Alex Vindman’s Impeachment
Testimony Completely
Rested On His Personal Opinions

This guy also has ties to the Ukraine's underworld that we have not thoroughly explored.

If asking a foreign government to investigate a political opponent is against the law, we need to prosecute Queen 'H', Schiffhead, Brennan and most of the top tier of the FBI.

Vindman, you just cooked your own goose, sir. Having sold your soul to the dim political machine, you won't make Colonel now and will be lucky to keep your LTC rank. Just exactly what are your brother's and your current and past activities in Ukraine?

I hope that his service injury wasn’t as serious as Lt. Kerry’s. A splinter in the butt is nothing to laugh about.

And there's the rub: Dems want to make it illegal for anyone to think differently than they do. They're starting at the top. If you think they won't eventually work their way down to you, they'll be happy to change your mind about that some day!

His opinions are of ZERO weight, except perhaps with his family when selecting the dinner menu. His OPINION was never elected to anything, the President was elected to make the kind of excellent choices he has been and was making at the time. Why is this guy not in a court martial for revealing classified information? Insubordination as a minimum, reduction in rank and early retirement, as a minimum sentence.

Exactly. Even if you set aside his sketchiness and his obvious loyalty to Ukraine rather than the United States, the thing that he says happened didn’t. Wasn’t said. It was his take on what was being said that caused him to act on his opinion of what he thought was being said. I wouldn’t trust this weasel as far as I could throw him. He and his brother should be excused from their offices in the military and the White House. Today.

Someone quoted Tim Morrison as saying he had been “warned about Vindman’s judgment”… Have been trying to find it in print.

It is absolutely insane that lower tier people think that they have more knowledge and privilege than the boss. In this case, Trump is Vindman's commander in chief and Vindman has a chain of command that he should follow. If he claimed FACTUAL discrepancies with what has been disclosed publicly, then, under subpoena to an oversight committee he might relay those facts. Vindman had NO additional facts to offer. He should have answered the subpoena with a statement indicating that. If they insisted he come, he should have stated that he agreed with the facts as on the record. If asked for his opinion, he should have said "I give my opinions through my chain of command and it would be disrespectful and insubordinate not to follow it". Comey pulled the same type of garbage and he may be facing criminal charges for it. As long as the Commander in Chief is behaving lawfully, there is NO higher loyalty. The honorable and proper thing to do with a severe disagreement is to resign. But then Vindman would have to turn in his fancy uniform and he wouldn't be able to dress to impress.

#9, the chain of command thing has been deliberately confused to the media and the public. He's hiding behind his civilian clothes and special status. His only chain of command are military members up to the POTUS. He has no civilian "chain of command." Here is what I posted yesterday: Checking with the chain of command on raising his concerns is fishy at best. A service member detailed to a civilian activity has no civilian, none, zip, nada in his chain of command. I have been a uniformed officer working for a civilian, and a civilian with reserve and active duty officers working for me. As a uniformed officer, I cannot be ordered by a civilian, nor as a civilian boss can I legally order around any uniformed service member. At one point as a civilian, I had a three star boss and the same protocol applied. Now, we all worked together as a team and refusal to do work regardless of civilian/military status would result in very negative consequences, but not regulation wise from civilian authority to military or vice versa. I'm curious as to who Vindman thought was his chain of command, and checking with the lawyer doesn't count. Vindman wears the joint staff badge on his uniform. He has a military chain of command out there somewhere. Were they involved? Who did what to whom? IMO he was basically a free agent hiding behind his NSC access and his civilian clothes. Regardless, he messed up big time, because the civilian chain of authority and the military chain of command ends at one guy, and that's the POTUS. The question is, what military members in the chain of command were ever informed or approached on this matter, or as another poster said is the military bureaucracy covering for Vindman?

His concerns were mostly centered on all the people who were starting to look into the corruption cases, many of which were connected to Democrats. He was concerned Ukraine might lose the bipartisan support for military sales. Wonder if Vindman was as concerned with the letter from those 4 Democrat Senators that were essentially threatening the Ukrainians that their support might be in jeopardy if they were to investigate certain issues.

John Lucas' point is well made that Lt. Col. Alex Vindman’s opening state is his opinion. FTA: I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC’s lead counsel.” This was pure supposition on Lt. Col. Alex Vindman’s part. FTA: If he disagrees with the president’s approach and harbors a fear that Ukraine will lose Democrat votes if it investigates the Bidens, Vindman’s proper role is to give his best advice and then shut up. His proper role is not to volunteer to go before a congressional committee and complain about why he disagrees with the president.

Vindman was “concerned” about what he heard the President say. He took his “concerns” to his twin brother, another Lt. Colonel, who is an ethics lawyer for the NSC and is officed across the hall from Vindman’s office. He then took his brother to the head lawyer for the NSC. He had no business blowing the whistle on what he heard his CIC say in a phone call with the president of Ukraine. He should not have disclosed what he heard to his brother. Now the brother may be called as a witness as he apparently witnessed the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky call being transferred to a “secret” server. The irony: Leakers like Vindman and his brother, and any others who said they were privy to that phone call, are EXACTLY the reason why the transcript was put where no one could access it without proper authority.