• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman admitted he made up elements of President Donald Trump’s call

Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
Landon Caeli said:
No, his understanding of Trumps intent is irrelevant from the get-go. And calling it "US policy", is totally ridiculous and misleading.
Click to expand...

This is misleading. 3 of 4 officials yesterday said it was US policy as they were directed by their superiors. This is why Morrison said he made no action regarding the July 25 call as he had no direction other than what he was given by his superiors which included anti-corruption. He received no direct order thus did not consider any changes in his operation.

Vindman readout has false information. He said it was procedural. That seem reasonable. He still screwed up by willing placing false information in the readout. By choice or order. Right now all he exposed was these sort of readouts made by him and possible others must be scrutinized regarding what was said vs procedural additions. This is not a government issues nor people Vindman nor Trump
 
Last edited:
sealchan

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Landon Caeli said:
No, his understanding of Trumps intent is irrelevant from the get-go. And calling it "US policy", is totally ridiculous and misleading.
Click to expand...

If you work in Trump's administration and are making direct calls to Trump...how can he not have a clear understanding of Trump's intent? Is Trump really this incompetent of a communicator to those working for him?

I find this incredulous.

Direct cellphone call to President. How many people can achieve that?

Think about it.
 
Cooky

Cooky

Veteran Member
sealchan said:
If you work in Trump's administration and are making direct calls to Trump...how can he not have a clear understanding of Trump's intent? Is Trump really this incompetent of a communicator to those working for him?

I find this incredulous.

Direct cellphone call to President. How many people can achieve that?

Think about it.
Click to expand...

Vindman has never spoken to Trump. They do not know each other.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=560776044481647
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Landon Caeli said:
...So apparently this man is a liar.

View attachment 34511
View attachment 34512

"Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman admitted he made up elements of President Donald Trump’s call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky in an official summary.

Prior to the call, Vindman included a discussion about corruption in the talking points provided to the president but Trump did not use them in the call.

But Vindman clarified during his testimony that the president did not bring up the topic rooting out corruption during the phone call, but he included it in his summary of the call anyway.

When asked by the Democrat counsel about whether the summary he wrote was false, Vindman hesitated."

Alexander Vindman Admits Making up Parts of Trump Call Summary – True Pundit
Click to expand...
Try to find a reliable website that makes this claim. This one is so poor it is rather worthless. It appears to be most likely a quote mine:

True Pundit - Media Bias/Fact Check
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
sealchan said:
If you work in Trump's administration and are making direct calls to Trump...how can he not have a clear understanding of Trump's intent? Is Trump really this incompetent of a communicator to those working for him?
Click to expand...

Vindman is an inter-department coordinator. He deals with staff not POTUS. At best Trump may read or hear some advice from Vindman via Morrison his superior or the heads of the department Vindman works with via the staff he has contact with.
 
Cooky

Cooky

Veteran Member
Shad said:
Vindman is an inter-department coordinator. He deals with staff not POTUS. At best Trump may read or hear some advice from Vindman via Morrison his superior.
Click to expand...

Exactly, Vindman even testifies that he has never spoken to the president, nor had any contact with him at all in his entire life (as per video post #43).
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
Landon Caeli said:
Exactly, Vindman even testifies that he has never spoken to the president, nor had any contact with him at all in his entire life (as per video post #43).
Click to expand...

I wonder where this idea of Vindman being some major power player is coming from. Vindman has a lot of clearance and access give the inter-department role he has. However he is nowhere close to even an advisor to POTUS.
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Do you guys even appreciate the context of this? The correction Vindman made was to point out that President Trump did not discuss "rooting out corruption" in Ukraine in his April call with Zelenskiy.

So basically Team Trump here is pointing to additional evidence that Trump was not as interested in "corruption" as is claimed (he didn't even bring it up in their April call), which further adds to the evidence that Trump's real agenda was to get Ukraine to make a public announcement regarding the Bidens.

So....um.....thanks? :confused:
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
Jose Fly said:
Do you guys even appreciate the context of this? The correction Vindman made was to point out that President Trump did not discuss "rooting out corruption" in Ukraine in his April call with Zelenskiy.
Click to expand...

So basically Team Trump here is pointing to additional evidence that Trump was not as interested in "corruption" as is claimed (he didn't even bring it up in their April call), which further adds to the evidence that Trump's real agenda was to get Ukraine to make a public announcement regarding the Bidens.
Click to expand...

Wrong as other testimony stated Trump was considering at other points
 
Last edited:
Evangelicalhumanist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Not going to comment on the OP at all -- I'm just going to say that everything I see, looking south as I do from Canada, tells me that Americans are now so divided along partisan lines that you are on the brink of tearing yourselves apart.

I learned some tricks, long ago, about how to help people engaged in bitter dispute talk TO (rather than AT) one another.

1. Listen to the other side, and then repeat back to them -- but in your own words -- what you think you heard. And get them to tell you that's what they were in fact saying.

2. Make your own response to what you've agreed the other side said, and feel free to include why you disagree.

3. Get the other side to do what you just did: repeat back in their own words what they think you said.

But all of the above arguments do absolutely none of this. Not one of you is actually saying to the other: "I think you said x y z, do you agree? And if you do, then here is why I disagree with you."

Without doing that, in any argument, we are left with no other option but to strike attitudes, to build up our fortress walls, and try to fend the other guy off while attacking from the rear. Any victory will be, if not pyrrhic, at least close.
 
Cooky

Cooky

Veteran Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
Not going to comment on the OP at all -- I'm just going to say that everything I see, looking south as I do from Canada, tells me that Americans are now so divided along partisan lines that you are on the brink of tearing yourselves apart.

I learned some tricks, long ago, about how to help people engaged in bitter dispute talk TO (rather than AT) one another.

1. Listen to the other side, and then repeat back to them -- but in your own words -- what you think you heard. And get them to tell you that's what they were in fact saying.

2. Make your own response to what you've agreed the other side said, and feel free to include why you disagree.

3. Get the other side to do what you just did: repeat back in their own words what they think you said.

But all of the above arguments do absolutely none of this. Not one of you is actually saying to the other: "I think you said x y z, do you agree? And if you do, then here is why I disagree with you."

Without doing that, in any argument, we are left with no other option but to strike attitudes, to build up our fortress walls, and try to fend the other guy off while attacking from the rear. Any victory will be, if not pyrrhic, at least close.
Click to expand...

I don't see how this can help here when we're talking about verifiable facts, actually recorded on video.

...And Nancy Pelosi, as leader of the house, wanted this all made public. And now everyone sees the star witness has made-up some things.

User Clip: Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman on Trump phone call with Ukraine | C-SPAN.org
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Evangelicalhumanist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
BSM1 said:
Shouldn't come as any surprise. BTW, I understand that Vindman and Eric Ciaramella worked together in some governmental capacity. Hmmm....
Click to expand...
And by trying to establish guilt by association, along with actually naming (you suppose) the whistleblower, you hope to accomplish what?

Funny, when I was growing up, in a boys' boarding school in rural Canada, the number one rule was you didn't rat out anybody -- ever -- even if they'd cut your balls off. That rule, of course, is a great way to foster deplorable behaviour, but the assumption must be that loyalty is a more important thing than honesty and protection of society.

I wonder...
 
Cooky

Cooky

Veteran Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
And by trying to establish guilt by association, along with actually naming (you suppose) the whistleblower, you hope to accomplish what?
Click to expand...

It's helpful to know the facts. If Vindman and Ciaramella have worked together in the past, and their testimonies against Trump are being portrayed as two seperate accounts, then it's pertinent to find out if this was something they formulated together or if it truly is two seperate accounts completely independent from one another.

...Don't you think that's important to find out?

But when you say "guilt by association", I think that's a little premature, considering the facts have yet to be verified in that regard. But questioning it is right! Question everything, I say... Because this has become an official impeachment inquiry of the president!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cooky

Cooky

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
Nope, been there done that. You seem to be putting a very strange spin on his testimony. And I see that you did not apologize for using a site that is worse than questionable.
Click to expand...

The video is on c-span. What happened, happened.

...But please do tell what this "strange spin" is?
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
Jose Fly said:
???? Try using complete, coherent sentences this time.
Click to expand...


If you watched the hearing you would know other witnesses have mentioned Trumps anti-corruption issues with Ukraine. You would also know of the briefing back in Oct 19. No one has any information about the hold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top