Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and his brother fired and escorted out of White House.

[Shad]

John Kelly says he did exactly what people in his position are trained to do in that situation. In other words, he did the right thing.
I'm gonna go with his opinion over yours, I think.

Wrong. Issues go to the IG or direct superiors not lawyers and an unknown person. Look up Whistle blower protection laws. Vindman is not a whistle blower, he is the leaker.

John Kelly disagrees on this one too.
He says they are trained to refuse to follow illegal orders. Again, he says Vindman did the right thing.

Vindman wasn't given an order. He was recording a transcript in which he saw something he didn't like. He didn't follow procedure. Try again. Maybe think about what you are quote-mining before you post.

See above.

Irrelevant due to your blunders above. All you have done is accept an argument from authority without thought. Try again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wrong. Issues go to the IG or direct superiors not lawyers and an unknown person. Look up Whistle blower protection laws. Vindman is not a whistle blower, he is the leaker.

Nope, you're wrong.
I'm going with John Kelly's over your opinion. He has some actual experience.

Vindman wasn't given an order. He was recording a transcript in which he saw something he didn't like. He didn't follow procedure. Try again. Maybe think about what you are quote-mining before you post.

He followed procedure, as per the people who have been following those procedures for decades.

Irrelevant due to your blunders above. All you have done is accept an argument from authority without thought. Try again.

Blunders? LOL

Sorry, but I'm going with the people who know what they're talking about.
That would not be you.

 

[Shad]

Nope, you're wrong.
I'm going with John Kelly's over your opinion. He has some actual experience.

Argument from authority.

He followed procedure, as per the people who have been following those procedures for decades.

Assertion without evidence and argument from authority.

Blunders? LOL

Such as thinking Vindman received an order. He didn't. Try again.

Sorry, but I'm going with the people who know what they're talking about.
That would not be you.

Argument from authority.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Argument from authority.




Assertion without evidence and argument from authority.




Such as thinking Vindman received an order. He didn't. Try again.



Argument from authority.

Yep. I'm going with an actual authority instead of some ill-informed dude on the internet.
Call me crazy.

 

[Shad]

Yep. I'm going with an actual authority instead of some ill-informed dude on the internet.
Call me crazy.

Wrong. Vindman acknowledge in the Hearing the chain of authority is his boss or the IG. He went to lawyers for opinions thereby leaking thus not protected. Vindman didn't report anything as per Kelly's view thus Kelly's views are not applicable.

"“He did exactly what we teach them to do from cradle to grave,” Kelly said at an event at Drew University in New Jersey, according to The Atlantic. “He went and told his boss what he just heard.”"

As per the Hearing from Vindman's own mouth he didn't talk to Morrison his superior., his boss. He wont ID the 3rd person thus their authority is unknown. Lawyers are not Vindman's superiors. You can find the testimony on C-span using the key word Morrison on the Vindman part of the Hearing. Try again.

"“We teach them, Don’t follow an illegal order. And if you’re ever given one, you’ll raise it to whoever gives it to you that this is an illegal order, and then tell your boss,”"

There was no order. Kelly is lying. Try again.

John Kelly defends Vindman: ‘He did exactly what we teach them to do’



Your thinking is fallacious and you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Argument from authority.




Assertion without evidence and argument from authority.




Such as thinking Vindman received an order. He didn't. Try again.



Argument from authority.

Argument from ignorance. Please familiarize yourself with the facts and try again. Namely:

Vindman testified that he went to NSC lead counsel John Eisenberg first because Eisenberg previously told Vindman that he could come to him with such concerns. Vindman said he earlier had reported concerns about topics discussed during a July 10 meeting with Gordon Sondland, the former U.S. ambassador to the European Union, to the NSC legal team. It was at that point, Vindman said, when Eisenberg told him that he could come to Eisenberg with similar concerns in the future.

When he was asked in his November public hearing why he didn’t go directly to Morrison, Vindman said he tried to but didn’t get a chance to talk to Morrison before Eisenberg advised him not to talk to anyone else about the Trump-Zelensky call.

“I went immediately .. per the instructions from the July 10 incident … to Mr. Eisenberg,” Vindman said. “I attempted to try to talk to Mr. Morrison. That didn’t happen before I received instructions from John Eisenberg to not talk to anybody else any further.”

...

Morrison said he would have preferred that Vindman came to him first, but it was not unusual for him not to do so because of the way things worked under Hill, who was Vindman’s supervisor before Morrison.

Morrison had only been Vindman’s supervisor for a little more than a week at the time the call between the presidents took place.

“My predecessor had a different style for managing her staff than I do,” Morrison said during his private testimony in October. “She did not have the same view of how reporting through the chain of command should work.”

​

Source: Fact-Checking Trump's Defense for Removing Vindman

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Wrong. Vindman acknowledge in the Hearing the chain of authority is his boss or the IG. He went to lawyers for opinions thereby leaking thus not protected. Vindman didn't report anything as per Kelly's view thus Kelly's views are not applicable.

"“He did exactly what we teach them to do from cradle to grave,” Kelly said at an event at Drew University in New Jersey, according to The Atlantic. “He went and told his boss what he just heard.”"

As per the Hearing from Vindman's own mouth he didn't talk to Morrison his superior., his boss. He wont ID the 3rd person thus their authority is unknown. Lawyers are not Vindman's superiors. You can find the testimony on C-span using the key word Morrison on the Vindman part of the Hearing. Try again.

"“We teach them, Don’t follow an illegal order. And if you’re ever given one, you’ll raise it to whoever gives it to you that this is an illegal order, and then tell your boss,”"

There was no order. Kelly is lying. Try again.

John Kelly defends Vindman: ‘He did exactly what we teach them to do’



Your thinking is fallacious and you have no idea what you are talking about.

Nonsense. You continue to say Vindman “leaked” because he didn’t go to Morrison, yet even Morrison testified he did not have “any concerns” about Vindman leaking. You know full well that there is a difference between illegally handing info to a New York Times reporter (say), vs escalating a concern to NSC staff who have security clearance. “Leak” doesn’t differentiate between those two. Don’t try again - just give it up.

Vindman won’t ID the third person by name under advice of his counsel to adhere to the House Intel Committee rules not to out the whistleblower. The Committee confirmed he was following the rules - not Vindman’s decision.

But he told us it’s a CIA analyst with security clearance and need-to-know status. You make it sound like Vindman should be punished for not outing the WB, yet your whole criticism of Vindman is that he didn’t file a report with the IG ... which is exactly what the WB did. You’ve created a nice little Catch-22 in your effort to rationalize the Liar-in-Chiefs smears of Vindman.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Wrong. Issues go to the IG or direct superiors not lawyers and an unknown person.

That is incorrect, even according to Morrison (who was Vindman’s superior for one week) and particularly according to Hill (who was Vindman’s superior for much longer), NSC lawyer Eisenberg and now Gen. Kelly.

Please cite a source with evidence to back up your assertion. I provided mine. All you have right now is a claim without evidence.

 

[Shad]

Argument from ignorance. Please familiarize yourself with the facts and try again. Namely:

Vindman testified that he went to NSC lead counsel John Eisenberg first because Eisenberg previously told Vindman that he could come to him with such concerns. Vindman said he earlier had reported concerns about topics discussed during a July 10 meeting with Gordon Sondland, the former U.S. ambassador to the European Union, to the NSC legal team. It was at that point, Vindman said, when Eisenberg told him that he could come to Eisenberg with similar concerns in the future.

When he was asked in his November public hearing why he didn’t go directly to Morrison, Vindman said he tried to but didn’t get a chance to talk to Morrison before Eisenberg advised him not to talk to anyone else about the Trump-Zelensky call.

“I went immediately .. per the instructions from the July 10 incident … to Mr. Eisenberg,” Vindman said. “I attempted to try to talk to Mr. Morrison. That didn’t happen before I received instructions from John Eisenberg to not talk to anybody else any further.”

...

Morrison said he would have preferred that Vindman came to him first, but it was not unusual for him not to do so because of the way things worked under Hill, who was Vindman’s supervisor before Morrison.

Morrison had only been Vindman’s supervisor for a little more than a week at the time the call between the presidents took place.

“My predecessor had a different style for managing her staff than I do,” Morrison said during his private testimony in October. “She did not have the same view of how reporting through the chain of command should work.”

​

Source: Fact-Checking Trump's Defense for Removing Vindman

Eisenbergs opinion does not trump procedure. All you demonstrated is Hill was lax in controlling channels of communication and authority.

Your article has nothing which I didn't already cover. Try again

 

[Shad]

Nonsense. You continue to say Vindman “leaked” because he didn’t go to Morrison, yet even Morrison testified he did not have “any concerns” about Vindman leaking.

You own article shows Morrison had concern as did Morrison in his testimony on Cspan. Try again. Watch the hearing.

You know full well that there is a difference between illegally handing info to a New York Times reporter (say), vs escalating a concern to NSC staff who have security clearance. “Leak” doesn’t differentiate between those two. Don’t try again - just give it up.

Projection and strawman. I never said illegal leaking.

Vindman won’t ID the third person by name under advice of his counsel to adhere to the House Intel Committee rules not to out the whistleblower. The Committee confirmed he was following the rules - not Vindman’s decision.

Vindman said he does not know the whistle blower. Ergo protection of the 3rd person by the Committee shows Vindman is the source of the leak which was my point. Vindman can refuse advice of counsel.

But he told us it’s a CIA analyst with security clearance and need-to-know status.

Assertion. Without an ID there is not confirming this claim.

You make it sound like Vindman should be punished for not outing the WB, yet your whole criticism of Vindman is that he didn’t file a report with the IG ... which is exactly what the WB did. You’ve created a nice little Catch-22 in your effort to rationalize the Liar-in-Chiefs smears of Vindman.

Vindman is the leaker, that is one reason he lost his job. Again Vindman can refuse advice. He said he didn't know the WB. Vindman could have filed a report himself instead of telling an unknown individual no one can confirm publicly.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So nobody knows why his brother was fired?

 

[Shad]

That is incorrect, even according to Morrison (who was Vindman’s superior for one week) and particularly according to Hill (who was Vindman’s superior for much longer), NSC lawyer Eisenberg and now Gen. Kelly.

Morrison testified that Hill didn't enforce procedure. Hill being lax does not make procedure invalid.

I already established Kelly is a liar by pointing out 1) Vindman never received an order 2) Vindman is not the WB. Kelly's opinion means zero.

Again Morrison had contact with Vindman the same day Vindman was talking to 3 people. Vindman never said a word about concerns to Morrison. Morrison also said it was easy to communicate with him that day ergo he was available.

Eisenberg's opinion is not procedure.

Please cite a source with evidence to back up your assertion. I provided mine. All you have right now is a claim without evidence.

Whistleblower Protection Information

The rest is from C-span testimony.

You linked opinion not procedure. See the difference?

 

[Shad]

So nobody knows why his brother was fired?

Nothing on record just claims of gossip and insubordination which are hearsay.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Eisenbergs opinion does not trump procedure.

Opinion. Eisenberg, Vindman, Kelly and Hill do not share your opinion.

Tangentially: what a remarkably silly argument. Eisenberg told Vindman not to tell anyone else; if that was so wrong, and so contrary to “procedure”, why isn’t Eisenberg getting fired? Hmmm. Could it be because Eisenberg tried to cover up it up - which Trump like - whereas Vindman tried to address it - which Trump not like? Gee, I wonder. And what difference would it have made if Vindman had told Morrison - was there something Morrison could have done to rectify the situation, if he had only known sooner? What nonsense. Could it be that this is simply an excuse to retaliate against people who escalate wrongdoing when they see it, who Trump blames for his impeachment (rather than taking some responsibility himself for his own alarming behavior and highly non-perfect call)? Again - I wonder.

All you demonstrated is Hill was lax in controlling channels of communication and authority.

Opinion. Not even Morrison characterized Hill that way. He was Vindman’s superior for one week and said Hill had a different management style.

Your article has nothing which I didn't already cover. Try again

Incorrect. The article, among other things, noted that Eisenberg told Vindman to come to him and then told Vindman not to tell anyone else, which is why Vindman didn’t tell Morrison. The article also notes Morrison said it was not unusual for Vindman to not go to Morrison first. You conveniently didn’t cover those things. The article did. Try reading it.

I’m comfortable letting readers of this thread look at the facts I posted, and contrast them with your opinions, which are attempting to justify Trump’s retaliatory smears against Vindman post-hoc.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You own article shows Morrison had concern as did Morrison in his testimony on Cspan. Try again. Watch the hearing.



Projection and strawman. I never said illegal leaking.



Vindman said he does not know the whistle blower. Ergo protection of the 3rd person by the Committee shows Vindman is the source of the leak which was my point. Vindman can refuse advice of counsel.



Assertion. Without an ID there is not confirming this claim.



Vindman is the leaker, that is one reason he lost his job. Again Vindman can refuse advice. He said he didn't know the WB. Vindman could have filed a report himself instead of telling an unknown individual no one can confirm publicly.

What Vindman did isn’t “leaking”. You are just parroting Trump’s retaliatory smear, without evidence. He testified that he told a CIA analyst with need-to-know. Are you saying Vindman lied under oath? If so: provide evidence. Otherwise you’re just parroting the President’s unevidenced smears.

Vindman could have filed a report himself instead of telling an unknown individual no one can confirm publicly.

Its absurd to hold it against Vindman that he can’t ID the whistleblower publicly - that’s not his fault, or decision. How can he be expected predict who is going to become a whistleblower, and therefore who he won’t in the future be able to identify publicly? Should he talk to no one at all about anything, just to play it safe? Nonsense.

Face it - Vindman is being fired for much the same reason a smoke detector gets ripped off the wall by a guy with a cigarette in an airplane lavatory. Because he did his job, and Trumpy no likey.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Morrison testified that Hill didn't enforce procedure. Hill being lax does not make procedure invalid.

I already established Kelly is a liar by pointing out 1) Vindman never received an order 2) Vindman is not the WB. Kelly's opinion means zero.

Again Morrison had contact with Vindman the same day Vindman was talking to 3 people. Vindman never said a word about concerns to Morrison. Morrison also said it was easy to communicate with him that day ergo he was available.

Eisenberg's opinion is not procedure.





Whistleblower Protection Information

The rest is from C-span testimony.

You linked opinion not procedure. See the difference?

That whistleblower article you cited doesn’t back up your claim that “issues go to the IG or direct superiors not lawyers”. Nowhere does it say an NSC member discussing a concern with an NSC lawyer is a “leak”, much less a fireable offense. Try again.

 

[Shad]

That whistleblower article you cited doesn’t back up your claim that “issues go to the IG or direct superiors not lawyers”. Nowhere does it say an NSC member discussing a concern with an NSC lawyer is a “leak”, much less a fireable offense. Try again.

It does not contain "Go see NSC lawyers either" Ergo didn't follow procedure as I said. Try again.

 

[Shad]

What Vindman did isn’t “leaking”.

Wrong. The WB was not a person that would have known of the transcript without Vindman talking to the WB. Try again.

You are just parroting Trump’s retaliatory smear, without evidence.

Nope. Try again.

He testified that he told a CIA analyst with need-to-know.

Assertion

Are you saying Vindman lied under oath?

No just the claim is unknown as it has not been confirmed.

Its absurd to hold it against Vindman that he can’t ID the whistleblower publicly - that’s not his fault, or decision.

Wrong. He can. He choose not to.

How can he be expected predict who is going to become a whistleblower, and therefore who he won’t in the future be able to identify publicly?

He is the one refusing to ID a person he said does not know is the WB.

Should he talk to no one at all about anything, just to play it safe?

He could have gone to the IG as per my link. He didn't.

Face it - Vindman is being fired for much the same reason a smoke detector gets ripped off the wall by a guy with a cigarette in an airplane lavatory. Because he did his job, and Trumpy no likey.

Nope.

 

[Shad]

Opinion. Eisenberg, Vindman, Kelly and Hill do not share your opinion.

I already pointed out Kelly's lies. His opinion is nonsense. Eisenberg's opinion does not trump procedure. Hill's opinion is moot. You have nothing but arguments from authority. You didn't even bother challenging my count-points. You just doubled down on arguments from authority. Try again.

Tangentially: what a remarkably silly argument. Eisenberg told Vindman not to tell anyone else; if that was so wrong, and so contrary to “procedure”, why isn’t Eisenberg getting fired?

As it wasn't an order and Vindman made his own choice.

Hmmm. Could it be because Eisenberg tried to cover up it up - which Trump like - whereas Vindman tried to address it - which Trump not like?

Tin foil hat babble

Gee, I wonder. And what difference would it have made if Vindman had told Morrison - was there something Morrison could have done to rectify the situation, if he had only known sooner? What nonsense. Could it be that this is simply an excuse to retaliate against people who escalate wrongdoing when they see it, who Trump blames for his impeachment (rather than taking some responsibility himself for his own alarming behavior and highly non-perfect call)? Again - I wonder.

Tin foil hat babble

Opinion. Not even Morrison characterized Hill that way. He was Vindman’s superior for one week and said Hill had a different management style.

Wrong he did in the hearing. Try again.

Incorrect. The article, among other things, noted that Eisenberg told Vindman to come to him and then told Vindman not to tell anyone else, which is why Vindman didn’t tell Morrison.

Which is a breach of procedure by Vindman. Try again

The article also notes Morrison said it was not unusual for Vindman to not go to Morrison first. You conveniently didn’t cover those things. The article did. Try reading it.

Which was a slam against Vindman for not following the chain of command.

I’m comfortable letting readers of this thread look at the facts I posted, and contrast them with your opinions, which are attempting to justify Trump’s retaliatory smears against Vindman post-hoc.

Fantasy to claim victory. Hilarious.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It does not contain "Go see NSC lawyers either" Ergo didn't follow procedure as I said. Try again.

It doesn't say "mark all sensitive documents as Classified" either; it doesn't say to do lots of things that any person on the NSC does every day. These are guidelines on filing a whistleblower complaint, not all-encompassing "procedures" for anyone on the NSC. Try reading it.