A key House impeachment inquiry witness followed a White House lawyer’s instructions and went to him with concerns about Donald Trump’s actions. For Republican impeachment inquisitors, that was a sign of insubordination.
Unmentioned here or elsewhere-- two of the people that anyone in the military can talk to at any time without “violating” their Chain of Command are:
And not made clear, but should be is that Eisenberg outranks Morrison.
Eisenberg is a counselor to the president. Lt. Col. Vindman’s prior boss Hill directly told Lt. Col. Vindman to report his conversation to Eisenberg. Eisenberg told Lt. Col. Vindman to report back if something else arose. Lt. Col. Vindman followed that order, he reported back, then followed the further order (given after he had briefed others with a need for a read out) not to talk further about the call.
His performance was exactly what would be, and was expected of an officer. Any other claim is a clear and intentional lie.
Police officers, FBI, I am sure there are others.
I mean within the organization. Sure, medical folks, priests, etc. But the point being that reporting a legal question or a problem to lawyers is not in violation of the Chain of Command concept, despite what the republicans tried to misconstrue it as.
Yes. In “senior between the two” Vindman was referring to Eisenberg and Morrison, not Eisenberg and Vindman.
Vindman didn’t talk to the right person! Vindman didn’t say “bribery” or “quid pro quo”!! Vindman didn’t say that the phone call was ‘impeachable’!!! Vindman didn’t personally talk to Donald Trump! Vindman wasn’t statutuorily responsible for foreign policy! Nobody ‘reported to’ him!!!
Yeah, any one of these and a five-spot will getcha a cuppa coffee. And that’s about all the Republicans have as a defense for Trump.
I wasnt criticizing your post, just pointing out, allthough it has been over 50 years since I was discharged, the military, as I remember it, required that you report any illegal activity you saw to the appropriate people, civilian or military or both.
I have a lot of questions about Eisenberg. This one is why he in effect told Vindman not to inform his superior? Military people take orders literally. Anybody means anybody. Period.
Oh, not taken that way. I should have been clearer in my intent, switched up a couple of words to clarify that that was not an all-inclusive list.
So when is it going to be Eisenbergs time in the barrel?
We know that’s the subtext for the Trumpy rubes, who already don’t trust the guy.
It’s about all they have, try to paint him as a bad employee and a liar, if not a full-blown russkie spy.
Well since Lt. Col. Vindman doesn’t have red colored hair (natural or not), hasn’t been shown to throw money at a Republican institution (NRA), and apparently didn’t donate to a certain someone’s PAC or inaugural fund then all signs point to him not being a russkie spy.
Sycophant GOP. “There are a million lights, no lights, lights don’t matter at all, was the light LED or incandescent, ignore the lights, let’s order pizza.”
Vindman. Again and again and again…
I disagree. Any gop thug with his malignancy in full evidence will arrive at the conclusion that Vindman is a never ever Trumper deep state something something.
How can a “Never Trumper”, which mean that person is a Republican be a Deep Stater? I thought all the Deep Staters were Dems?
“Hey who’s on the vetting committee on here?!”
We’re a lot better off and safer as a country with Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman in a foxhole than Gym Jordan in a locker room.
Trump wouldn’t know the law if it bit him in the ass.
Chomp, chomp, pressy.
I like that Schiff stopped Wenstrup cold and let Vindman finish answering
When they were in charge, the GOP Coc–I mean, Republicansm, used to pull that shit all the time.