On Lt. Colonel Vindaman and Espionage

 

I want to clear up a misconception of my remarks on the Laura Ingraham show last night.  I did not accuse Lt. Col. Vindaman of committing the crime of espionage.

I have tremendous respect for a decorated officer of the U.S. Army and a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  What I was addressing was a report that Ukrainian officials had sought to contact Vindaman for advice on how to handle Rudy Giuliani acting as a presidential envoy.  I meant to say that this sounded like an espionage operation by the Ukrainians.  I think it deliberately misconstrues my words to say that the separate issue of the phone call between the US and Ukrainian president through the chain of command constitutes espionage by Vindaman, or that Vindaman is some kind of double agent.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 50 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    John I love you, but I think that you let Laura Ingraham lead you to make the extremely unfortunate “espionage” statement. Thank you for withdrawing the statement.

    I have very, very sad news. My local McDonalds told me that when they run out of McRibs on hand, that promotion will end. They think that they will run out within a week. A friend suggested that I clean them out and freeze them. I think that that might be going too far.

    Your friend in McRibs,

    Gary

    He didn’t withdraw his statement. He clarified it because people took it the wrong way.

    • #31
  2. Jason Obermeyer Member
    Jason Obermeyer
    @JasonObermeyer

    EHerring (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    John I love you, but I think that you let Laura Ingraham lead you to make the extremely unfortunate “espionage” statement. Thank you for withdrawing the statement.

    I have very, very sad news. My local McDonalds told me that when they run out of McRibs on hand, that promotion will end. They think that they will run out within a week. A friend suggested that I clean them out and freeze them. I think that that might be going too far.

    Your friend in McRibs,

    Gary

    He didn’t withdraw his statement. He clarified it because people took it the wrong way.

    Don’t stop him, he’s on a roll.

    • #32
  3. big spaniel Member
    big spaniel
    @bigspaniel

    DavidIWilliams (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    He should be cashiered and possibly put in the brig.

    Had I been listening to a higher up’s conversation as part of my job and I was asked by Congress my opinion, I would have said, it’s not my job to have an opinion on that. Please go talk with people whose job does include that.

    His testimony is insubordination and conduct unbecoming.

    Except that it actually is his job. That’s why he’s on the National Security Council. It’s his job to have opinions and to state them. The fact that people elected someone too stupid and corrupt to listen to the professionals is an indictment of the voters, not the experts.

    What Lt Col Vindaman did is dialogue with his interlocutors.  Which is exactly what he is supposed to do.  What the Ukrainian side did by asking isn’t espionage, it is what they are supposed to do — gather information to help them make an informed decision.  This is why we — and they — send diplomats overseas.  This is why we do not conduct diplomacy by fax, as Ross Perot wanted us to do.  

    The only thing more astounding that the ignorance of Vindaman’s critics is the vitrol of their criticism.  They are demonstrating a Trumpian-level lack of knowledge or perspective.

    • #33
  4. big spaniel Member
    big spaniel
    @bigspaniel

    Jason Obermeyer (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    The Lt. Col. also stated he was motivated by not wanting Ukraine to lose bipartisan support in the Congress. Think about that. Is he there to advocate for Ukraine? Or work for the United States?

    There is a possibly apocryphal story of a new State Department official coming in with a new administration calling a meeting. He asked various diplomats which country they represented. They answered with whatever country they were posted to. He corrected them, saying “No, you represent the United States of America.”

    Diplomats going native is probably as old as diplomacy.

    This is a George Schultz story.  Each new class of incoming Foreign Service officers is told this story.  The phenomenon is called “going native.”  It exists, but in a benign way.  You recognize the importance of the country you are working in, and work to strengthen the relationship.  It doesn’t mean you ignore their flaws.

    Several former Ambassadors to Ukraine have remained quite active in U.S. – Ukrainian relations, not just Amb. Taylor.  They all understand and appreciate the importance of supporting a strong and independent Ukraine and the country’s potential.  In this, they are extending the service they offered as Ambassadors.

     

     

    • #34
  5. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    big spaniel (View Comment):
    The only thing more astounding that the ignorance of Vindaman’s critics is the vitrol of their criticism.

    Examples please.

    • #35
  6. Jason Obermeyer Member
    Jason Obermeyer
    @JasonObermeyer

    big spaniel (View Comment):

    DavidIWilliams (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    He should be cashiered and possibly put in the brig.

    Had I been listening to a higher up’s conversation as part of my job and I was asked by Congress my opinion, I would have said, it’s not my job to have an opinion on that. Please go talk with people whose job does include that.

    His testimony is insubordination and conduct unbecoming.

    Except that it actually is his job. That’s why he’s on the National Security Council. It’s his job to have opinions and to state them. The fact that people elected someone too stupid and corrupt to listen to the professionals is an indictment of the voters, not the experts.

    What Lt Col Vindaman did is dialogue with his interlocutors. Which is exactly what he is supposed to do. What the Ukrainian side did by asking isn’t espionage, it is what they are supposed to do — gather information to help them make an informed decision. This is why we — and they — send diplomats overseas. This is why we do not conduct diplomacy by fax, as Ross Perot wanted us to do.

    The only thing more astounding that the ignorance of Vindaman’s critics is the vitrol of their criticism. They are demonstrating a Trumpian-level lack of knowledge or perspective.

    Without commenting on this exact situation, what you dismiss a “lack of knowledge or perspective” is at times actually an explicit rejection of the way things are done. People are rejecting the federal employee and officer’s own sense of their place in the Constitutional order. Generally, they are either (1.) correct to do so, or (2.) incorrect, but it isn’t the place of an unelected official to contravene their indirectly expressed will. 

    • #36
  7. Jason Obermeyer Member
    Jason Obermeyer
    @JasonObermeyer

    big spaniel (View Comment):

    Jason Obermeyer (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    The Lt. Col. also stated he was motivated by not wanting Ukraine to lose bipartisan support in the Congress. Think about that. Is he there to advocate for Ukraine? Or work for the United States?

    There is a possibly apocryphal story of a new State Department official coming in with a new administration calling a meeting. He asked various diplomats which country they represented. They answered with whatever country they were posted to. He corrected them, saying “No, you represent the United States of America.”

    Diplomats going native is probably as old as diplomacy.

    This is a George Schultz story. Each new class of incoming Foreign Service officers is told this story. The phenomenon is called “going native.” It exists, but in a benign way. You recognize the importance of the country you are working in, and work to strengthen the relationship. It doesn’t mean you ignore their flaws.

    Several former Ambassadors to Ukraine have remained quite active in U.S. – Ukrainian relations, not just Amb. Taylor. They all understand and appreciate the importance of supporting a strong and independent Ukraine and the country’s potential. In this, they are extending the service they offered as Ambassadors.

     

     

    And if it – for legitimate reasons or not – becomes the policy of the executive branch to treat Ukraine as hostile, do they get to use their position to frustrate that determination? Do they have constitutional prerogatives independent from the head of the executive branch? If so, what is the source of that authority? 

    • #37
  8. Samuel Block Support
    Samuel Block
    @SamuelBlock

    DavidIWilliams (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    He should be cashiered and possibly put in the brig.

    Had I been listening to a higher up’s conversation as part of my job and I was asked by Congress my opinion, I would have said, it’s not my job to have an opinion on that. Please go talk with people whose job does include that.

    His testimony is insubordination and conduct unbecoming.

    Except that it actually is his job. That’s why he’s on the National Security Council. It’s his job to have opinions and to state them. The fact that people elected someone too stupid and corrupt to listen to the professionals is an indictment of the voters, not the experts.

    But you could forgive voters for being more wary of experts these days, no?

    It was an expert who told little Jimmy down the road that his testicles are entirely consistent with his newfound identification as a woman. Other experts deemed a global, capitalist utopia to be a feasible future and did their best to convince voters to send Janie (formerly little Jimmy) to Iraq. I’d guess that Greta Thunberg and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez have received direction from a plethora of experts too.

    We’ve also seen an abundance of self-important civil servants whose personal sense of honor and expertise have dictated that they disregard every other protocol in order to remove the President that they believe has done so much damage to this country. These people are not trusted because they have also done profound damage to this country – and continue to do so with their own inappropriate stunts. They’ve shown remarkable resilience in the face of criticism and manage to avoid the consequences of their calamities. Whether this applies to Vindman, I can’t say, but a pattern has emerged, and its a mistake to expect anything other than skepticism from the people who don’t share the hatred of this president that many have deemed to be the litmus test of rational, thinking beings.

    • #38
  9. big spaniel Member
    big spaniel
    @bigspaniel

    Jason Obermeyer (View Comment):

    big spaniel (View Comment):

    Jason Obermeyer (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    The Lt. Col. also stated he was motivated by not wanting Ukraine to lose bipartisan support in the Congress. Think about that. Is he there to advocate for Ukraine? Or work for the United States?

    There is a possibly apocryphal story of a new State Department official coming in with a new administration calling a meeting. He asked various diplomats which country they represented. They answered with whatever country they were posted to. He corrected them, saying “No, you represent the United States of America.”

    Diplomats going native is probably as old as diplomacy.

    This is a George Schultz story. Each new class of incoming Foreign Service officers is told this story. The phenomenon is called “going native.” It exists, but in a benign way. You recognize the importance of the country you are working in, and work to strengthen the relationship. It doesn’t mean you ignore their flaws.

    Several former Ambassadors to Ukraine have remained quite active in U.S. – Ukrainian relations, not just Amb. Taylor. They all understand and appreciate the importance of supporting a strong and independent Ukraine and the country’s potential. In this, they are extending the service they offered as Ambassadors.

     

     

    And if it – for legitimate reasons or not – becomes the policy of the executive branch to treat Ukraine as hostile, do they get to use their position to frustrate that determination? Do they have constitutional prerogatives independent from the head of the executive branch? If so, what is the source of that authority?

    As far as I can determine, the policy of the United States government remains to support Ukraine, both in its efforts towards reform and its efforts to resist Russian aggression.  I hope that the United States never becomes hostile towards Ukraine.  That would be totally against our own interests.  If there has been a change in this policy, perhaps it is only in Trump’s own mind.  He has not shared this change with anybody. 

    If there is to be a change, there would be a process where the question is deliberated, and a wide range of interests would be considered.  (This is why the clearance process in the State Department is so agonizingly slow, but necessary.)  Not telling the people that are in change of implementing a policy that is is changing is incompetent management.

    This is the problem of sending special envoys, friends and the like:  if you don’t coordinate the policy with everybody else, if you don’t share information, than you have two sides working at cross-purposes.  Again, this is incompetent management.

    The whole reason we have a foreign affairs bureaucracy is to make better decisions based on a wide range of viewpoints and interests.  That’s why we staff Embassies, collect and analyze intelligence.  It is perfectly fine to have your own viewpoint, but you need to go through the process to make sure it’s a good idea.  Trump clearly rejects this.

    Trump seems to have some kind of antipathy against Ukraine, for reasons I do not understand.  I think he has an extremely limited and stereotypical view of the country.  There’s only one idea that fits in his mind, and he runs with in.  In reality, the situation is much, much more complex.

    In is in our interest to support Ukraine, a country with geo-strategic important and great potential.  Ambassador Taylor eluded to this point eloquently in the close of his written remarks to the House committee.  The current Ukrainian regime was forged in the fires of the Maidan revolution, which reflected the truths that our own country was founded upon, liberty, rule of law and consent of the governed.  Ukrainians in a very real way fought for these things, and are fighting for them now.  Trump does not seem to understand this, or perhaps he doesn’t care.  

    • #39
  10. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Skyler (View Comment):

    He should be cashiered and possibly put in the brig.

    Had I been listening to a higher up’s conversation as part of my job and I was asked by Congress my opinion, I would have said, it’s not my job to have an opinion on that. Please go talk with people whose job does include that.

    His testimony is insubordination and conduct unbecoming.

    Sky,

    This is absolutely the correct answer. I don’t know what Democratic operative got to him and filled his head full of cr@p but he is completely off base with his behavior. If every Lt.Col. felt free to do this we wouldn’t have a country left. As always the Democrats are looking for a short term political kill at the expense of the long term health of the country.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #40
  11. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    DavidIWilliams (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    He should be cashiered and possibly put in the brig.

    Had I been listening to a higher up’s conversation as part of my job and I was asked by Congress my opinion, I would have said, it’s not my job to have an opinion on that. Please go talk with people whose job does include that.

    His testimony is insubordination and conduct unbecoming.

    Except that it actually is his job. That’s why he’s on the National Security Council. It’s his job to have opinions and to state them. The fact that people elected someone too stupid and corrupt to listen to the professionals is an indictment of the voters, not the experts.

    But what I heard that came first when he expressed his opinion was his concerns with the effects on Ukraine and the damage that might be done to the balanced, bipartisan  US treatment accorded Ukraine and then he went on to express his concerns of negative effect on US national security. Isn’t that backwards and is his work on the NSC to take care of Ukraine?

    • #41
  12. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Jason Obermeyer (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    John I love you, but I think that you let Laura Ingraham lead you to make the extremely unfortunate “espionage” statement. Thank you for withdrawing the statement.

    I have very, very sad news. My local McDonalds told me that when they run out of McRibs on hand, that promotion will end. They think that they will run out within a week. A friend suggested that I clean them out and freeze them. I think that that might be going too far.

    Your friend in McRibs,

    Gary

    He didn’t withdraw his statement. He clarified it because people took it the wrong way.

    Don’t stop him, he’s on a roll.

    No, the McRib’s are on Hogie Buns.  I had two today, and got two more to talk home for tonight.  The end is coming!  

    The McRib Locator lets me know which McDonalds continue to have McRibs.  https://mcriblocator.com/find.html  Sadly, there are no McRib’s in the southern 90% of New Mexico and the western 25% of Texas, or in all of Colorado.  What an incredible tragedy!

    • #42
  13. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    EJHill (View Comment):

    The Lt. Col. also stated he was motivated by not wanting Ukraine to lose bipartisan support in the Congress. Think about that. Is he there to advocate for Ukraine? Or work for the United States?

    I would not want to have testified to this and then be cross-examined on your point. And the quote I saw had the effect on Ukraine expressed before any consideration of US national security. If that is accurate, it just astounds me that the people we have working in these roles don’t seem to be able to project the effects of their words when publicized. They’ll tear this guy up.

    • #43
  14. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):
    I heard that came first when he expressed his opinion was his concerns with the effects on Ukraine and the damage that might be done to the balanced, bipartisan US treatment accorded Ukraine

    Because investigating Ukrainian companies that employ the offspring of US politicians will cause those same politicians to withhold aid to Ukraine.

    Thus every company in Ukraine should seek to employ the offspring of US politicians and thereby attain immunity from investigation.

    • #44
  15. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    The whistleblower has been outed. He is a loyal Democrat who worked for Biden and Brennan on Ukraine (didn’t report any of the malfeasance he saw then) and was one of their spies in the White House. He was reassigned last year because he was one of the leakers. The person who outed him said he was involved with investigating Trump from the start and that he met with Schiff’s staffer, the one they hired out of the White House. He disagreed with Trump’s policy towards Ukraine and went outside the chain. I have heard others say this is witness tampering, a felony. Perhaps Barr should pull a Mueller and squeeze him for info.

    This looks more like an operation to protect Dems and Biden.

    evidently, in the secret hearings, a Republicans have been angering Schiff by asking witnesses if they know or talked to him causing Schiff to blow his top. He will redact the name from the transcripts. Why? Everyone knows who he is.

    We know a Schiff staffer went out of his way on a Ukraine trip to meet with folks. We need to know if he met with Vindman, coached him, or got his name from others while there. There is a reason Schiff called on him, and I can’t think of one good one.

    That the Republicans are on to this and have been inserting what they know into the process might indicate a pushback has started. I expect things to be interesting tomorrow.

    Also, in the RCP article, the Atlantic group that DC high rollers and Soros are tied to came up. Hmmm.

    • #45
  16. Jason Obermeyer Member
    Jason Obermeyer
    @JasonObermeyer

    big spaniel (View Comment):

    Jason Obermeyer (View Comment):

    big spaniel (View Comment):

    Jason Obermeyer (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    The Lt. Col. also stated he was motivated by not wanting Ukraine to lose bipartisan support in the Congress. Think about that. Is he there to advocate for Ukraine? Or work for the United States?

    There is a possibly apocryphal story of a new State Department official coming in with a new administration calling a meeting. He asked various diplomats which country they represented. They answered with whatever country they were posted to. He corrected them, saying “No, you represent the United States of America.”

    Diplomats going native is probably as old as diplomacy.

    This is a George Schultz story. Each new class of incoming Foreign Service officers is told this story. The phenomenon is called “going native.” It exists, but in a benign way. You recognize the importance of the country you are working in, and work to strengthen the relationship. It doesn’t mean you ignore their flaws.

    Several former Ambassadors to Ukraine have remained quite active in U.S. – Ukrainian relations, not just Amb. Taylor. They all understand and appreciate the importance of supporting a strong and independent Ukraine and the country’s potential. In this, they are extending the service they offered as Ambassadors.

     

     

    And if it – for legitimate reasons or not – becomes the policy of the executive branch to treat Ukraine as hostile, do they get to use their position to frustrate that determination? Do they have constitutional prerogatives independent from the head of the executive branch? If so, what is the source of that authority?

     

    The whole reason we have a foreign affairs bureaucracy is to make better decisions based on a wide range of viewpoints and interests. That’s why we staff Embassies, collect and analyze intelligence. It is perfectly fine to have your own viewpoint, but you need to go through the process to make sure it’s a good idea. Trump clearly rejects this.

    It’s like the point of Tom Massie’s tweet came to life:

    • #46
  17. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    Starting to see twitter comments from people who knew Vindman in the military. I won’t repeat them because it is twitter. However, one thing Schiff didn’t count on was Retired military people coming forward. 

    • #47
  18. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Heads up: John Yoo is a guest on this week’s Ricochet Podcast. Guess what we (mostly) talked to him about?

    • #48
  19. Samuel Block Support
    Samuel Block
    @SamuelBlock

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Heads up: John Yoo is a guest on this week’s Ricochet Podcast. Guess what we (mostly) talked to him about?

    McRibs. I guess McRibs.

    • #49
  20. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Samuel Block (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Heads up: John Yoo is a guest on this week’s Ricochet Podcast. Guess what we (mostly) talked to him about?

    McRibs. I guess McRibs.

    They were mentioned (by law, we have to do that).

    • #50
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.