• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrtas have a Vindman problem

KLATTU

KLATTU

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
19,259
Reaction score
6,899
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem

1) Beyond his opinions, he had few new facts to offer.
ndeed, Vindman attested to the overall accuracy of the rough transcript, contrary to some impeachment supporters who have suggested the White House is hiding an exact transcript that would reveal everything Trump said to the Ukrainian president
"So otherwise, this record is complete and I think you used the term 'very accurate'?"

"Yes," said Vindman.

"I think people want to hear, you know, what they have as already preconceived notions," Vindman answered, in what may have been one of the more revealing moments of the deposition. "I'd also point your attention to 'whatever you can do, it's very important to do it if that's possible.'"

"'If that's possible,'" Castor stressed.



"Yeah," said Vindman. "So I guess you can interpret it in different ways."

and remember - this is their STAR witness!
 
KLATTU said:
ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem

1) Beyond his opinions, he had few new facts to offer.
ndeed, Vindman attested to the overall accuracy of the rough transcript, contrary to some impeachment supporters who have suggested the White House is hiding an exact transcript that would reveal everything Trump said to the Ukrainian president
"So otherwise, this record is complete and I think you used the term 'very accurate'?"

"Yes," said Vindman.

"I think people want to hear, you know, what they have as already preconceived notions," Vindman answered, in what may have been one of the more revealing moments of the deposition. "I'd also point your attention to 'whatever you can do, it's very important to do it if that's possible.'"

"'If that's possible,'" Castor stressed.



"Yeah," said Vindman. "So I guess you can interpret it in different ways."

and remember - this is their STAR witness!
Click to expand...

He is one witness of many who will lay out in detail the now obvious fact that Ukraine was pressured by Trump and his flunkies to publicly agree to an investigation of the Bidens as the price for release of military aid directed by Congress, not to be nice to Ukraine, but in the interest of American national security.
 
KLATTU said:
ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem

1) Beyond his opinions, he had few new facts to offer.
ndeed, Vindman attested to the overall accuracy of the rough transcript, contrary to some impeachment supporters who have suggested the White House is hiding an exact transcript that would reveal everything Trump said to the Ukrainian president
"So otherwise, this record is complete and I think you used the term 'very accurate'?"

"Yes," said Vindman.

"I think people want to hear, you know, what they have as already preconceived notions," Vindman answered, in what may have been one of the more revealing moments of the deposition. "I'd also point your attention to 'whatever you can do, it's very important to do it if that's possible.'"

"'If that's possible,'" Castor stressed.



"Yeah," said Vindman. "So I guess you can interpret it in different ways."

and remember - this is their STAR witness!
Click to expand...

Since the whole enchilada is DOA in the senate, this is just another Kavenaugh style kangaroo court designed to destroy “By any means necessary” the Trump Admin.
 
KLATTU said:
ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem

1) Beyond his opinions, he had few new facts to offer.
ndeed, Vindman attested to the overall accuracy of the rough transcript, contrary to some impeachment supporters who have suggested the White House is hiding an exact transcript that would reveal everything Trump said to the Ukrainian president
"So otherwise, this record is complete and I think you used the term 'very accurate'?"

"Yes," said Vindman.

"I think people want to hear, you know, what they have as already preconceived notions," Vindman answered, in what may have been one of the more revealing moments of the deposition. "I'd also point your attention to 'whatever you can do, it's very important to do it if that's possible.'"

"'If that's possible,'" Castor stressed.



"Yeah," said Vindman. "So I guess you can interpret it in different ways."

and remember - this is their STAR witness!
Click to expand...

Sounds like you think John Dean was the star witness at the Senate Watergate Hearings. He wasn't. Do you know who was?
 
KLATTU said:
ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem

1) Beyond his opinions, he had few new facts to offer.
ndeed, Vindman attested to the overall accuracy of the rough transcript, contrary to some impeachment supporters who have suggested the White House is hiding an exact transcript that would reveal everything Trump said to the Ukrainian president
"So otherwise, this record is complete and I think you used the term 'very accurate'?"

"Yes," said Vindman.

"I think people want to hear, you know, what they have as already preconceived notions," Vindman answered, in what may have been one of the more revealing moments of the deposition. "I'd also point your attention to 'whatever you can do, it's very important to do it if that's possible.'"

"'If that's possible,'" Castor stressed.



"Yeah," said Vindman. "So I guess you can interpret it in different ways."

and remember - this is their STAR witness!
Click to expand...

Really? It's come to this? Is the the best you can do?

It must be sad to have ripped out your spine and dropped all sense of decency you may have once possessed in a failed attempted to defend a crooked, reality-TV idiot as PUSA.

Sucks-to-be-you.

:coffeepap
 
JackA said:
He is one witness of many who will lay out in detail the now obvious fact that Ukraine was pressured by Trump and his flunkies to publicly agree to an investigation of the Bidens as the price for release of military aid directed by Congress, not to be nice to Ukraine, but in the interest of American national security.
Click to expand...

Wait..."will lay out in detail"???

If Vindman or any of the others had any "details", don't you think they would have revealed them the FIRST time they were questioned?

Why do you think they have any more details?
 
KLATTU said:
ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem

1) Beyond his opinions, he had few new facts to offer.
ndeed, Vindman attested to the overall accuracy of the rough transcript, contrary to some impeachment supporters who have suggested the White House is hiding an exact transcript that would reveal everything Trump said to the Ukrainian president
"So otherwise, this record is complete and I think you used the term 'very accurate'?"

"Yes," said Vindman.

"I think people want to hear, you know, what they have as already preconceived notions," Vindman answered, in what may have been one of the more revealing moments of the deposition. "I'd also point your attention to 'whatever you can do, it's very important to do it if that's possible.'"

"'If that's possible,'" Castor stressed.



"Yeah," said Vindman. "So I guess you can interpret it in different ways."

and remember - this is their STAR witness!
Click to expand...

I don't get it. In plain English what is wrong with the testimony? It seems you are making much ado about nothing.
 
chuckiechan said:
Since the whole enchilada is DOA in the senate...
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Senate republicans don't have the courage to stand up to a politician who uses political office for personal gain.

It's like they're all from Chicago.
 
KLATTU said:
ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem

1) Beyond his opinions, he had few new facts to offer.
ndeed, Vindman attested to the overall accuracy of the rough transcript, contrary to some impeachment supporters who have suggested the White House is hiding an exact transcript that would reveal everything Trump said to the Ukrainian president
"So otherwise, this record is complete and I think you used the term 'very accurate'?"

"Yes," said Vindman.

"I think people want to hear, you know, what they have as already preconceived notions," Vindman answered, in what may have been one of the more revealing moments of the deposition. "I'd also point your attention to 'whatever you can do, it's very important to do it if that's possible.'"

"'If that's possible,'" Castor stressed.



"Yeah," said Vindman. "So I guess you can interpret it in different ways."

and remember - this is their STAR witness!
Click to expand...

The star witness will be Russ Vought when he is forced to testify...
 
KLATTU said:
ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem

1) Beyond his opinions, he had few new facts to offer.
ndeed, Vindman attested to the overall accuracy of the rough transcript, contrary to some impeachment supporters who have suggested the White House is hiding an exact transcript that would reveal everything Trump said to the Ukrainian president
"So otherwise, this record is complete and I think you used the term 'very accurate'?"

"Yes," said Vindman.

"I think people want to hear, you know, what they have as already preconceived notions," Vindman answered, in what may have been one of the more revealing moments of the deposition. "I'd also point your attention to 'whatever you can do, it's very important to do it if that's possible.'"

"'If that's possible,'" Castor stressed.



"Yeah," said Vindman. "So I guess you can interpret it in different ways."

and remember - this is their STAR witness!
Click to expand...

Their "star witness" is Adam Schiff who is the only person on the planet that knows for sure what Trump was saying, why he said it, and all the evil thoughts behind Trump's thinking. Even Trump doesn't know as much about what he said as Schiff does.

Face it, we'll never get to know what was REALLY in Trump's heart and mind unless we put Schiff on the witness stand.
 
haymarket said:
I don't get it. In plain English what is wrong with the testimony? It seems you are making much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...

Nothing 'wrong 'with that part of it.

He's just confirming that he knows nothing beyond the phone call. And everybody has seen the transcript.
 
Mycroft said:
Wait..."will lay out in detail"???

If Vindman or any of the others had any "details", don't you think they would have revealed them the FIRST time they were questioned?

Why do you think they have any more details?
Click to expand...

I assume the details provided in their testimony were complete as to what they witnessed, and they are more than enough. Trumpites choose not to look at it or look at it and say, "so what", but we know what happened.
 
KLATTU said:
ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem

1) Beyond his opinions, he had few new facts to offer.
ndeed, Vindman attested to the overall accuracy of the rough transcript, contrary to some impeachment supporters who have suggested the White House is hiding an exact transcript that would reveal everything Trump said to the Ukrainian president
"So otherwise, this record is complete and I think you used the term 'very accurate'?"

"Yes," said Vindman.

"I think people want to hear, you know, what they have as already preconceived notions," Vindman answered, in what may have been one of the more revealing moments of the deposition. "I'd also point your attention to 'whatever you can do, it's very important to do it if that's possible.'"

"'If that's possible,'" Castor stressed.



"Yeah," said Vindman. "So I guess you can interpret it in different ways."

and remember - this is their STAR witness!
Click to expand...

It's best to actually cite the articles points:

1. Beyond his opinions, he had few new facts to offer.
Click to expand...

That's what I saw in a reading of his transcript which can be found here:

https://context-cdn.washingtonpost....note/b57ab8e9-736b-411b-96bc-37096f4bf874.pdf

It is mostly personal opinion and it regarded policy issues, not concerns about illegality. Repeated concerns that Ukraine might lose bipartisan support in Congress. (See page 13). He also admits that there is no word for word transcript, but that the memorandum other than only a couple of edits does accurately meet his recollection of the call from his own notes. (See pages 52 - 55). The most important "edit" is the replacement of "Burisma" with the term "The company."

A reading of the transcript also shows that the other points listed in the article cited by the OP, when compared to Lt. Col. Vindman's testimony transcript, are fairly accurate.

Again, IMO and despite the MSM hype, what we have in Lt. Col. Vindman's testimony is just more of the same personal opinion in opposition to Trump's policy and no substantive information leading to grounds for impeachment.

This is the same thing we've seen over and over again in prior MSM reports and Democrat declarations on the impact of "witness" testimony when compared to the actual transcripts. A lot of personal opinion, hearsay, speculation and no actual substantive support for impeachment.
 
Last edited:
JackA said:
He is one witness of many who will lay out in detail the now obvious fact that Ukraine was pressured by Trump and his flunkies to publicly agree to an investigation of the Bidens as the price for release of military aid directed by Congress, not to be nice to Ukraine, but in the interest of American national security.
Click to expand...

The aid was released and no strings attached.
 
KLATTU said:
ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem

1) Beyond his opinions, he had few new facts to offer.
ndeed, Vindman attested to the overall accuracy of the rough transcript, contrary to some impeachment supporters who have suggested the White House is hiding an exact transcript that would reveal everything Trump said to the Ukrainian president
"So otherwise, this record is complete and I think you used the term 'very accurate'?"

"Yes," said Vindman.

"I think people want to hear, you know, what they have as already preconceived notions," Vindman answered, in what may have been one of the more revealing moments of the deposition. "I'd also point your attention to 'whatever you can do, it's very important to do it if that's possible.'"

"'If that's possible,'" Castor stressed.



"Yeah," said Vindman. "So I guess you can interpret it in different ways."

and remember - this is their STAR witness!
Click to expand...

It is incredible for a Trump supporter to be writing this kind of an OP. To begin with, Trump supporters have been saying since day one that in the 2016 election Trump won and Hillary lost because the electoral college voted in favor of Trump and now you are doing the exact opposite and trying to explain that 1 statement of support for Trump will win over the other 13 statements that have been made against him.

When you say "So I guess you can interpret it in different ways", you are being a hypocrite because you statement from day one is that the electoral vote "for Trump" in the election was not to be interpreted any other way than a win for him. In this case, 13 versus 1 can only be interpreted one way, a loss for Trump.

Get over it, Trump lost this round!
 
KLATTU said:
Nothing 'wrong 'with that part of it.

He's just confirming that he knows nothing beyond the phone call. And everybody has seen the transcript.
Click to expand...

First of all, it is NOT a transcript but a recreation that V says is incomplete and missing some references to Biden and Burisma.

Second, His knowledge of the phone call is very vital. Being on that call makes him a critical witness.
 
haymarket said:
First of all, it is NOT a transcript but a recreation that V says is incomplete and missing some references to Biden and Burisma.

s.
Click to expand...


Vindman attested to the overall accuracy of the rough transcript, contrary to some impeachment supporters who have suggested the White House is hiding an exact transcript that would reveal everything Trump said to the Ukrainian president
"So otherwise, this record is complete and I think you used the term 'very accurate'?"

So there goes that
haymarket said:
Fir

Second, His knowledge of the phone call is very vital. Being on that call makes him a critical witness.
Click to expand...


WHAT's vital about it?-we have the caLL.
see above.

You've been misled into thinking something of note is missing from that transcript. There's not.That's what happens when you only watch/read lw propaganda.
 
Luckyone said:
It is incredible for a Trump supporter to be writing this kind of an OP. To begin with, Trump supporters have been saying since day one that in the 2016 election Trump won and Hillary lost because the electoral college voted in favor of Trump and now you are doing the exact opposite and trying to explain that 1 statement of support for Trump will win over the other 13 statements that have been made against him.

When you say "So I guess you can interpret it in different ways", you are being a hypocrite because you statement from day one is that the electoral vote "for Trump" in the election was not to be interpreted any other way than a win for him. In this case, 13 versus 1 can only be interpreted one way, a loss for Trump.

Get over it, Trump lost this round!
Click to expand...

{{{Does anybody know what he's talking about??}}}
 
JackA said:
I assume the details provided in their testimony were complete as to what they witnessed, and they are more than enough. Trumpites choose not to look at it or look at it and say, "so what", but we know what happened.
Click to expand...

But you are saying he "will" lay out in detail...and now you say they "have been" laid out in detail.

Make up your mind, eh?
 
KLATTU said:
Vindman attested to the overall accuracy of the rough transcript, contrary to some impeachment supporters who have suggested the White House is hiding an exact transcript that would reveal everything Trump said to the Ukrainian president
"So otherwise, this record is complete and I think you used the term 'very accurate'?"
Click to expand...

One sentence that ends up missing in a thirty minute long phone call can be very very important.

Saying "SO OTHERWISE" provides a potentially large gap.
 
haymarket said:
One sentence that ends up missing in a thirty minute long phone call can be very very important.

Saying "SO OTHERWISE" provides a potentially large gap.
Click to expand...

It could be, but it wasn't in this case.

the "otherwise" has already been documented and it's irrelevant.
 
Mycroft said:
But you are saying he "will" lay out in detail...and now you say they "have been" laid out in detail.
Make up your mind, eh?
Click to expand...

Vindmand laid out the details in the closed hearing.
Vindmand will lay out the details in a public hearing.

Yes, it's a fact Mycroft, that they have been laid out, and will (again) be laid out. He doesn't need to make up his mind, since he's correct.
 
JackA said:
He is one witness of many who will lay out in detail the now obvious fact that Ukraine was pressured by Trump and his flunkies to publicly agree to an investigation of the Bidens as the price for release of military aid directed by Congress, not to be nice to Ukraine, but in the interest of American national security.
Click to expand...

No, that is 100% false. He testified that Trump himself did NOT say the condition for releasing military aid was investigating the Bidens.

Granted, he testified that HE should have made the presidential decisions himself - not the president - and that he and his pals furiously supported Obama's policies about Ukraine (which was to systematically turn all of Ukraine over to Russia conquest). However, in fact he was a witness FOR President Trump, not against him, by confirming there was NO quid pro quo by the President.

Just because he and other Obama hangovers think of everything in terms of criminality and criminal conduct themselves like he does, that does not prove that the President shares his criminal way of thinking.

What Trump's "flunkies" did, said or thought is irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom