Vindman invents history to blame Trump for Russian invasion
Over the past five or six years, we have seen those on the left attacking President Trump for about everything he says or does – or does not say or does not do. I have often been a critic of Trump’s personality and some of his policies – but have praised him for the things he did that were beneficial to the country.
The Democrats and their media allies have failed to show any sense of fairness and objectivity. They mounted an unbridled and unprecedented “resistance movement” immediately after his election. They proclaimed their opposition to anyone saying anything that would – using their term – “normalize” Trump. In other words, never, never say anything positive.
They have continued a series of hyperbolic propaganda-style accusations that too often proved to be false – the three-year Russian collaboration claims to be the prime example. You will recall that after a two-year, $35 million investigation, Trump and his campaign were completely exonerated.
I have been more than willing to criticize Trump for his pugnacious personality, his provocative language and his making the presidency a personal issue. I have criticized his Syrian policy, his Afghan policy, his tariffs and his overly friendly language to adversaries. I have called on Trump to stop whining about the 2020 election and look forward with any agenda he may have for a future presidency – although I have not been among those wanting him to run in 2024.
On the other hand, the outrageous and dishonest attacks from his adversaries need to be called out – especially when their cynical purpose is to empower leftwing democrats and the authoritarian leftwing agenda I vehemently oppose.
The effort to demonize Trump has gone to a new low – as seemingly impossible as that may seem. It happened in an interview of Col. Alexander Vindman by MSNBC’s Ali Velshi – two of the premier Trump haters on the left.
You should first recall that Vindman was one of the harshest critics of Trump during the first Impeachment. At the time he was a member of the intelligence community and a critic of Trump’s communications with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy regarding Hunter Biden’s role with the corrupt Burisma Holding Company.
In the Velshi interview, Vindman took his venomous opinion of Trump to hyperbolic outer space. According to Vindman, it was Trump who set the stage for Vladimir Putin’s invasions of Ukraine. It was Trump who is responsible for the horrors we see befalling the people of Ukraine.
How is that even rationally and factually possible? Well, it isn’t. Vindman was offering up a preposterous fanciful narrative – but one that was fully accepted and endorsed by Velshi. No surprise there.
According to Vindman, it goes back to those conversations between Trump and Zelenskyy. The claim was that Trump would not supply military equipment to Ukraine unless the Hunter Biden file was provided. That was Trump’s impeachable sin. (Oddly, when then Vice President Biden threatened to block aid to Ukraine unless Zelenskyy fired the Ukraine prosecutor who was investigating Burisma AND Hunter Biden, the press did not find that even newsworthy.)
In fact, that conversation between Trump and Zelenskyy was ages ago and has nothing … nada … to do with Putin’s dirty little war. Trump never blocked any arms shipments to Ukraine. Those that were alleged to have been held up were actually shipped.
It is also noteworthy that it was Trump who reversed the Obama/Biden policy of only shipping humanitarian aid – no weapons. Trump is reported to have infuriated Putin by reversing that decision. It was Trump who ironically strengthened NATO by brow-beating member nations into fulfilling their funding requirements.
Velshi opened the interview with this leading statement: “What is happening on the other side of the world in Ukraine, a country from which you hail, is directly tied to the attacks on democracy that you witnessed in the White House while you were the director for European affairs at the National Security Council.”
Vindman responded to the Trump/Zelenskyy conversation by saying, “this corrupt scheme was potentially going to embolden Russia, precipitate this kind of confrontation. I couldn’t imagine the scale but something on that order of magnitude.”
That is merely the kind of nonsensical and misleading doubletalk that could only come from an experienced establishment bureaucrat. No matter how you feel about the Trump/Zelenskyy exchange, it had nothing to do with Putin’s decision to invade.
Vindman says it “potentially” was going to “embolden Russia.” Did it or did it not? Vindman says he could not imagine the “scale” of the Putin response but knew it would be something “on that order of magnitude.” That is verbal hash.
Vindman concluded with his claim that “Donald Trump bears the enormous burden of responsibility for that, and for his attack on democracy, for presenting the U.S. as weak and vulnerable for Vladimir Putin to conduct these vile attacks around the world “
That logic is a bridge too far. Vindman is not just spinning, he is literally inventing a false narrative that does not even make sense on the surface. To understand the extreme of Vindman’s fairy tale, you need to know what did motivate Putin’s invasion.
First and foremost was Putin’s maniacal desire to reassemble the old Soviet Union at any cost. But what led him to believe that such an invasion could be successful?
Obviously, Putin did not believe that the west – and especially the United States – had the will or the power to stop him. He saw weaknesses all over the place – and not much to do with Trump.
Vindman said that American weakness enabled Putin to “conduct these vile attacks around the world.” But the previous attacks were not even on Trump’s watch.
Obama did nothing to deter Putin from invading Georgia and Chechnya. He did nothing as Putin took the Crimea away from Ukraine – and established a separatist presence in the Donbass Region.
Putin saw NATO’s dependency on his oil as a weak point – which it was and is. It was Trump who chastised Germany for its dependence on Russian oil and Trump who called for a stop to the second Nord Stream pipeline. Biden reversed that policy and approved the project – only opposing it AFTER the invasion.
Putin had seen Obama’s withdrawal from Syria – leaving the Russian-friendly Bashar al Asaad in charge. And anyone who thinks Biden’s surrender in Afghanistan was not a significant factor in Putin’s thinking is hopelessly non compos mentis.
Vindman is an uncompromised propaganda peddler and a partisan liar. His words appear to be driven by an irrational hatred for Trump. Fortunately, the public sees through such blatant attempts to deceive.
As President Lincoln said, “You cannot fool all the people all the time.” Vindman’ s bullstuff should not fool anyone anytime.
So, There ‘tis.
What a dick
Vineland is a phony political hack and he shows his commie birthright. He was planted here to destroy our country.
No doubt bullied as a child, and I can certainly see why!
Larry, once again you gave me good chuckle. First, yeah I agree Vindman’s claim seems pretty weak, conjecture at best. However, one might see where Vindman has a slight ax to grind. Perhaps his witness intimidation lawsuit against Trump will provide him some satisfaction and you with some clarity of what actually happened there. Personally, I think MSNBC should’ve passed on the story.
As to the rest of your story, I don’t know why you continue to sell after the close. The rest of your article tosses in a lot of bullshit in my book. Of course, what do I know.
But let’s start with your view on Trump. You constantly profess Larry’s “hold your nose“ theory of selecting presidents. Somehow, and you’ve given us quite a good list of what these are, when you put them on the scale of good and evil, you are happy with the result because you think it tips to you on the side of good. I ask you Larry, how much do you need on the scale to be wrong no matter how much good there is? I just never expected conservatives to seed the “values“ side of the scale.
The second point, to say Trump was completely exonerated in the Russia affair seems to indicate that you never read the report because that’s just a bogus answer. Even Mueller said although he could not be proven guilty, that does not mean he’s innocent. All along I use one simple benchmark, over 100 meetings between team Trump and the Russians before the vote, before the election, during the campaign. If they weren’t chumming the waters fishing around for help and you can’t see it, I stand incredulous. Yeah we couldn’t find fire, but there certainly was more than enough smoke for investigation. Hey, the guys made a lifetime of being one slippery devil. Usually only his closest confidents get thrown under the bus and Trump still gets on board, finds some new friends, and yells “grab them by the pussy.“ and moves on. I know, you didn’t like that either but you can get along with it.
Too bad Larry he had a simple little story that I liked. You just shouldn’t of tried to sell after the close By putting 10 pounds of shit in an 8 pound bag.
Frank Stetson. You insist on exposing your ignorance or your are just full of you-know-what. The Mueller Report completely exonerated Trump from any conspiratorial involvement with Russia. in fact, the report said that no American was involved. That was a complete exoneration. It was Democrat who tried to cling on some credibility for their totally dishonest four-year conspiracy theory by saying that Mueller did not say that Trump was not guilty. That is sleepy logic. Playing the false negative gambit. You cannot prove a negative just as I cannot prove that you are not a bank robber or a child molester. Perhaps you are confused with the issue of obstructing justice. In that, Mueller pointed to some instance the COULD be construed as obstructions, but Mueller never said that it was proof. Nor did he make such an accusation in the Report. Rather, he turned it over to his bosses at the Justice Department to make that final decision. After a few review by AG Barr and the Office of Professional Conduct, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to bring an indictment. Now .. you can believe that Barr and the others were wrong, but under our system of law, that ends the case … and in the absence of a guilty verdict, a person is presumed to be innocent. As far as the rest of your incoherent garbage, I will let that to readers to make up their own minds. i just thought this one was sooooo egregious that the facts needed to be presented.
I said “Even Mueller said although he could not be proven guilty, that does not mean he’s innocent,” a point you seem to disagree with. I think we agree that there is no indictable offense, at least on the Russia part, the obstruction part seems to have 10 potential indictable offenses debated by experts on both sides of the aisle. And in between.
On the Russian portion, Mueller stated under oath: “The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.” Nuff said.
Insufficient evidence might be viewed by some as not being a total exoneration. I am one of those people. You are not. I see smoke, lots of it. You see clean and clear air. But I have to ask you, if innocent, why would you obstruct the investigation? I can only gather that extreme paranoia about government jackbooted thugs might be your only defense. But he is president of the United States. Did he really expect to be steamrolled by his own government?
On the obstruction, Mueller was much more certain when the report said “does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him”.. One can see how he has hedged his bet in both cases but is much stronger in the second where more evidence exists for obstruction. However, in neither case would I conclude total exoneration. Especially in light of all the activities of the trump campaign, all the results of the Russian meddling, and the resulting effect on our election.
For me Larry this is over. I believe there was collusion although that is apparently not an indictable or impeachable offence. Mueller definitely did not find any indictable evidence as to conspiracy. More important, the investigation could not turn up any coordination between team Trump and Russia although seemingly not for the lack of trying.
Even though Hillary wasn’t proven guilty, yet, that doesn’t mean that she’s innocent. But I would bet the farm on Hillary’s guilt.
There is a big difference between our personal opinions and getting convicted in a court-of-law. Both sides wants the other side locked up. Outside of those who attacked the Capitol, I doubt we will see any of the major players spend time in jail — with the possible exception of process crimes (contempt of court, lying to FBI, etc.) and then only secondary figures. There could be some indictments surrounding the fake dossier and Hunter Biden’s dealings. — and on the GOP side possibly Bannon. But for the most part, I think both sides are hyperventilating over things like insurrection, etc. Keep in mind that Manafort when to jail for unrelated personal tax and foreign agent crimes. Same with Cohen. Cohen confess to obstruction, but he had to do that to get a lessor sentence on the tax charges and FEC violations. Legal scholars believe Cohen was intimidated to confessing to a crime he did not commit — an example of prosecutorial abuse. They tried to use Cohen to get to Trump, but Trump was not charged in that case, and never will be. You just cannot beat these dead horses back to life.
Frank Stetson .. You seem to be refuting my view by proving my view. In the report and in many statements, Mueller said there was insufficient evidence to establish a conspiracy. Ergo…. innocent. So far, I have insufficient evidence that you are a bank robber or a pedophile, but that does not mean you are not. Is that how you see things? And if Mueller could not find sufficient evidence after two years and $35 million taxpayer dollars — and investigation by folks who were very anti-Trump — I would say that is sufficient evidence that no crime was committed. Innocent until proven guilty .. and Trump and the Trump campaign did not even earn an indictment, much less a conviction. And as far as Mueller’s raising possible and questionable charges of obstructions of justice, he did not make that accusation. And Mueller let the Justice Department decide. No indictment. No conviction. Innocent according to American jurisprudence. You seem to want to win the the dangerous court-of-public-opinion where the rule-of-law and the rules-of-evidence to not apply. Even the impeachments ended in acquittals.
Larry, basically I used the words of Muller or the report. When asked in Congress, during his testimony, under oath, “did the report totally exonerate trump.” Mueller’s simple answer was “no.”
Frank Stetson … you seem to not understand how the system works. If a person is NOT indicted or NOT found guilty, it does not mean that they were exonerated. It means they are not guilty. If you go to court and get your speeding ticket dismissed, it means you are not guilty .. but not exonerated. Mueller in the official report said that no American conspired with the Russian … none. What you are doing is a which hunt mentality. No evidence that Trump campaign conspired with Russia, but he still COULD BE guilty. You are judging guilt like the racist southern Democrats judged blacks. . Evidence is not necessary. Only opinion counts. That is why it is called the court-of-public-opinion. Also “exoneration” generally is something after evidence has been adjudicated or the person was originally found guilty. Mueller say no reason to even charge Trump. That means under our laws … innocent of all accusations. Based on political bias, you may not like that outcome, but your opinion is irrelevant to the case.
I guess what he said, and I quoted, in the report and to Congress is wrong and your impression of what he said was right.
Did I misquote him and the report?
Frank Stetson .. No you did not misquote the Report … or what Mueller said. You just did not understand the meaning … the context … the law … and American jurisprudence … and even the laws of logic (as you cannot prove negatives). Remember, just because you have not been arrest as a bank robber, does not mean you are not one. People say Trump is a crook … grifter … etc. etc. But as far as I know, I do not think he has ever been personally convicted of a crime. Now, I do believe Trump has an obnoxious personality and does bad stuff, but so far no crimes. Yes, the business has lost civil suits .. but nothing criminal. As a New York real estate developer, I would be surprised if Trump had not broken a few laws along the way. I would think that of any major NYC developer. But bottom line, the 2-year $35 million investigation result in no evidence of a prosecutable crime — conspiracy or obstruction. And we know that because Mueller and the DOJ told us that.
Then, right back at you big guy. I think you misunderstood.
You said: “Mueller said there was insufficient evidence to establish a conspiracy. Ergo…. innocent.” but what I reacted to was when you said: “The Mueller Report completely exonerated Trump from any conspiratorial involvement with Russia. in fact, the report said that no American was involved. That was a complete exoneration” and I provided supporting quotes from the report and from Mueller.
It’s more than fair for you to have an opinion, mine is supported by Muller and by the report where is yours is an opinion based on the fact that they were not found guilty, not indicted, due to a lack of evidence and therefore “totally exonerated.” I think both opinions can be had, but only one is supported by Mueller, in testimony, on the record, under penalty of perjury.
As I keep saying, I am more than willing to admit that trump is innocent of all charges, no charges could be proven, there was much collusion that could be proven but no conspiracy, chances are nothing will turn up in the future to change that, but to say he’s totally exonerated it’s just a bridge too far. There’s just far too much smoke here to conclude that IMO. And that’s what I pushed back against. And always will.
“And Mueller let the Justice Department decide. ” FYI trump this was not Mueller making a decision, this was Mueller following the process. Just an FYI.
I have to weigh in on your logic and perhaps misunderstanding of law. Everyone even those we do not like, for what ever reason, are not guilty by innuendo or surmises. When facts do not give absolute proof of wrongdoing..as in the !yelled report, that implies not guilty as per our laws.
As far as Col. Vindman is concerned he is not an innocent here. Having had the liberty to watch the entire impeachment process, ad nausuem, it came out during questioning that Vindman changed the words in his written documentation of the call. That certainly does not come across as non partisan or truthful. There is lots of info through FOIA that delineated out facts from hateful agenda in regards to President Trump. Case in point…Hillary Clinton did orchestrate the dossier against Trump which was made up.
I have no horse in the race here just needed to point out the Mueller report did not prove the guilt nor did it support wrong doing. Words matter and when it is said it “could be” or “might lead on to think” is not proof.
Hopiter … Well said.
How many pounds of shit are stuffed in your clothes? As for holding my nose, just give me the chance to vote for Trump again. I’ll shout it from the mountain tops. And you snowflake pussies can kiss my ass.
You are a bag of shit and an asswipe.
Is that all you got? Third grade insults.
Feel better?
Frank, if they are truly “Third grade insults” then they are most appropriately slung at a third-grader, or less. Have fun in the “Romper Room”.
second grade on this one.
Vindman u are nothing but lying,worthless,weasel, who should of been thrown out of office/miltary,for being a traitor.STFU dirtbag
Once again I agree with Larry on the basic premise of the story and they come out of the woodwork to vent spleen at me for agreeing with Larry.. I will not STFU. I am not a dirt bag. I am a citizen just like you.
Until America ceases this useless division and the Trumpian us and them type mentality where there can only be winners and losers, there cannot be differing views joined together as one nation.
I cannot help it if your life is so miserable that you can only pick yourself up by putting other people down. If you wanted to discuss issues, let’s discuss issues. You can be as robust as you are defending your ideas in a healthy debate. If you want to call names, keep them coming. It’s an anonymous website and I could care less if you wanna act like a child. I may even respond back to you in the same child like manner that you exhibit.
And then you can ask yourself: are you being entertained?
Larry,
If Trump did any good for the nation it was in error or he was told to throw a.bone in the right direction. To do so his handlers assured him that it would placate supporters like you.
Vindman has skin in the game. He was unfairly treated by a graceless autocrat who would have given Vindman a raise in rank had he testified against a Democrat.
Vindman is from Ukraine and he appreciates Ukraine’s position diplomatically and militarily.
Possible he did lean into Trump in a way inconsistent with his usual manner.
Yet calling his actions “a bridge to far” does dis-service to the battle which the phrase was coined.
Calling the left hyperbolic and hypocritical is truly rich coming from you.
With the former President one is either all in or not have a wit of agreement with his politics at all. In Trumps case he has had his opportunity to be weighed in the balances of leadership capacity and he came up lacking strength in all categories.
Simply put, The man knows not the truth, to save the nation he has not a clue. To save his party he lacks both insight and desire .
However, sadly a preponderance of persons in your party seem to be of like mind with you and worse.
Let him go and battle the legal charges he has hanging around his sorry neck.
In appreciation for our nation’s democracy Trump can not even be considered for nomination. His nomination is a bridge to far .
Even so, if he runs a third time he would not receive the majority of the popular vote, legally. He has not had it ever. Winning the job by a technicality was legal, but not by a majority of the people. Four years in office lost him supporters.
But he established the grift account tapping into funds for his legal fees from those he hoodwinked along the way.
So keep on being a lying commie son of a bitch.
Ac. You need to stay on the facts. “A supporter like me?” lol. I have frequently criticized Trump and said that I prefer he not run again in 2024. Unless he is not challenged, I would not be a Trump voter in the GOP primary. Throughout your response, you cast me in some group to which I do not belong. So, you can put your strawman back in the box.
On matters of Ukraine, I have thought Vindman has been spot on. But in seeing that interview, I saw a man imbalanced by his hatred for Trump. His performance was petty and pitiful. And that was the point of my commentary.
Other than that, you response reflected you opinion of Trump. I would only argue that you are not willing to see or consider the good things he did as President. I think the most damaging thing to political discourse was the left’s mounting a resistance movement after Trump got elected … talking impeachment before he was even sworn into office … calling of the people to not “normalize” Trump by saying anything good … by giving credit even where credit is due. If Trump and the GOP was as bad as you seem to think, they would not be winning elections all over the country — with the prospect of returning to power in Washington. I think most people see a different Trump than those blinded by hatred. And I am not talking about his small band of followers, but most Republicans, independents and even a goodly number of Democrats.
Why commie? You don’t even know you fucking worthless Trimpublican sheep. Tou wouldn’t know a commie if he putin it right in front of your face.
Don needs 10k a day, keep those donations coming .
MTG thinks she donated but can’t recall. Can’t recall anything, too kuch acid.
Kevin said he donated, then he didn’t, then he did, check the tapes…
Tell us how you really feel Ben. You worthless Biden ass muncher
Oh good, another third grader heard from on Joe’s bathroom wall. A guy who has nothing to say so he says that. A feckless, flaccid comment, but consider the source. He just can’t get it up to do any better.
I was in shock. Oh thechorror of ot all.
This guy must have been bullied. He’s beyond odd.
“Vindman completed the Infantry Officer Basic Course (IOBC) at Fort Benning in 1999 and was sent the next year to South Korea, where he led both infantry and anti-armor platoons. In addition to overseas assignments to South Korea and Germany, Vindman is a combat veteran of the Iraq War, and he served in Iraq from September 2004 to September 2005.[3] In October 2004,[3] he sustained an injury from a roadside bomb in Iraq, for which he received a Purple Heart. He was promoted to the rank of major in 2008, and to lieutenant colonel in September 2015.
During his Army career, Vindman earned the Ranger Tab, Combat Infantryman Badge, Expert Infantryman Badge, and Parachutist Badge, as well as four Army Commendation Medals and two Defense Meritorious Service Medals.” wiki