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

[SoyLeche]

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

No, the Democrats mostly got what they wanted out of the house inquiry. They aired the president’s dirty laundry to the public. It would have been nice to have more testimony, but they mostly got what they wanted.

there was only downside to the Republicans in the Senate to allow witnesses, which is why they didn’t.

I’m failing to see how any republican witnesses could have cleaned that laundry at all. That’s what I’m asking for your opinion on.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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!

No, I did not see that he was transferred. I saw the headline in the OP that he was fired and thought he was fired. Thank you for correcting me - I am a human being and do sometimes make mistakes.

I am a bit confused now because I don’t understand why it would be called getting fired if he is in fact being transferred. Maybe I’m missing something. I’m also confused about whether or not such retaliation is appropriate in this instance (I am sympathetic to the argument that, if they have to actually work together, his testimony makes that challenging, and he’s not out of a job).

 

[dianaiad]

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.

Here's the problem; in indictments (as an impeachment is...an accusation/indictment, not a conviction) the duty of the prosecution is to prove someone GUILTY.

the Senate decided that the House didn't do the job right, did not allow all the proper investigative procedures, and threw the case out of court because the investigation was, quite frankly, badly done and the accusations simply didn't rise to the height of 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' Yes. It WAS partisan...on both sides, but the Dems started the partisan thing. They've been looking for something, ANYTHING, to impeach Trump over since before the man took office. I haven't seen a single week go by without some left leaning liberal cry 'IMPEACH TRUMP.' Given the obvious....and I do mean obvious...political intent and bias of the whole thing, I wouldn't have impeached him had someone taken pictures of him handing Putin the keys to the Pentagon, given what I know about the false nature of the documents used to cobble this whole thing together. I would simply figure it was photoshopped, and I'd most likely be right.

By the way, it is NOT a tu quoque argument to say that bringing up Biden and his son (and wanting witnesses to their conduct) and pointing out Biden's braggadocio and support from his party for forcing Ukraine to fire a prosecutor for investigating the company his son worked for. A 'tu quoque' fallacy is when someone says that it is perfectly OK to break a law, because his accuser is breaking one as well....like the man who says it is perfectly acceptable for HIM to cheat on his taxes because his accuser cheats, too.

This is not that. What THIS is, is pointing out the hypocrisy of a group of people who are accusing Trump of doing something HE DID NOT DO, even as their precious hope for the future not only DID that thing, but bragged about it.

In other words...WE can do what we want because we are fighting corruption (even though 'fighting corruption' looks VERY much like the corruption they are supposed to be fighting) but we can accuse you of doing something just like it, or worse, and heaven help you if you want to show anybody that this is precisely what you are doing. That is not 'tu quoque,' because 'tu quoque" is a defense based on 'well, of course I can, because you do."

THIS is 'I didn't do it, but YOU did, and now you are projecting." Not 'tu quoque,' but hypocrisy. That the Dems would not allow Biden or his son to testify is absolute proof.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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.

I agree with you, of course, regarding that specific witness. Well said.

Sadly I don’t have high hopes that such well-reasoned arguments will actually penetrate and sway any open minds. I wish it were otherwise.

 

[dianaiad]

No, I did not see that he was transferred. I saw the headline in the OP that he was fired and thought he was fired. Thank you for correcting me - I am a human being and do sometimes make mistakes.

I am a bit confused now because I don’t understand why it would be called getting fired if he is in fact being transferred. Maybe I’m missing something. I’m also confused about whether or not such retaliation is appropriate in this instance (I am sympathetic to the argument that, if they have to actually work together, his testimony makes that challenging, and he’s not out of a job).

He was called 'fired' because the left wing media wanted to use the word. It means what they want it to mean, but the man was transferred, not 'fired.' One cannot fire a military officer. One can only transfer, retire or court martial him. He was transferred. He is not 'out of a job.' He hasn't lost a paycheck. He's working somewhere else.

 

[dianaiad]

No, the Democrats mostly got what they wanted out of the house inquiry. They aired the president’s dirty laundry to the public. It would have been nice to have more testimony, but they mostly got what they wanted.

there was only downside to the Republicans in the Senate to allow witnesses, which is why they didn’t.

I’m failing to see how any republican witnesses could have cleaned that laundry at all. That’s what I’m asking for your opinion on.

Two things. Calling Biden, etc., would have only helped, not hurt (and how can I tell you what they would have said? the Dems know, and that's why they weren't allowed)

Because of that, because the whole thing was an exercise in partisan political power, which is obvious. (on both sides, yes) the Dems have pretty much insured the election of Trump and the loss of the House in the fall. They are going to be awhile rebuilding their party.

I wish they had been a bit more far sighted.

 

[sooda]

Here's the problem; in indictments (as an impeachment is...an accusation/indictment, not a conviction) the duty of the prosecution is to prove someone GUILTY.

the Senate decided that the House didn't do the job right, did not allow all the proper investigative procedures, and threw the case out of court because the investigation was, quite frankly, badly done and the accusations simply didn't rise to the height of 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' Yes. It WAS partisan...on both sides, but the Dems started the partisan thing. They've been looking for something, ANYTHING, to impeach Trump over since before the man took office. I haven't seen a single week go by without some left leaning liberal cry 'IMPEACH TRUMP.' Given the obvious....and I do mean obvious...political intent and bias of the whole thing, I wouldn't have impeached him had someone taken pictures of him handing Putin the keys to the Pentagon, given what I know about the false nature of the documents used to cobble this whole thing together. I would simply figure it was photoshopped, and I'd most likely be right.

By the way, it is NOT a tu quoque argument to say that bringing up Biden and his son (and wanting witnesses to their conduct) and pointing out Biden's braggadocio and support from his party for forcing Ukraine to fire a prosecutor for investigating the company his son worked for. A 'tu quoque' fallacy is when someone says that it is perfectly OK to break a law, because his accuser is breaking one as well....like the man who says it is perfectly acceptable for HIM to cheat on his taxes because his accuser cheats, too.

This is not that. What THIS is, is pointing out the hypocrisy of a group of people who are accusing Trump of doing something HE DID NOT DO, even as their precious hope for the future not only DID that thing, but bragged about it.

In other words...WE can do what we want because we are fighting corruption (even though 'fighting corruption' looks VERY much like the corruption they are supposed to be fighting) but we can accuse you of doing something just like it, or worse, and heaven help you if you want to show anybody that this is precisely what you are doing. That is not 'tu quoque,' because 'tu quoque" is a defense based on 'well, of course I can, because you do."

THIS is 'I didn't do it, but YOU did, and now you are projecting." Not 'tu quoque,' but hypocrisy. That the Dems would not allow Biden or his son to testify is absolute proof.

That's not why Shokin was fired.

Trump is on a rampage now.

 

[sooda]

I agree with you, of course, regarding that specific witness. Well said.

Sadly I don’t have high hopes that such well-reasoned arguments will actually penetrate and sway any open minds. I wish it were otherwise.

More problems....

U.S. intelligence community leaders will not testify publicly or privately before House lawmakers next week about global threats, as negotiations on the timing and format of the annual hearing continue, according to people on both sides of the talks.

The Worldwide Threats hearing that takes place in the House and Senate has become an awkward source of tension after POLITICO first reported that intelligence officials pushed for the hearing that features both public and classified sessions to be moved entirely behind closed-doors over fears their bosses might provoke President Donald Trump’s ire.

Last year’s public hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee saw the chiefs from NSA, CIA and other agencies present findings that split from many of the president’s public statements on North Korea, Iran and Russia. T rump later lashed out at them on Twitter, suggesting the leaders “go back to school.”

The day after POLITICO’s report, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) invited intelligence agency leaders to appear before his panel on Feb. 12.

The hearing provides an opportunity for I.C. seniors to provide an unclassified, yet important broad understanding of how threats have evolved and what the nation can expect in the year to come,” Schiff wrote in a letter to acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire.

Intel hearing on global threats delayed amid fears of provoking Trump's ire
Intelligence leaders initially wanted to abandon the public portion of the congressional hearing to avoid upsetting Trump.

www.politico.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

That is not so. Didn't you watch any of the House impeachment proceedings?

 

[SoyLeche]

Two things. Calling Biden, etc., would have only helped, not hurt (and how can I tell you what they would have said? the Dems know, and that's why they weren't allowed)

You do know that showing someone else’s dirty laundry doesn’t actually make yours any cleaner, right? Although I guess you could convince some shallow thinkers that some sort of relative dirtiness is important.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Here's the problem; in indictments (as an impeachment is...an accusation/indictment, not a conviction) the duty of the prosecution is to prove someone GUILTY.

the Senate decided that the House didn't do the job right, did not allow all the proper investigative procedures, and threw the case out of court because the investigation was, quite frankly, badly done and the accusations simply didn't rise to the height of 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' Yes. It WAS partisan...on both sides, but the Dems started the partisan thing. They've been looking for something, ANYTHING, to impeach Trump over since before the man took office. I haven't seen a single week go by without some left leaning liberal cry 'IMPEACH TRUMP.' Given the obvious....and I do mean obvious...political intent and bias of the whole thing, I wouldn't have impeached him had someone taken pictures of him handing Putin the keys to the Pentagon, given what I know about the false nature of the documents used to cobble this whole thing together. I would simply figure it was photoshopped, and I'd most likely be right.

By the way, it is NOT a tu quoque argument to say that bringing up Biden and his son (and wanting witnesses to their conduct) and pointing out Biden's braggadocio and support from his party for forcing Ukraine to fire a prosecutor for investigating the company his son worked for. A 'tu quoque' fallacy is when someone says that it is perfectly OK to break a law, because his accuser is breaking one as well....like the man who says it is perfectly acceptable for HIM to cheat on his taxes because his accuser cheats, too.

This is not that. What THIS is, is pointing out the hypocrisy of a group of people who are accusing Trump of doing something HE DID NOT DO, even as their precious hope for the future not only DID that thing, but bragged about it.

In other words...WE can do what we want because we are fighting corruption (even though 'fighting corruption' looks VERY much like the corruption they are supposed to be fighting) but we can accuse you of doing something just like it, or worse, and heaven help you if you want to show anybody that this is precisely what you are doing. That is not 'tu quoque,' because 'tu quoque" is a defense based on 'well, of course I can, because you do."

THIS is 'I didn't do it, but YOU did, and now you are projecting." Not 'tu quoque,' but hypocrisy. That the Dems would not allow Biden or his son to testify is absolute proof.

You’ve laid out a lot here. We were talking about the Trump Party calling witnesses and if they could have said anything exculpatory that would persuade Trump’s critics.

I would be fine with a separate investigation of the Bidens. But it’s hard for me to see how they could have said something exculpatory for Trump in this trial. Even if their testimony revealed wrongdoing, if it is new information that Trump didn’t have at the time, it wouldn’t justify Trump’s decision to investigate or the manner in which he did that.

As Mitt Romney correctly pointed out, based on what we know today, there is no evidence the Bidens committed a crime, nor good evidence that (rather than political gain) was driving Trump’s desire to have them investigated (as Romney said, why didn’t Trump want them investigated before Biden jumped in the race? Why didn’t Trump name any other corrupt individuals in Ukraine who should be investigated - why only his rival? Etc)

Remember, Trump could have simply asked his own Justice Dept to look into the Bidens or he could have conducted political opposition research using Trump campaign funds. Instead, he preferred to use taxpayer money - i.e., other people’s money, a pattern he has followed his entire life.

So for those reasons I would not have voted to call the Bidens as witnesses but if they were called, would be open to anything that exonerated Trump.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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:



U.S.C. Title 10 - ARMED FORCES

Thanks. However, it sounds like Vindman was transferred - he is not out of a job.

 

[Lyndon]

The witnesses were fired because they didn't lie under oath to protect Trump.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You’ve laid out a lot here. We were talking about the Trump Party calling witnesses and if they could have said anything exculpatory that would persuade Trump’s critics.

I would be fine with a separate investigation of the Bidens. But it’s hard for me to see how they could have said something exculpatory for Trump in this trial. Even if their testimony revealed wrongdoing, if it is new information that Trump didn’t have at the time, it wouldn’t justify Trump’s decision to investigate or the manner in which he did that.

As Mitt Romney correctly pointed out, based on what we know today, there is no evidence the Bidens committed a crime, nor good evidence that (rather than political gain) was driving Trump’s desire to have them investigated (as Romney said, why didn’t Trump want them investigated before Biden jumped in the race? Why didn’t Trump name any other corrupt individuals in Ukraine who should be investigated - why only his rival? Etc)

Remember, Trump could have simply asked his own Justice Dept to look into the Bidens or he could have conducted political opposition research using Trump campaign funds. Instead, he preferred to use taxpayer money - i.e., other people’s money, a pattern he has followed his entire life.

So for those reasons I would not have voted to call the Bidens as witnesses but if they were called, would be open to anything that exonerated Trump.

One thing about investigations during an election, they try to keep them under wraps if it is of someone in a race. It is understood that even the knowledge of an investigation can hurt someone. Trump did not want an actual investigation. He wanted a public announcement of an investigation by a foreign power. And he tried to use US taxpayer funds to drive that. In other words he used US taxpayer funds to try to force a foreign power into meddling in our election process. One of the biggest fears of the framers of the Constitution was foreign intervention and Trump tried to use US taxpayer funds to do so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thanks. However, it sounds like Vindman was transferred - he is not out of a job.

It doesn't just prohibit firing. It prohibits taking (or threatening to take) an unfavorable personnel action, or withholding (or threatening to withhold) a favorable personnel action.

Even a transfer to a different job with the same pay and rank could be "unfavorable" if the new job has fewer opportunities for advancement, is less interesting or rewarding work, or takes the service member away from their family for longer periods, etc.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It doesn't just prohibit firing. It prohibits taking (or threatening to take) an unfavorable personnel action, or withholding (or threatening to withhold) a favorable personnel action.

Even a transfer to a different job with the same pay and rank could be "unfavorable" if the new job has fewer opportunities for advancement, is less interesting or rewarding work, or takes the service member away from their family for longer periods, etc.

Thanks, I did not know this.

 

[dianaiad]

That's not why Shokin was fired.

Trump is on a rampage now.

I don't blame him one bit.

 

[dianaiad]

You do know that showing someone else’s dirty laundry doesn’t actually make yours any cleaner, right? Although I guess you could convince some shallow thinkers that some sort of relative dirtiness is important.

It doesn't....if one's own laundry was actually dirty. This, however?

Was the Dems trying to get people to look away from their own soiled underwear by accusing someone else of soiling his...when his is clean. When it also serves the purpose of messing with an election, that's all good.


Look...the Dems knew from the get go that the Senate was not going to convict. That was never the point. Any impeachment that was truly meant to 'stick' would have had at least some bipartisan support, and there was none. Not to mention that the Dems did everything in their power to see to it that there wouldn't BE any. They didn't want any.

 

[Lyndon]

Jesus cries when he hears Christians defending Trump!!

 

[Shad]

Impeachment witness Alexander Vindman and his twin brother were abruptly fired and escorted from the White House as part of Trump's payback

This is particularly sad when you think about Vindman’s testimony to Congress where he praised America as a country where you could speak the truth without fear of reprisal.

He worked for government. He is not free from repercussions for his actions.

Apparently Trump’s America is not the country Vindman though it was.

Wrong. Vindman seems to forgot he works for the military and US government. He can not say what he wants when he wants at no cost.

History will remember Lt. Col.Vindman as a hero.

Opinion.