Leadership can End Your Career

Vindeman? Hate to butt heads with a CWO4 especially Carr but LTC Vindeman “fell on his sword” by embarrassing his superiors. The Captains of the Fitzgerald and McCain screwed up big time by getting run over by a slower, less maneuverable merchant. Therevare very few mitigating circumstances for Naval ship Captains concerning collisions. I know my mentor, LCDR Robert Rumney later became Captain of a newer Spruance class, I think, destroyer. His Engineering Department was so deficient he had no confidence the ship could make deployment. So he conducted his own INSERV inspection. He was qualified since he had graduated from King’s Point with a degree in engineering and for some reason decided to go Navy. I was his first Mustang Ensign and he made sure I knew the systems! The point being Captain Rumney made sure his plant was reliable and his snipes knew how to run the plant. I am confident he did the same with his bridge and CIC crews. The Captains of the Fitz and the Mac had neither the concept nor the ability to do likewise on their ships. I have no Army experience but Vindeman divulged classified information in a public arena. Automatic no-no. Regardless of branch. Fitz and Mac skippers needed to CASREPT their ships for training but did not because they were the product of graduate level butt-kissing and not effective experience. Howbdo I know that? I saw who got promoted in the late 70’s and it was mostly the brown nosers. The officers with the ability got out once their obligation was over.
Ever hear of LCDR Marcus Aurelius Arnheiter? He was XO of a WWII class destroyer when I was an E-6 electrical snipe. He was a miserable egocentric officer with funny ideas and destructive leadership habits. He was relieved for cause 99 days after he took command of the Vance, a DER homeported in Hawaii. The point here is NONE of the officers of Ingersoll nor Vance did anything to protect their men from this maniac nor to cause him to be prosecuted for flagrant violations of the UCMJ. It is fractured leadership that promotes such people. Admiral Zumwalt wasva champion of destuctive tendencies and never once consulted anyone in the Fleet to follow up on his policies.


Wasn’t Vindman complying with a legal subpoena from Congress? Vindman first reported his concerns to John Eisenberg, a lawyer for the NSC. IIRC congress learned of phone call from a whistleblower, not from Vindman.


Vindeman lied in a report he wrote, adding in criticisms of Trump and his foreign policy that were not part of the discussion he was reporting on. So instead of faithfully reporting on a conversation, he gratuitously inserted his opinion into it.

That’s unforgivable. He inappropriately attempted to insert himself into decisions at the highest diplomatic level.

You can google accurate reports of his crimes, but you’ll have to ignore the first few pages of results after looking up his name. The first few pages will be filled with the sort of tripe referenced in the article eg a fine officer sacked by Trump for standing up for his principles. You’ll have to search diligently for the inconvenient facts of his case.

He deserved what he got.


I wasn’t following the Vindman thing as closely as perhaps you were, but I tried googling the issue with out a good conclusion. Where or when did Vindman lie about something? What are you referring to?

I just checked briefly again and he had made a report of the conversation between Trump and the Ukraine president and testified about that conversation under oath in the impeachment hearings.

He was caught lying to Congress. In essence he testified that Trump had “demanded” the Ukraine president investigate Joe Biden whereas his written report had no such reference to a demand. He was trying to enhance the evidence against Trump at an impeachment hearing contrary to the facts of what was actually said in the conversation. Trump had made no demands. My earlier comment might be a bit wrong as it was from memory.

Here’s a quick cut and paste from one site.

According to accusations, President Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate former Vice-President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee.

“I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. Government’s support of Ukraine. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play…”

However, it now appears that Vindman lied about what was actually said between the two leaders.

1 Like

Yes you’ll have to ignore all the reputable news sources and move on to Qannon or Reddit for the accurate information on page 6 of google

Thanks again Jughead for your political commentary and no links to an actual academic article that you claim to have found. I’m looking forward to your retort where you claim I have insulted you and provide an article from breitbart of the Trump campaign website proving your point


Mmmmmm. Just deleted it did you, Beer Captain? I was watching and read it. My reply is below.

Perhaps you could refer to the transcript of the congressional impeachment hearings or the videos, all easily found and, strangely, authoritative. But you can’t believe congressional hearings held in front of a gazillion TV cameras and a breathless nation with evidence by sworn witnesses, can you?

That’s just fake news.

1 Like

You just proved my point.

There’s an explanation using the transcript here.

This is fun isn’t it? Warring web sites. I did tell you to search beyond the Lefty tripe, but no, you knew better.

Here’s mine.

1 Like

So you gave me a righty one… seems very academic. Again, you’re just proving my point here.

It’s out of context, from that site:

Vindman’s account was an important pillar of the impeachment debacle, but he now says of his testimony that, “That’s, that’s maybe that’s a bit of a–it’s not entirely accurate.”

Deliberately misleading, Vindman was talking about one specific part of his testimony, not that entire thing. Snopes provides the entire context.

Here’s the part in question"

OLDMAN: Now, you testified, both of you, about the April 21st call, a little earlier.

And, Colonel Vindman, you indicated that you did include in your talking points the idea of Ukraine rooting out corruption, but that President Trump did not mention corruption.

I want to go to the White House readout from the April 21st call. And at the — I’m not going to read the whole thing. But do you see the highlighted portion, where it says “root out corruption?”


GOLDMAN: So, in the end, this readout was false, is that right?

VINDMAN: That’s — that’s — maybe that’s a bit of — it’s not entirely accurate. But I’m not sure if I would describe it as false. It was consistent with U.S. policy. And these items are used as messaging tools also.

So a statement that goes out, in addition to, you know, reading out the meeting itself, is also a messaging platform to indicate what is important with regards to U.S. policy.

GOLDMAN: So it is a part of U.S. official policy that Ukraine should root out corruption, even if President Trump did not mention it in that 21st — April 21st phone call, is that right?

VINDMAN: Certainly.

Here Vindman is saying Goldman’s characterization is not entirely accurate.

How so? He lied. He also requested to resign from the army. Those are the two parts of the Snopes fact check. They should have been two separate issues. Snopes also neglects to mention at all the “demand” he said in his testimony that Trump made of Ukraine to investigate Biden which didn’t happen.

He’s weaseling out of directly admitting he lied. Not entirely accurate is a wimp’s way of saying what you said was pretty much right but you didn’t dot this i.

You’re worse than a 4th grader learning reading comprehension. Context is important and cannot be ignored.

Furthermore; the website you provided has no author, cites no sources, and is from a website called “conservative cardinal”, yet you argued that using websites from the other side of the aisle are not reputable. So what does that say about your bias? Maybe instead of joining the navy at 16 you should have stayed in school and learned how to properly identify legitimate news sources as opposed to propaganda.

Still waiting for a factual article that provides context for your accusations. KC provided one, you provided an article written probably by yourself.

1 Like

I take “Not entirely accurate” to mean that the information presented is correct, however perhaps not the best wording was used.

Yes, but Vindman is referencing Goldman’s characterization of the readout.

This Vindman issue, of “was he right or wrong”, is derailing from the point of the gCaptain article, which it would’ve been nice if the OP had linked to in the beginning.

The real issue is the ability of leaders, and especially those stuck somewhere in the middle, of speaking truth to power. Throughout history, going back to the Roman Empire, even going back to Biblical examples, true leaders are the ones who have the ability to speak truth to power. Often they are attacked for it, cast down by those above, and vilified to those below them, but in the end it is the morally “right” thing to do. Organisations, governments, teams that allow and encourage this behavior in their leaders are often very successful. Those that try hard to stifle it, often the harder they try the more desperately they discourage and punish dissenting voices, the harder they fall. The ability to speak truth to power is the hallmark of democracy, it’s those totalitarian, fascist, and communist governments that try so hard to put down opposition.


Needs a new thread, I’ll start one later if no one else does.


Agreed. It’s an important topic, good for all types of levels of our industry and worthy of discussion.

Perhaps, but in the armed services there’s a very thin line between truth to power on a vital matter and insubordination. A junior has no right to simply tell a superior what he thinks of what’s wrong. There are ways to do this but only rarely. It’s a different matter if the superior asks for the opinion. Insubordination is a serious offence with serious punishment options.

In the Vindeman case, he was falsely testifying against his Commander in Chief, embellishing his otherwise honest testimony with opinions, exaggerations and a couple of lies. He was obviously biased against Trump when his role was to be impartial. He was trying to present false evidence that Trump had done something wrong during his phone call to Ukraine. He was trying to assist one side of politics against his lawful CinC.