M
Maximus1
Guest
That’s another excuse. Trump won’t give a reason for firing two brothers so you don’t need to either
Hold it!Retaliating against( firing) someone who testified against you is a Federal criminal offense. (18 USC 1513).
Uhm, no. Ask anyone who was relieved of command or was reassigned early if they were “fired”.Not fired, re-assigned.
Trump THINKS he was testifying against him.I thought he was not testifying against President Trump but was just testifying to the objective facts?
Ya mean he was testifying AGAINST the President??
PaulinVA pretending to know what President Trump thinks . . .Of course, it was retaliation.
And there ya have it.Trump THINKS he was testifying against him.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)Despite Paul being a man without a party, he has imbibed the Democrat methodology that has gotten them into so much trouble.
Same thing, to Trump.I thought he was not testifying against President Trump but was just testifying to the objective facts?
No argument from me, since this pretty much seems to describe how he has hired for advisory and cabinet positions so far.It seems the dominant thought is that Trump should surround himself with untrustworthy people
It’s all about retaliation. The impeachment was retaliation against Trump for handing Clinton her lunch. Trump is now retaliating. This is politics. It’s not about you and me. It’s not about making our country better and stronger. It’s about power.Of course, you can be “fired” from a posting. Of course, it was retaliation.
Retaliation is illegal in virtually every job situation, yet here it’s okay? If its all about retaliation, and you agree with what happened to the LtCol, then you should have no issues about what the house did to the Impeached-in-Chief…so which is it?It’s not about making our country better and stronger. It’s about power.
Would that be the same objective truth of those President Trump spoke of during the SOTU?When we had objective truth it meant something