ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem

Odd. I googled the **** out of that and did not see it. Certainly you have a link for this, right?

 

Considering how the left has treated Tulsi Gabbard I'd suggest not throwing stones around those glass houses.....

 

I rather like Tulsi Gabbard.

 

Sure, it just requires some thought.

Vindman was opposed to official US foreign policy. Vindman was advising Ukraine.

Vindman doesn't set official US foreign policy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/business/media/fox-news-alexander-vindman.html

Ukrainian officials sought advice from him about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani though they typically communicated in English.”

 

So no link to support your totally fabricated and made up charge, rooted in Trump adoration and besmirching a career military officer?

Hang on, I am putting on my shocked face.

 

So do I. In fact I would have voted for her over Trump any day o the week. Too bad she'll never make it thanks to the smear campaign by Democrats and leftists. Guess that means I'll be voting for Trump again since none of the other contenders are even remotely to my liking as I oppose their socialist agenda's.

 

Yeah other than the one in my post from the NYT. Too right-wing for you?

 

And yet, he's likely coming to an impeachment hearing near you.... check your local listings...

And congrats... your sentence in bold is the funniest thing I've read all day, so you have that going for you....

 

How easily we forget Gabbard endorsed Sanders last time.

 

Shocked face is on!

 

You mean impeachment inquiry to see if the chickens can muster up the courage to take a vote.

 

Did not say what you earlier claimed. Sorry, your point failed.

 

Lol... fun stuff ...

 

It does if you understand English. I mean the NYT assured us that Vindman was usually speaking in English when he was advising Ukraine.

The NYT claims Vindman was advising Ukraine.

I mean you can ignore it if you'd like, which I'm sure you do.

 

I do analogize, but your point stilled failed and is still unsupported. I will repeat it as necessary, and despite the insults.

 

Last time? As in 2016? I supported Bernie then too. Too bad he's gone off the deep end this election cycle. If he had stuck to his guns instead of trying to outdo his political opponents this time around I might have agreed to vote for him this time also. Unfortunately he went off the deep end with all the others. As such he does not get my support this time around.

 

Wild! What positions of his changed?

 

Oh maybe that's the issue.

I'm not seeing how he's any different really.

 

Which words are you struggling with "advised" or "Ukraine"?

 

The third option, which is your statement was unsupported.

 

Sure, if you don't read the NYT. I used as few words as possible to help, but I can't understand it for you.

 

I believe my encasement is correct, namely that you made a claim and you failed to support it.

 

Except I made a claim, linked the NYT article, and highlighted the part where he was advising Ukraine on how to deal with US policy.

I mean other than that, sure. Good job.

 

You mean the presstitutes aren't telling the whole story that implicates vindman in swampy illegalities? I'm SHOCKED!

Find the text of vindman's testimony. Start at about page 157 and start reading about the next 10 pages. You'll notice thru the questioning that vindman told Ukranian officials to ignore the president.

That violates a number of UCMJ Articles.

 

Hey, quote it for me. I mean, I am sure ti exists and all, but I just don't see what it is you folks are talking about. Find the relevant section and post it please.