Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and his brother fired and escorted out of White House.

[Mr Spinkles]

Yes, in a rigged "trial" where witnesses were not allowed. His lack of guilt is just a legal fiction.

If Trump was actually innocent why not allow any witnesses?

Even more fundamentally: if a defendant is innocent should the *witnesses* get fired?

This feels like something that happens in a dictatorship.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Evidence is more important than witnesses.

There wasn't any.

Yes, because they never found the body or the murder weapon. That’s the kind of hard evidence totally missing from this whole quid pro quo allegation. #facepalm

 

[Mr Spinkles]

What witnesses would you have liked to have seen, and what would you have liked them to say?

Romney wanted to call Bolton. Because he didn’t want to convict Trump and hoped Bolton might possibly say something exculpatory.

Who knows? Maybe Bolton will say that he had a direct conversation with Trump where the President told him the reason for holding up the aid, and it wasn’t the quid pro quo. I doubt it, but we won’t know until he speaks. Too bad that when he does, it won’t be under oath.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This feels like something that happens in a dictatorship.

That would be called The Nanny state.

 

[Revoltingest]

Also: if a defendant is found not guilty, should all the witnesses get fired from their jobs because they testified when called upon?

It isn't about "should".
But if a witness testifies against a defendant who happens to
also be one's employer, there is a risk of getting the boot. This
is especially so when the job involves continuing exposure to
sensitive info. It's not necessarily right. But it's a foreseeable
consequence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is Trump legally allowed to do this? It sounds like he is.

I'm not so sure.

If he's bound by military law, then he's not allowed to do this to a member of the military:

(1) No person may restrict a member of the armed forces in communicating with a Member of Congress or an Inspector General.

(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a communication that is unlawful.

(b) Prohibition of Retaliatory Personnel Actions.—(1) No person may take (or threaten to take) an unfavorable personnel action, or withhold (or threaten to withhold) a favorable personnel action, as a reprisal against a member of the armed forces for making or preparing—

(A) a communication to a Member of Congress or an Inspector General that (under subsection (a)) may not be restricted; or

(B) a communication that is described in subsection (c)(2) and that is made (or prepared to be made) to—

(i) a Member of Congress;

(ii) an Inspector General (as defined in subsection (i)) or any other Inspector General appointed under the Inspector General Act of 1978;

(iii) a member of a Department of Defense audit, inspection, investigation, or law enforcement organization;

(iv) any person or organization in the chain of command; or

(v) any other person or organization designated pursuant to regulations or other established administrative procedures for such communications.


(2) Any action prohibited by paragraph (1) (including the threat to take any unfavorable action and the withholding or threat to withhold any favorable action) shall be considered for the purposes of this section to be a personnel action prohibited by this subsection.

U.S.C. Title 10 - ARMED FORCES

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? I used the word 'exculpatory?" Care to give us the quote?

You implied it, though you may not have realized that. When I responded to this post from another you jumped all over me:

"You might want to review the House of Reps hearing when they refused to allow witness with exculpating evidence in Trump's favor...just sayin'."

the problem is that the articles of impeachment didn't allege ANY crime, much less 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' No crime was actually committed here, by Trump.

Actually they did, but you may not understand the concept of "high crimes and misdemeanors. Quite a few of Trump's defenders do not understand that concept.

the problem is that Biden and his son were absolutely guilty of the quid pro quo that the Dems were accusing Trump of (and that he did not commit) and the Dems were absolutely ignoring, if not supporting, Biden's actions. Actions that were pertinent to the case, involving the same people and requiring opposite things from Ukraine: Trump was asking Ukraine to do 'a favor for US in investigating political corruption...that happened to involve Hunter Biden...and the aid was NOT tied to it. Biden, on the other hand, bragged about withholding aid until Ukraine fires a prosecutor who was investigating Barisma, for whom his son was working, without experience or expertise, for very big bucks. Nobody was worried about THAT....because Biden was a Democrat.

Therefore, having witnesses to that effect would have pointed out the hypocritical and political nature of the impeachment, completely proving it's sole intent.Very pertinent to the case...and absolutely denied. It would have shown up the motives for the accusation, and that would absolutely not be allowed.

In other words, if those Democrats who pulled this stuff didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.

Oh, I didn't personally attack you, SZ. Nor did I 'duck' anything, you demanded that I prove something I did not, myself, claim. You claimed it FOR me. Don't do that.

Sorry, but there is no meaningful evidence that Biden and his son were guilty of anything. Plus what you are now suggesting is a Tu Quoque fallacy. Even if Biden was suspect that does not allow the President to start an illegal investigation. Though you probably do not understand why the requested investigation was illegal. If I break the law because someone else is breaking the law that does not excuse my actions. And as usual there were no "double standards". In fact this is a bit of a backfiring argument. You are arguing that Trump broke the law because Biden broke the law. That never works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong. Biden was charged with discouraging corruption and promoting democracy in Ukraine. That was the policy of the Obama Administration and the EU.

I think that she is trying to claim that because Biden's son took a job with the Ukraineian company that somehow that makes them guilty. Even if that was the case Trump's method of investigation was still illegal. It at the very least violates campaign finance laws.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That would be called The Nanny state.

He needs a nanny.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It isn't about "should".
But if a witness testifies against a defendant who happens to
also be one's employer, there is a risk of getting the boot. This
is especially so when the job involves continuing exposure to
sensitive info. It's not necessarily right. But it's a foreseeable
consequence.

I agree but there are alternatives to firing. Like a transfer. If they can no longer work together that makes sense but to fire him entirely goes further and feels like retribution.

Also did Vindman testify “against” Trump? He was called, he was questioned and he answered. Did he lie or trash Trump? I watched his testimony and saw a man giving very simple yes or no answers to the questions he was asked. What does it do for transparency and justice in the future if witnesses in a trial are punished?

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree but there are alternatives to firing. Like a transfer. If they can no longer work together that makes sense but to fire him entirely goes further and feels like retribution.

I strongly suspect that vengeance was afoot.

Also did Vindman testify “against” Trump? He was called, he was questioned and he answered. Did he lie or trash Trump? I watched his testimony and saw a man giving very simple yes or no answers to the questions he was asked. What does it do for transparency and justice in the future if witnesses in a trial are punished?

Trump seems to be of the you're-either-for-me-or-against-me type.
Vindman wasn't for him.

 

[dianaiad]

No, seriously. Give me an example of what you think would have been a helpful thing for a republican called witness to say.

would a Republican witness...no matter how compelling a statement s/he could make, have changed any minds? The reason for impeachment was bogus, and everybody knew it. It wouldn't have mattered how many Republicans would have said so. The problem is, the Dems were so afraid of 'em that they didn't even want the tiniest possibility of a witness changing their minds to happen.

No.

Because the Dems in the House would not have changed their minds. Even Clinton's impeachment was more bipartisan than this one was. Considerably more...and the dems were willing to put up with HIS antics in order to keep him in office.
(and I would have voted not to kick him out of office, btw...the American people voted for him knowing precisely who he was. Those who voted for him deserved him)

The whole thing was an exercise in obvious partisanship.

 

[dianaiad]

I agree but there are alternatives to firing. Like a transfer. If they can no longer work together that makes sense but to fire him entirely goes further and feels like retribution.

Also did Vindman testify “against” Trump? He was called, he was questioned and he answered. Did he lie or trash Trump? I watched his testimony and saw a man giving very simple yes or no answers to the questions he was asked. What does it do for transparency and justice in the future if witnesses in a trial are punished?

I didn't see all his testimony. I DID see the part where he bragged about Ukraine asking him to be THEIR secretary of defense.

 

[SoyLeche]

would a Republican witness...no matter how compelling a statement s/he could make, have changed any minds? The reason for impeachment was bogus, and everybody knew it. It wouldn't have mattered how many Republicans would have said so. The problem is, the Dems were so afraid of 'em that they didn't even want the tiniest possibility of a witness changing their minds to happen.

No.

Because the Dems in the House would not have changed their minds. Even Clinton's impeachment was more bipartisan than this one was. Considerably more...and the dems were willing to put up with HIS antics in order to keep him in office.
(and I would have voted not to kick him out of office, btw...the American people voted for him knowing precisely who he was. Those who voted for him deserved him)

The whole thing was an exercise in obvious partisanship.

So - you've got nothing.

 

[dianaiad]

I agree but there are alternatives to firing. Like a transfer.

Good grief. Are you so blind that you didn't see that this was PRECISELY what happened? He was transferred back to the Department of Defense. he wasn't forced to retire, or kicked out of the military, or demoted, for crying out loud. He was transferred back to his old job. Great googly moogly, man, talk about swallowing the media koolaide!

If they can no longer work together that makes sense but to fire him entirely goes further and feels like retribution.

Also did Vindman testify “against” Trump? He was called, he was questioned and he answered. Did he lie or trash Trump? I watched his testimony and saw a man giving very simple yes or no answers to the questions he was asked. What does it do for transparency and justice in the future if witnesses in a trial are punished?

 

[dianaiad]

You implied it, though you may not have realized that. When I responded to this post from another you jumped all over me:

"You might want to review the House of Reps hearing when they refused to allow witness with exculpating evidence in Trump's favor...just sayin'."



Actually they did, but you may not understand the concept of "high crimes and misdemeanors. Quite a few of Trump's defenders do not understand that concept.



Sorry, but there is no meaningful evidence that Biden and his son were guilty of anything. Plus what you are now suggesting is a Tu Quoque fallacy. Even if Biden was suspect that does not allow the President to start an illegal investigation. Though you probably do not understand why the requested investigation was illegal. If I break the law because someone else is breaking the law that does not excuse my actions. And as usual there were no "double standards". In fact this is a bit of a backfiring argument. You are arguing that Trump broke the law because Biden broke the law. That never works.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

would a Republican witness...no matter how compelling a statement s/he could make, have changed any minds? The reason for impeachment was bogus, and everybody knew it. It wouldn't have mattered how many Republicans would have said so. The problem is, the Dems were so afraid of 'em that they didn't even want the tiniest possibility of a witness changing their minds to happen.

No.

Because the Dems in the House would not have changed their minds. Even Clinton's impeachment was more bipartisan than this one was. Considerably more...and the dems were willing to put up with HIS antics in order to keep him in office.
(and I would have voted not to kick him out of office, btw...the American people voted for him knowing precisely who he was. Those who voted for him deserved him)

The whole thing was an exercise in obvious partisanship.

For the record: a Republican witness absolutely could have changed my mind, if they had compelling exculpatory evidence.

I think impeaching a president is an extreme step and conviction is even more extreme. It should only be done in serious circumstances.

In my sincere view, unfortunately, Trump’s actions met that standard. And the last presidential nominee of the Republican Party - before it vanished and was replaced by the Trump Party - agreed, under the gravity of the charges and weight of the evidence.

You may disagree. But please don’t dismiss all Trump’s critics as insincere or deaf to evidence. We are not - not all of us.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I didn't see all his testimony. I DID see the part where he bragged about Ukraine asking him to be THEIR secretary of defense.

I saw a lot of his testimony - I thought all of it. He showed little emotion, rendered few opinions and answered the questions he was asked in a “yes” or “no” fashion,

He wasn’t a witness “against” Trump, as far as I could tell. Unless being a witness, itself, is being against Trump. It’s worth considering how profoundly messed up that would be - even if Trump was perfectly innocent.

In our system of checks and balances, Congress is supposed to hold the executive accountable and control the purse - as standard practice, even when the WH has done nothing wrong. How can they do that if the White House punishes those who merely comply with a subpoena?

 

[Subduction Zone]

For the record: a Republican witness absolutely could have changed my mind, if they had compelling exculpatory evidence.

I think impeaching a president is an extreme step and conviction is even more extreme. It should only be done in serious circumstances.

In my sincere view, unfortunately, Trump’s actions met that standard. And the last presidential nominee of the Republican Party - before it vanished and was replaced by the Trump Party - agreed, under the gravity of the charges and weight of the evidence.

You may disagree. But please don’t dismiss all Trump’s critics as insincere or deaf to evidence. We are not - not all of us.

I think that I irritated her by using the term "bogus witnesses" in a reply to another Trump supporter. But that seems to be all that the Republicans had. Why has no one posted a witness that could have supported Trump's innocence? My favorite example of a bogus witness would be their demands that the whistle blower be questioned. That is wrong for several reasons. First off he is protected by the whistle blower law. But even more important is that he had no legal evidence. The Republicans were somewhat right when they pointed out that the whistle blower only had hearsay. And they were also right that hearsay is not evidence. But hearsay can be enough to start an investigation, which is what happened. And the hearsay was confirmed to be correct. Of course the whistleblower still cannot testify because what he heard remains hearsay. Now what is nuts about going after the whistleblower, besides his legal protection, is that the Republicans have to claim that he has and does not have evidence at the same time. Pure insanity on their part.

 

[dianaiad]

So - you've got nothing.

Neither do the Democrats...and that was the point.