As many of us warned, Trump wasted no time getting revenge on an honorable veteran who's only crime was telling the truth. We've already witnessed his wrath on two Ambassadors, who also did their duty to their country as they swore to.
It won't be long for the criminal in the WH to do even more egregious harm to the Constitution than he already has. The firing of Vindman is illegal, but don't hold your breath for Jabba the Barr to uphold the law anytime soon!
In Trumpworld, liars receive the Medal of Freedom while courageous patriots receive a pink slip for telling the truth.
His supporters must feel especially proud of Ol' Bone Spurs today.
I agree it was a dastardly deed, (conjure the picture that comes with "dastardly"), but what makes you think it is illegal?
I heard some legal experts discussing it today, Gus. But it doesn't matter because Barr won't touch it anyway. This action affects his job contract which is illegal if broken for retaliatory reasons. Unless you think it wasn't?
He removed Taylor as well. I hope you caught Taylor's interview earlier today. He was very diplomatic, but his anger was apparent re the firings of Vindman and Yovonovitch.
I did catch the interview and saw Taylor's diplomatic talents in action.
Taylor, Vindman and Maria seem to all be honest, patriotic members of the State Dept, who's only crime was not swearing an oath to Trump, as they did to the Constitution.
This stinks to high heaven in my book.
It's not illegal the president of the United States is the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. he could have sent him to a new assignment anywhere he actually wanted to. Come on GA, you know this, why the kid gloves?
It's clear Randy listens too much CNN. "I heard some legal experts discussing it today,"
They weren't "kid gloves" Sharlee. I knew what you said is true, but I didn't know what Randy said wasn't. So I asked a sincere question.
I can imagine that there may be cases where any technically 'legal' action may become illegal by the circumstances of that action.
GA, Nothing in Randy's statement made sense of whatsoever. It was a rant.
" The firing of Vindman is illegal, but don't hold your breath for Jabba the Barr to uphold the law anytime soon!"
First Vindman was not "fired" one does not fire military. He was reassigned. Was it fair, no... Although it was well pointed out in the trail Vindman din not follow the chain of command with his concern about the notorious call. This alone would put him in hot water in the military.
Second AG Barr has nothing to do with Vindman being reassigned. So, why even make such a statement.
And you know what, I have followed you for long enough now to pretty much realize you may have pulled out the kid gloves.
Sorry, if I have overstepped my bounds. I have become weary of all the straight-up tales, that just hold no truth.
Don't worry about over-stepping Sharlee. It's all good in these forums.
What you are seeing as "kid gloves" I see as polite caution. I didn't think Randy was right, but I wasn't sure. So rather than call him a Trump-basher that didn't know what he was talking about, (guess who wouldn't know what they were talking about if he was right), I asked a question.
I have been wrong too many times—when I thought I was right—to want to take that chance when I am unsure if I am right.
Plus, polite words taste better than shitty ones when you have to eat them.
However, you may be partially right. Maybe, like a good Scotch, I am mellowing in my old age. ;-)
The pettiness of this President should never be underestimated. It does make it more clear why more people in his administration are afraid to speak out against him.
Even though Joe Walsh has ended his bid to challenge Trump, his rhetoric against him seems to be just as strong (if not stronger):
“He literally is the greatest threat to this country right now. Any Democrat would be better than Trump in the White House. That is not an easy thing for me, but that tells you how serious this moment is.”
https://deadline.com/2020/02/joe-walsh- … 202853995/
Trump's people are deaf to such entreaties, EW. They see what's happening and turn their heads away, Just like those near the German extermination camps did. They claimed not to notice the greasy ashes raining down on them from the ovens.
My father helped liberate those people inside the camps after going into Germany with Patton. He was also among those American soldiers who forced the local population to march past the ovens, still filled with unburnt corpses, to witness what they had long denied.
Some here in America are witnessing the greasy ash of a tyrant in action, and still deny it, as the Germans did.
Kudos to your father, Randy. I can't imagine what an insane scene that must have been. But, it does seem like many Americans have an ability to deny the suffering of those around them. Today we see turned heads over abuse of power, corporate money dictating policy rather than justice, morality, or logic, homelessness while there are multiple empty houses for each person on the street, illnesses that could be cured if our politicians weren't corrupted by big pharma. It's not hard to imagine that tomorrow, something akin to what happened in Nazi Germany or Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge happening here. I find the level of militarization of police and the rate at which they kill citizens with impunity extremely troubling as is. We can only hope that 2020 is the year the pendulum starts to swing towards a more civilized society.
Fingers crossed, Randy! Hopefully New Hampshire isn't a catastrophe like Iowa. I'll be biting my nails. Haha.
It really bugs me that the first two states in the primary process are so unrepresentative of the country as a whole. I sometimes wish the primaries were held on maybe three or four days separated by, say, three weeks with a relatively equal number of states represented on each day. Wouldn't that result in a candidate that more accurately represents the voters?
Why can't they all vote on the same day, and all this BS would be over quickly. I've never understood why some of the first primaries are in states--as Sandy pointed out--which don't reflect the majority of the country.
I mean, not badmouthing Iowa or New Hampshire, but can anyone tell me why these two states are the first two?
It bothers me too. I'd like to see the voting done on the same day and not managed by either political party. With the Iowa process being what it is/was, it almost seems that we need the UN or another international body to monitor our elections. The sad but true state of affairs in America today...
I'm positive a Democrat can win in the NH primary, EW!
Even the worst candidate the left can come up with is 10 times better than the criminal we now have in the WH.
Any votes for the worst Democratic candidate award? I guess my best to worst list would go 1. Sanders, 2. Yang, 3. Gabbard, 4. Steyer, 5. Warren, 6. Klobuchar, 7. Biden, 8. Bloomberg, and 9. Buttigieg...if anybody is still in the race, I think it's time for them to drop out.
The worst is Bloomberg, hands down. I could disagree on the order of the others but it doesn't really matter. All are head and shoulders above the low-life sleaze currently occupying the WH.
Bloomberg is just trying to buy his way in (and the DNC is happy to enable him). After Iowa, I'd have to go 3rd party over Pete and don't think I could do Biden either (he seems to have tanked in the polls anyway). The rest, I could probably compromise with if I had to. I'd still prefer #BernieOrVest above all else.
Yang moved up my list by staying focused on Trump being a symptom of our failing democracy much more than he is the core problem (totally agree he is a low-life sleaze).
Vindman did not even follow his chain of command when reporting his concerns. This is the reason for dismissal. A president had the legal right to have him removed and reassigned to another job. Not sure if you realize Trump is the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. He did nothing illegal by transferring Vinddman to another job. He could have sent him to Iraq if he felt the need. Not sure why you feel Barr has anything to do with any of this?
Barr has judgment over any lawsuits allowed against Trump for improper removal of a contacted Military officer. Sec.of the Army, Mike Esper, assured the House Vindman would not be retaliated against.
Needless to say, Esper will be called before the House to explain himself and why he was so adamant about Vindman's job security.
Also, Vindman's twin brother was also escorted out of the WH alongside his brother. This is reminiscent of the way North Korea's Un takes revenge on the families of his dissidents. Of course, Trump hasn't executed anyone yet. But give him time.
Now we find out Jennifer Williams--Pence's former aide, and a witness it the House Impeachment Inquiry--was deposed behind closed doors because Trump claimed her testimony was classified--testified to damaging evidence of Trump's actions in the Ukraine scandal.
There is nothing which should be classified in her deposition, according to those privileged to hear it, only things politically damaging to Trump.
He could have totally blocked her deposition and testimony by asserting his EP.. fact - he did not... Plus she was not fired, she was scheduled for a transfer since last fall, and did ask to start her new job early. Facts matter.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/3 … ent-109695
Am I the only one on Hubpages who has had employees work for them?
If I EVER had an employee get the law involved with me or my company and I had to go to trial and be proven innocent, the employee is fired. There is no reason to trust that employee anymore. I would view that employee as having their own agenda. I would get rid of them so quick they would call me the employee firing flash.
President Donald Trump had EVERY right to fire these people. They have proven they can't be trusted. When you take on the boss, there are consequences.
Forget this bogus claim of the truth, they have proven they do not deserve trust or respect.
I'm glad they were fired. I President Donald Trump fires as many as is necessary. Bottom Line: These are not independent contractors, they are employees.
....and there you have it. Support for government retribution against those who expose wrongdoing. This is not the same as a private employer. This is what happens in Russia or North Korea.
Really, Mike? Vindman's brother was fired. You defend that, too?
Yes, you prove you can't be trusted, you have to go. This is also what happens in every government and business in the world. If Vindman and his brother were so disgusted by President Donald Trump, they would not have been fired, they would have quit. Why do they want to work for someone they have such little respect for? Not quitting only shows me they were serving personal agendas.
Excuse me, but they worked for the United States of America, not Donald Trump.
Government is not his personal servant.
Mike thinks everyone in govt works for the Donald, or should.
Yes, and President Donald Trump is the CEO. In a company, if you take on the CEO like this, you will get fired. I hope any employee who acts like Vindman is let go. Government employees are just that...employees. They can and do get fired all the time. A man with Vindman's and his brother's notoriety and background should have no problem getting employment in the private sector.
The US is not a company. Vindman did his duty as he saw fit, like the other honorable people who testified about Trump's criminality under oath.
Trump only wants yes men around him to do his dirty work, like Rudy and Mulvaney, although both are now being treated by Trump as if he didn't know them.
Trump eventually throws everyone under the bus when they start getting too much attention re his bad actions. But what do we expect from a lying POS anyway?
You right wingers seem to forget that government answers to the people, not one man who temporarily occupies the White House. Stop being a tool of the petty Putin wannabe.
People on the left seem to forget the government runs on business principals. In a company, a board of directors hires a CEO. The American people are the CEOs of the company, they elected President Donald Trump to run things. They gave him the presidency and all the power that goes with it. He is in charge of the government. If he says someone gets fired, they get fired. It's just that simple. That is how it has been since the beginning.
No, the government does not run on businesses principles. That statement is so ignorant I have to wonder where you got it. From Trump University?
Really? Do you even know what business principals are? It provides a service and gets an income from providing such a service. The income are taxes, the services are government services such as courts, military, etc. So, if not business principals, what is the basis for how the government operates?
Are you forgetting about the other two branches of govt., Mike? What are they, boards of Directors? What other business has more than one board of directors?
My gawd. Business operates in the competitive marketplace to supply us with goods and services. Government operates to protect us from threats, to provide certain essential services such as roads and sewer systems, and to protect citizens from irresponsible capitalism (FDA, FDIC, etc.). Government is not driven by a profit motive. This is a simplistic and incomplete description of both the private sector and government but you get the idea.
I'm not interested in going off the deep end in this discussion but to say government operates like a business shows you know very little about either.
With this we agree; our government runs not on business principles, but on how to get the most votes and the most wealth and power for our elected "servants".
True - the government should answer to the people (not that it does so much any more).
But you far left wingers seem to forget that you are a small minority of "the people"; "the people" put Trump in office and will do so again.
The minority put Trump in office, not the majority, if you want to be correct about it. Sounds good though!
Agreed. And a small portion of that majority has never gotten over it; they can still be hear crying over a constitutionally legal election that did not go their way.
No, almost half put President Donald Trump in office. That is NOT a minority. Hillary got slightly more of the popular vote, but President Donald Trump won the votes in more places around the country.
Cool, so the minority in the Senate has just as much say so as the majority? Right.
Ah, no, have no idea where you came up with this, but ah, I don't know how it applies to anything. See control of the Senate is different than an election of a public official. Can't help you if you don't understand this.
I do understand, just showing you the difference a Majority can make, but not in the EC. The Majority in the Senate acquitted Trump, the same as the majority of jurors freed OJ, and with the same attorney in both cases.
Did you think OJ was just as innocent as Trump was?
Lol, I'm part of the majority that didn't elect him, the majority who knows he's a lying, bullying cheat, the majority who favored impeachment, and the majority who is working to get his criminal @as out of the White House, a task that will be even more difficult now that the @$s kissers in the Senate have given their approval for confinued interference in the election.
Yes, you are part of the far left that has decided that Trump is hateful and hated, that every action he takes is evil and wrong.
But you're NOT part of any majority thinking those things; that comes solely from your participation in Trump bashing and finding a few other people to side with you and accent your feelings. We're seeing more and more that most people are quite pleased with what he is producing; prosperity and a better life for most Americans. That's the majority, not the small minority so vocal about his perceived and imagined faults.
Delusions and rationalizations are always welcome tools of those who support lying demagogues and you are a master craftsman. Tip of the hat to you.
"his perceived and imagined faults."
Yes, he never lies or does anything a normal person would find unethical or unacceptable. Ask him yourself if you don't believe me.
Trump wasn't proved innocent or exonerated. His trial was a coverup with honorable people fired for telling the truth about the POS, Mike.
He was not proven guilty. In our country we are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Are you suggesting that we should all be considered guilty, and possibly jailed or hung, until proven innocent?
I'll just say this, Trump was just as innocent as OJ was. With the same defense attorney as well. Alan the Derk saved both of their arrogant asses.
I haven't heard anyone suggest we jail Trump without a conviction.. Hillary, on the other hand.... "Lock her up!" That was at the GOP convention .Who was that guy who led that chant? He's been locked up, hasn't he? After a proper trial, of course.
"hung, until proven innocent." I like this line Dan wrote.
His typical mischaracterization of a position to make it easier to argue against. Look for it. He does it all the time and often gets away with it.
Admitted to attempting to alter the telephone transcript. Also while giving corroborating testimony of the quid pro quo, he accidentally revealed that he is the whistle blower's source. You cannot corroborate evidence from which you are the source.
You're full of it, Joey! He did no such thing! It's people like you who further these lies from the right.
The hypocrisy and double standards of the left never cease to amaze me. Where was the outcry with obama was purging members of the military? Interesting how their concern for presidents firing people only apply to President Donald Trump. Those who suffer from TDS have no boundaries,
"What the president calls "my military" is being cleansed of any officer suspected of disloyalty to or disagreement with the administration on matters of policy or force structure, leaving the compliant and fearful.
Yet what has happened to our officer corps since President Obama took office is viewed in many quarters as unprecedented, baffling and even harmful to our national security posture. We have commented on some of the higher profile cases, such as Gen. Carter Ham. He was relieved as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi.
Nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the Obama administration this year, leading to speculation by active and retired members of the military that a purge of its commanders is under way."
https://www.investors.com/politics/edit … -by-obama/
I've got to say if I had an employee who was not at a level where they were included in our decision making, who got upset because we didn't do what they thought we should, but had no full real knowledge of ongoing events, who found someone and convinced them to go out and lodge a complaint using speculation but no real ammunition, who then went to the people the guy he sent had already talked to, and then his testimony proved he didn't really know anything of import, he was just negatively speculating......... I'd be shocked I had to fire him. An intelligent person with any integrity would have left of their own volition.
It's kind of indicative of why we in the Air Force always considered the term Army Intelligence to be an oxymoron.
I've heard the same about Air Force Intelligence, LTL. Apparently it's a multiple services belief about the other services. Not saying they are all not oxymoronic, but so is the POTUS when he lies to the people. "No quid pro quo, no quid pro quo, but I still want Ukraine to investigate the Bidens."
My husband is retired Chair Force, but his three tours of Viet Nam attached to the Green Berets didn't involve much in the way of chairs, or air for that matter.
He does understand the difference between serving one's country and prostrating oneself before a petty criminal, though.
About as crazy as Nancy saying she doesn't hate anyone, but rants and raves daily.
Still okay with obama firing high-ranking officers? Why the double standards?
Sigh....did he fire them as retribution for testifying under oath against him? No, he took office and chose his own people, which is his right. Trump presumably did the same thing, but only suddenly disliked Vindman because he told the truth under oath, something a real patriot would do.
And why did he fire Vindman's brother? Because he's a petty, vindictive tyrant.
"What the president calls "my military" is being cleansed of any officer suspected of disloyalty to or disagreement with the administration on matters of policy or force structure, leaving the compliant and fearful."
Seems like the scenario covering Vindman. Again the double standards and hypocrisy. I'm glad you people on the left are blind to it. This works to the advantage of those who see it for what it is.
Vindman and the others were fired for what they did correctly, for telling the truth about someone violating his oath of office. I fail to see how they were at fault for doing their duty.
All the witnesses were alarmed by the "drug deal" Rudy was trying to complete. Tell us why they were so alarmed by what you claim is an ordinary transaction between leaders?
And why they suddenly became insubordinate when many of them have served under both Republican and Democratic presidents?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Vindman apparently was a great policy guy until he didn't like Trump's unethical extortion of a foreign country to coerce investigation of a political rival.
And why was Vindman's brother fired, again?
Did they testify against him and was fired because of it?
I read your link Mike, but couldn't tell who wrote the editorial in the Conservative paper. Perhaps this will tell one all they need to know about its accuracy:
In July 2009, an editorial in Investor's Business Daily claimed that physicist Stephen Hawking "wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the [British] National Health Service (NHS) would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." Hawking was British, lived in the United Kingdom nearly all of his life, and received his medical care from the NHS. IBD later removed the editorial's reference to Hawking in its online version and appended an "Editor's Note" which said, "This version corrects the original editorial which implied that physicist Stephen Hawking, a professor at the University of Cambridge, did not live in the UK." Hawking himself responded, "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."
Trump's quest for vengeance has no bounds. As he smeared McCain when he dared go against Trump's wishes, he continues to insult and fire veterans with Purple Hearts and years of loyal service to the country.
I'ne never witnessed such a dishonest and petty person in my long life on this planet. I hope he serves two terms in hell!
For you people on the left sooooo worried about Vindman. He lost his job at the white house but is going to be going to the U.S. Army War College in Carsile, PA. For those of you who were never Army officers, this is a HUGE honor. So, if you're upset about Vindman, get over it. Some combat officers wait most of their career to attend this college. Once you finish here, you chances of being promoted to general increase.
"Former National Security Council aide Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman will be attending the U.S. Army War College in July."
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2020/02/l … uster.html
Getting smeared by the most racist liar in our history is not an honor to anyone, Mike. No matter how you spin it!
So much for Esper's claim Vindman and the others would not be retaliated against for doing their duty. Of course you can't trust anyone who relies on Trump's word anymore.
Randy, stick with farming. You have NO idea what it is like to be an Army officer. If I had an opportunity to be retaliated against by being given an chance to attend the War College, I would have gladly asked for such retaliation. Again, you don't realize this, but going there is a huge boost to his Army career.
You should have testified truthfully against the particular POTUS at the time then, Mike. See how easy it is to achieve your dreams?
What higher boost can Vindman achieve than what he already had?
Well, let me tell you a bit about the officer ranks in the Army.
Vindman is a full-bird Colonel. He can be a base commander of small units. After completing the War College in Pennsylvania, he'll be on track to be a one star Brigadier General. He will be what is known as a "Flag" officer. Oh, there are many perks associated with that position. He'll have his own personal staff dedicated to him. He'll have a driver to take him places and he'll get all the really good stuff they offer in the Army. I could go on, but I'm sure you realize going to the War College is a big deal.
I'm not worried about Vindman, per se, but about yet another formerly widely accepted ethical tenet tossed aside by Trump and his supporters.
Trump suggests military should consider additional discipline for Vindman
"We sent him on his way to a much different location, and the military can handle him any way they want," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. "Gen. Milley has him now. I congratulate Gen. Milley. He can have him."
Gen. Mark Milley is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Asked specifically if the Pentagon should pursue further action against Vindman, Trump said it would be "up to the military."
"But if you look at what happened, they’re going to certainly, I would imagine, take a look at that," he said.
The scumbag is taking revenge quickly. I said he wouldn't learn his lesson, and he proved me right. I hope Susan Collins is watching him destroy the Justice Department.
Those of you who have no served in the military are not aware that members of the military are subject to a separate set of laws called the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
According to the UCMJ, Vindman went outside the chain of command to report an offense. This is considered dereliction of duty. As a senior officer, he knew he was doing such a thing. I believe he was promised some type of protection under the table.
He could be subject to punishment for dereliction of duty. It is up to his commanding officer to pursue charges against him. It is covered under Article 92 of the UCMJ —Failure To Obey Order Or Regulation.
https://www.thebalancecareers.com/punit … mj-3356858
He could also be brought up on charges under UCMJ article 138 Wrongs Against Commanding Officer
https://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/cnsp … fficer.pdf
This is the reason President Donald Trump said it is up to the military.
What did he do to be charged with "dereliction of duty," Mike?
"According to the UCMJ, Vindman went outside the chain of command to report an offense. This is considered dereliction of duty."
Who was he supposed to report it to? Trump or Rudy?
You asked; you got the same answer that had already been given. Don't ask me to give you a list of all his chain of command.
In the military you MUST follow your chain of command. The last thing you want is a private taking their concerns to a general. This destroys the the leadership roles and harms the integrity of the command structure.
Colonel Vindman is required by military law to report any such suspected illegal activity to HIS superior officer. Since he is a Colonel, it means he was working directly for a Brigadier General.
So, yes, Vindman could be brought up on charges, but President Donald Trump left it to Vindman's superiors to determine if he is charged.
Obviously, he's not been charged and is going to attend the Army War College, so, I don't think his superiors are going to take any action. It is their choice.
If Trump wants him punished, he will be, Mike. The draft dodger in the WH has no reason to take the actions he has, like trying to get the criminal friend of his, Roger Stone, off scott free from his witness tampering, his Assange connection, lying to the jury, and threatening a judge.
What a real sweetheart!
I must ask. Where in the quotes you provided do you find President Trump suggests military should consider additional discipline for Vindman?
The context seems to be Trump was leaving it "up to the military". he did add "But if you look at what happened, they’re going to certainly, I would imagine, take a look at that,"
Perhaps it's that statement that you are reading into being a dog whistle?
Perhaps it's simply revenge on a purple heart bearer who was doing his duty to the country? Have you even considered this scenario, Shar? Or do you not want to give him this option?
You don't get it do you? Vindman is going to the War College. That is not only a huge honor, it is a tremendous benefit to his military career. Not only is there no revenge coming Vindman's way, he's being treated quite well.
Your keyword is perhaps. Maybe he should have followed his chain of command. "Maybe" is just as decisive word as perhaps. The po8it we don't know what the hell went on with Vindman. On the surface, he certainly had the right to question the call. But are you so certain it was Trump that secured his reassignment? It appears he most likely did. I would certainly not read into his motives for possibly doing so. I would think he would be very leary of keeping him around the WH.
Plus, he got a very promising reassignment. We could also surmise his superiors just thought he needed to move into a better job. Like I said we don't know, and the though Trump took revenge is just furthering conspiracies.
Yes, Trump isn't the type to seek revenge on anyone.
I am not one that looks for scenarios. I have no right to jump on a scenario and seek to scandalize anyone, just because I can. To me, this indicates poor reasoning, not to mention a mean spirit.
It seems odd you don't realize you are daily looking for negative things to say about Trump. Much of what is just a scenario. No, really as a bystander, a person just dropping in reading these threads I have noticed that many have this trait.
You ignored the fact Vindman was more or less getting a better job than he had. If I were looking for a Scenario, I might look on the positive side of him being rewarded for being a good patriot. You see that's the way scenarios are born. Is mine not as believable as yours?
You don'r look for scenarios? Bwahahahah! Aren't you one of the people on these forums who claimed Joe did the same thing Trump did in Ukraine?
Didn't you say Hunter needs to be investigated for some sort of crime for taking a lucrative job?
Who but Trump's enablers have said "Vindman was more or less getting a better job than he had?" You know it was just revenge for him and others telling the truth about the cretin, you're not that ignorant of the facts, Shar!
"Having seen something 'questionable (in the call),' Vindman properly notified his superiors," Kelly said at an event at Drew University, according to the magazine. "When subpoenaed by Congress in the House impeachment hearings, Vindman complied and told the truth."
"He did exactly what we teach them to do from cradle to grave," John Kelly said. "He went and told his boss what he just heard."
"We teach them, 'Don't follow an illegal order. And if you're ever given one, you'll raise it to whoever gives it to you that this is an illegal order, and then tell your boss,'" said Kelly.
And, of course...
"When I terminated John Kelly, which I couldn't do fast enough, he knew full well that he was way over his head. Being Chief of Staff just wasn't for him. He came in with a bang, went out with a whimper, but like so many X's, he misses the action & just can't keep his mouth shut...... ...which he actually has a military and legal obligation to do. His incredible wife, Karen, who I have a lot of respect for, once pulled me aside & said strongly that “John respects you greatly. When we are no longer here, he will only speak well of you.” Wrong!" Trump tweeted.
I hope Vindman's lawyer sues the hell out of Trump for his smearing a respected veteran and removing him from his position.
by John 3 months ago
With something so serious, you would think that Pelosi and the rest of her conspirators would bring a level of respectability to their so-called impeachment inquiry by following a strict adherence to the Constitution and rules. No, they have chosen to use their majority to run a kangaroo court....
by Readmikenow 2 months ago
House Dem reverses course on Trump impeachment as support among independents fallsHouse Dem now sees no 'value' in Trump impeachment, as polls show fading support among independents"Michigan Democratic Rep. Brenda Lawrence, a prominent supporter of Kamala Harris who has previously supported...
by Readmikenow 8 weeks ago
“WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Barack Obama and Donald Trump are tied this year as the most admired man. It is Obama's 12th time in the top spot versus the first for Trump. Michelle Obama is the most admired woman for the second year in a row.Each year since 1948, Gallup has asked Americans to name, in an...
by ga anderson 12 months ago
In a recent interview, Joe Biden says his family wants him to run for the presidency.As a non-affiliated conservative-minded fella, I would vote for him.As a Maryland resident that had meetings with him when he was just a Delaware Representative, (beers and Elk's Club Boy Scout dinners), I would...
by crankalicious 19 months ago
How else do you explain his behavior over the past few days and in Helsinki? Why does he refuse to hold Putin and Russia responsible for interfering in our election? Why, whenever he's given the chance, does he describe Putin as a strong leader and criticize America?Here are a couple of links. The...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 3 years ago
What is your grade of President Donald Trump so far?
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|