Amazing, trump's white house is attacking a decorated military officer and current National Security Council staff member while he is testifying... so clearly witness intimidation.
Honestly think intimidation is a bit of a reach. Sure, it'll have some marginal effect of intimidating witnesses. But, it looks like the main point is to steer the public discourse by undermining the witness' credibility. That also seems like an inappropriate use of the official account. But I think it makes Democrats look shrill to cry intimidation.
It appears we are in agreement... differing only in the degree of intimidation. Coupled with the news that the LTC and his family are moving out of concern over safety.
We usually agree on a lot but I have no idea why you think intimidation is a reach. Do you not recognize what the twitter and reddit mob can do to him with the steering of the public discourse by the White House. Maybe this exact thing is a reach but everything together since he came out as a witness has to be seen as intimidation.
Attacking a decorated military officer and current National Security Council staff member is a bad look........ attacking this particular one is a really bad idea.
I've been clumsy. Their testimony about the call is important to the case. Getting the most accurate picture of what was said is important. It shows a bit about Trump's frame of mind. What I mean is, for the public consumption, I find the media to focus overmuch on the revelations of the direct witnesses to the call as though that call was the seminal event in the case. The seminal events seem to be when Trump told Mulvaney to order the OMB to put a hold on the aid, and when Trump told Sondland to give the Ukrainians an ultimatum that no aid of any kind would come without a public announcement from Zelensky himself. That stuff will come, so I'm probably being impatient.
Trump has to be impeached, he abused his power - clear as day. And he obstructs because he knows he abused his power. Impeach now. DD
The law and order thing was always racially tinged. As rich white dudes, it doesn't apply to them. Also, I think it took on a life of its own as a cudgel that Dems couldn't defend themselves against because they were obsessed with pesky civil rights and fairness.
Sounds like there is still some daylight between what Volker is saying and what Vindman is saying. "A generic comment about investigations" is different than tying an Oval Office meeting with a pair of specified investigations.
Of course, Vindman says he filed a complaint with NSC lead counsel John Eisenberg. So testimony from Eisenberg about the contemporaneous report or documentation from that time would probably elucidate who has the more accurate recollection. That is if Eisenberg wasn't refusing to testify and the White House wasn't refusing to produce any of their records.
