Dems extremely alarmed over Vindmans disturbing testimony

I’m a little confused here. I’ve read what is said to be the transcript of the conversation. I don’t need somebody else’s “take“ on it If I can read the damned thing for myself. Are Trump opponents claiming that the transcript is not accurate, and if so in what way is it inaccurate? Has anybody introduced the putative missing portions?

This is juvenile. I keep coming back to George Bush’s observation that you have to ignore about 90% of what is said in Washington because it’s simply “noise“, with no import. Wake me up when there is some honest to God evidence...............Luca

That is a great question and brings to mind an incident from 25 years ago that is a great illustration of the difference between government & private business.

Back in the early 90's , a woman who worked in our accounting office made an accusation that I had been stalking her and making harassing phone calls.  In essence, she was a "whistle blower", she had something negative about someone in the organization and made a claim about it.  The problem with her accusation was it was false and thank God, her claim that I had spent the weekend parked outside her house and knocking on her door repeatedly was shown to be false because I was in Vegas at the time and could prove it.  While I have no doubt she believed her accusation, she was promptly fired by the head of the accounting department.

Compare this to government "whistle-blowers" who make false claims for partisan purposes.  The either keep their job or get paid leave, even when their claims are shown to be false.  Why not take a shot at someone else, there are no repercussions?  It may lead to a more cushy job in some department headed by another partisan who appreciates your creativity.

Mr. Kelly, I believe the phrase is "squeeze blood out of a turnip", not an onion.

Reminder #118: "High Crimes" as mentioned in the Constitution are not necessarily "crimes" as defined by statute. The Constitution doesn't say what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means exactly but scholars and the courts have weighed in over the years.

From the Wikipedia:

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as dishonesty, negligence, perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of public funds or assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, or tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for 'intentional, evil deeds' that 'drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency' — even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors

But hey, maybe no one will notice so keep trying that legally absurd defense.

Trump's real "high crime" was getting elected President, thus humiliating all the professional politicians, pundits, and campaign consultants who said he had a "no chance" of winning. And they haven't stopped crying since November 8, 2016.

Is that supposed to be some sort of excuse for trump's outrageous behavior?

VilePagan, we've listened to lies from the Left for the past 3 years about this President. They were talking about impeachment before he was even sworn in. The Russia collusion was all lies, perpetrated by the likes of Schiff and others. All PROVEN false. Why would we now believe Vindman is now here to tell us the truth, or his own version of the truth? Republicans tried to ask him if he had any contact with Schiff or any others on his committee before he came forward, and Schiff wouldn't allow the question. Gee, I wonder why. Do you need further proof that this is another setup and their latest attempt to find something to use to impeach and undue an election result the Left still can't get over.