especially military and intelligence-related ones.

Vindman took his concern up the chain of command, and then went back to doing his job.

Vindman didnt go to congress. Congress called him. Vindman just went "up the chain" as it were.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Were you replying to a particular comment?

Yes, the comment that Vindman was more loyal to Ukraine than America.
His family immigrated from Russia during a time when Russia was persecuting Jews. His family is Jewish. He is not from Ukraine.

 

[timothyu]

If anything all this shows is that government is a business and consumers have little say unless of course they refuse to buy any of it.

 

[mark46]

And yes, and some here and in DC are Russia first.

Political motivation. Trump is America First; Vindman is Ukraine First. Vindman was ideologically opposed to Trump's foreign policy, and despite not being elected to any office, he took it upon himself to set foreign policy for the US.

 

[KCfromNC]

Bad things happen when multiple people think they are better suited to conduct diplomacy

Yeah, there's a reason the people who know what they were doing were worried that Rudy got involved in secret deals to coerce election interference from foreign governments.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I thought the only media highlight material was the exchange with Jordan and Schiff regarding why they could not ask about someone the witness talked to. Schiff said that they didn't want to reveal the whistleblower. However, both Schiff and the witness claim not to know who the whistleblower is, even at this time.

Anyone have any insight into why they think the person that Vindman spoke to might be the whistleblower? I may have missed a detail somewhere.

Vindman has said that he spoke to "someone in the Intelligence Community" about the call. It's known that the whistleblower is a member of the IC, and according to his report, he learned about what was said on the call via regular interagency communications (or something to that effect). So while Schiff and Vindman might not know who the whistleblower in the sense that the whistleblower has not told them his identity, there's a pretty good chance that the person Vindman talked to is the whistleblower or knows who he is.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

he took it upon himself to set foreign policy for the US.

What actions or words of his would you consider "setting foreign policy for the US"?

 

[timothyu]

Are not whistleblowers protected.. as they should be. Tough apples if not everyone is a team player. That's how budding power monopolies are toppled, be they government or business institution. What's right is right and not just for those in charge or their minions.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Vindman didnt go to congress. Congress called him. Vindman just went "up the chain" as it were.

Up the chain takes you to the President, not Congress. Every military recruit is taught that in basic training.

 

[durangodawood]

Up the chain takes you to the President, not Congress. Every military recruit is taught that in basic training.

He sent it up the chain. No more. How it got to congress was not his call at all.

Sounds like you think a president should never be impeached for any act that takes place in a foreign relations setting. Is that what you think?

 

[tall73]

Vindman has said that he spoke to "someone in the Intelligence Community" about the call. It's known that the whistleblower is a member of the IC, and according to his report, he learned about what was said on the call via regular interagency communications (or something to that effect). So while Schiff and Vindman might not know who the whistleblower in the sense that the whistleblower has not told them his identity, there's a pretty good chance that the person Vindman talked to is the whistleblower or knows who he is.

However, if it is not the whistleblower then they now are missing information about other possible participants. What else might this intelligence asset know?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Yes, the comment that Vindman was more loyal to Ukraine than America.
His family immigrated from Russia during a time when Russia was persecuting Jews. His family is Jewish. He is not from Ukraine.

He was born in Kiev, the capital of the Ukraine. Not Russia.

 

[wing2000]

He was born in Kiev, the capital of the Ukraine. Not Russia.

So. Where were you born?

btw, Kiev was part of the USSR in 1975, the year Vindman was born.

 

[Hank77]

I'm not. As I've said, he's essentially a foreign lobbyist in an Army uniform...

Source?

 

[Hank77]

I don't have a problem with it so long as they abide by applicable regulations....they may be able to make a more stable ally with the US.

You mean like this one...

Rick Perry
In the meeting with Zelensky, the energy secretary emphasized his friendship with Bleyzer. A week later, Bleyzer and his business partner Alex Cranberg, also a longtime Perry backer, filed a bid to drill on a government-controlled plot. They were ultimately awarded the contract despite offering several million dollars less than the only other bidder.
Rick Perry Exports His Pay-to-Play Politics to Ukraine

Rick Perry has given his resignation to the WH. I wonder if he has secured a position with this company?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

However, if it is not the whistleblower then they now are missing information about other possible participants. What else might this intelligence asset know?

Who knows? Maybe he can identify the shooter on the grassy knoll, tell us the location of bigfoot, and prove that the moon landings were faked. Speculating about what a minor government functionary knows is pointless. If you take that attitude about it, we might as well have the entire government testify. Someone might know something, after all. The likelihood that this person has anything of significance to add is pretty slim, so balanced against the potential risk to the whistleblower, it doesn't make much sense to force them to testify.

 

[Bobber]

Political motivation. Trump is America First; Vindman is Ukraine First. Vindman was ideologically opposed to Trump's foreign policy, and despite not being elected to any office, he took it upon himself to set foreign policy for the US.

That's one thing I keep getting from all this. These diplomats may be sincere and well meaning and it might even be argued they're experts in the field. So what!

Ultimately who has to give account for how things turn out? The President does to THE PEOPLE come at whatever time there's an election. Having experts on the field are great and wonderful but a part of why THE PEOPLE elect a President isn't always because he or she has expertise of knowledge BUT ALSO that they trust that leaders gut feel of making decisions YES that might even go against the status quo.

We ALL KNOW and none can deny it that if a major foreign policy was carried out which flopped, it's the President that pays the price....not whatever low level diplomat. Or do we really think we'd see the likes of CNN if something flopped point and condemn whatever ambassador and talk about poor ole Trump that it shouldn't be attributed to him? Do we think he wouldn't be held solely responsible? Seeing HE IS he gets to call the policy NOT THEM. If they want things their way they need to run for office.

 

[SimplyMe]

That's one thing I keep getting from all this. These diplomats may be sincere and well meaning and it might even be argued they're experts in the field. So what!

Ultimately who has to give account for how things turn out? The President does to THE PEOPLE come at whatever time there's an election. Having experts on the field are great and wonderful but a part of why THE PEOPLE elect a President isn't always because he or she has expertise of knowledge BUT ALSO that they trust that leaders gut feel of making decisions YES that might even go against the status quo.

We ALL KNOW and none can deny it that if a major foreign policy was carried out which flopped, it's the President that pays the price....not whatever low level diplomat. Or do we really think we'd see the likes of CNN if something flopped point and condemn whatever ambassador and talk about poor ole Trump that it shouldn't be attributed to him? Do we think he wouldn't be held solely responsible? Seeing HE IS he gets to call the policy NOT THEM. If they want things their way they need to run for office.

So the President does all foreign policy himself? He is personally negotiating with the Chinese over tariffs, he doesn't have diplomats negotiating on a day to day basis on his behalf?

This is what you are ignoring. The issue here is that every country has their own way of doing things and their own traditions and etiquette. It is nearly impossible for the President to be versed in how "business is done" in various countries -- what faux pas he needs to avoid and what etiquette he should use to help facilitate them making a deal.

This is where the diplomatic corp comes in. Yes, the President sets foreign policy -- he tells his diplomats what he wants, how he wants things handled, etc. The diplomats then use their knowledge of the country, of how things work, and the etiquette of the country, in making the President's foreign policy work.

Not having these diplomats hurts the efforts of the US in those countries, particularly when Presidents -- not understanding customs and etiquette -- inadvertently offend people in that country.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Source?

He's been quite open about his personal bias in favor of Kiev and against Russia.

So the President does all foreign policy himself? He is personally negotiating with the Chinese over tariffs, he doesn't have diplomats negotiating on a day to day basis on his behalf?

He determines the agenda, or at least he's supposed to.

This is what you are ignoring. The issue here is that every country has their own way of doing things and their own traditions and etiquette. It is nearly impossible for the President to be versed in how "business is done" in various countries -- what faux pas he needs to avoid and what etiquette he should use to help facilitate them making a deal.

Diplomats are in charge of how business is done. The President, per the US Constitution, decides what business is to be done. Thing is deep state is so used to telling the President what they think the mission should be that now that we have a President who actually tries to implement the foreign policy he ran on, we have a federal bureaucracy that blatantly works to undermine him. It's been so long since they've been expected to stay in their lane they think that of the Presidency as just a figurehead for their preferred policies, which, as I've said, for a while it has been.