I Thought Military Members Speaking Out Was Good???

[Ingomike]

I was just sure that everyone thought that Lt. Col. Vindman speaking out against a sitting President was just hunky dory...

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-afghanistan-slapped-5000-dock-pay-reprimand/

Ff&j

 

[phylodog]

I was just sure that everyone thought that Lt. Col. Vindman speaking out against a sitting President was just hunky dory...

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-afghanistan-slapped-5000-dock-pay-reprimand/

Ff&j

Surely you aren't suggesting rampant hypocrisy?!?!?!?!

 

[ancjr]

Vindman, by his own admission, was lying.

 

[JTScribe]

Honestly, that was a pretty positive result. Brass looking to hammer him to the wall.

 

[drillsgt]

Honestly, that was a pretty positive result. Brass looking to hammer him to the wall.

I'd say so, since he's not finishing his 20 and getting out I don't see any reason he couldn't just transition to the Reserves? Keep the tricare and finish out his last three or more and get a retirement out of it.

 

[cam4usa]

have you guys been following the coaltition Stuart Scheller started? The Veteran Candidate Coalition https://votes4vets.org

 

[1DOWN4UP]

have you guys been following the coaltition Stuart Scheller started? The Veteran Candidate Coalition https://votes4vets.org

That is cool

 

[Jump62]

I was just sure that everyone thought that Lt. Col. Vindman speaking out against a sitting President was just hunky dory...

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-afghanistan-slapped-5000-dock-pay-reprimand/

Ff&j

UCMJ Article 88 is the ticket:

The MCM states any service member may be prosecuted under Article 88 (Contempt Toward Officials) if they use “contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present.”

In order to be prosecuted under Article 88, the prosecution must prove:

1. the accused was a commissioned officer of the U.S. armed forces;
2. the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;
3. that by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and
4. that the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used.

If the words were used against a Governor or legislature, the prosecution must also prove that the accused was then present in the State, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.

During the Clinton Admin Art 88 was read the the troops 6-8 times in formation and for the Obama Admin I lost count. I was in 8 years active duty split between EM and Officer and what Vindman said in Congress I wouldn't even among trusted friends brouch this type of topic.
Jump62
aka Paul

 

[BigRed]

Input is welcome....so long as it does not deviate from the narrative.