Impeachment Thread

Lieutenant Colonel Vindman is an active military officer, rotating through the NSC on assignment. The president can put quotation marks around lieutenant colonel, as he did in today’s tweets, in an effort to demean Vindman’s service, but there is nothing to demean about his service, which has been in all respects honorable. The conduct for which his career has been attacked, what the president calls Vindman’s “insubordination,” was exceptionally brave truth-telling—both in real time and later when Congress sought to hear from him. When that happened, Vindman did not shrink from the obligation to say what had happened.

Unlike his boss, John Bolton, he did not withhold information from Congress, nor did he cite potential privileges that could be resolved only by court order or by book contract. Unlike Sondland, he didn’t waffle when called. Rather, along with a group of other public servants at the NSC, the State Department, and the Defense Department, he went up to Capitol Hill and told the truth.


And thus did Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman join a very special club—a motley crew of public officials who have drawn the public ire of a president of uncompromising vindictiveness for the crime of doing the right thing. It’s a club composed of former FBI officials, including two former directors of the bureau; American ambassadors; a former attorney general; some lawyers and investigators; even the former ambassador to the United States from the United Kingdom—anyone who has a line he or she won’t cross to serve Trump’s personal needs or who insists on doing his or her job by not hiding unpleasant realities.

Membership in this ever less exclusive club entitles Vindman to a number of, uh, benefits: unending, random attack by the most powerful man in the world using any of his available means of communication with the entire globe; mockery and derision by his associated media outlets, a category of abuse that in Vindman’s case includes anti-Semitic insinuations and frivolous allegations of inappropriate liaison with a foreign power; the security threats that inevitably come with such unwanted attention; damage to a distinguished career, a dramatic example of which happened yesterday; and, perhaps most unnerving of all for people who are used to anonymity, a kind of notoriety that leaves club members wondering if the person catching their eye on the street recognizes them with hatred or admiration or something else.

It is all part of a civil-liberties violation so profound that we don’t even have a name for it: the power of the president to suddenly point his finger at a random person and announce that this is the point in the story when that person’s life gets ruined.


Membership in this particular club has some genuine benefits, too. They are hokey things, such as honor and patriotism and duty. Because one thing all of the members of this particular club have in common is that—in very different ways—they all tried to do their jobs. They sought the truth. And they told the truth when called upon to do so.


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...e-right-thing-was-vindmans-only-crime/606292/
 
Fixed that for ya.

What difference, at this point, does it make whether he told the truth, made up the whole thing, misunderstood or even just repeated what he was told?

If YOU were CEO of some massive company and a highly placed staff member rightly OR wrongly compromised your work, why in EARTH would you not replace him?
 
What difference, at this point, does it make whether he told the truth, made up the whole thing, misunderstood or even just repeated what he was told?

If YOU were CEO of some massive company and a highly placed staff member rightly OR wrongly compromised your work, why in EARTH would you not replace him?



Hey G: you're missing YG point, in his eyes Vindman was a fucking hero, why? , because of 'stage 10 TDS' most others found col klink had an agenda to depose a duly elected president. If he would have pulled that shit on Obama YB would want Klink court martialed, busted to E-0 and confined to FT Leavenworth for ten years of hard labor.
 
Hey G: you're missing YG point, in his eyes Vindman was a fucking hero, why? , because of 'stage 10 TDS' most others found col klink had an agenda to depose a duly elected president. If he would have pulled that shit on Obama YB would want Klink court martialed, busted to E-0 and confined to FT Leavenworth for ten years of hard labor.

I got it, I just want Y to acknowledge that he is a hypocrite. I know he knows he is, I'd simply appreciate him acknowledging it.
 
What difference, at this point, does it make whether he told the truth, made up the whole thing, misunderstood or even just repeated what he was told?

If YOU were CEO of some massive company and a highly placed staff member rightly OR wrongly compromised your work, why in EARTH would you not replace him?

That analogy only fits if the CEO were a felon who got away with it. In that event, yeah, I imagine s/he would replace him.
 
That analogy only fits if the CEO were a felon who got away with it. In that event, yeah, I imagine s/he would replace him.

He was found not guilty. You can privately feel (and even bleat it publicly) that you disagree, but the verdict was not guilty.

Your attempt at deflection undermines the entire criminal justice system of the United States.

It's good to see you acknowledge that it is within the boss's rights to remove staff that aren't loyal.
 
Last edited:
That analogy only fits if the CEO were a felon who got away with it. In that event, yeah, I imagine s/he would replace him.

I’m sorry. The President was not even charged with a felony. Or any statutory crime for that matter. And you must have missed the part about him being acquitted of the articles of impeachment. #TDS
 
What part of "got away with it" did you guys miss? Yes, I'm aware of the verdict. Doesn't change the fact that the firing was for purely revengeful reasons, not any actual wrongdoing.
 
What part of "got away with it" did you guys miss? Yes, I'm aware of the verdict. Doesn't change the fact that the firing was for purely revengeful reasons, not any actual wrongdoing.

Are you referring to Vindman? If so, you’ll be happy to know he wasn’t fired. He retains his military rank and all the benefits that come with it. He was removed from his assignment as a member of the NSC for insubordination.
 
What part of "got away with it" did you guys miss? Yes, I'm aware of the verdict. Doesn't change the fact that the firing was for purely revengeful reasons, not any actual wrongdoing.

I'm sure it felt good to reassign him away from the WH, but he was kicked out because he'd proven he was not trustworthy. Why do you insist that ANY boss MUST retain people on staff that he doesn't trust and doesn't like?

You already acknowledged that it is OK to fire someone the boss doesn't want around.

Trump has a HELL of a lot more firing to do to. He's got just five years left in office to drain the swamp.
 
I'm sure it felt good to reassign him away from the WH, but he was kicked out because he'd proven he was not trustworthy. Why do you insist that ANY boss MUST retain people on staff that he doesn't trust and doesn't like?

You already acknowledged that it is OK to fire someone the boss doesn't want around.

Trump has a HELL of a lot more firing to do to. He's got just five years left in office to drain the swamp.




YB is a hypocrite. Obama was the most aggressive president in history when it came to prosecuting whistleblowers, some deserved, some just outright illegal. In the Obama admin if you didn't toe the line you were history. Obama preached transparency and was everything but!!. Eric Holder was the most biased AG since Bobby Kennedy. When an AG admits to being a wingman for his president people don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to Barr, raw blinded hypocrisy.

Vindman was not some hero, he acted on a personal agenda, had no loyalty whatsoever to his president. Ukraine was more important to Vindman than his own country. If it's found that the whole ordeal was a planned conspiracy it won't bode well for the Vindmans or Schiff.

No one doubts Vindman's past military record but that doesn't put him beyond reproach or provide him immunity from a criminal investigation. Vindman was put in a position at the WH because he was knowledgeable on the subject matter and rather than consult with the chain of command his objections he chose to subvert.

In my opinion he should be forced out of the military, perhaps court-martialed for mishandling classified material and acting outside the chain of command. Atkinson need to testify before the senate intel and judiciary committees.

People who never served don't understand the trust Vindman breached. People like YB have such a disdain for Trump the collateral damage caused by Vindman is worth it if it hurts Trump's admin. Vindman lacked the courage to express his concerns with his chain of command and chose to become a pawn for Adam Schiff and was guaranteed political protection from the likes. He caused more division in our country than any one single person since Wikileaks. This could have been resolve with WH legal counsel or the ICIG but Vindman, through his brother, took it to an associate of the Adam Schiff team first. Made it political using the turmoil caused by the Mueller report as a spring board. That's what will destroy Vindman's career. Been to war college, a decorated combat vet, a star was perhaps in his future and he blew it.

Vindman's position was an ancillary on, never was he part of the decision making process in dealing with foreign policy. His civilian boss was also in on the call and had no issues with the call.

Trump's impeachment was a vindictive ploy by the Dems, hatched and made public as early as 2016, before he was even inaugurated. Fraudulent FISA warrants, a sham intelligence investigation followed by a criminal investigation based on a corrupt pretence, an investigation minus the predicate for such an investigation and now we have the Vindman cluster F@#K. The continuity of misplaced hatred for Trump is so obvious and yet it goes on.

You may hate Trump but you can't deny he's right up front, you always know what's on his mind even if it's exaggerated. Obama, on the other hand, did so many cloak and dagger style things for which he got a pass.

The American people were so proud of themselves for electing a black president. People felt morally accomplished, vindicated from past racial sins. America was now sitting atop the global moral high ground. The pendulum swung so far to the side blinding self righteousness that coming down from that high was difficult. Now we have a president with a different style and the pendulum has now swung far to the other side, the side that conjures nothing but a blinding evil doer. The truth is somewhere in the middle for both.

In some circles Vindman is a hero and in others he's despised. One thing he did do was to reinvigorate interest in the Bidens, forcing a closer look at Ukrainian corruption and the role the DNC had in the 2016 election process. Hillary's scum is slowly starting to resurface.

The impeachment was along party lines and very political. This impeachment and trial was a clever scheme to shape the upcoming 2020 election.
 
Last edited:
What I fail to see is since all the Republicans seem to be afraid of Chief Bone Spurs why didn't they vote for impeachment so they would be rid of his vindictive behavior? I guess the Republicans in the Senate like to be on their knees licking Chief Bone Spurs butt crack especially after he has taken a good crap.
 
What I fail to see is since all the Republicans seem to be afraid of Chief Bone Spurs why didn't they vote for impeachment so they would be rid of his vindictive behavior? I guess the Republicans in the Senate like to be on their knees licking Chief Bone Spurs butt crack especially after he has taken a good crap.



I guess your cerebral capacity is questionable. You're really into that scat thing! :confused::eek::cool:
 
What I fail to see is since all the Republicans seem to be afraid of Chief Bone Spurs why didn't they vote for impeachment so they would be rid of his vindictive behavior? I guess the Republicans in the Senate like to be on their knees licking Chief Bone Spurs butt crack especially after he has taken a good crap.

More interestingly, how did the Dominatrix of the House get the Dems to unanimously vote FOR impeachment? Sounds like she must be a powerful enemy to have.
 
More interestingly, how did the Dominatrix of the House get the Dems to unanimously vote FOR impeachment? Sounds like she must be a powerful enemy to have.

1. It wasn't unanimous.
2. They probably voted to impeach because attempted extortion of a world leader is serious shit.
 
1. It wasn't unanimous.
2. They probably voted to impeach because attempted extortion of a world leader is serious shit.

It was unanimous on the Democrat side of the aisle. Which is what I posted.

I figure they voted to impeach for fear of losing prized status or facing some back room wrath. Maybe getting their head on Pelosi's pike.
 
Back
Top