House to vote on impeachment

[ReelinRod]

We can call this the Reo Speedwagon fauxpeachment . . .

Heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend you've been messin' around . . .

Did anyone else see in the Vindman transcript where Rep. Ratcliffe walked Vindman into an Article 92 along with an Article 88 violation (pgs 158-161)?

Ratcliffe gets Vindman to stipulate that President Trump is Lt. Col Vindman’s superior and the President alone sets foreign policy.

Vindman testifies that he thought the President was trying to establish an agreement with Zelenskyy that Vindman did not agree with and shortly thereafter Vindman began giving contrary instructions to Ukranian government officials, to ignore said agreement, Vindman admits telling Ukrainian government officials to stay out of these affairs, to not get involved.

Vindman’s lawyer sees where Ratcliffe's questioning is going and flips out.

A military officer working in the White House, at the pleasure of the President and then undermining the President with foreign officials sure sounds like a coup to me. Given the military command's complete silence on Vindman's seditious if not traitorous actions, can we assume the coup has the acknowledgement, approval and support of the military right up to the Joint Chiefs?


.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

We can call this the Reo Speedwagon fauxpeachment . . .

Heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend you've been messin' around . . .

Did anyone else see in the Vindman transcript where Rep. Ratcliffe walked Vindman into an Article 92 along with an Article 88 violation (pgs 158-161)?

Ratcliffe gets Vindman to stipulate that President Trump is Lt. Col Vindman’s superior and the President alone sets foreign policy.

Vindman testifies that he thought the President was trying to establish an agreement with Zelenskyy that Vindman did not agree with and shortly thereafter Vindman began giving contrary instructions to Ukranian government officials, to ignore said agreement, Vindman admits telling Ukrainian government officials to stay out of these affairs, to not get involved.

Vindman’s lawyer sees where Ratcliffe's questioning is going and flips out.

A military officer working in the White House, at the pleasure of the President and then undermining the President with foreign officials sure sounds like a coup to me. Given the military command's complete silence on Vindman's seditious if not traitorous actions, can we assume the coup has the acknowledgement, approval and support of the military right up to the Joint Chiefs?


.

It won’t have Putin’s
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It won’t have Putin’s

And that reply goes directly to the entire "Resistance"mentality. It is your feeling that "it won't have Putin's" support but just like Vindman, you would be unable to articulate an actual legal, factual support for your statement . . . It's all characterizations, sentiments, feelings, all borne out of political agenda.

Ratcliffe repeatedly asked Vindman about how he characterized the call, how he was "concerned" about the call, how he did not think it was "proper" and how those feelings evolved into Vindman's conclusion that the conversation was a "demand". Vindman dissembled and admitted that he didn't "parse his words carefully" and that he's "not an attorney" and that he, "just wrote it the way [he] felt it".

Feelings set this ball rolling and nothing but hearsay has kept it rolling.. . .

Vindman could not describe how the request for assistance was a violation of law or the mutual cooperation treaty between the US and Ukraine that requires Ukraine to assist and cooperate with the US in criminal investigations when asked.

His disagreement was based in feelings . . . as is your poor excuse of a reply above.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

We can call this the Reo Speedwagon fauxpeachment . . .

Heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend you've been messin' around . . .

Did anyone else see in the Vindman transcript where Rep. Ratcliffe walked Vindman into an Article 92 along with an Article 88 violation (pgs 158-161)?

Ratcliffe gets Vindman to stipulate that President Trump is Lt. Col Vindman’s superior and the President alone sets foreign policy.

Vindman testifies that he thought the President was trying to establish an agreement with Zelenskyy that Vindman did not agree with and shortly thereafter Vindman began giving contrary instructions to Ukranian government officials, to ignore said agreement, Vindman admits telling Ukrainian government officials to stay out of these affairs, to not get involved.

Vindman’s lawyer sees where Ratcliffe's questioning is going and flips out.

A military officer working in the White House, at the pleasure of the President and then undermining the President with foreign officials sure sounds like a coup to me. Given the military command's complete silence on Vindman's seditious if not traitorous actions, can we assume the coup has the acknowledgement, approval and support of the military right up to the Joint Chiefs?


.

to use your own words

Haven't you exhausted yourself furiously masturbating these conspiracy theories