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

[Mr Spinkles]

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

Non-sequitur. Telling someone with security clearance who has need-to-know is not the same as a "leak", that's part of the job. What is the point of having people listen in to a call if they can't tell anyone - even people with security clearance? Try again.

Nope. Try again.

Yep. Try again. (Hey, making claims without evidence is fun)

Assertion

Testimony under oath. All you have is an assertion by the lyingest man on Twitter to the contrary.

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

That cuts both ways. If it is unknown then you don't know Vindman leaked to an inappropriate party. As I said: parroting the President's unevidenced smears.

Wrong. He can. He choose not to.

Under advice from his lawyer, based on rules made by the House Intel Committee not to out the WB, rules that Chairman Schiff confirmed at the hearing. Not much of a choice. Plus are you now saying Vindman should answer questions that are likely to lead to outing the WB? But I thought your whole criticism of Vindman is that he didn't seek WB protection ... now you are saying if he doesn't seek WB protection he needs to out someone else who did ... your whole argument appears to be a Catch-22.

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

Doesn't matter. He doesn't have to know the WB. He only needs to have a good faith belief his answer could out the WB. Those were the Committee's rules, he followed those rules. Source: Vindman refuses to answer questions amid fear of outing whistleblower - Axios

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

Nor did he have to because he wasn't filing a WB complaint.

Nope.

Yep. (This is fun)

Let me know when you have any evidence that Vindman leaked anything to someone who didn't have security clearance or need-to-know status. Until then you are just parroting the Liar-in-Chief.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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.

There's nothing for me to to challenge - if I have argument from authority, you have argument from non-authority - namely, just you. Shad says Vindman didn't follow "procedure". Shad's opinion. And he's not even an authority. You posted the WB procedure which is irrelevant as Vindman wasn't filing a WB complaint. I don't know what the day-to-day procedures are at the NSC I only have you (with zero experience) opinion vs. Kelly, Hill, Eisenberg, and Vindman. Your word vs. theirs. Try again.

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

Surely Eisenberg should at least be reprimanded then since, as a lawyer, he instructed an NSC staffer to go against "procedure" causing that NSC member to be fired. Then again ... Eisenberg was trying to keep a lid on the whole thing. And we know that draws Trump's attention a bit more than technical procedural questions, don't we.

Tin foil hat babble

Cult-like denial.

Tin foil hat babble

More denial. Importantly, you dodged the question: 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?

Wrong he did in the hearing. Try again.

Quote him then. I quoted him. He said it was not unusual for Vindman to go to someone else first and Hill had a different management style.

Which is a breach of procedure by Vindman. Try again

Please provide a specific source for this "procedure" you speak of. Your WB article doesn't cut it as he wasn't filing a WB complaint he was just doing his job. Again so far we have Shad's opinion that Vindman violated "procedure" on the one hand, and sworn testimony on the other hand (what Shad calls "opinion") by Morrison, Hill, Vindman, and un-sworn statements by Eisenberg. The burden of evidence is on you, otherwise it's just your word vs. theirs. Oh, and the Liar-in-Chief you are parroting, too.

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

Actually Morrison said it was not unusual for Vindman to do that because his previous boss had a different management style and Morrison had only been Vindman's boss for 1 week. How is that a slam? Sounds like an explanation.

Fantasy to claim victory. Hilarious.

That is not an argument. I am not certain they are even sentences.

 

[We Never Know]

Impeachment witness Alexander Vindman and his twin brother were abruptly fired and escorted from the White House as part of Trump's payback

This is particularly sad when you think about Vindman’s testimony to Congress where he praised America as a country where you could speak the truth without fear of reprisal. Apparently Trump’s America is not the country Vindman though it was.

History will remember Lt. Col.Vindman as a hero.

Some coincidences...
-This whole shyt storm supposedly started because of with holding aid from Ukraine
-after the US kills a top Iranian general, Iran mistakenly shoots down a plane, a Ukrainian plane.
-Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and his brother where born where, yep Ukraine.

 

[Shad]

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.

I posted the WB procedure which grants protection Vindman does not have as he is the leaker not the WB. You have not linked a single thing demonstrating Vindman isn't the leaker nor that he follow any procedure. Try again.

Non-sequitur. Telling someone with security clearance who has need-to-know is not the same as a "leak", that's part of the job.

Wrong. Clearance for need to know means the person would be briefed as... they need to know. Try your words again and look up what you are talking about. Vindman didn't give a briefing. He leaked to someone he claimed has clearance without evidence.

What is the point of having people listen in to a call if they can't tell anyone - even people with security clearance? Try again.

Having clearance does not mean anyone can talk about whatever they want. Need to know clearance, which you are clueless about, is to prevent random access and browsing which Vindman bypassed by leaking. Try again. Look up the terms you are using and try again.

Yep. Try again. (Hey, making claims without evidence is fun)

You made claim about me without evidence in order to deflect from criticism. Try again son. Try to avoid using the fantasy in your head next time.

Testimony under oath. All you have is an assertion by the lyingest man on Twitter to the contrary.

I said nothing about Trump. Again you follow the fiction in your head as your arguments are easy to counter as you have no idea what you are talking about.

That cuts both ways. If it is unknown then you don't know Vindman leaked to an inappropriate party. As I said: parroting the President's unevidenced smears.

Yet who is treating the assertion as a fact? You. Try again son.

Again you are discussing a fantasy in your head. I came to my conclusions months ago. Try again son.

Under advice from his lawyer, based on rules made by the House Intel Committee not to out the WB, rules that Chairman Schiff confirmed at the hearing.

Congressional rules are not laws. Vindman made a choice.

Not much of a choice. Plus are you now saying Vindman should answer questions that are likely to lead to outing the WB?

He claimed he didn't know the WB.

But I thought your whole criticism of Vindman is that he didn't seek WB protection ... now you are saying if he doesn't seek WB protection he needs to out someone else who did ... your whole argument appears to be a Catch-22.

Vindman claimed he didn't know the WB.

Doesn't matter. He doesn't have to know the WB. He only needs to have a good faith belief his answer could out the WB.

Good faith from the House Dems. Hilarious. Ergo Vindman made a choice.

Those were the Committee's rules, he followed those rules. Source: Vindman refuses to answer questions amid fear of outing whistleblower - Axios

https://www.axios.com/impeachment-h...ity-dd05e916-d48f-4c57-b28b-96b4d64eaa41.html

Rules are not laws.

Nor did he have to because he wasn't filing a WB complaint.

Again he refused to ID the 3rd person and claimed he didn't know the WB.

Let me know when you have any evidence that Vindman leaked anything to someone who didn't have security clearance or need-to-know status. Until then you are just parroting the Liar-in-Chief.

Vindman admitted to leaking in the hearing. Try again.

Need to know means the person would be briefed as part of their duties. Try again. Look up the terms you are using. Toss in the claim is an unverified assertion which you acknowledge already yet still treat as fact.

 

[Shad]

There's nothing for me to to challenge - if I have argument from authority, you have argument from non-authority - namely, just you.

You have arguments from authority nothing more.

What order was Vindman given according to Kelly? Name it son

Shad says Vindman didn't follow "procedure". Shad's opinion.

And Morrison his superior. Try again. Maybe watch the hearing

And he's not even an authority.

Acknowledgement of your argument from authority. You take their word because you authority not their actual arguments. Try again.

You posted the WB procedure which is irrelevant as Vindman wasn't filing a WB complaint.

And I referenced the hearing which you ignored.

Vindman had concerns which go to his boss not some random CIA staffer. Try again.

I don't know what the day-to-day procedures are at the NSC I only have you (with zero experience) opinion vs. Kelly, Hill, Eisenberg, and Vindman. Your word vs. theirs. Try again.

You are ignore Morrison's word who was actually his boss at the time for the claims of someone not even involved as staff making easy to counter claims.

What order did Vindman receive that was illegal? Name it. Or are you just taking Kelly's word for it without blinking again? The same fallacy again.

Surely Eisenberg should at least be reprimanded then since, as a lawyer, he instructed an NSC staffer to go against "procedure" causing that NSC member to be fired. Then again ... Eisenberg was trying to keep a lid on the whole thing. And we know that draws Trump's attention a bit more than technical procedural questions, don't we.

Vindman made a choice. Now you are babbling again.

Cult-like denial.

Fiction in your head because you have no arguments and can not counter mine. What order did Vindman receive? Name it.

More denial.

Fiction in your head.

Importantly, you dodged the question: 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?

I didn't dodge. I ignored a question that is based on tin foil hat babble and absurd point that there is a situation to rectify.

Quote him then. I quoted him.

READ: Transcript of House testimony from former NSC official Tim Morrison - CNNPolitics

Page 93.

He said it was not unusual for Vindman to go to someone else first and Hill had a different management style.

Which was called unfortunateand a habit based on Hill.

Please provide a specific source for this "procedure" you speak of. Your WB article doesn't cut it as he wasn't filing a WB complaint he was just doing his job.

Goldwater-Nichols Act and your own source which you didn't read.... As source you compltely accepted and even quoted. Try again.

"Morrison also said that Vindman did not follow the chain of command when Vindman reported his concerns about the Trump-Zelensky phone call to NSC’s legal counsel. He said he would have preferred that Vindman came to him first, but he also said that that wasn’t unusual because things worked differently under Hill, whom Morrison replaced at the NSC."

Ergo Hill was lax in protocol

Again so far we have Shad's opinion that Vindman violated "procedure" on the one hand, and sworn testimony on the other hand (what Shad calls "opinion") by Morrison, Hill, Vindman, and un-sworn statements by Eisenberg.

Wrong as per your own source. Try reading what you link and try again.

Fact-Checking Trump's Defense for Removing Vindman

The burden of evidence is on you, otherwise it's just your word vs. theirs. Oh, and the Liar-in-Chief you are parroting, too.

Which I met via your own source which you didn't read. Hilarious. Try again.

I parrot no one. I made my conclusions months ago. Stop listening to the fiction in your head.

Actually Morrison said it was not unusual for Vindman to do that because his previous boss had a different management style and Morrison had only been Vindman's boss for 1 week. How is that a slam? Sounds like an explanation.

Except for the part about not following the chain of command. Look up what the chain of command is in the military.

That is not an argument. I am not certain they are even sentences.

I was talking about the fantasy in your head you have a need to bring up when your arguments fall flat. You are making a giant assumption that I am repeating Trump rather than forming my own view which is similar to Trump's. Opinions formed months ago. So if you want to argue with a fantasy in your head go for it. It makes you look unstable and dishonest.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I posted the WB procedure which grants protection Vindman does not have as he is the leaker not the WB. You have not linked a single thing demonstrating Vindman isn't the leaker nor that he follow any procedure. Try again.

You are the one making a claim, namely that Vindman "leaked" and didn't follow "procedure", and that was the justification for his firing. I'm saying you are parroting the President's unevidenced smears against Vindman. Until you provide evidence, the president's smears remain unevidenced, and you continue to parrot them. You posted the WB procedure which means Vindman didn't have WB protection ... therefore ... ? He wasn't filing a WB report, so him not following that procedure is irrelevant. Are you suggesting that every conversation a government official has about a sensitive matter is is either (1) an official WB complaint or (2) a "leak"? What nonsense.

Wrong. Clearance for need to know means the person would be briefed as... they need to know. Try your words again and look up what you are talking about. Vindman didn't give a briefing.

I don't know what this means. Are you saying if someone was need-to-know about the July call, then they would have been briefed on that call? I thought the point was Vindman heard something unexpected that came up on the call, ergo, he shared these concerns with people who had clearance and need to know. Are you now suggesting that there are only two possible forms of communication: (1) "a briefing" and (2) "leaking"? Nonsense.

Having clearance does not mean anyone can talk about whatever they want. Need to know clearance, which you are clueless about, is to prevent random access and browsing which Vindman bypassed by leaking.

Vindman said everyone he told about the July call had clearance and need to know. Are you claiming he lied under oath? If so, what is your evidence, other than your opinion and the Liar-in-Chief's tweet?

Yet who is treating the assertion as a fact? You. Try again son.

Incorrect. As I've said several times: you are parroting the president's unevidenced smears. I am not saying that I know for certain Vindman did not leak. (I can't prove a negative.) I only know that according to his testimony and the facts we have, there is no evidence he in fact leaked. If you have evidence he gave information to someone who didn't have clearance or need to know, go ahead and provide it. You haven't yet. I'm waiting.

Congressional rules are not laws. Vindman made a choice.

You're saying he should be fired for following a Congressional rule, when testifying before Congress? This makes zero sense. If Trump is firing him, and Trump needs to know who Vindman told, why doesn't Trump ask him? Such nonsense.

He claimed he didn't know the WB.

Irrelevant to following Congress' rule as I already explained. Let me know if you missed it.

Vindman claimed he didn't know the WB.

See above.

Good faith from the House Dems. Hilarious. Ergo Vindman made a choice.

A choice to obey Congress' rules while testifying before Congress. In what universe can that be interpreted as "leaking" or "not following procedure"? It's clearly not either. Keep trying.

Rules are not laws.

Irrelevant. How does following a rule - law or not - make him a "leaker" or someone who didn't follow "procedure"? (Which "procedure"?)

Again he refused to ID the 3rd person and claimed he didn't know the WB.

He didn't know the WB but thought identifying that person was likely to lead to outing the WB. That was the rule. He followed it.

Vindman admitted to leaking in the hearing. Try again.

Where? Quote him please.

Need to know means the person would be briefed as part of their duties.

So when Vindman testified everyone he told had need to know, you are saying he lied? Please be clear.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You have arguments from authority nothing more. What order was Vindman given according to Kelly? Name it son

Irrelevant. Kelly did not say Vindman was given an illegal order. He said Vindman overheard something tantamount to an illegal order, namely, Trump asking Zelensky to investigate the Bidens, which should not be followed and should be escalated. To wit:

When Vindman heard the president tell Zelensky he wanted to see the Biden family investigated, that was tantamount to hearing “an illegal order,” Kelly said. “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.’”​

Source: John Kelly Finally Lets Loose on Trump

Are you suggesting that what Vindman overheard on the July call should not have been escalated? Nonsense. I don't even think many Trump Party Senators agree with that.

And Morrison his superior. Try again. Maybe watch the hearing

Morrison didn't characterize it as a violation of some procedure that should get someone fired, or leaking, like you have.

Acknowledgement of your argument from authority. You take their word because you authority not their actual arguments. Try again.

I don't take anyone's word I just note it's your word against theirs. Yawn.

And I referenced the hearing which you ignored. Vindman had concerns which go to his boss not some random CIA staffer. Try again.

I am glad you gave up on the WB "procedures" you were fixated on and have shifted to the hearing, which is more relevant. The above is your opinion. It lacks evidence. Again: Kelly, Hill, Vindman, Eisenberg have a different take and it's your word vs. theirs, at best.

You are ignore Morrison's word who was actually his boss at the time for the claims of someone not even involved as staff making easy to counter claims.

He had been his boss for a week. I'm not ignoring his words - pretty sure I quoted them earlier. You haven't yet. Why is that?

What order did Vindman receive that was illegal? Name it. Or are you just taking Kelly's word for it without blinking again? The same fallacy again.

I addressed this above.

Vindman made a choice. Now you are babbling again.

Fiction in your head because you have no arguments and can not counter mine. What order did Vindman receive? Name it.

Fiction in your head.

I didn't dodge. I ignored a question that is based on tin foil hat babble and absurd point that there is a situation to rectify.

Your refusal / inability to respond to the points about Eisenberg and Morrison are noted, and quite telling. Moving on ...

READ: Transcript of House testimony from former NSC official Tim Morrison - CNNPolitics

Page 93.

On p93, they asked Morrison if Vindman did not report something to him, would that be a violation of the chain of command. Morrison demurred, saying it would be "an unfortunate habit he picked up from his prior boss". And that was not about the July call it was about if Vindman received inbounds from Ukrainian officials. Try again son.

Which was called unfortunateand a habit based on Hill.

Right. That's a far cry from saying he's a leaker or should be fired for violating chain of command.

Goldwater-Nichols Act and your own source which you didn't read.... As source you compltely accepted and even quoted. Try again.

Now you are saying Vindman didn't just violate "procedure", he actually violated a law? Which part of the Goldwater-Nichols Act did Vindman violate? Why did the top legal counsel of the NSC, John Eisenberg, allow and encourage violating a law?

"Morrison also said that Vindman did not follow the chain of command when Vindman reported his concerns about the Trump-Zelensky phone call to NSC’s legal counsel. He said he would have preferred that Vindman came to him first, but he also said that that wasn’t unusual because things worked differently under Hill, whom Morrison replaced at the NSC."

Right. But that doesn't sound like he's saying Vindman is a leaker or violated a strict procedure. Is Vindman only allowed to talk to a single person in the course of his duties - ever? Eisenberg, Vindman, and Hill seem to think otherwise. Who is right? I don't know how the NSC works, but you seem to know. I'm asking for your evidence.

Ergo Hill was lax in protocol

Non-sequitur. One could also conclude that Morrison was overly rigid. Even Morrison characterized this as a difference of styles and views, not Hill being lax or serious procedural violations being committed To wit:

“My predecessor [Fiona Hill] had a different style for managing her staff than I do ... She did not have the same view of how reporting through the chain of command should work." ​

Source: No, Vindman Didn't Violate The Chain Of Command—He Followed WH Lawyer's Orders

By the way, Morrison didn't exactly follow chain of command either. Immediately after hearing the call, Morrison was concerned, and like Vindman, went immediately to NSC lawyer John Eisenberg. Not his immediate supervisor. Should Morrison have been fired, too?

Source:

Except for the part about not following the chain of command. Look up what the chain of command is in the military.

Why would I look up chain of command in the military? I get that it's related but Morrison wasn't actually in the military, he was a senior WH adviser on the NSC. Also, he did the same thing Vindman did and made the NSC lawyer aware, out of concern, before going to his direct supervisor. How do you know that on the NSC, talking to anyone but your direct supervisor is a big "procedural" no-no? Is this "procedure" and its consequences written somewhere? None of the facts seem to support that assumption. Even Morrison, who admittedly wasn't happy that Vindman didn't come to him first, was much more measured than you have been. To suggest this makes Vindman a leaker or violating "procedure" in a way that can only be remedied by firing him, is absurd.

I was talking about the fantasy in your head you have a need to bring up when your arguments fall flat. You are making a giant assumption that I am repeating Trump rather than forming my own view which is similar to Trump's.

It is similar to Trump's in that it lacks evidence or a plausible justification.

 

[Shad]

Irrelevant. Kelly did not say Vindman was given an illegal order. He said Vindman overheard something tantamount to an illegal order, namely, Trump asking Zelensky to investigate the Bidens, which should not be followed and should be escalated. To wit:

When Vindman heard the president tell Zelensky he wanted to see the Biden family investigated, that was tantamount to hearing “an illegal order,” Kelly said. “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.’”​

That isn't an order as Zelenshy isn't under the authority of POTUS. Try again and read your own quote.

Are you suggesting that what Vindman overheard on the July call should not have been escalated? Nonsense. I don't even think many Trump Party Senators agree with that.

The did it the wrong way in my view.

Morrison didn't characterize it as a violation of some procedure that should get someone fired, or leaking, like you have.

Doesn't matter as it is still grounds for dismissal.

I don't take anyone's word I just note it's your word against theirs. Yawn.

Wrong. It took you how many post to get around to addressing my point?

I am glad you gave up on the WB "procedures" you were fixated on and have shifted to the hearing, which is more relevant.

WB procedures are relevant since there is a WB that gained information they did not have.

The above is your opinion. It lacks evidence. Again: Kelly, Hill, Vindman, Eisenberg have a different take and it's your word vs. theirs, at best.

Wrong as per the hearing and Morrison.

He had been his boss for a week. I'm not ignoring his words - pretty sure I quoted them earlier. You haven't yet. Why is that?

As I referenced the Hearing itself. There is no need to quote anything when the source is available.

I addressed this above.

And failed.

Your refusal / inability to respond to the points about Eisenberg and Morrison are noted, and quite telling. Moving on ...

I responded with answers you didn't want to hear. That does not mean I am refusing anything. Try again.

On p93, they asked Morrison if Vindman did not report something to him, would that be a violation of the chain of command. Morrison demurred, saying it would be "an unfortunate habit he picked up from his prior boss".

Ergo a yes.

[ And that was not about the July call it was about if Vindman received inbounds from Ukrainian officials. Try again son.

Irrelevant as it shows there is a chain of command present.

Right. That's a far cry from saying he's a leaker or should be fired for violating chain of command.

Again still grounds for being fired. Try again.

Now you are saying Vindman didn't just violate "procedure", he actually violated a law?

No. If you bothered to read the source the source is establishing the chain of command. The law is setting that chain of command as a legal system vs an illegal system. Try again son

Which part of the Goldwater-Nichols Act did Vindman violate?

Fantasy in your head. I never said the Act was a criminal law. Try again son.

Why did the top legal counsel of the NSC, John Eisenberg, allow and encourage violating a law?

Fantasy in your head.

Right. But that doesn't sound like he's saying Vindman is a leaker or violated a strict procedure.

He is the leaker still. Vindman is the direct source of information about the transcript getting out.

Is Vindman only allowed to talk to a single person in the course of his duties - ever?

Strawman.

Eisenberg, Vindman, and Hill seem to think otherwise.

Opinion

Who is right?

Doesn't matter as they do not call the shots.

I don't know how the NSC works, but you seem to know. I'm asking for your evidence.

The Act you didn't bother reading. Try again son.

Non-sequitur. One could also conclude that Morrison was overly rigid.

Wrong as per the Act.

Even Morrison characterized this as a difference of styles and views, not Hill being lax or serious procedural violations being committed To wit:

“My predecessor [Fiona Hill] had a different style for managing her staff than I do ... She did not have the same view of how reporting through the chain of command should work." ​

Ergo the Act Ilinked.​

Source: No, Vindman Didn't Violate The Chain Of Command—He Followed WH Lawyer's Orders

NSC laws are not superiors to Vindman.

By the way, Morrison didn't exactly follow chain of command either. Immediately after hearing the call, Morrison was concerned, and like Vindman, went immediately to NSC lawyer John Eisenberg. Not his immediate supervisor. Should Morrison have been fired, too?

That was due to the server. Watch the hearing again.

Source:

You didn't watch this did you? Vindman isn't even mentioned. Try again.

Why would I look up chain of command in the military?

Vindman is in the military....... His first name its Lieutenant nor is his middle name Colonel

I get that it's related but Morrison wasn't actually in the military, he was a senior WH adviser on the NSC.

Doesn't matter Vindman is still under military law as part of the military. The military is answerable to civilian authorities and power delegated from POTUS.

Also, he did the same thing Vindman did and made the NSC lawyer aware, out of concern, before going to his direct supervisor.

He was the deputy assistant. That is his job.

How do you know that on the NSC, talking to anyone but your direct supervisor is a big "procedural" no-no?

As Vindman is in the military and the military

10 U.S. Code § 892 - Art. 92. Failure to obey order or regulation

None of the facts seem to support that assumption. Even Morrison, who admittedly wasn't happy that Vindman didn't come to him first, was much more measured than you have been.

As he wasn't asked if he would have transfered Vindman.

To suggest this makes Vindman a leaker or violating "procedure" in a way that can only be remedied by firing him, is absurd.

Wrong

It is similar to Trump's in that it lacks evidence or a plausible justification.

Wrong. Beside POTUS does not even need justification. It is not required by any law.[/quote]

 

[Shad]

You are the one making a claim, namely that Vindman "leaked" and didn't follow "procedure", and that was the justification for his firing.

He wasn't fire he was relieved of duty and transferred. You do not even know the basic systems you are talking about....

I'm saying you are parroting the President's unevidenced smears against Vindman. Until you provide evidence, the president's smears remain unevidenced, and you continue to parrot them.

Open the search function, place my user name and look up my posts. Try the keyword Hearing. My view never changed and was posted months ago. You made the claim with no evidence. I rejected your claim. Now make an effort son.

You posted the WB procedure which means Vindman didn't have WB protection ... therefore ... ?

He can be relieved of duty.

He wasn't filing a WB report, so him not following that procedure is irrelevant.

Ergo he was not concerned as he claimed. Instead he talked to people no one can identity who became the WB. That is a point of judgement against Vindman. After all he was told to talk to no one but did anyways. He also never told his superiors, another point against him. So Vindman will listen to advice when the person involved is X person, his boss but not random person with no identification.

Are you suggesting that every conversation a government official has about a sensitive matter is is either (1) an official WB complaint or (2) a "leak"? What nonsense.

Strawman. This wasn't water cooler talk.

I don't know what this means. Are you saying if someone was need-to-know about the July call, then they would have been briefed on that call?

Yes. That's what need to know means. Keyword is "need. Get a dictionary if you need help.

I thought the point was Vindman heard something unexpected that came up on the call, ergo, he shared these concerns with people who had clearance and need to know.

The point is the assertion of clearance of an individual without evidence.

Are you now suggesting that there are only two possible forms of communication: (1) "a briefing" and (2) "leaking"? Nonsense.

Strawman

Vindman said everyone he told about the July call had clearance and need to know. Are you claiming he lied under oath?

Yup.

If so, what is your evidence, other than your opinion and the Liar-in-Chief's tweet?

As the person in question was not briefed as per need to know access as Vindman claims.

Incorrect. As I've said several times: you are parroting the president's unevidenced smears.

Assertion without evidence while whining about lack of evidence. Hilarious. Now son do you have the ability to accept that two people can come to similar view without one copying the other? Do you think that is possible?

I am not saying that I know for certain Vindman did not leak. (I can't prove a negative.)

Yet you treat it as fact.

I only know that according to his testimony and the facts we have, there is no evidence he in fact leaked.

Again the "need" part of "need to know access" and an unknown person no one will identify.

If you have evidence he gave information to someone who didn't have clearance or need to know, go ahead and provide it. You haven't yet. I'm waiting.

As need to know access means the person would be briefed thus require no action by Vindman.

You're saying he should be fired for following a Congressional rule, when testifying before Congress?

He was relieved of duty for this choice. I think this specific choice was a poor one.

This makes zero sense. If Trump is firing him, and Trump needs to know who Vindman told, why doesn't Trump ask him? Such nonsense.

It isn't worth it as Vindman would refuse to answer.

Irrelevant to following Congress' rule as I already explained. Let me know if you missed it.

Congress rules are not laws.

See above.

Congress rules are not laws. Do you understand how the legislative process works in the US?

A choice to obey Congress' rules while testifying before Congress.

Congress rules are not laws.

In what universe can that be interpreted as "leaking" or "not following procedure"?

As Vindman is the sole source of the whole scandal as per him admitting it in the hearing.....

Irrelevant. How does following a rule - law or not - make him a "leaker" or someone who didn't follow "procedure"? (Which "procedure"?)

There is WB procedure. Vindman didn't pick that option. He didn't report to his superiors of his concerns, that is procedure as well. He is the sole source of the transcript information. That makes him the leaker.

He didn't know the WB but thought identifying that person was likely to lead to outing the WB. That was the rule. He followed it.

That rule isn't a law.

Where? Quote him please.

Is Vindman the source of the transcript getting out or not? Figure it out.

So when Vindman testified everyone he told had need to know, you are saying he lied? Please be clear.

Yup.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That isn't an order as Zelenshy isn't under the authority of POTUS. Try again and read your own quote.

First, I note that you have no response to the fact that, contrary to what you said, Kelly didn’t claim Vindman was given an illegal order. So you were wrong about that (talk about not reading the quote). Second: read what I wrote again. Kelly was saying it was tantamount to an illegal order, not that it was an illegal order. Look up the word tantamount in the dictionary and try again.

The did it the wrong way in my view.

What would have been the right way?

Doesn't matter as it is still grounds for dismissal.

I note that you do not deny what I said, which is telling. I said that Morrison’s testimony did not characterize what Vindman did as leaking, or violating some procedure in a way that ought to get someone fired. This does matter, because I am saying you lack evidence / support for characterizing it that way. You have cited Morrison’s testimony as evidence, but it isn’t - by your own tacit admission.

What you are missing is, when you say Vindman ought to be fired for not going to Morrison first, that is your opinion. I am skeptical of your opinion as it lacks support. Now, I have never worked on the NSC - perhaps you have - but I have to rely on evidence and the words of people who have experience in this. And so far I have not seen you demonstrate that there is any hard-and-fast rule you can point to, which Vindman broke, that would make the decision to fire him less arbitrary and subjective. Even Morrison (who was unhappy with Vindman not going to him first) was far more generous in describing Vindman’s actions than you have been. Why does that matter? Because again, there’s nothing in his answers (at least nothing you’ve pointed to) that sound like he’s saying Vindman crossed a bright red line, which should definitely get him removed .... in fact, NONE of the testimony or public comment from people who have served on the NSC - at least none cited so far - support that interpretation. So we are left with the opinion of ... Shad, a guy on the internet, who says Vindman leaked and violated procedure, without evidence. Morrison, Vindman, Hill, Eisenberg etc. all work on the NSC and expressed different opinions ... it’s your word vs. theirs.

Wrong. It took you how many post to get around to addressing my point?

WB procedures are relevant since there is a WB that gained information they did not have.

Wrong as per the hearing and Morrison.

As I referenced the Hearing itself. There is no need to quote anything when the source is available.

And failed.

I responded with answers you didn't want to hear. That does not mean I am refusing anything. Try again.

Ergo a yes.

Irrelevant as it shows there is a chain of command present.

Again still grounds for being fired. Try again.

Nonsense and repetition not worth responding to.

No. If you bothered to read the source the source is establishing the chain of command. The law is setting that chain of command as a legal system vs an illegal system. Try again son

Ok. Therefore ...? I don’t follow how this law prevents someone on the NSC from discussing matters in the course of their duties with the top NSC lawyer, or with a CIA official. Maybe you can connect the dots since you seem to be familiar with how things work on the NSC. I am just going by what people who work on the NSC said under sworn testimony and I am reluctant to take your word for it to the contrary.

He is the leaker still. Vindman is the direct source of information about the transcript getting out.

For the record, Trump is the source of the transcript getting out - he released it. But I think I know what you meant. Vindman may well be the conduit of the information the WB received - I don’t deny that. What I object to is you calling that a “leak”, i.e., that Vindman lied under oath when he said this person had clearance and needed to know. Because you have no evidence Vindman lied about that - still, after all these posts. If Vindman was telling the truth, and that person he spoke to subsequently became the WB, that does not retroactively make Vindman’s action inappropriate or a “leak”. It’s not Vindman’s fault that person became a WB and similarly not Vindman’s fault he can’t help ID the WB.

Strawman.

Opinion

Doesn't matter as they do not call the shots.



The Act you didn't bother reading. Try again son.



Wrong as per the Act.

Ergo the Act Ilinked.​

Non-arguments and repetition not worth responding to.

NSC laws are not superiors to Vindman.

Did you mean to say, the NSC top lawyer is not Vindman’s direct supervisor? This article says Eisenberg is in fact above Vindman in the chain of command. But maybe I’m misunderstanding what you meant by “superiors”. Source: No, Vindman Didn't Violate The Chain Of Command—He Followed WH Lawyer's Orders

That was due to the server. Watch the hearing again.

You didn't watch this did you? Vindman isn't even mentioned. Try again.

Huh? I said that Morrison did the same thing Vindman did: went to NSC counsel John Eisenberg immediately after the July call, to express concern about the alarming things overheard on that call. Morrison didn’t go to his direct supervisor first, either (it’s not Eisenberg). The video is Morrison testifying about this. There’s no reason to mention Vindman because I was noting Morrison’s actions. Given this, my question stands: should Morrison have been fired (or removed) too?

Vindman is in the military....... His first name its Lieutenant nor is his middle name Colonel

Uh huh. I’m still a little confused why you are asking me to look up the military chain of command and citing Vindman’s Lt. Col. rank. Maybe this will help: what rank is above Lt. Col. in the military chain of command? And what was Morrison’s rank? (Hint: he’s not a Colonel). I thought things were a bit more complicated on the NSC in terms who who is allowed to talk to whom ... but I have to defer to people who have served, like Fiona Hill and Tim Morrison. Their views on this are not as rigid as yours (even Morrison’s).

That would explain why people who have served on the NSC - including Morrison, Vindman, Hill and Eisenberg - do not take the same issue that you do with Vindman not going to his direct supervisor first. You seem to have a different view - as I said so far it’s your word vs. theirs.

Doesn't matter Vindman is still under military law as part of the military. The military is answerable to civilian authorities and power delegated from POTUS.

But it does matter. If John Eisenberg tells Vindman to do something, is Vindman answerable to that?

He was the deputy assistant. That is his job.

But Morrison didn’t go to his direct supervisor, he went immediately to John Eisenberg - just as Vindman did. Was that wrong of him? I thought you said Eisenberg didn’t have “need to know” because if he did, he would have been on the call, or he would have been briefed. Why then did Morrison tell someone who didn’t have “need to know” - does that make Morrison’s conversation with Eisenberg a “leak”?

Wrong. Beside POTUS does not even need justification. It is not required by any law.

Oh I totally agree he didn’t need a justification. But he did give a justification - in the form of unevidenced smears.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

He wasn't fire he was relieved of duty and transferred. You do not even know the basic systems you are talking about....

Open the search function, place my user name and look up my posts. Try the keyword Hearing. My view never changed and was posted months ago. You made the claim with no evidence. I rejected your claim. Now make an effort son.

He can be relieved of duty.

Ergo he was not concerned as he claimed. Instead he talked to people no one can identity who became the WB. That is a point of judgement against Vindman. After all he was told to talk to no one but did anyways. He also never told his superiors, another point against him. So Vindman will listen to advice when the person involved is X person, his boss but not random person with no identification.

Strawman. This wasn't water cooler talk.

Yes. That's what need to know means. Keyword is "need. Get a dictionary if you need help.

The point is the assertion of clearance of an individual without evidence.

Strawman

Yup.

Lots of nonsense and repetition not worth responding to here, but the last part is important. You agree that you are claiming Vindman lied under oath when he said he only told people about the July call who had appropriate clearance and need-to-know. This is the heart of our disagreement. I am asking you for evidence of this and you still haven’t provided it.

As the person in question was not briefed as per need to know access as Vindman claims.

How do you know they weren’t “briefed” and why couldn’t Vindman be the one to “brief” them? Was John Eisenberg “briefed” before Tim Morrison told him about the July call? If not, does that mean Eisenberg didn’t have need to know and Tim Morrison’s conversation with him constituted a “leak”? Please explain how this works in detail.

Assertion without evidence while whining about lack of evidence. Hilarious. Now son do you have the ability to accept that two people can come to similar view without one copying the other? Do you think that is possible?

Yet you treat it as fact.

Again the "need" part of "need to know access" and an unknown person no one will identify.

Repetitive / nonsense not worth responding to.

As need to know access means the person would be briefed thus require no action by Vindman.

Vindman was on the July call. Why can’t he be the one to brief people? If a guy on the call can’t brief those who need to know, then who does, and how did they get briefed? Help me out here.

He was relieved of duty for this choice. I think this specific choice was a poor one.

Interesting, you are saying Vindman was relieved of duty for choosing to not help identify the WB. We agree. I would call that retaliation. Trump said (and you at one point) he was relieved for being a leaker ... which, without evidence, I suspect was another of his lies.

It isn't worth it as Vindman would refuse to answer.

Congress rules are not laws.

Congress rules are not laws. Do you understand how the legislative process works in the US?

Congress rules are not laws.

As Vindman is the sole source of the whole scandal as per him admitting it in the hearing.....

Not much worth responding to here except the last part. When you say Vindman “is the sole source of the whole scandal”, that is very telling, and another point where we disagree. Donald Trump’s actions are the sole source of the whole scandal. Vindman is simply a big reason it came to light - as it should have. For that we should be thanking him, not smearing him.

There is WB procedure. Vindman didn't pick that option. He didn't report to his superiors of his concerns, that is procedure as well. He is the sole source of the transcript information. That makes him the leaker.

He did report to his superiors - namely John Eisenberg, who was superior to Vindman. However, to your point, he didn’t report it to his direct supervisor.- because Eisenberg told him not to. Why do you keep obfuscating on this? Secondly just to be clear Trump is the one who released the transcript - but I think I know what you meant to say, which is Vindman is the likely conduit by which the WB heard secondhand information about the July call. That only makes Vindman a “leaker” if the person he told didn’t have clearance or need to know .... which you haven’t provided any evidence for. Calling him a leaker is just a smear, until then.

 

[Shad]

Lots of nonsense and repetition not worth responding to here, but the last part is important. You agree that you are claiming Vindman lied under oath when he said he only told people about the July call who had appropriate clearance and need-to-know. This is the heart of our disagreement. I am asking you for evidence of this and you still haven’t provided it.

Vindman wont talk and I know what need to know access means. Next!

How do you know they weren’t “briefed” and why couldn’t Vindman be the one to “brief” them?

As Vindman didn't brief anyone as that would be part of his duties.

Was John Eisenberg “briefed” before Tim Morrison told him about the July call?

Morrison talked about the transcripts server location as there were miscommunication between staff.

If not, does that mean Eisenberg didn’t have need to know and Tim Morrison’s conversation with him constituted a “leak”? Please explain how this works in detail.

Again you have no item what need to know is. Morrison was clearing up a miscommunication problem not briefs.

Repetitive / nonsense not worth responding to.

Wrong. You just have no counter.

Vindman was on the July call. Why can’t he be the one to brief people?

As being briefed means being told information one does not have. Being present at the call means he has first hand knowledge that does not require a briefing. Words have meaning son. Get a dictionary

If a guy on the call can’t brief those who need to know, then who does, and how did they get briefed? Help me out here.

It wasn't part of his duties.

Interesting, you are saying Vindman was relieved of duty for choosing to not help identify the WB. We agree. I would call that retaliation.

Nope. He was removed for poor judgement, bypassing the chain of command, conduct unbecoming of an officer.

Trump said (and you at one point) he was relieved for being a leaker ... which, without evidence, I suspect was another of his lies.

Vindman is the source of the transcript getting to the WB.

Not much worth responding to here except the last part. When you say Vindman “is the sole source of the whole scandal”, that is very telling, and another point where we disagree.

I was talking about the transcript as the starting point.

Donald Trump’s actions are the sole source of the whole scandal.

Opinion

Vindman is simply a big reason it came to light - as it should have. For that we should be thanking him, not smearing him.

Projecting your opinion.

He did report to his superiors - namely John Eisenberg, who was superior to Vindman.

Eisenberg isn't his superior.

However, to your point, he didn’t report it to his direct supervisor.- because Eisenberg told him not to.

Eisenberg isn't his superior. Morrison was.

Why do you keep obfuscating on this?

You mean not agree with your point of view. Nothing more.

Secondly just to be clear Trump is the one who released the transcript - but I think I know what you meant to say, which is Vindman is the likely conduit by which the WB heard secondhand information about the July call. That only makes Vindman a “leaker” if the person he told didn’t have clearance or need to know .... which you haven’t provided any evidence for. Calling him a leaker is just a smear, until then.

No it is accurate.

 

[Shad]

First, I note that you have no response to the fact that, contrary to what you said, Kelly didn’t claim Vindman was given an illegal order. So you were wrong about that (talk about not reading the quote). Second: read what I wrote again. Kelly was saying it was tantamount to an illegal order, not that it was an illegal order. Look up the word tantamount in the dictionary and try again.

Kelly is conflating issues and equivocating based on his opinion. Nothing more.

What would have been the right way?

WB procedure.

I note that you do not deny what I said, which is telling.

Fantasy in your head. Morrison is not the end all be all of the chain of command.

I said that Morrison’s testimony did not characterize what Vindman did as leaking, or violating some procedure in a way that ought to get someone fired.

Morrison said he had different ideas of the chain of command which an interpretation of procedure which exists. Hill was slack.

[quote[This does matter, because I am saying you lack evidence / support for characterizing it that way. You have cited Morrison’s testimony as evidence, but it isn’t - by your own tacit admission. [/quote]

You just disagree, nothing more. Morrison was clear that Vindman's conduct was not following the chain of command

What you are missing is, when you say Vindman ought to be fired for not going to Morrison first, that is your opinion.

You can not fire people in the military like you can fire people in civilian life. He was relived of duty. He is still an Lt. Col in the military

I am skeptical of your opinion as it lacks support.

I am really sure you are skeptical instead of holding a conclusion you made a long time ago. /s

Now, I have never worked on the NSC - perhaps you have - but I have to rely on evidence and the words of people who have experience in this.

Which is accepting arguments from authority.

And so far I have not seen you demonstrate that there is any hard-and-fast rule you can point to, which Vindman broke, that would make the decision to fire him less arbitrary and subjective.

Chain of command which I already provided.

Even Morrison (who was unhappy with Vindman not going to him first) was far more generous in describing Vindman’s actions than you have been.

Unfortunate habit? Habit not procedure. See the difference?

Why does that matter? Because again, there’s nothing in his answers (at least nothing you’ve pointed to) that sound like he’s saying Vindman crossed a bright red line, which should definitely get him removed ....

See above.

in fact, NONE of the testimony or public comment from people who have served on the NSC - at least none cited so far - support that interpretation.

So?

So we are left with the opinion of ... Shad, a guy on the internet, who says Vindman leaked and violated procedure, without evidence. Morrison, Vindman, Hill, Eisenberg etc. all work on the NSC and expressed different opinions ... it’s your word vs. theirs.

Morrison pointed out Vindman's habits and reports of poor judgement.

Ok. Therefore ...? I don’t follow how this law prevents someone on the NSC from discussing matters in the course of their duties with the top NSC lawyer, or with a CIA official. Maybe you can connect the dots since you seem to be familiar with how things work on the NSC. I am just going by what people who work on the NSC said under sworn testimony and I am reluctant to take your word for it to the contrary.

It is the law reforming the chain of command. Do you see NSC lawyers at the top of any of those lists?

For the record, Trump is the source of the transcript getting out - he released it.

He released it after info was leaked to the press.

But I think I know what you meant. Vindman may well be the conduit of the information the WB received - I don’t deny that. What I object to is you calling that a “leak”, i.e., that Vindman lied under oath when he said this person had clearance and needed to know. Because you have no evidence Vindman lied about that - still, after all these posts. If Vindman was telling the truth, and that person he spoke to subsequently became the WB, that does not retroactively make Vindman’s action inappropriate or a “leak”. It’s not Vindman’s fault that person became a WB and similarly not Vindman’s fault he can’t help ID the WB.

He is the source of the information.

Did you mean to say, the NSC top lawyer is not Vindman’s direct supervisor?

Yes that what the chain of command is.

This article says Eisenberg is in fact above Vindman in the chain of command. But maybe I’m misunderstanding what you meant by “superiors”. Source: No, Vindman Didn't Violate The Chain Of Command—He Followed WH Lawyer's Orders

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/...hain-of-command-he-followed-wh-lawyers-orders

Again you have no idea what the chain of command. To bypass the chain of command one require one to suspect their superior officer is involved. Morrison talked with Vindman while pointing out Vindman didn't say anything about concerns. More so Morrison was available.

Huh? I said that Morrison did the same thing Vindman did: went to NSC counsel John Eisenberg immediately after the July call, to express concern about the alarming things overheard on that call.

Yawn

WATCH: Impeachment Hearing with Kurt Volker and Tim Morrison

Morrison didn’t go to his direct supervisor first, either (it’s not Eisenberg).

Morrison is the deputy... It is part of his job to handle such issues then raise those to his superiors if unresolved.

The video is Morrison testifying about this. There’s no reason to mention Vindman because I was noting Morrison’s actions. Given this, my question stands: should Morrison have been fired (or removed) too?

He was talking about Sondland's, mostly, opinion not Vindman.

Uh huh. I’m still a little confused why you are asking me to look up the military chain of command and citing Vindman’s Lt. Col. rank. Maybe this will help: what rank is above Lt. Col. in the military chain of command?

The rank means little without a duty assignment.

His rank means something as it means he is in the military thus is burdened a higher standard of conduct than a civilian.

And what was Morrison’s rank? (Hint: he’s not a Colonel).

The military answers to civilian authorities namely POTUS. Morrison is his superior.

I thought things were a bit more complicated on the NSC in terms who who is allowed to talk to whom ... but I have to defer to people who have served, like Fiona Hill and Tim Morrison. Their views on this are not as rigid as yours (even Morrison’s).

Morrison pointed out Vindman view of procedure and poor judgement.

That would explain why people who have served on the NSC - including Morrison, Vindman, Hill and Eisenberg - do not take the same issue that you do with Vindman not going to his direct supervisor first.

Morrison brought the issue up. Eisenberg never testified.

You seem to have a different view - as I said so far it’s your word vs. theirs.

No it's my arguments versus your argument from authority.

But it does matter. If John Eisenberg tells Vindman to do something, is Vindman answerable to that?

Eisenberg isn't his superior. Eisenberg is an advisor thus has no authority to order Vindman to do anything.

But Morrison didn’t go to his direct supervisor, he went immediately to John Eisenberg - just as Vindman did.

No he talked to the lawyers about Sondland and a server issue. Morrision is the deputy as well. Vindman is a bureaucrat

Was that wrong of him?

The method used was.

I thought you said Eisenberg didn’t have “need to know” because if he did, he would have been on the call, or he would have been briefed.

No that was about the unknown individual.

Oh I totally agree he didn’t need a justification. But he did give a justification - in the form of unevidenced smears.

Nope. Vindman is the leaker. Vindman's opinion of the call started it. Vindman wanted to change the transcript wording to fit his views not what was said via injection of "demand" exposed in the hearing. A Lt. Col wants to tamper with a transcript. Think about that.