The Ukraine director on the National Security Council — a star witness in the impeachment probe — is “excellent” and “highly decorated,” his former boss Dr. Fiona Hill said Thursday, denying the testimony of her successor who claimed that Hill had expressed concerns about the director’s judgement.
I was really pleased to hear her defend Alex Vindman in no uncertain terms, and to push back against the inferences put about from she had actually said. She is a classy individual.
This GOP animus towards Vindman is puzzling. If he had been shot down in a war, held prisoner and brutally tortured for years, and come home a highly decorated hero I could understand their hatred. But that’s not Vindman’s history. Weird.
Are you watching the testimony now? I have a bad feeling about the past hour where the GOP congressmen are taking their turns with questions. Dr. Hill is trying very hard to be unbiased, and the GOP are, of course, twisting words and mischaracterizing statements. They actually got Hill to say that Clinton supporters were wrong to site the fact that she won the popular vote and then, somehow, she ended up defending fracking. (I said it was bizarre) My point is that the GOP now have talking points from today’s testimony and have (more effectively than on previous days) muddied the waters.
“I did not feel that he had the political antenna to deal with something that was straying into domestic politics,” Hill continued. “That does not mean, in any way, that I was questioning his overall judgment, nor was I questioning, in any way, his substantive expertise.”
My Republicanish/Trumpanease is a bit rusty but I think I can translate this:
He (LTC Vindman) bleeds integrity and moral courage. He can not be bribed or threatened into doing something immoral, illegal or unconstitutional.
“we said that Col. Vindman did not, and we were concerned about how he would manage what was becoming a highly charged and potentially partisan issue, which it had not been before.”
Never have I been more grateful for people who approach their work in a non-partisan way. Being able to judge policy on its merits not on its antecedents is what will pull us out of not only this mess but face the other challenges ahead.
So Morrison’s “questions about his (Vindman’s) judgment” just meant that Vindman wasn’t enough of a political animal to function in a political position. That Morrison character certainly is a political carnivore
Whoever wrote the Republican talking points doesn’t have very good political instincts and has an even worse understanding of honor and integrity. I guess Trump wrote them himself.
No, no, no, no, no, no… You misunderstood. The minority have no problem with Vindman’s judgment. Their concern was about RAIMENT - i.e. his clothing choices. It’s the wearing of a uniform to a congressional hearing that threw them. He apparently didn’t get the message that “appropriate attire for gentlemen is either suit and tie or rolled up shirtsleeves and loosened tie ala Gym Jordan.”
“I did not feel that he had the political antenna to deal with something that was straying into domestic politics”
This is almost comically easy to spin as “Vindman decided to raise the alarm about a political matter, and he’s kind of a dunce about that stuff”, thus ‘proving’ Morrison’s statement. I wouldn’t be celebrating yet, folks.
She’s smart, classy, professional, ultra-informed, and seemingly unflappable.
She has the steely face and intimidating presence of a bad-ass prosecutor.
I’d feel compelled to be on her side, even if I wasn’t.