Vindman Tried to Alter Call Transcript. Failed

[ThatOwlWoman]

There you go trying to put words in my mouth. I NEVER called him a liar. I do question his motives. BTW his decorations are no higher than mine.

Several publications have reported Vindman as a registered Democrat. I'm surprised you couldn't find it.

He stated he reported his "concerns" to his superiors twice. My concern is why did he go over his superiors heads when they didn't take action. That alone makes it look like he has an ax to grind.

We will see now that the enquiry is being made public.

You are aware that other than going to his superiors, Vindman told no one else until called to testify, right? If he "had an axe to grind," don't you think he would have gone to the top, or to the media, or filed an official whistleblower complaint too?

You guys think that you can make that idiot in our WH look innocent by smearing people of integrity and honor, like this veteran. You (group you) did the same thing to Kerry, and to Ducksworth, and to Cleland. It's almost as though Republicans only like vets when they can use them as patriotic props.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Couple that with his actions and it does cause one to wonder.

Yes, I wonder how it is that you ppl can turn against a military officer -- one who served in war and was wounded in action -- because of how he voted (if proven) and because he testified under oath that your Pig-in-Chief used his position to try to cheat in the next election. No one with a shred of honor or integrity can support that.

 

[Phantasmal]

You are aware that other than going to his superiors, Vindman told no one else until called to testify, right? If he "had an axe to grind," don't you think he would have gone to the top, or to the media, or filed an official whistleblower complaint too?

You guys think that you can make that idiot in our WH look innocent by smearing people of integrity and honor, like this veteran. You (group you) did the same thing to Kerry, and to Ducksworth, and to Cleland. It's almost as though Republicans only like vets when they can use them as patriotic props.

Don’t forget McCain and The Gold Star family, they smeared them, too, for Trump.

 

[christiefan915]

Don’t forget McCain and The Good Star family, they smeared them, too, for Trump.

Yep. And the Khizr Khan family.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

You are aware that other than going to his superiors, Vindman told no one else until called to testify, right? If he "had an axe to grind," don't you think he would have gone to the top, or to the media, or filed an official whistleblower complaint too?

You guys think that you can make that idiot in our WH look innocent by smearing people of integrity and honor, like this veteran. You (group you) did the same thing to Kerry, and to Ducksworth, and to Cleland. It's almost as though Republicans only like vets when they can use them as patriotic props.

You are aware that other than going to his superiors, Vindman told no one else until called to testify, right?

And how did investigators know to question him if he told no one of his concerns?
That aside vandman is an active duty officer subject to the UCMJ. He was ordered not to testify now that may or may not have been a legal order but he defied it and testified. He has placed his career in jeopardy and could face a courts martial. All to try and remove Trump who most likely won't be convicted in the Senate.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Yes, I wonder how it is that you ppl can turn against a military officer -- one who served in war and was wounded in action -- because of how he voted (if proven) and because he testified under oath that your Pig-in-Chief used his position to try to cheat in the next election. No one with a shred of honor or integrity can support that.

I wouldn't throw rocks about trying to cheat in an election after the shit your side pulled in 2016.

 

[domer76]

And how did investigators know to question him if he told no one of his concerns?
That aside vandman is an active duty officer subject to the UCMJ. He was ordered not to testify now that may or may not have been a legal order but he defied it and testified. He has placed his career in jeopardy and could face a courts martial. All to try and remove Trump who most likely won't be convicted in the Senate.

Isn’t it something that someone would risk their career for the truth rather than suck Trump dick to save their own?

 

[domer76]

I wouldn't throw rocks about trying to cheat in an election after the shit your side pulled in 2016.

FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION

A. The Campaign's Response to Reports About Russian Support for Trump
B. The President's Conduct Concerning the Investigation of Michael Flynn
C. The President's Reaction to Public Confirmation of the FBl's Russia Investigation
D. Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director Corney
E. The President's Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel
F. The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation
H. The President's Further Efforts to Have the Attorney General Take Over the Investigation
I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel
J. The President's Conduct Towards Flynn, Manafort,
K. The President's Conduct Involving Michael Cohen

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example, the President's direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia investigation to prospective election-interference only-a temporal connection that suggests that both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation.”
____________

Obstruction of justice - 18 USC 1501-1521
Witness intimidation 18 USC 1512
Emoluments - US Constitution
Abuse of power - no statute. Merely reason to be removed from office
Extortion – 18 USC 112
Solicitation of something of value from a foreign entity - 11CFR 110.2 and 11 CFR 300.2

______________

Extortion – 4 elements
Threat – withholding $400 million
Intent – Forcing public announcement of investigations
Fear – of loss of funding for defensive weapons against the Russians
Property – the thing of value is the investigations of 2016 tampering and the Bidens

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

And how did investigators know to question him if he told no one of his concerns?

The whistleblower included names in his report, as well as when he spoke at length to investigators. It's not that hard.

That aside vandman is an active duty officer subject to the UCMJ. He was ordered not to testify now that may or may not have been a legal order but he defied it and testified. He has placed his career in jeopardy and could face a courts martial. All to try and remove Trump who most likely won't be convicted in the Senate.

What he did is of the highest order of heroism, a step down from giving your life.

As for active military personnel, you know as well as we all do that they must obey only *lawful* orders. Being told to ignore a subpoena, a lawful instrument of a court or Congress, is instructing employees to commit an unlawful act, and is therefore an unlawful order.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I wouldn't throw rocks about trying to cheat in an election after the shit your side pulled in 2016.

Oh please do tell us the TRUTH. And don't leave out Pizzagate, that's the best of all!

 

[RB 60]

FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION

A. The Campaign's Response to Reports About Russian Support for Trump
B. The President's Conduct Concerning the Investigation of Michael Flynn
C. The President's Reaction to Public Confirmation of the FBl's Russia Investigation
D. Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director Corney
E. The President's Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel
F. The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation
H. The President's Further Efforts to Have the Attorney General Take Over the Investigation
I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel
J. The President's Conduct Towards Flynn, Manafort,
K. The President's Conduct Involving Michael Cohen

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example, the President's direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia investigation to prospective election-interference only-a temporal connection that suggests that both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation.”
____________

Obstruction of justice - 18 USC 1501-1521
Witness intimidation 18 USC 1512
Emoluments - US Constitution
Abuse of power - no statute. Merely reason to be removed from office
Extortion – 18 USC 112
Solicitation of something of value from a foreign entity - 11CFR 110.2 and 11 CFR 300.2

______________

Extortion – 4 elements
Threat – withholding $400 million
Intent – Forcing public announcement of investigations
Fear – of loss of funding for defensive weapons against the Russians
Property – the thing of value is the investigations of 2016 tampering and the Bidens

If even 1/4 of that bullshit was true, he'd have been hung by now, counselor. BTW, where did you receive your law degree, Notre Dame

 

[Teflon Don]

Yesterday, Lt Col Alexander Vindman, a member of the National Security Council, testified in Adam Schiff’s kangaroo court in the basement of the Capitol Building…the coup continues.
Several things became readily apparent:
1) NSC members are not supposed to wear their uniforms (the theatrical presence), and
2) Adam Schiff shut down ANY Republican questions, only allowing Democrats to question the witness, 3) Vindman admitted attempting to alter the President’s transcript of the Ukraine call but was unsuccessful in two cases,
4) Vindman admitted attempting to share the President’s classified call to other operatives.

Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the White House transcript of a July call between President Trump and Ukraine’s president omitted crucial words and phrases, and that his attempts to include them failed, according to three people familiar with the testimony https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ft-of-presidents-call-to-ukrainian-president/

Vindman claimed that there were at least two omissions in the White House transcript, so he set about to alter it to put the omissions back.
But the left wing NYT said that even with the phrases gone, the understanding of the transcript wasn’t changed.
But of course, the left is seizing on the transcript not being “exact” and shrieking that it was not a true transcript.

Vindman believes that if the Ukraine pursued the investigation of Hunter Biden, they would lose bipartisan support. So the coup continues again.


We have undue influence or crimes possibly committed by an American connected to a high government official that may have caused serious national security issues and he didn’t want the US or the Ukraine to investigate it. What are his connections to Biden and the Democrats?

We have the possibility that this Lt Col violated US code 18 USC 798 in sharing a classified call with others.
~~

When Rep Jordan attempted to ask Vindman who he shared the information with, Adam Schiff shut down the question.

Vindman’s testimony causes serious problems for the President, even though it is fraught with the admission of leaking, altering a document, etc. If arrogance was against the US Code, we could probably prosecute Vindman for that.

You can always tell a left wing fraud when leftists start taking glowingly about the military

They tried this shit with Kerry, McShamnesty, Mueller

“Oh they served the military with distinction and got a Purple Heart, how dare you criticize them?”

Laughable

Cue the “Russian bot” whines

 

[domer76]

If even 1/4 of that bullshit was true, he'd have been hung by now, counselor. BTW, where did you receive your law degree, Notre Dame

You can’t indict a sitting President, idiot.

He’s about to be impeached on the last ones.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Oh please do tell us the TRUTH. And don't leave out Pizzagate, that's the best of all!

Please don't give me the BS that the Democrats never ever pull dirty tricks to get damaging info on their opponents. You know damn good and well the DNC and Hillary played fast and loose with the laws in 2016.

 

[domer76]

Please don't give me the BS that the Democrats never ever pull dirty tricks to get damaging info on their opponents. You know damn good and well the DNC and Hillary played fast and loose with the laws in 2016.

The FEC says you’re wrong.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Please don't give me the BS that the Democrats never ever pull dirty tricks to get damaging info on their opponents. You know damn good and well the DNC and Hillary played fast and loose with the laws in 2016.

No, I don't know that at all. Let's pretend that it's true though. Was Hillary President at the time? Was she Secretary of State, or did she hold any other position in government that would have allowed her to use the power of that position for her own personal gain? Did she have access to foreign leaders and their governments in order to push them for campaign help? No? Imagine that.

Again, this is that pointless game of "Yeah but HE/SHE did it too..." that your mom never accepted as an excuse for poor behavior.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

No, I don't know that at all. Let's pretend that it's true though. Was Hillary President at the time? Was she Secretary of State, or did she hold any other position in government that would have allowed her to use the power of that position for her own personal gain? Did she have access to foreign leaders and their governments in order to push them for campaign help? No? Imagine that.

Again, this is that pointless game of "Yeah but HE/SHE did it too..." that your mom never accepted as an excuse for poor behavior.

Was she Secretary of State

Yes

position in government that would have allowed her to use the power of that position for her own personal gain? Did she have access to foreign leaders and their governments in order to push them for campaign help?

As a matter of fact she did. Not for campaign help but donations to the Clinton Foundation.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Yes

Clinton left that office in 2013.

As a matter of fact she did. Not for campaign help but donations to the Clinton Foundation.

So an elected official has a charitable non-profit foundation that carries his/her last name and ppl donate because that last name is famous.... this is bad? If so, why hasn't the foundation been shut down like Trump's was? Oh yeah. The Clintons didn't profit from theirs like the Toadstool did. Did you know that the Clinton Foundation was started by Bill Clinton? When he was POTUS? Were you all crying about it back then too?

From the Wikipedia entry on the Clinton Foundation:

"The Clinton Foundation (founded in 1997 as the William J. Clinton Foundation[2] and from 2013 to 2015 briefly renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation)[3] is a non-profit organization under section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code. It was established by former President of the United States Bill Clinton with the stated mission to "strengthen the capacity of people in the United States and throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence."[4] Its offices are located in New York City and Little Rock, Arkansas.

"Through 2016, the foundation had raised an estimated $2 billion from U.S. corporations, foreign governments and corporations, political donors, and various other groups and individuals.[5] The acceptance of funds from wealthy donors has been a source of controversy.[5][6] The foundation "has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support".[5] Charitable grants are not a major focus of the Clinton Foundation, which instead uses most of its money to carry out its own humanitarian programs.[7]

"This foundation is a public organization to which anyone may donate and is distinct from the Clinton Family Foundation, a private organization for personal Clinton family philanthropy.[8][9]

"According to the Clinton Foundation's website, neither Bill Clinton nor his daughter, Chelsea Clinton (both are members of the governing board), draws any salary or receives any income from the Foundation. When Hillary Clinton was a board member, she reportedly also received no income from the Foundation.[10]"

Lest you think that you successfully diverted attention from the Grifter-in-Chief by bringing up Hillary, you did not. He is still facing both criminal and impeachment charges for, among other things, abusing the office of the presidency. That is going to go on his permanent record.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Clinton left that office in 2013.



So an elected official has a charitable non-profit foundation that carries his/her last name and ppl donate because that last name is famous.... this is bad? If so, why hasn't the foundation been shut down like Trump's was? Oh yeah. The Clintons didn't profit from theirs like the Toadstool did. Did you know that the Clinton Foundation was started by Bill Clinton? When he was POTUS? Were you all crying about it back then too?

From the Wikipedia entry on the Clinton Foundation:

"The Clinton Foundation (founded in 1997 as the William J. Clinton Foundation[2] and from 2013 to 2015 briefly renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation)[3] is a non-profit organization under section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code. It was established by former President of the United States Bill Clinton with the stated mission to "strengthen the capacity of people in the United States and throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence."[4] Its offices are located in New York City and Little Rock, Arkansas.

"Through 2016, the foundation had raised an estimated $2 billion from U.S. corporations, foreign governments and corporations, political donors, and various other groups and individuals.[5] The acceptance of funds from wealthy donors has been a source of controversy.[5][6] The foundation "has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support".[5] Charitable grants are not a major focus of the Clinton Foundation, which instead uses most of its money to carry out its own humanitarian programs.[7]

"This foundation is a public organization to which anyone may donate and is distinct from the Clinton Family Foundation, a private organization for personal Clinton family philanthropy.[8][9]

"According to the Clinton Foundation's website, neither Bill Clinton nor his daughter, Chelsea Clinton (both are members of the governing board), draws any salary or receives any income from the Foundation. When Hillary Clinton was a board member, she reportedly also received no income from the Foundation.[10]"

Lest you think that you successfully diverted attention from the Grifter-in-Chief by bringing up Hillary, you did not. He is still facing both criminal and impeachment charges for, among other things, abusing the office of the presidency. That is going to go on his permanent record.

As you told me. You will never see the smoking gun. Sorry Owl but Hilary is just as dirty as Trump. If anyone did half of what she is known to have done they would be sitting in Ft. Leavenworth right now. There is a possibility she may run again forcing me to vote Trump a second time.

BTW even if Trump is impeached I highly doubt the Senate will convict him. So he will be like your hero's hubby Billy boy.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

As you told me. You will never see the smoking gun. Sorry Owl but Hilary is just as dirty as Trump. If anyone did half of what she is known to have done they would be sitting in Ft. Leavenworth right now. There is a possibility she may run again forcing me to vote Trump a second time.

BTW even if Trump is impeached I highly doubt the Senate will convict him. So he will be like your hero's hubby Billy boy.

It's endlessly amusing to me how you all constantly repeat the lies that "Hillary is just as dirty as Trump" as if 1) that absolves Trump of being a criminal, and 2) as if that were true. Despite countless years, uncounted dollars, and multiple investigations -- you all have yet to pin anything other than lying about a BJ on the Clintons. Yeah, yeah, Deep State garblegherkyaddyyaddy. If Hillary is as criminal as Trump, why on Earth did he do nothing about that when he had majorities in both chambers of Congress?

Waiting for the spin.......