In a way I hate to even mention a creepy guy like Vindman. You’ve probably heard that he’s filed a lawsuit against Don Trump, Jr., and three Trump associates: Rudy Giuliani, Julia Hahn, and Dan Scavino, Jr. The lawsuit is based on an old Reconstruction Era law, the Ku Klux Klan Act. Vindman claims that the named individuals conspired to intimidate and retaliate against him.
So ashamed to have been a commissioned officer in the same Army as this guy. Also weird how the top of my ribbon rack—and those of every infantry officer in the Great War on Terror—is the exact same as him despite my having left the service as a Captain just shy of 6 years of service.
Where to start with Mr. Vindman? And the correct response for Mr. Nunes to his “colonel Vindman please temper tantrum” would have been to order him to stand at attention and remind the audience that he represents the taxpayers who pay the good LTC’s salary.
How about, “you are the whistleblower.” Ciaramella was just peddling your hearsay to a corrupt intelligence community that permits hearsay whistleblower complaints against any official, unlike the uniformed military that neither permits second hand complaints nor complaints against the commander in chief.
Or, the “quid pro quo you touted as impeachment worthy made no sense.” The investigation of Burisma had reopened and been publicly announced months before President Trump’s call with President Zelensky, and Trump apparently planned on not releasing the aid regardless of what the Ukrainians did until Senator Johnson of Wisconsin told him there was a veto proof majority in both houses to force his hand and embarrass him.
This was according to Adam Schiff’s own witnesses!!!
Isn't it remarkable this "bad timing" for Chairman Zhou? Just two days ago, Ron Klain was 'outed' as having been the one leaking the story of Breyer potentially retiring from the SCOTUS. Week before that, ABC's 'poll' basically gutted the Biden regime, belly to sternum. ABC. NY Times subpeona's for Hunter Biden's stuff..... almost like there is momentum inside the deep state to get rid of Zhou. It'll be interesting to see over the next several weeks if more 'leaks' to the media (especially WaPo and NY Times) that subtly put Biden in less-than-favorable light.
Vindman has no idea what he's getting into and the timing couldn't be better. Discovery alone will produce outstanding insight.
Deurbina seems to be a rising star in the conservative world and at age 19 too. Saw the video and the parody video's too. Good stuff.
Solomon's findings of the State Dept email is interesting and while on Trump's watch too. Deep staters kept it hidden and Kent or the US ambassador to Ukraine didn't even mention it. Think this will work against the Dem's even more as talking points for Republican election fodder.
1. This is aimed at Trump and with the right judge Vindman and his backers believes they will finally Get Trump.
2. Or this is aimed at Biden to get him to change his Ukraine / Russia policy… change the policy or this case goes forward.
3. Courts are so slow Vindman believes this will help the Democrats in the mid terms by sliming Trump, before the case becomes a negative to the Democrats.
The Dems get more credit than they should due to the fact that they are Machiavellian in their intent and have no morals (plus having the media and a significant percentage of the judiciary in their pockets). Nevertheless, their stupidity almost always ends up determining the lack of success of their efforts. I vote for the simplest and most stupid option: #1.
I'm voting #2: is Vindman is just a deep-state patsy meant to take the fall after 'incidentally' outing the Biden's Corrupt enterprise as a means to move him out of the Dem establishment?
Hopefully, someone will reach into Michael Atkinson's life and serve him the little slice of hell he deserves for his corrupt part in Impeachment, Part 1. Here's looking at you, Michael, you nasty little freak show liar who thinks he can disappear his criminality. Oh, and "Charlie" Ciaramella--don't leave town.
The lawsuit will never advance to discovery. How many lawsuits have we seen recently where the lawsuit is the story, dutifully picked up by the media. The impression is created that there is something terribly wrong here. And then....nothing.
I should add that any plaintiff that attempted a move like that would likely be slammed with attorney's fees, sanctioned by the court, and probably opened up to a counter lawsuit based on a false lawsuit.
You think I suggested that? But what's your point? Vindman's wealthy backers are not in a position to simply back out--that is not a real option once a lawsuit has been brought. There best hope--if they understand now what discovery could bring--would be that the judge will dismiss it.
Can you provide a list of lawsuits as described? Survived motions to dismiss but then mysteriously didn't advance to discovery? The only way that can happen is if the plaintiff--having *survived* the defendant's motion to dismiss--then *moves on his own part* to dismiss his own lawsuit. Unless that happens, discovery is the next step. I'd be interested to see your list.
I am not knowledgeable on these matters and appreciate your filling in the details, but I will quote from a recent Reuters story dated January 25, 2022.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Dominion Voting Systems Corp has told a court there is "no realistic possibility" that the voting machine manufacturer will reach settlements in its billion-dollar defamation lawsuits against Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, lawyers who worked for former President Donald Trump.
The article continues:
Lawyers for Giuliani and Powell said in the same filing that their clients may be open to settlement talks once the exchange of evidence, or "discovery," is complete.
The article makes it seem that Dominion is being magnanimous in not pursuing this matter, continuing to give the impression that all imputations that the Dominion machines may have contributed to changing the vote are ludicrous. I would point out that a Dominion machine was remotely accessed in minutes in one hearing that took place.
My point is that Dominion was given court approval to proceed, and they took their good old time about backing out, which took place before discovery. What about those high profile raids on Roger Stone and Giuliani? What about all those cases against President Trump? All smoke and no fire.
You've got that totally backwards. *Dominion--the plaintiff--isn't backing out of anything,* and Giuliani and Powell are saying that they may seek a settlement with Dominion when discovery is complete. IOW, *Dominion is pursuing discovery, pursuing their defamation suit.* By saying that there is "no realistic possibility" of reaching a settlement Dominion isn't backing out at all--they're expressing their intention to proceed. And the next step is discovery, which is ongoing.
Thank you for clarifying, and you have made my day. I could be wrong on this, but your analysis and that of Ms. Cleveland in the Vindman case back up my own thoughts, that lawsuits of this sort may not be in the interest of the plaintiff. The media are of course milking this for all it is worth.
Mark, why, why, why? Why did you have to mention this treasonous PoS? Him and Strzok are two people I particularly want to see going down. They aren't the biggest of the evil fish, but they are certainly amongst the creepiest and most arrogant.
So ashamed to have been a commissioned officer in the same Army as this guy. Also weird how the top of my ribbon rack—and those of every infantry officer in the Great War on Terror—is the exact same as him despite my having left the service as a Captain just shy of 6 years of service.
Where to start with Mr. Vindman? And the correct response for Mr. Nunes to his “colonel Vindman please temper tantrum” would have been to order him to stand at attention and remind the audience that he represents the taxpayers who pay the good LTC’s salary.
How about, “you are the whistleblower.” Ciaramella was just peddling your hearsay to a corrupt intelligence community that permits hearsay whistleblower complaints against any official, unlike the uniformed military that neither permits second hand complaints nor complaints against the commander in chief.
Or, the “quid pro quo you touted as impeachment worthy made no sense.” The investigation of Burisma had reopened and been publicly announced months before President Trump’s call with President Zelensky, and Trump apparently planned on not releasing the aid regardless of what the Ukrainians did until Senator Johnson of Wisconsin told him there was a veto proof majority in both houses to force his hand and embarrass him.
This was according to Adam Schiff’s own witnesses!!!
Isn't it remarkable this "bad timing" for Chairman Zhou? Just two days ago, Ron Klain was 'outed' as having been the one leaking the story of Breyer potentially retiring from the SCOTUS. Week before that, ABC's 'poll' basically gutted the Biden regime, belly to sternum. ABC. NY Times subpeona's for Hunter Biden's stuff..... almost like there is momentum inside the deep state to get rid of Zhou. It'll be interesting to see over the next several weeks if more 'leaks' to the media (especially WaPo and NY Times) that subtly put Biden in less-than-favorable light.
Vindman has no idea what he's getting into and the timing couldn't be better. Discovery alone will produce outstanding insight.
Deurbina seems to be a rising star in the conservative world and at age 19 too. Saw the video and the parody video's too. Good stuff.
Solomon's findings of the State Dept email is interesting and while on Trump's watch too. Deep staters kept it hidden and Kent or the US ambassador to Ukraine didn't even mention it. Think this will work against the Dem's even more as talking points for Republican election fodder.
Thanks Mark.
Swags:
1. This is aimed at Trump and with the right judge Vindman and his backers believes they will finally Get Trump.
2. Or this is aimed at Biden to get him to change his Ukraine / Russia policy… change the policy or this case goes forward.
3. Courts are so slow Vindman believes this will help the Democrats in the mid terms by sliming Trump, before the case becomes a negative to the Democrats.
The Dems get more credit than they should due to the fact that they are Machiavellian in their intent and have no morals (plus having the media and a significant percentage of the judiciary in their pockets). Nevertheless, their stupidity almost always ends up determining the lack of success of their efforts. I vote for the simplest and most stupid option: #1.
I'm voting #2: is Vindman is just a deep-state patsy meant to take the fall after 'incidentally' outing the Biden's Corrupt enterprise as a means to move him out of the Dem establishment?
Hopefully, someone will reach into Michael Atkinson's life and serve him the little slice of hell he deserves for his corrupt part in Impeachment, Part 1. Here's looking at you, Michael, you nasty little freak show liar who thinks he can disappear his criminality. Oh, and "Charlie" Ciaramella--don't leave town.
Oh, there are many possibilities here.
The lawsuit will never advance to discovery. How many lawsuits have we seen recently where the lawsuit is the story, dutifully picked up by the media. The impression is created that there is something terribly wrong here. And then....nothing.
I should add that any plaintiff that attempted a move like that would likely be slammed with attorney's fees, sanctioned by the court, and probably opened up to a counter lawsuit based on a false lawsuit.
You think Vindman is funding his own lawsuit ?
I wonder. He's gotta know that the Trumps have deep pockets and an army of lawyers on speed dial.
"You think Vindman is funding his own lawsuit ?"
You think I suggested that? But what's your point? Vindman's wealthy backers are not in a position to simply back out--that is not a real option once a lawsuit has been brought. There best hope--if they understand now what discovery could bring--would be that the judge will dismiss it.
Can you provide a list of lawsuits as described? Survived motions to dismiss but then mysteriously didn't advance to discovery? The only way that can happen is if the plaintiff--having *survived* the defendant's motion to dismiss--then *moves on his own part* to dismiss his own lawsuit. Unless that happens, discovery is the next step. I'd be interested to see your list.
I am not knowledgeable on these matters and appreciate your filling in the details, but I will quote from a recent Reuters story dated January 25, 2022.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Dominion Voting Systems Corp has told a court there is "no realistic possibility" that the voting machine manufacturer will reach settlements in its billion-dollar defamation lawsuits against Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, lawyers who worked for former President Donald Trump.
The article continues:
Lawyers for Giuliani and Powell said in the same filing that their clients may be open to settlement talks once the exchange of evidence, or "discovery," is complete.
The article makes it seem that Dominion is being magnanimous in not pursuing this matter, continuing to give the impression that all imputations that the Dominion machines may have contributed to changing the vote are ludicrous. I would point out that a Dominion machine was remotely accessed in minutes in one hearing that took place.
My point is that Dominion was given court approval to proceed, and they took their good old time about backing out, which took place before discovery. What about those high profile raids on Roger Stone and Giuliani? What about all those cases against President Trump? All smoke and no fire.
You've got that totally backwards. *Dominion--the plaintiff--isn't backing out of anything,* and Giuliani and Powell are saying that they may seek a settlement with Dominion when discovery is complete. IOW, *Dominion is pursuing discovery, pursuing their defamation suit.* By saying that there is "no realistic possibility" of reaching a settlement Dominion isn't backing out at all--they're expressing their intention to proceed. And the next step is discovery, which is ongoing.
Thank you for clarifying, and you have made my day. I could be wrong on this, but your analysis and that of Ms. Cleveland in the Vindman case back up my own thoughts, that lawsuits of this sort may not be in the interest of the plaintiff. The media are of course milking this for all it is worth.
If so, it's their miscalculation. Once you file a lawsuit you can't just say, woops, we didn't really mean it--not without consequences.
Mark, why, why, why? Why did you have to mention this treasonous PoS? Him and Strzok are two people I particularly want to see going down. They aren't the biggest of the evil fish, but they are certainly amongst the creepiest and most arrogant.