D
dvdjs
Guest
I think you must be mistaken about the sequence of events in Vindman’s reporting.
Perhaps you could relate your understanding of that sequence.
Last edited:
- Status
Perhaps you could relate your understanding of that sequence.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Yeah, and Oliver North convinced a DC jury that he was just like them, a lowly LTC clerk who had to do what his boss the Admiral said or he would lose his job.
E
Ender
Guest
He was fired. You feel it was retaliatory. A very strong case can be made that it was appropriate for his behavior. In either case being escorted from the White House seems normal procedure for anyone terminated for cause (just or otherwise).
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
Republican Senators Tried to Stop Trump From Firing Impeachment Witness (Published 2020)
A handful of senators reached out to the White House to warn the president not to dismiss Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union who testified in the House hearings. But Mr. Trump went ahead anyway.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
dvdjs . . .
Odd behavior if Schiff thought Ciaramella was just another one of the guys.
But when Vindman was asked about sharing, he admitted he had.
Now admittedly he MAY have only been sharing with security clearanced people (like Ciaramella) but just because someone has clearance, does not mean you SHOULD share information with more people.
Of course the deeper question arises if Vindman, Ciaramella, and Schiff (directly OR indirectly) had some sort of an arrangement.
This WILL be investigated and we WILL hear MORE about that despite Adam Schiff attempting to shut off the proverbial faucet at the House hearings.
Too much is now out (and probably a LOT MORE is out behind the scenes that we do not know about).
I think Ciaramella and Schiff are both rightly in a lot of trouble and probably Vindman too.
Nobody can do this adequately thanks to Adam Schiff who pretending he did not know who the “Whistleblower” was, just shut down questioning whenever it got close to Eric Ciaramella.
Odd behavior if Schiff thought Ciaramella was just another one of the guys.
But when Vindman was asked about sharing, he admitted he had.
Now admittedly he MAY have only been sharing with security clearanced people (like Ciaramella) but just because someone has clearance, does not mean you SHOULD share information with more people.
Of course the deeper question arises if Vindman, Ciaramella, and Schiff (directly OR indirectly) had some sort of an arrangement.
This WILL be investigated and we WILL hear MORE about that despite Adam Schiff attempting to shut off the proverbial faucet at the House hearings.
Too much is now out (and probably a LOT MORE is out behind the scenes that we do not know about).
I think Ciaramella and Schiff are both rightly in a lot of trouble and probably Vindman too.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
Jobs in the WH are always temporary.
When your opponents will impeach you over hearsay, this act won’t cause any further ‘political backlash’
Just more handwringing by the NYT.
When your opponents will impeach you over hearsay, this act won’t cause any further ‘political backlash’
Just more handwringing by the NYT.
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
C
Cathoholic
Guest
The problem with the New York Times article JK, is it ASSUMES ONLY bad motives from President Trump in firing people like Sondland and ASSUMES President Trump fired Vindman (instead of a security head firing Vindman).
The issue the Times article IGNORES, is that almost certainly the Trump Administration has MORE damning security information against Vindman.
Security information that these Senators like Susan Collins et. al. cannot have access to at this point.
The issue the Times article IGNORES, is that almost certainly the Trump Administration has MORE damning security information against Vindman.
Security information that these Senators like Susan Collins et. al. cannot have access to at this point.
Last edited:
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Not defending Oliver North. Simply saying that a lot of military people are like that DC jury.
Sorry you missed the point.
I. am. not. on . the. left. I can say that forever, but a lot of people here exhibit binary thinking, instead of realizing that the country is 27% Republican, 27% Democrat, and 45% Independent.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Has anyone made such a strong case?
A gratuitous and classless move.
Not that that is relevant to anything under discussion.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
dvdjs on Vindman being escourted out of the White House . . .
I was at the UN once with someone who had high level security clearance. We were in a meeting.
I told this person I had to go to the restroom, I’d be right back.
I was told my clearance wasn’t high enough to go unattended.
I said I will look for guards and if I can’t go, I’ll be right back to get this person for a higher level clearance.
I went out, saw nobody and started off.
Out of proverbially nowhere (I am sure I was on closed circuit security cams) came a security guard (from France I am guessing) accompanied by someone else.
I had to be accompanied by them to use the restroom, then back to the meeting (which somehow they KNEW I was involved in).
No dvdjs. Not “classless”. Just ususal security measures.
The second Vindman lost his security clearance (or at least that level), he NEEDED an escort. At least one.
The “classless” is merely an impugning of the President at every invented opportunity and/or the President’s motives. Just what I have come to expect.
I think it is ususal procedure.
I was at the UN once with someone who had high level security clearance. We were in a meeting.
I told this person I had to go to the restroom, I’d be right back.
I was told my clearance wasn’t high enough to go unattended.
I said I will look for guards and if I can’t go, I’ll be right back to get this person for a higher level clearance.
I went out, saw nobody and started off.
Out of proverbially nowhere (I am sure I was on closed circuit security cams) came a security guard (from France I am guessing) accompanied by someone else.
I had to be accompanied by them to use the restroom, then back to the meeting (which somehow they KNEW I was involved in).
No dvdjs. Not “classless”. Just ususal security measures.
The second Vindman lost his security clearance (or at least that level), he NEEDED an escort. At least one.
The “classless” is merely an impugning of the President at every invented opportunity and/or the President’s motives. Just what I have come to expect.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
I said JOBS in the WH are temporary
But you prooftexted me again, your very nasty habit.
And pointing out that political appointments are temporary is the only response required to this thread
P
PaulinVA
Guest
I was just looking at a picture of LTC Vidman.
Infantry officer with a Ranger tab, airborne qualified, Combat Infantry Badge.
My hat’s off to him. Sorry he found himself in the situation he did, but glad he was there and did the right thing.
Infantry officer with a Ranger tab, airborne qualified, Combat Infantry Badge.
My hat’s off to him. Sorry he found himself in the situation he did, but glad he was there and did the right thing.
D
dvdjs
Guest
And that is not relevant to anything under discussion.
E
Ender
Guest
Yes. I posted this before.
His superior was Tim Morrison, the Senior Director for European Affairs, and Morrison expressed deep concerns about Vindman honoring the chain of command and of being a source of leaks. This was something Vindman ended up confirming from his testimony…This admission carried significant import. The first matter was that presidential calls with world leaders are classified information and his discussing the details outside his White House scope was an ethical breach.
From a person who has no clue what the normal protocol for such a situation would be or what Trump’s involvement in that decision was.
It is quite relevant. These are staff positions; those people serve at the pleasure of the president. Trump had no more obligation to keep Vindman than to keep any of the other staffers with whom he was displeased. Why should Vindman be any more exempt from dismissal than Comey?
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
A quote by G.K. Chesterton
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.
www.goodreads.com
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Ender . . .
I know Sondland does.
But I am not so sure about Vindman.
Don’t get me wrong. From what I saw he had to go.
(And I would give odds, that his direct boss is the one
who did the firing and not President Trump.
And had well-documented reasons. Reasons that were probably already turned over for further investigations that Vindman gave away in his Testimony at least implicitly.
Reasons that suggest he is potentially corrupt.)
But I think Vindman is an agency employee that falls under a different catagory than say, Sondland.
I am cerainly open to correction on this.
I could be wrong Ender, but I don’t think Vindman falls into that catagory.
I know Sondland does.
But I am not so sure about Vindman.
Don’t get me wrong. From what I saw he had to go.
(And I would give odds, that his direct boss is the one
who did the firing and not President Trump.
And had well-documented reasons. Reasons that were probably already turned over for further investigations that Vindman gave away in his Testimony at least implicitly.
Reasons that suggest he is potentially corrupt.)
But I think Vindman is an agency employee that falls under a different catagory than say, Sondland.
I am cerainly open to correction on this.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
If he didn’t work for the president then Trump couldn’t have fired him, and the argument is moot.
If he did work for the president then Trump had the right to fire him, and is surely justified in firing anyone on his staff in whom he has no confidence. Vindman was not on board with Trump’s Ukraine policy; that alone would justify letting him go.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Ender . . .
The only problem would be if it was seen as retribution to answer the call to testify.
Timing.
President Trump probably wanted the guy out the door and Vindman, who was a disgrace, needed to be out the door.
The issue will be WHO did the firing and WHY.
I have no doubt that everything is good here.
Trump is not going to give out much real information.
If the leftists try to batter him politically, THEN they will just fall into what the President wants them to do.
Making accusations to the media by Democrats is not getting them the kind of return it used to. Trump can just counter directly.
And thankfully there is many alternative media outlets ready, willing, and able to expose the mainstream media Giants.
So if the Democrats resort to Congress again, Trump will just “de-classify” whatever they have on Vindman, trot that out, and humiliate the Democrats for misusing Congress to TRY to make hay out of this.
Trump’s poll numbers will rise further again and the Democrat defeat in 2020 will be even larger.
But they are a very blind and self-destructive lot.
Therefore they may be stupid enough to try this kind of thing . . . again.
I agree.
The only problem would be if it was seen as retribution to answer the call to testify.
Timing.
President Trump probably wanted the guy out the door and Vindman, who was a disgrace, needed to be out the door.
The issue will be WHO did the firing and WHY.
I have no doubt that everything is good here.
Trump is not going to give out much real information.
If the leftists try to batter him politically, THEN they will just fall into what the President wants them to do.
Making accusations to the media by Democrats is not getting them the kind of return it used to. Trump can just counter directly.
And thankfully there is many alternative media outlets ready, willing, and able to expose the mainstream media Giants.
So if the Democrats resort to Congress again, Trump will just “de-classify” whatever they have on Vindman, trot that out, and humiliate the Democrats for misusing Congress to TRY to make hay out of this.
Trump’s poll numbers will rise further again and the Democrat defeat in 2020 will be even larger.
But they are a very blind and self-destructive lot.
Therefore they may be stupid enough to try this kind of thing . . . again.
Last edited:
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Props to you. I was a Russian linguist doing…stuff.
- Status