Media Report Trump Fired Alexander Vindman After Testimony, Forced To Make Yet Another Major Correction

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The latest example comes from Talking Points Memo, who reported that the Trump administration was firing Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman after he testified about his concerns over Trump’s July 25 call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. Vindman testified earlier this month that he twice raised concerns about a potential quid pro quo with National Security Counsel attorneys. The first time was after Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, allegedly said in a meeting that the Ukraine needed to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter’s dealings in the country. Hunter Biden had received a lucrative board position on a Ukraine energy company while his father was Vice President. The elder Biden also bragged about getting Ukraine’s top prosecutor fired; that prosecutor was also looking into Hunter’s Ukraine business.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/medi...y-forced-to-make-yet-another-major-correction
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
If one has ANY understanding of how "this" all works (rather than listening to the blathering from pouncing anti-Trumpers) Vindman was NEVER going to remain in the NSC after his testimony (down-sizing or otherwise; though I do believe the down-sizing angle is true). Given that his testimony hinged entirely upon his "concerns" Vindman was "hoist with his own petard" ("called fire upon his own position," in modern parlance) regardless of whether he was correct or not.

My guess is he also won't make Colonel. Yup, some (many?) are going to claim this will be a result of retaliation, but that's not what will be in play. What will be in play is his judgment (as in, he displayed horrible judgment). He testified about a concern (rather than a matter of law/legality), he perhaps violated a legal order to NOT testify, he perhaps leaked classified info (I would be surprised if no 15-6 investigation took place regarding these last two), but MOST OF ALL, he embarrassed the Army. So even if the first three are looked past he won't be forgiven for this last sin.

His OERs (i.e., evaluation/fitness reports) will be copiously filled with high-sounding words and phrases that say nothing. And "nothing" doesn't get you promoted (especially to senior rank in the very small, very competitive field FAOs (foreign area officers) like Vindman operate in).

(I'm sure some (many?) won't believe me, but I can honestly say this would be my take regardless of which party occupied the White House. I can't put it any more simply: Vindman stepped on his crank. Badly. Hope he has friends in high-ering places....)

I admit I could be wrong. Only time will tell.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
If one has ANY understanding of how "this" all works (rather than listening to the blathering from pouncing anti-Trumpers) Vindman was NEVER going to remain in the NSC after his testimony (down-sizing or otherwise; though I do believe the down-sizing angle is true). Given that his testimony hinged entirely upon his "concerns" Vindman was "hoist with his own petard" ("called fire upon his own position," in modern parlance) regardless of whether he was correct or not.

My guess is he also won't make Colonel. Yup, some (many?) are going to claim this will be a result of retaliation, but that's not what will be in play. What will be in play is his judgment (as in, he displayed horrible judgment). He testified about a concern (rather than a matter of law/legality), he perhaps violated a legal order to NOT testify, he perhaps leaked classified info (I would be surprised if no 15-6 investigation took place regarding these last two), but MOST OF ALL, he embarrassed the Army. So even if the first three are looked past he won't be forgiven for this last sin.

His OERs (i.e., evaluation/fitness reports) will be copiously filled with high-sounding words and phrases that say nothing. And "nothing" doesn't get you promoted (especially to senior rank in the very small, very competitive field FAOs (foreign area officers) like Vindman operate in).

(I'm sure some (many?) won't believe me, but I can honestly say this would be my take regardless of which party occupied the White House. I can't put it any more simply: Vindman stepped on his crank. Badly. Hope he has friends in high-ering places....)

I admit I could be wrong. Only time will tell.

--- End of line (MCP)
Between my own time in the military and a full career as a civilian having worked with junior, and senior field-grade officers, as well as putting up with the constant changes in policies coming from the flag and SES levels (aka: their "legacies"), absolutely concur.

One of the cardinal (and lamentable) rules is that your job description is to make your boss look good (there was an article about that very thing a while back, on how pervasive and detrimental that attitude is to the military). The companion to that is if you can't make your boss look good, at least don't make them look bad. Making your boss, and by extension the Service look bad is the unforgivable sin.

Well, that and saying the word "no" to an O-6 and above. The word apparently makes them cry, at least according to their synchophants... er, keepers... er, support staff.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem


Yes, Vindman testified repeatedly that he "thought it was wrong" for Trump, speaking with Zelensky, to bring up the 2016 election and allegations of Ukraine-related corruption on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. But the Vindman transcript also showed a witness whose testimony was filled with opinion, with impressions, who had little new to offer, who withheld important information from the committee, who was steeped in a bureaucracy that has often been hostile to the president, and whose lawyer, presumably with Vindman's approval, expressed unmistakable disdain, verging on contempt, for members of Congress who asked inconvenient questions. In short, Vindman's testimony was not the slam-dunk hit Democrats portrayed it to be. And that raises questions about how it will play when Vindman goes before the world in a public impeachment hearing.


1) Beyond his opinions, he had few new facts to offer. Vindman seemed to be an important fact witness, the first who had actually been on the July 25 call when Trump talked to Zelensky. But the White House weeks ago released the rough transcript of that call, which meant everyone in the secure room in which Vindman testified, and everyone on the planet, for that matter, already knew what had been said.

2) Vindman withheld important information from investigators. Vindman ended his opening statement in the standard way, by saying, "Now, I would be happy to answer your questions." As it turned out, that cooperation did not extend to both parties.

3) There were notable gaps in Vindman's knowledge. Vindman portrayed himself as the man to see on the National Security Council when it came to issues involving Ukraine. "I'm the director for Ukraine," he testified. "I'm responsible for Ukraine. I'm the most knowledgeable. I'm the authority for Ukraine for the National Security Council and the White House." Yet at times there were striking gaps in Vindman's knowledge of the subject matter. He seemed, for instance, distinctly incurious about the corruption issues in Ukraine that touched on Joe and Hunter Biden.

4) Vindman was a creature of a bureaucracy that has often opposed President Trump. In his testimony, Vindman's perspective could be mind-numbingly bureaucratic. One of his favorite words is "interagency," by which he means the National Security Council's role in coordinating policy among the State Department, Defense Department, the Intelligence Community, the Treasury Department, and the White House. His bible is something known as NSPM-4, or National Security Presidential Memorandum 4. He says things such as, "So I hold at my level sub-PCCs, Deputy Assistant Secretary level. PCCs are my boss, senior director with Assistant Secretaries. DCs are with the deputy of the National Security Council with his deputy counterparts within the interagency." He believes the interagency has set a clear U.S. policy toward Ukraine.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
As I stated in another post on Vindman

If I were President, his ass would be out the door.
He didn't just step on his crank he ground his heel into it.
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Maybe it's time for him to rotate out to the field to get recalibrated.
 
Last edited:

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
...if you can't make your boss look good, at least don't make them look bad. Making your boss, and by extension the Service look bad is the unforgivable sin.
Exactly.

...saying the word "no" to an O-6 and above. The word apparently makes them cry....
I didn't cry. Well, not always.... :p

--- End of line (MCP)
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
1) Beyond his opinions, he had few new facts to offer. Vindman seemed to be an important fact witness, the first who had actually been on the July 25 call when Trump talked to Zelensky. But the White House weeks ago released the rough transcript of that call, which meant everyone in the secure room in which Vindman testified, and everyone on the planet, for that matter, already knew what had been said.

2) Vindman withheld important information from investigators. Vindman ended his opening statement in the standard way, by saying, "Now, I would be happy to answer your questions." As it turned out, that cooperation did not extend to both parties.

3) There were notable gaps in Vindman's knowledge. Vindman portrayed himself as the man to see on the National Security Council when it came to issues involving Ukraine. "I'm the director for Ukraine," he testified. "I'm responsible for Ukraine. I'm the most knowledgeable. I'm the authority for Ukraine for the National Security Council and the White House." Yet at times there were striking gaps in Vindman's knowledge of the subject matter. He seemed, for instance, distinctly incurious about the corruption issues in Ukraine that touched on Joe and Hunter Biden.

4) Vindman was a creature of a bureaucracy that has often opposed President Trump. In his testimony, Vindman's perspective could be mind-numbingly bureaucratic. One of his favorite words is "interagency," by which he means the National Security Council's role in coordinating policy among the State Department, Defense Department, the Intelligence Community, the Treasury Department, and the White House. His bible is something known as NSPM-4, or National Security Presidential Memorandum 4. He says things such as, "So I hold at my level sub-PCCs, Deputy Assistant Secretary level. PCCs are my boss, senior director with Assistant Secretaries. DCs are with the deputy of the National Security Council with his deputy counterparts within the interagency." He believes the interagency has set a clear U.S. policy toward Ukraine.
re:
1) Absolutely true.

2) Maybe so. But he certainly was prevented from answering by first, his lawyer and second, Schiff.

3) For a gent that wanted to portray himself as really being wired into the process he came out looking like a rank amateur. Perhaps, better to say, a lieutenant colonel (that's not a pejorative; rather a statement of fact that he wasn't quite as experienced as he thought he was. I know it took me quite some time to gain mastery of that arena).

4) Absolutely. But I would have put most of the article's comments in this bullet up in bullet #3 (above). What I wanted to add here about him being a "creature" has more to do with his statements as someone who had advised/was advising the Ukrainians. Not at all a good look. In fact, it may just be another nail in his career coffin (in addition to the fails I mentioned in post #2 (above). It wouldn't surprise me if someone is wondering whether a CI investigation of his interactions with the Ukrainians is warranted (it would be to me; especially given the fact he's a native-born Ukrainian, there is documentation wrt conversations he's had with Russians, but mostly as a result of the great pains he (and others) went to in portraying him/Vindman as a patriot (as in, "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel").

We'll see. I'm fairly sure, though, of this (USS Vindman):

142577


--- End of line (MCP)
 
Last edited:

nutz

Well-Known Member
His OERs (i.e., evaluation/fitness reports) will be copiously filled with high-sounding words and phrases that say nothing.

--- End of line (MCP)
You dont think Trump will endorse with a glowing review as senior rater? Cant the dems make him? How do we start that rumor.....
 
Last edited:

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
You dont think Trump will endorse with a glowing review as senior rater? Cant the dems make him? How do we start that rumor.....
Hahah!

Yes, it would be interesting to see who his rater and senior rater are. If the SR is a civilian he may do okay in his departure from the NSC report (I'm assuming it's someone in OSD). Once returned to service, however, all bets are off. Speaking of bets, my bet is that he'll find himself assigned to EUCOM or DSCA handling some account or another. Probably not an embassy, though (as I don't think either DIA or an ambassador wants that kind of spotlight). As such, his assignments officer will have an interesting posting to solve. We'll see....

--- End of line (MCP)
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Hahah!

Yes, it would be interesting to see who his rater and senior rater are. If the SR is a civilian he may do okay in his departure from the NSC report (I'm assuming it's someone in OSD). Once returned to service, however, all bets are off. Speaking of bets, my bet is that he'll find himself assigned to EUCOM or DSCA handling some account or another. Probably not an embassy, though (as I don't think either DIA or an ambassador wants that kind of spotlight). As such, his assignments officer will have an interesting posting to solve. We'll see....

--- End of line (MCP)
I'm sure there's some support battalion in Afghanistan that needs a new Lt Col.
 

nutz

Well-Known Member
Hahah!

Yes, it would be interesting to see who his rater and senior rater are. If the SR is a civilian he may do okay in his departure from the NSC report (I'm assuming it's someone in OSD). Once returned to service, however, all bets are off. Speaking of bets, my bet is that he'll find himself assigned to EUCOM or DSCA handling some account or another. Probably not an embassy, though (as I don't think either DIA or an ambassador wants that kind of spotlight). As such, his assignments officer will have an interesting posting to solve. We'll see....

--- End of line (MCP)
One swift blow, “I have lost all confidence in your ability to lead.”
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
One swift blow, “I have lost all confidence in your ability to lead.”
True true. Though in the Army it would be phrased differently (especially since, as a FAO (i.e., staff officer), Vindman doesn't really lead anybody anymore). Probably something simple like, "LTC Vindman's native language abilities are such that the Army should seek out a position where they can be best used." The more direct "loss of confidence" approach would be a hard sell if there weren't numerous counseling statements and memoranda in support of. Easier to slay with vacuous, kind words.... Leaves no room for an eval appeal.

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Top