Then "the reason" is given - people kept telling him he needed to speak up (be sure to ignore other possible reasons)./3
It too starts out with almost 2 1/2 pages of self promotion and his history, worded like an attorney would do for the star witness in a trial. (be sure to swoon now)/4
He finishes it off with a "my commitment to our government's strategic interest" (have to shine that halo of a reason again for his "going against")./5
He then goes on to talk about how in the spring of 2019 "outsiders" were creating a "false narrative" that conflicted with "their views" on Ukraine. (How dare anyone have concerns or disagree!!)/6
Big point - Vindman states "As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said."
He just said it was accurate, no missing pieces, and a transcript (not notes)./11
It is all about HIS OPINION and feelings. (hence all the effort to puff up, give those opinions weight, make em unassailable)/12
This is where he "realized" that if Ukraine investigated Biden/Burisma "it would likely be interpreted as partisan."
Note he doesn't say he thinks it actually is partisan.../14
"This would all undermine U.S. national security."
Let that sink in a second./16
Oh, here's the link to the opening statement in full.
He was queried about that comment though and he didn't handle it well.
If it was not, then we "ALL" could NOT be "aware of what was said." /B2
IF we "ALL are aware of what was said" due to the transcript "in the public record" then there can NOT be missing words.
If there are missing words, we couldn't all be aware of what was said.
Vindman lied again - either in his written testimony or verbal testimony. /B4
POTUS had tweeted the "tape", as had 1000s of others. Zelensky said "the company." So what.
It's as if Vindman is trying to create an issue. Why?/B6
Uh,huh. Multiple people AND transcription software ALL missed the same thing. Also missed in the review process.
We're suppose to believe the crap? 🙄/B7
WTHH is he doing attempting to alter a record? Who does he think he is?
Multiple people AND software were wrong - "I, Vindman, was the only one right."🤨/B8
The same issue that was why @POTUS had the NSC looking into the post election landscape there before committing aid to prevent fraud & waste./B13
Those things separate us from Russia and China and Venezuela and DO matter.
- Biden threatened to cut it off
- Menendez threatened to cut it off
- Murphy threatened to cut if off
Rand said if President he would have told Ukraine "No aid, we would have to borrow it."
The latter part is a discussion of the #Ukraine ambassador having American citizens spied on. Regardless of whining to Congress - she SHOULD have been fired.
Remember HRC said, "If...we're all going to hang." Might be one of her few true statements.
Similar information was put out by Solomon in March as well.
Of course, in the President's mind Ukrainian corruption is synonymous with Burisma, Biden, and the DNC./c6
In my mind, it brings up the question of, "Did Vindman put it into the April talking points to instigate the narrative?"
A 2nd is with his "Absolutely not", is this another lie under oath?/c7
It was definitely at the forefront of Vindman's thoughts./c8
- Went straight to the lawyer
- Whining 😿 about it being an extremely busy week with long dayS (note: plural as in multiple days)
<as if that is a reason to not report up the chain of command>
"I attempted to try to communicate..uh...I...I...I..."
<oops, wrong narrative - back track>
"I meant to speak to 2 folks in the interagency"
<meant? There's his supreme 'interagency' crap>
"I attempted to talk to" boss.
<Then he sits up like that's my story and I'm sticking to it>
<Side note - the wording of "not talk to anybody else"- so he could talk to those he already had...?>
- You not only didn't go to your boss, but went to the lawyer and he told you not to go to your boss?
Vindman fumbles again...
"No, he didn't tell me until...uh, uh, uh..."
<desperately tries to figure out an answer that fits>
...but he admits he had time to talk to the lawyer and at least 2 other people.
Then it was the lawyer told him not to talk to his boss...
...but wait, that doesn't sound right since talking to 2 others, so let me try again.
"What ended up unfolding is..."
- Talked to attorney
- I did my "core function" of "coordination" (talked to 2 others)
- "spoke to appropriate people in THE interagency"
- "and then circling back around" the lawyer said shut up.
Remember - dayS.
Vindman trips..."Yes....but...there's a whole, there's a period of time in there. Between" 1st contact and circle back around.
"wasn't that long a period"
JJ cuts him off.
"Enough time to talk to someone you won't tell us who it is."
Vindman, "I was instructed not to" say who it is.
<but he doesn't know who the WB is supposedly - but he can't say the name...uh, huh>
But - NOT his boss.
Talk about an inconsistent, changing, fishy story...but then we know he lied in his previous testimony too.
Vindman falls back and says, "I did my job." <for who?>
JJ again replays Vindman's own previous testimony back and emphasizes bypassing his boss.
Vindman replies with his circle back around story.
JJ - "So that's when it happened." (WB)
Just opinions, gossip, and a bad belief the he and the "interagency" rule foreign policy and also are tasked with deciding what are appropriate Presidential acts. FNN
Damn - that earlier clip of testimony falls further and further apart.