However, Here's something that sundance--quite surprisingly--doesn't point out. Republicans control the US Senate. That means they chair every single committee in the Senate. I have not heard that they are calling the top military officials of this country to testify about what just transpired. Are we to take it that the US Senate has no views on the involvement of the military in domestic politics, and in an impeachment attempt that appears in fact to be a coup attempt? What's going on there? Is this still a republic?
The word “coup” shifted to a new level of formalized meaning last week when members of the political resistance showed up to remove President Trump wearing military uniforms.
Not only did U.S. military leadership remain silent to the optics and purpose, but in the testimony of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman he admits to giving instructions to ignore the instructions from a sitting United States President.
In the absence of push-back from the Joint Chiefs, from this moment forth, the impression is tacit U.S. military support for the Vindman objective.
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council official, testified before congressional committees conducting an impeachment inquiry on October 29, wearing a full military uniform.
To date there has been no visible comment from U.S. military sanctioning Lt. Col. Vindman for his decision; or correcting the impression represented by Vindman’s military appearance. The willful blindness is concerning, but it gets much worse.
Beyond the debate about the optics of the “coup“, within the testimony of Lt. Col Vindman, the witness readily admits to understanding the officially established policy of the President of The United States (an agreement between President Trump and President Zelenskyy), and stunningly admits that two weeks later he was giving countermanding instructions to his Ukrainian counterpart to ignore President Trump’s policies.
The coup against President Donald Trump went from soft, to hard.
I was bothered by Vindman wearing a full dress uniform for his testimony, but I let it slip to the back burner. I just put him down as a pompous jerk, which he appears to be, another Pentagon armchair warrior who would have to be swept out if there were ever a real war.
ReplyDeleteIt's important that CTH & you brought this up. And I say this as a veteran. The uniform business is nasty and disturbing. And it wasn't accidental.
No accident, no. They're not supposed to be wearing uniforms when detailed to the WH, so showing up like that was a deliberate attempt to show that the military opposes Trump. And no pushback.
DeleteIn an effort to bolster his very sketchy credibility; and likely in an effort to avoid the appearance of sedition; Schiff’s Lawfare staff recommended Vindman wear his military uniform to the hearing today, though Vindman never wore the uniform for his NSC job.
Deletehttps://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/29/seditious-conspiracy-sketchy-witness-schiff-blocks-questioning-of-nsc-staffer-alexander-vindman-to-protect-him-from-legal-exposure/
It goes beyond the simple fact that he DIDN'T wear his uniform to the NSC. Officers detailed to the NSC are INSTRUCTED NOT to wear their uniforms. I presume that's because they're basically outside the military chain of command.
DeleteEffects of the Obama officer purge?
ReplyDeleteVery much so. I have a son who just finished up with the military. The Obama radical progressive remake of the military along aberro-sexual lines was a reality.
DeleteUnder pressure from the Senate, House Democrats recently passed a resolution validating the Schiff impeachment inquisition and it theoretically allowed Republicans the opportunity to call witnesses during the public hearing phase. Then the Republicans issued a list of 8 witnesses they intended to call and Schiff denied their request.
ReplyDeleteWithin the bubble of DC, politicians perceive that this treachery is going unnoticed by Mainstreet USA. Now add in the apparent complicity of the nation's uniformed military in this coup attempt and things start to get real. It is no longer far-fetched to think that a military-led junta might actually try to forcibly remove Trump from office and usurp power directly. And if such were to occur, the only thing standing in their way would be the honest citizens of this country.
Until this month, most people understood that Obama had weaponized large chunks of the Executive Branch in service to partisan political ends, but I doubt that anyone truly suspected that the military had been compromised in this process. Now we know otherwise.
Some of us knew it already, but you're right.
DeleteThese idiots don't realize if the military even tries to take over the government, Russia and China will have a green light to attack us.
DeleteRob S
I agree that this was one of Sundance’s best. And Ratcliffe was brilliant. So strong! Because Vindman is a military officer, many believe he should be sanctioned within the military framework. But there seems to be a convoluted situation when a military officer is “detailed” to a civilian job, as Vindman was. He no longer reported to a military superior; his supervisor was a civilian in the NSC. I wonder how discipline works when someone like Vindman does something this egregious in relation to his commander-in-chief, the President of the United States while detailed as a civilian to an administration office…
ReplyDeleteI believe he has now been sent back to the military, so we'll see.
DeleteAlso, no matter where he was, wearing eggs on his cap as an officer or as a member of the NSC, his final boss was and still is President Trump.
DeleteFrom The Armed Forces Officer, revised and published by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2006. A handbook apparently intended for new officers in all branches of our military, all of whom are commissioned by their Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States.
ReplyDeleteUpon being commissioned in the Armed Services of the United States, a man incurs a lasting obligation to cherish and protect his country and to develop within himself that capacity and reserve strength which will enable him to serve its arms and the welfare of his fellow Americans with increasing wisdom, diligence and patriotic conviction.
This is the meaning of his commission. It is not modified by any reason of assignment while in the service, nor is the obligation lessened in the day an officer puts the uniform aside and returns to civil life. Having been specially chosen by the United States to sustain the dignity and integrity of its sovereign power, an officer is expected so to maintain himself and so to exert his influence for so long as he may live, that he will be recognized as a worthy symbol of all that is best in the national character.
In this sense the trust imposed in the highest military commander in the land is not more than what is encharged the newest ensign or second lieutenant. Nor is it less. It is the fact of commission which gives special distinction to the man and in turn requires that the measure of his devotion to the service of his country be distinctive, as compared with the charges laid upon the average citizen. In the beginning, a man takes an oath to uphold his country’s Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, to bear true faith and allegiance, and to discharge well and faithfully the duties of office. He does this without any mental reservation.
Thereafter he is given a paper which says that because the President as a representative of the people of this country reposes “special trust and confidence” in his patriotism, valor, fidelity, and abilities,” he is forthwith commissioned.
By these tokens, the Nation also becomes a party to the contract, and will faithfully keep its bond with the man. While he continues to serve honorably, it will sustain him and will clothe him with its dignity. That it has vouched for him gives him a felicitous status in our society. The device he wears, his insignia, and even his garments identify him directly with the power of the United States.
https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/education/armedforcesofficer.pdf?ver=2017-12-29-142217-673
As a commissioned officer, he receives no release from his oath when assigned to a civilian position in a government agency.
Thanks for that.
DeleteUCMJ prescribes disciplinary remedies for Vindman's conduct as well as his superior officer's apparent dereliction of duty...and his superior officer...and his superior officer...
DeleteAnother take on Vindman:
Delete,br>
The US Army sends too many officers to graduate schools to study Political Science and International Relations. These subjects are pseudo sciences based on the 19th Century yearnings of some European scholars for a paradigm change in human affairs that would relieve them of their minority status. Sadly, these disciplines also create a mentality in officer students that gives inculcates them with the idea that they are members of a kind of fraternity that dominates or should dominate the American foreign policy establishment. I call that establishment The Borg.
The Army lent Vindman to the NSC staff, much as the marines lent Oliver North to the White House staff long ago. (Snip)
Last Summer he was given the task of listening (with several others) to Trump's conversation with Zelensky. This is a routine precaution taken to avoid misunderstandings as to what is said.
Vindman says that the president holds views inconsistent "with the consensus views of the interagency." (the Borg) LTC Vindman has evidently been seduced by the idea that the president of the US is obligated to accept the consensus of The Borg or to tell them the truth about his intentions as he directs US foreign policy. Vindman is wrong about that. He, and all the other Borgists are staff, not partners.
Vindman has evidently been returned to the Army. As a serving Army officer he can only be ejected from the officer corps for legal cause. IMO it is likely that the Army will be deeply offended by his rejection of his assigned role as a staff officer to the president and his preferred loyalty to The Borg and will find a comfortable place for him in a basement or on a distant island. (not Hawaii)
https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2019/10/lt-col-hindman-an-army-borgist.html
I suspect that when the impeachment attempt is over with, Vindman will find himself facing court martial. Those sections of the testimony under cross by Ratcliffe are damning and unmistakable as anything other than insubordination, and they actually probably cross the line into treason even though the US isn't at war with Ukraine.
ReplyDelete"unmistakable as anything other than insubordination"
ReplyDeleteyes!
Lt Col Vindman kept on declaring it was not proper for Trump to ask Ukraine to investigate a US citizen.
ReplyDeleteWhen pressed, he could not give how or why such a request was illegal or out of a US President's authority. He did not know.
"The President of the United States has the authority to do this, I guess, I don't know. I didn't think it was right."
That's his official words and this is Schiff's star witness! OMG!
To top it all off, he told Ukranian officials to ignore Trump's request and he stated he did not believe he was disobeying the President and, by reference, the interests and policies of the United States.
Vindman, like Comey, appears to have a higher calling and a self imposed duty to follow it. What the calling is, I do not know.
However, nothing Trump said, did, or requested was illegal or untoward or improper. To go against that and purposely align yourself with a foreign power is not any duty official or otherwise of a military officer or any government employee, period.
Yes, you can go against unlawful orders even though there maybe consequences, but even Vindman could not identify what was unlawful and ... felt ... it within his own ethos proper to do what he did.
I am sorry, I was only an E5, Petty Officer 2nd Class, USN, but seriously? The intellectual and moral twisting and makes no sense, not even on policy reasons or impropriety reasons.
Something is truly amiss here. You do not do this, especially within the military. His motivation was not revealed and we can only guess from his words, but thinking and feeling about policy differences or what constitutes impropriety is not his call to make or act on.
Why did he do this?
The only reason given, by Vindman, is an emnity agsinst his boss, President/Commander in Chief Trump.
A previous general, retired I think, called for the removal of Trump by any means.
This is bad. This, along with all the other stuff, is the realm of communist countries and banana republics.
Even worse, the rest of the military elite (Generals and Admirals) are silent. This is uncharted territory for the United States, but to be quite while others of your kin break ranks and call for a junta or act in a seditious/treasonous manner, you have to stand tall.
I have taken 3 oaths to defend the Constitution, twice for split enlistments and one for becoming a police officer in North Texas.
Nowhere do I see anyone, from Vindman to Comey, Brennan, etc acting within that oath.
The whole performance was pathetic--except for Ratcliffe, who was outstanding in unmasking the charade.
DeleteNational Security Adviser Robert O'Brien said Sunday that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman — whose bombshell impeachment inquiry testimony revealed concerns about President Donald Trump's July 25 call with Ukraine's president — will be moved out of the National Security Council.
ReplyDeleteIn an interview on CBS's "Face the Nation," O'Brien said Vindman's move back to the Department of Defense is not in retaliation for the testimony — it is "streamlining."
"We're streamlining the National Security Council," he said. "There are people that are detailed from different departments and agencies. My understanding is that Col. Vindman is detailed from the Department of Defense.
"So everyone who's detailed at the NSC, people are going to start going back to their own departments, and we'll bring in new folks."
"I never retaliated against anyone," O'Brien insisited.
"There will be a point for everybody . . . that their detail will come to an end. They'll go back to their agency.”
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/robert-obrien-alexander-vindman-white-house-defense/2019/11/10/id/940972/
OK. A bloated agency gets “streamlined”… impeccable timing...
Folks, this isn't over by a mile. Let's remember to keep two things in mind.
ReplyDeleteOne, eventually charges are (I hope) coming against the Dems, the Deep State and the media. We don't know what Barr and Durham know.
Two, and more importantly, is the 2020 elections. If Donald is reelected, the Reps retain the senate and retake the house, we will will know that the People are woke. If, the Reps are given a vote of confidence by the electorate, Trump can begin to clean house in the armed forces. I don't think the President realized how deep the corruption runs in this country. He does now.
I'm hoping that my countrymen are paying attention.
The other side will never 1) give up, 2) reform.
DeleteHillary purged lawyers and she was not president. Obama purged senior military officers.
DeleteTrump, justifiably fired one person, Comey, and he is obstructing justice.
Yes, this will not stop.
Democrats ignore the a Constitution and believe since W that they are only the ones to run the country.
The last time the Democrats did this a Civil War occurred started by Democrats by process and by arms.
I agree.
ReplyDeleteWe have to show that we have as much mettle as they do; in fact, more. Either that, or accept that we are second-class citizens.
Also, I'd like to believe that we are on the side of angels. They most assuredly, are not.
"The other side will never 1) give up, 2) reform."
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. But, their numbers are large, but there are many in the group who are not true believers. They are following the crowd.
We have two convince and persuade those who are easily led that ours is the correct side.
We will always have evil men in our midst. This is the result of sin. But we are not orphans. He will never leave us. That makes all the difference in the world.
TexasDude wrote "The last time the Democrats did this a Civil War occurred started by Democrats by process and by arms."
ReplyDeleteThe olden Democrats wore white sheets over their heads. The current Democrats wear black masks over their faces.
But one thing remains true. They are cowards who have to act as a group. If you watch when one of these punks are isolated from their gang, they are suddenly not so tough. They run like the little girly-men that they are.
And now this from the GatewayPundit ...
ReplyDeleteAmbassador Nikki Haley was recruited by ...
Trump's former Chief of Staff General John Kelly and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recruited her to oppose President Trump.
With all that is out there, there is no credible reason to call this false.
Tillerson, a prominent figure in my area was rumored to have called Trump a moron.
But, again, to have a former senior military officer to go against a duly elected President is very troubling.
I am educated. I have a degree in Business Computer Information Systems. I was trained to program on IBM mainframe environments. I took C and C++ courses from my university's computer science side. I rode the dot com wave making 6 figures in my twenties working in Unix and Windows.
I am not stupid nor dumb nor naive.
I also was just an enlisted puke in the US Navy.
In one enlistment, I was part of Commander of 7th Fleet. I participated in the S. Korean war games.
I am not surprised by this. Officers are educated, but are human and are subjected to the propaganda and pressures our leftist colleges put out.
My own college attempted to deny a conservative speaker, the Gov of Texas, a speach. A friggin cripple, the liberals do not care.
I am truly worried.
The oaths seem to to be ignored.
In 2005, I sat next to a USN Captain, 06. I told him that while historically our sourhern border has always been pourous, it is now a national security issue. He looked at me blankly without saying a word giving me the impression he did not want to reply due to my ignorance.
Yes, this is anecdotal, but I am suspicious of our military leaders.
Two things.
Delete1) In my experience, most bureaucracies act to protect their average members, not to promote the unusually competent.
2) Education, as AG Barr said at Notre Dame, is where the rubber hits the road in this country. Leftists have controlled it for a generation.
This link simply makes that point:
The Biggest Threat to Our Future
Key thing to remember. The active duty officer corps of the United States military operates a promotion system on a modified strict seniority system. Every few years every officer commissioned during a particular calendar year, his/her year group, is up for promotion. Some outstanding officers recommended to be promoted “below zone,” ie early, get to compete with officers in later year groups. Any officer in the zone of promotion that isn’t promoted gets one more chance for an above zone promotion, and if he fails he do so, faces mandatory retirement. LTC Vindman is a 1998 YG, pretty much all of his peers still in have been full colonels for some time. Ol boy is already on his way to mandatory retirement; and big Army would prefer to get rid of him that way rather than make a fuss over his current conduct. And he knows that!!!
ReplyDeleteThanks for that insight. I knew they operated on a system like that, but the specific application is great to have. Big Army probably thought sending him to the NSC was getting him out of their hair.
DeleteYep, I saw that firsthand. If you cannot promote you are out. Officers in the Navy are automatically promoted with time in up to at least 03, Lt. After that you have to justify your appointment.
DeleteAppointment.... officers are appointed... a big difference from enlisted and as such and as being leaders, are subect to higher standards.
Lt. Col Vindman, O5, as of now, for sure is non promotable and more than likely was already there.
From Vindman’s Wiki bio, his promotion path seemed to coincide with assignments:
DeleteHe was promoted to the rank of Major in 2008, and to lieutenant colonel in September 2015.
Beginning in 2008, Vindman became a Foreign Area Officer specializing in Eurasia. In this capacity he served in the U.S. embassies in Kiev, Ukraine, and Moscow, Russia. Returning to Washington, D.C. he was then a politico-military affairs officer focused on Russia for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Vindman served on the Joint Staff at the Pentagon from September 2015 to July 2018 In July 2018, Vindman accepted an assignment with the National Security Council.
He needs to be court-martialed. Then cashiered from the service.
ReplyDeleteRob S
The preference has to be for action on principle rather than simple attrition by impersonal process.
Deletehttps://pjmedia.com/blog/every-single-one-the-politicized-hiring-of-eric-holders-appellate-section/
ReplyDeleteLet us not forget that the politicization of the Federal Government was at the top of Obama's agenda the whole time he was in office. It should be no surprise that the Resistance is working from inside the government to destroy Trump.
Thanks for the link. The scary thing, of course, is that that article was written scarcely 3 years into Obama's 8 year regime!
DeleteAnd that was also the big disappointment with Jeff Sessions, beyond his recusal. He did nothing that anyone noticed to reverse the Obama years.
Lindsey Graham, on Bartiromo this morning, defended inaction by referring a couple of times to Senate 'collegiality'. One can be excused for concluding that 'collegiality' is a front for the better interests of the uniparty.
DeleteSessions seems to have swallowed a full dose of 'collegiality' Kool-Aid during his 22 years in Washington.
And I might add that I find it amusing (albeit sadly amusing) that the Dems are accusing Barr of being a political AG (because he dares to act with integrity when it benefits Trump) when Eric Holder simply sold out the Justice Department to the political Left.
DeleteCollegiality? Please! Yes, it all smacks of the Uniparty. One thing Trump has accomplished--the blinders are off.
DeleteIt’s still wrong that the Chief of Staff wouldn’t come out and condemn his appearing in uniform to offer his opinion on the presidents actions. But it’s understandable. If you’ve ever seen Band of Brothers, this is the way the 506 PIR Commander got rid of Captain Sobel—an administrative transfer making him someone else’s problem. “We’re busy commanders with a lot of responsibilities and have to take on a substantial amount of additional responsibilities—courts martials or administrative separation boards—to fire a guy for cause. Much easier to just keep shuffling him unit to unit without promotion until he hits mandatory separation/retirement.” I’m not apologizing for it, but I am saying it’s a very common technique, and from their point of view they’re not endorsing his actions or statements because he’s already on his way out the door...
ReplyDeleteOf course. It's standard bureaucratic practice, not something peculiar to the military. In my own experience I saw the same thing--problem employees supposedly shuffled out of the way into dead end positions not leading to promotion, when actually they were being placed to do maximum damage.
DeleteNot intentionally--unkthinkingly.
DeleteActually, Lt Col Vindman should be charged with mutiny. His remark to the Ukrainians to ignore andput off President Trump, is in fact a denial of a lawfully chosen leader to do his job. It is like ship Captain being relieved
Deleteaccess to bridge because some fool Lt doesn't like his leadership.
Rob S
The fool republicans allowed to democRATS to block and subpeneoa try by repubs. That is them stupid all the way up
Delete