Trump ousts White House staffer who testified against him in impeachment - lawyer

[metisdead]

Some TDS troll posts and other troll posts and the replies have been removed. 

 

Some off topic posts and replies were removed as well. 

 

 

[Crazy Alex]

12 hours ago, Sujo said:

If you dont know then why did you say he did. Oh nevermind.

 

Yes, you're right. Just because Ukraine offered Vindman the Minister of Defense position doesn't mean Ukrainian-born, Ukrainian activist Vindman has done anything for them. Yup, I sure blew that one.

[candide]

1 hour ago, Chiphigh said:

No evidence? The Carter Page fisas were specifically called out as bogus just last week, the fbi director just testified that they and the doj illegally surveilled Carter Page. 

 

These are just the ones that they have admitted to. 

 

Durham has opened a criminal investigation. 

 

What planet are you on? 

Not in your alternate universe!

The fact that there were a few irregularities doe not mean the whole investigation is flawed. Two FISA applications out of four, and the investigation into Page is only a small part of it.

 

"Trump Investigation Was Justified, Inspector General Report Says, While Citing FBI Errors"

https://fortune.com/2019/12/09/fbi-inspector-general-report-doj-ig/

[Crazy Alex]

 

 

10 minutes ago, candide said:

Not in your alternate universe!

The fact that there were a few irregularities doe not mean the whole investigation is flawed. Two FISA applications out of four, and the investigation into Page is only a small part of it.

 

"Trump Investigation Was Justified, Inspector General Report Says, While Citing FBI Errors"

https://fortune.com/2019/12/09/fbi-inspector-general-report-doj-ig/

I suspect most Americans will be more concerned than you. A government attorney falsifying FISA documents to get a warrant to spy on someone is a very serious matter to those of us who believe in civil rights. I'm hoping I can include you in that description.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/horowitz-finds-evidence-fbi-employee-altered-russia-probe-document

[candide]

2 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

If you don't want to admit that there were govt employees and agencies that knowingly started investigating the Trump campaign based on unfounded and false information, you are purposely ignoring the the facts that have been steadily being revealed. 

 

19 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

 

 

I suspect most Americans will be more concerned than you. A government attorney falsifying FISA documents to get a warrant to spy on someone is a very serious matter to those of us who believe in civil rights. I'm hoping I can include you in that description.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/horowitz-finds-evidence-fbi-employee-altered-russia-probe-document

Deflection. That was not the topic under discussion. See first pot above.

[Crazy Alex]

5 minutes ago, candide said:

 

Deflection. That was not the topic under discussion. See first pot above.

Yes, I saw your post about FISA applications and offered a rebuttal to it. But I'll take your calling it a dodge as conceding the issue. I am happy to engage you on LTC Vindman and his removal from the White House.

 

Of course, any leader is not going to want a person who hates them working for them. The president has wide latitude to hire and fire as he sees fit. As such, he is perfectly within his rights to remove Ukrainian-born, Ukrainian activist LTC Vindman. What else is there to discuss here?

 

Well, I guess we can discuss which country LTC Vindman is loyal to. That is certainly open to debate. The fact that it is is yet more evidence that president Trump is wise to remove him from the equation. Perhaps LTC Vindman can take up Ukraine on that Minister of Defense job offer, yes?

[candide]

5 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Yes, I saw your post about FISA applications and offered a rebuttal to it. But I'll take your calling it a dodge as conceding the issue. I am happy to engage you on LTC Vindman and his removal from the White House.

 

Of course, any leader is not going to want a person who hates them working for them. The president has wide latitude to hire and fire as he sees fit. As such, he is perfectly within his rights to remove Ukrainian-born, Ukrainian activist LTC Vindman. What else is there to discuss here?

 

Well, I guess we can discuss which country LTC Vindman is loyal to. That is certainly open to debate. The fact that it is is yet more evidence that president Trump is wise to remove him from the equation. Perhaps LTC Vindman can take up Ukraine on that Minister of Defense job offer, yes?

My posts (there were several on the same issue) were not about FISA warrants, that was just a peripherical issue. You did not offer a rebuttal because there was nothing to refute. I never claimed it was right.

[Crazy Alex]

4 minutes ago, candide said:

My posts (there were several on the same issue) were not about FISA warrants, that was just a peripherical issue. You did not offer a rebuttal because there was nothing to refute. I never claimed it was right.

Great, so we have the FISA issue out of the way, with you tacitly conceding there are at least minor issues. But let's set that aside. I'll try again:

 

Of course, any leader is not going to want a person who hates them working for them. The president has wide latitude to hire and fire as he sees fit. As such, he is perfectly within his rights to remove Ukrainian-born, Ukrainian activist LTC Vindman. What else is there to discuss here?

 

Well, I guess we can discuss which country LTC Vindman is loyal to. That is certainly open to debate. The fact that it is is yet more evidence that president Trump is wise to remove him from the equation. Perhaps LTC Vindman can take up Ukraine on that Minister of Defense job offer, yes?

 

And now that I think about it, getting rid of someone who testified in a failed effort to have one removed from office seems like a pretty good reason to move that person outside the inner circle. Please articulate why Trump is:

 

a) wrong to do so

 

and/or

 

b) acting outside his purview as president to do so.

 

Better yet, articulate why any leader would leave someone like Vindman in place, given the circumstances.

 

[candide]

13 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Great, so we have the FISA issue out of the way, with you tacitly conceding there are at least minor issues. But let's set that aside. I'll try again:

 

Of course, any leader is not going to want a person who hates them working for them. The president has wide latitude to hire and fire as he sees fit. As such, he is perfectly within his rights to remove Ukrainian-born, Ukrainian activist LTC Vindman. What else is there to discuss here?

 

Well, I guess we can discuss which country LTC Vindman is loyal to. That is certainly open to debate. The fact that it is is yet more evidence that president Trump is wise to remove him from the equation. Perhaps LTC Vindman can take up Ukraine on that Minister of Defense job offer, yes?

 

And now that I think about it, getting rid of someone who testified in a failed effort to have one removed from office seems like a pretty good reason to move that person outside the inner circle. Please articulate why Trump is:

 

a) wrong to do so

 

and/or

 

b) acting outside his purview as president to do so.

 

Better yet, articulate why any leader would leave someone like Vindman in place, given the circumstances.

 

Nice try. We all know why Trump wanted to fire him. And your allegations about Windman are unfounded.

 

Anyway, I have good movie to watch so It's no time for me to start a new discussion.

[earlinclaifornia]

9 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

Correction :

 

A permanently AQUITTED PRESIDENT 

Permanently the same as the ONLY President Impeached in his first and only term?

[Crazy Alex]

4 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Permanently the same as the ONLY President Impeached in his first and only term?

How do you know it's his first and only term? Trump presides over a strong economy, strong markets and rising wages. That is common knowledge. And rest assured you'll be seeing more graphs like this one below:

 

[earlinclaifornia]

10 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

How do you know it's his first and only term? Trump presides over a strong economy, strong markets and rising wages. That is common knowledge. And rest assured you'll be seeing more graphs like this one below:

 

Your' actually giving the credit to Obama WTH. Look at what you post before you go ahead and post! Ocacssionaly even crayies post facts!!

[JHolmesJr]

Vindman was a fool who got manipulated by dark forces.

Im in favour of demoting him to Private Vindman and having him service

army vehicles on some base in Iraq.

[khaowong1]

I will say only this.  If you owned a company, and you had someone working in the front office, talking about how you ran your company, to a rival company, you would fire that clown in about 10 seconds flat.  It's called treason.  If your talking Military, where a top military aide on your staff was talking about your plans to the opposition, it's called treason and he or she would be put in prison or shot.  Same thing here.  Especially if it's Military, the President is your Commander in Chief.  You don't bad mouth or screw your Commander in Chief.  

[candide]

47 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

How do you know it's his first and only term? Trump presides over a strong economy, strong markets and rising wages. That is common knowledge. And rest assured you'll be seeing more graphs like this one below:

 

Very good, indeed!????

 

[Crazy Alex]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

Very good, indeed!????

 

According to one of the left's best and brightest, 2% economic growth is the new normal. So what's the problem? And you're still stuck with the fact that Trump's economic growth is stronger than Obama's. So good luck trying to make the case to kick out Trump over economic growth. Oh and of course, if that's a winning strategy, why aren't Democrats using it? Are they just stupid? Wait a minute, don't answer that! ????

[candide]

21 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

According to one of the left's best and brightest, 2% economic growth is the new normal. So what's the problem? And you're still stuck with the fact that Trump's economic growth is stronger than Obama's. So good luck trying to make the case to kick out Trump over economic growth. Oh and of course, if that's a winning strategy, why aren't Democrats using it? Are they just stupid? Wait a minute, don't answer that! ????

It's going down, so it may not be the case for the full term. Forecast is now 1.80% for 2020.

[Crazy Alex]

5 minutes ago, candide said:

It's going down, so it may not be the case for the full term. Forecast is now 1.80% for 2020.

158,000 jobs were forecast for January. So far, the forecasts aren't going so well. Well, the reality is going well for Americans- not so much for people who think they will benefit from a bad economy.

 

As for 1.8%, depends on who you ask.

[tropo]

16 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

for telling the truth

oh forgot that is an offence

The problem is he wasn't only testifying about what happened. He made a judgement, which is something quite different.

 

Here's what he said:

 

"(Vindman) testified that it was “improper for the president” to coerce a foreign country to investigate a political opponent."

 

Getting rid of him was the right thing to do. It wasn't his place to make an assessment of the president's motives. 

[Crazy Alex]

1 minute ago, tropo said:

The problem is he wasn't only testifying about what happened. He made a judgement, which is something quite different.

 

Here's what he said:

 

"(Vindman) testified that it was “improper for the president” to coerce a foreign country to investigate a political opponent."

 

Getting rid of him was the right thing to do. It wasn't his place to make an assessment of the president's motives. 

Vindman also lost track of the chain of command. As Trump is commander-in-chief, it was inappropriate for Vindman to publicy disparage any ranking official with his personal vitriol, which Vindman obviously did. He'll be lucky to not face a court martial and perhaps other charges related to leaking classified information.

[Credo]

4 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Vindman also lost track of the chain of command. As Trump is commander-in-chief, it was inappropriate for Vindman to publicy disparage any ranking official with his personal vitriol, which Vindman obviously did. He'll be lucky to not face a court martial and perhaps other charges related to leaking classified information.

Telling the truth is not 'publicly' disparaging anyone.   Being publicly escorted out of the White House, is, however.

 

[Crazy Alex]

1 minute ago, Credo said:

Telling the truth is not 'publicly' disparaging anyone.   Being publicly escorted out of the White House, is, however.

 

Anyone who has been in the military knows you don't just get to run your mouth off about your superiors as you see fit. Vindman jumped the chain of command. Whether or not he agreed with Trump's phone call, which Vindman voiced his opinion on, doesn't matter. He's a clown and it's wonderful he was shown the door.

[Opl]

Alexander Vindman makes America great.

[RJRS1301]

1 hour ago, Crazy Alex said:

Anyone who has been in the military knows you don't just get to run your mouth off about your superiors as you see fit. Vindman jumped the chain of command. Whether or not he agreed with Trump's phone call, which Vindman voiced his opinion on, doesn't matter. He's a clown and it's wonderful he was shown the door.

He was called to testify, so he shoulld have refused the order from the Senate? 

[Kelsall]

1 hour ago, RJRS1301 said:

He was called to testify, so he shoulld have refused the order from the Senate? 

He should have told the truth.

[RJRS1301]

7 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

He should have told the truth.

You know his truth, were privy to the contents of the call?

 

[Tug]

10 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

He should have told the truth.

Oh but he did and we won’t forget

[mogandave]

3 hours ago, Credo said:

Telling the truth is not 'publicly' disparaging anyone.   Being publicly escorted out of the White House, is, however.

 

But providing opinion is. 
 

Everyone most everywhere that gets terminated gets escorted out publicly. When would it be possible to escort someone out in private? 
 

The press just uses it as an opportunity to further vilify Trump. 
 

Trump clearly can’t trust him so he got rid of him.

[Sujo]

8 minutes ago, mogandave said:

But providing opinion is. 
 

Everyone most everywhere that gets terminated gets escorted out publicly. When would it be possible to escort someone out in private? 
 

The press just uses it as an opportunity to further vilify Trump. 
 

Trump clearly can’t trust him so he got rid of him.

Giving opinion under oath to a question is not.

 

He deserves another medal for standing up for his oath of service to USA.

[RJRS1301]

10 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Trump clearly can’t trust him so he got rid of him.

Can anyone trust Trump? He is a widlcard of ego driven outbursts. How many staff he has appointed has he discarded?