late wrote:The UCMJ requires a soldier to report problems. The problem has to meet certain criteria, and be reported to the relevant authority.
All of which Vindman did.
The CIA is not the relevant authority by any stretch of the imagination.
late wrote:It's why a few dozen Republicans have resigned, or lost their election. It's also why they will continue to lose. They can't be trusted.
Who? And that's a problem, because???
Atlantis wrote:Since you don't have anything to refute the facts, you, like @Hindsite, use character assassination tactics to discredit the witness. Vindman's only sin is to be the only person of integrity in a group of chronic liars. The GOP witnesses Morrison and Volker had to change their testimony because they lied before. But instead of telling the truth now, they lied again.
Testing the character of the witness is common in legal proceedings. Vindman doesn't come out completely clean in this. He has a history of bashing the United States, and also has curried enough favor with Ukraine to have received no less than three offers of the Ministry of Defense position--which sounds like he's more of an advocate for Ukraine than for the United States.
Atlantis wrote:After years on the Ukraine desk, Volker pretended not to understand that investigating Burisma meant investigating Biden.
It doesn't limit the scope of an investigation to Biden, and Biden is not off limits to any investigation either way.
Atlantis wrote:Morrison still couldn't explain why the transcript was hidden on a top secrete server, except to say that he wanted to prevent a public investigation into the issue.
Trump raised the security level on the transcripts because someone--whom everyone now believes to be Eric Ciaramella--kept leaking them to the press.
Atlantis wrote:Even though they were called to defend Trump, both implicated Trump by agreeing that to ask for an investigation of Biden was wrong,
They are foreign desk guys, not prosecutors. If Biden violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, asking for an investigation is absolutely appropriate. Their personal or legal opinions are immaterial.
Atlantis wrote:yet Morrison couldn't explain why he didn't think anything was wrong when Trump shredded his Ukraine policy
Morrison doesn't formulate foreign policy. Trump does.
Atlantis wrote:There is a mountain of evidence from numerous witnesses which all prove that Trump tried to extort dirt on Biden from a foreign leader, and all you can do is an unsubstantiated and mean-spirited attack on the only witness with integrity.
If they had any evidence of criminal wrongdoing, Ukraine had an obligation under treaty to provide it to the Department of Justice. "Dirt" isn't a meaningful term. Reasonable cause to believe wrongdoing might have occurred, and the evidence substantiating it is relevant.
Atlantis wrote:Whistle-blowers are guaranteed anonymity.
No they are not. They cannot be fired if their complaint complies with the whistleblower statute--which this one does not. It also appears that there was some machinations that changed the requirements on the IC's whistleblower form to deviate from the statute, which requires first hand knowledge rather than hearsay.
Atlantis wrote:Without that wrongdoing would not be reported. There is no need to know the name of the whistle-blower because most of what he said has been confirmed by the witnesses. The only purpose of making it public is to intimidate, which is a criminal offense.
Wrong doing gets reported without anonymity all the time. The reason they are trying to hide Ciaramella on the official transcript is that he can be identified as being in receipt of classified information he was not authorized to receive. Vindman was not authorized to share the information with Ciaramella, and Ciaramella was not authorized to receive it. In criminal cases, the Sixth Amendment grants all criminal defendants the right to confront their accuser. So if the House wants to impeach and refer the matter to the Senate, the Senate has already said that they will proceed under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which means the case is DOA.
Atlantis wrote:@Finfinder, @Hindsite, @BigSteve, @blackjack21 and other always Trumpers, do you think Sondland's reputation needs to be smeared? If you do, you should say so before today's hearing. If you base your character assassination campaign on whether he lies for Trump or not, you'll undermine your credibility.
I don't think any of it is relevant, because there is no criminal activity identified. The whole thing is a monumentally soporific time waster. The big buzz this morning is that Sondland will testify to a quid-pro-quo that Trump conditioned a meeting with Zelensky on whether or not he agreed to investigate Biden. That doesn't involve any financial activity whatsoever, so again there is no crime. I think a lot of talking heads think "quid pro quo" means something bad. It doesn't. If you go to a convenience store, get a coke out of the refer and give them $2 bucks for the coke, you have just engaged in a quid pro quo.
Atlantis wrote:@Finfinder, a non-president can't be impeached.
Wrong. All civil officers can be impeached. As a non-American, you sure are opinionated about American constitutional law.
Finfinder wrote:Nothing makes the liberals run and spin more than facts.
Or the desire to acquire more of other people's money. CBS has already pulled wall-to-wall coverage, because housewives prefer soap operas with some drama to the dead bore of the impeachment hearings.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden