You reap what you sow

[Midnightrider]

First of all, you need to calm down. You're letting my opinion get way too under your skin.

Okay, outside of your opinion that is could have been someone else, how about some proof that it was someone else. Why is it that I am "obtuse" for having an opinion that the WB is the person Vindman leaked the called to, yet your opinion is more informed. I have already admitted that neither of us know. I am simply connecting dots. The only thing I am certain of is, the WB is higher up in Vindman's chain, if Vindman is the source.

SHOW ME THE CRIME!

First of all, Vindman didn’t leak the call to anyone. He told people in his CoC. That’s the opposite of leaking.
Second, your opinion is that the WB ‘could only be one of vindmans higherups’. That is an assertion that ignores the FACT that there were numerous other people on the call so the WB may not be in vindmans CoC.

Third, it’s obvious you have realized your obtuseness by your addition of ‘if Vindman is the source’.

 

[PsyOps]

First of all, Vindman didn’t leak the call to anyone. He told people in his CoC. That’s the opposite of leaking.
Second, your opinion is that the WB ‘could only be one of vindmans higherups’. That is an assertion that ignores the FACT that there were numerous other people on the call so the WB may not be in vindmans CoC.

Third, it’s obvious you have realized your obtuseness by your addition of ‘if Vindman is the source’.

You are not paying attention. Vindman admits he was on the call. The WB claims he/she got their info from someone on the call. Vindman has decided to testify. Connect the dots: it's a good possibility that Vindman is the source of the WB. If this is true, the WB is higher up than Vindman in the chain. Period. That is it. My opinion. I could be wrong about this, and frankly don't care if I am. I am just stating my opinion. Given neither of us know who the source of the WB, we can only rely on what we believe might have happened.

In any event, my more central point is, not one bit of this has stated a crime that occurred on this call. So...

SHOW ME THE CRIME!

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

Take this for what it's worth. A Twitter thread by one of Vindman's former Army supervisors....

I will only add that it rings true with my long-distance assessment of Vindman (based on my experience in the same Army career field and environments). Granted, "ringing true" and the anecdote from a former boss aren't necessarily damning.... Hence why I started with "take it for what it's worth."

--- End of line (MCP)

I loved going to Grafenwoher. Got to play with all the cool new toys and let loose with the, then, current ones. Hey practice makes perfect, right?

 

[Yooper]

I loved going to Grafenwoher. Got to play with all the cool new toys and let loose with the, then, current ones. Hey practice makes perfect, right?

I loved the three we went to: Baumholder, Hohenfels, & Grafenwoehr. Graf was my favorite, though; as you mentioned, a GREAT place to let loose with the big guns (mine was the M60A3 TTS you see to the left). There's nothing like night gunnery with a thermal sight! Had an opportunity to get stationed there, but the unit I was with in Germany wouldn't give me an early release).

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[Midnightrider]

You are not paying attention. Vindman admits he was on the call. The WB claims he/she got their info from someone on the call. Vindman has decided to testify. Connect the dots: it's a good possibility that Vindman is the source of the WB. If this is true, the WB is higher up than Vindman in the chain. Period. That is it. My opinion. I could be wrong about this, and frankly don't care if I am. I am just stating my opinion. Given neither of us know who the source of the WB, we can only rely on what we believe might have happened.

In any event, my more central point is, not one bit of this has stated a crime that occurred on this call. So...

SHOW ME THE CRIME!

He was called to testify. He didn’t volunteer. We have no idea what is relationship to the WB is.

as I said before, the WB could be someone in his chain of command. However, and this is a big however, there are lots of other possibilities. It sure sounds like there were numerous people who had issue with the call and the actions of the admin surrounding it.

the crime, which has been explained to you numerous times, is soliciting dirt on his main political rivals from a foreign government.

 

[PsyOps]

He was called to testify. He didn’t volunteer. We have no idea what is relationship to the WB is.

as I said before, the WB could be someone in his chain of command. However, and this is a big however, there are lots of other possibilities. It sure sounds like there were numerous people who had issue with the call and the actions of the admin surrounding it.

the crime, which has been explained to you numerous times, is soliciting dirt on his main political rivals from a foreign government.

We have no idea what his relationship to the WB is = you don't know = guess = your opinion
WB could be someone in his chain of command = you don't know = guess = your opinion
there are lots of other possibilities = you don't know = guess = your opinion
It sure sounds like = you don't know = guess = your opinion

 

[Midnightrider]

We have no idea what his relationship to the WB is = you don't know = guess = your opinion
WB could be someone in his chain of command = you don't know = guess = your opinion
there are lots of other possibilities = you don't know = guess = your opinion
It sure sounds like = you don't know = guess = your opinion

JFC

congrats, you got me to admit that there are lots of possibilities. That’s been my point from the beginning. It is in stark contrast to your assumption that discounts all but one possibility.

Then we can only conclude that the WB was someone higher up from him.

 

[PsyOps]

JFC

congrats, you got me to admit that there are lots of possibilities. That’s been my point from the beginning. It is in stark contrast to your assumption that discounts all but one possibility.

I've never denied those possibilities. What I have done is connect the dots that makes it look like Vindman was the source of the WB. You seem to deny that to be a possibility with your "logical fallacy" charge against my opinion. My conclusion, while it could be wrong, it rooted in logic. What are you going to have to say if I turn out to be right?

 

[Midnightrider]

I've never denied those possibilities. What I have done is connect the dots that makes it look like Vindman was the source of the WB. You seem to deny that to be a possibility with your "logical fallacy" charge against my opinion. My conclusion, while it could be wrong, it rooted in logic. What are you going to have to say if I turn out to be right?

You denied them by insisting that the WB must be one of vindmans higher ups.

And now you are just trying to prove that you don’t read my posts before responding. That’s what I that in the first place.

 

[Gilligan]

Phew...4 pages..this must be a Buttrider tread?

 

[Midnightrider]

Phew...4 pages..this must be a Buttrider tread?

Go away derpy, pretend you are ignoring someone else

 

[PsyOps]

You denied them by insisting that the WB must be one of vindmans higher ups.

And now you are just trying to prove that you don’t read my posts before responding. That’s what I that in the first place.

Pretty incoherent post. Thall shalt not post when under the influence.

The bottom line is, Vindman has all of the appearances, to me, that he is the source of the WB. I'm leaving it at that.

 

[Midnightrider]

Pretty incoherent post. Thall shalt not post when under the influence.

The bottom line is, Vindman has all of the appearances, to me, that he is the source of the WB. I'm leaving it at that.

And that is a lot different than ‘could only be one of Vindmans higher ups’

 

[PsyOps]

And that is a lot different than ‘could only be one of Vindmans higher ups’

No it's not. I've already pointed out that you stated that military funnel complaints within the chain of command. I pointed out that this is true, but complaints only go up; so the WB would have to be the source's superior in some capacity. If Vindman is the source, the WB is his superior in some capacity.

 

[Midnightrider]

No it's not. I've already pointed out that you stated that military funnel complaints within the chain of command. I pointed out that this is true, but complaints only go up; so the WB would have to be the source's superior in some capacity. If Vindman is the source, the WB is his superior in some capacity.

Bwhahahaha
that if completely changes your statement.

 

[itsbob]

The short answer, chain of command. He reported his concerns to the appropriate authority within his chain of command.

Actually, no, no he didn't.

Schiff is NOT in his chain of Command.. nor is anyone else in the House.

All I have to say about the guy.. he's the fattest infantryman I ever met, and I've met a few... thousand.

 

[Midnightrider]

Actually, no, no he didn't.

Schiff is NOT in his chain of Command.. nor is anyone else in the House.

All I have to say about the guy.. he's the fattest infantryman I ever met, and I've met a few... thousand.

You aren’t very good at reading if you think Vindman went to schiff with his concerns

 

[Yooper]

I say this, because regarding intel folks, I've rarely met a group of people with a higher percentage of ignoble service and self-serving behavior.*

* I wish I could be more specific, but as I'm sure you're aware there are classification issues involved.

Well, while I can't be too much more specific I can add this:


Where the tweet talks about "secret spy network" this is directly what I was referring to (from direct, first-hand knowledge) when I mentioned "ignoble and self-serving behavior."

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[Yooper]

I've never denied those possibilities. What I have done is connect the dots that makes it look like Vindman was the source of the WB. You seem to deny that to be a possibility with your "logical fallacy" charge against my opinion. My conclusion, while it could be wrong, it rooted in logic. What are you going to have to say if I turn out to be right?

Looks like you just may be correct....

...if you think Vindman went to schiff with his concerns

Maybe so. But the probably is very high that Vindman did speak directly to the "WB":

In these transcripts, we see Jim Jordan pressing Vindman on who outside of the chain of command he talked to about the call. Then we see Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell jump in and stop him from answering. But it’s what they say when they stop Vindman that gives the entire thing away.

[Swalwell] “Mr. Chairman, I want to object that the question calls to reveal the whistleblower, and if there’s no other — (interruption)

Then Schiff says this to follow up.

[Schiff] “Mr. Jordan, the minority may not care about protecting the whistleblower, but we in the majority do.”

The problem is that Jordan never asked about the whistle-blower. This means that both Schiff and Swalwell accidentally confirmed here that Vindman is indeed the source for the ICIG complaint. In short, if Vindman answering the question about who he talked to would give up the whistle-blower’s identity, that means Vindman was the source.

emphasis in the original

Alexander Vindman's Testimony Appears to Confirm He Illegally Leaked to the Whistle-Blower

www.redstate.com

As I noted in a different thread*, feel free to dump on the web site and the various authors mentioned, but if the transcript is what's important..., well.

*

Transcript Shows Vindman, Schiff Repeatedly Obstructed Questions About Classified Leaks

As Sean Davis points out, Vindman’s attorney was clearly trying to stop him from answering two key questions: Did Vindman deliberately work to undermine President Trump’s foreign policy? Did Vindman have any conversations about Trump’s classified phone call outside the chain of command...

forums.somd.com

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[BOP]

I've never denied those possibilities. What I have done is connect the dots that makes it look like Vindman was the source of the WB. You seem to deny that to be a possibility with your "logical fallacy" charge against my opinion. My conclusion, while it could be wrong, it rooted in logic. What are you going to have to say if I turn out to be right?

He'll pretend you never said it, of course.