The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (11 Viewers)

[Andrus]

By Laura Bassett

After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

“Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

Read the Full Story - InStyle

 

[RobF]

No, those are not apologist arguments.
Military personnel assigned to the White House are there to serve the Commander-in-Chief.
If the Commander-in-Chief no longer desires their services, they are transferred elsewhere.
Did he lose his rank? No
Did he lose his pay? No
Did he lose his time in grade or time in service? No
People are rotated through those jobs on a 2-3 year basis anyway.
Did he act like a rat? Depends on who you ask.

Look, you can stick a post-it note saying 'not a pig' on a pig, it's still going to oink.

All you've done there is restate the same things you already said, which fundamentally remain apologist arguments. They avoid the relevant factors (why was he removed, was it justified, what are the implications of doing so) to attempt to focus on the tangential ("he'll be OK"), along with the epitome of a hollow, apologist, argument that focuses on the fact something can be done while completely disregarding the pertinent point of whether it should be done ("he can be removed so it's OK if he is removed"). No amount of repetition, rephrasing, or restating is going to change that.

Again, it is not OK for the President to remove someone who, through doing their job properly, makes him look bad because he isn't.

 

[Beach Friends]

Of course Vindman had to go. What's more, I don't know how anyone could accept this water cooler gossiper on their staff. I say "staff," because somehow this guy has made it to the rank of LTC without command experience.

I understand the impulse to shield someone who participated in the proceedings from retaliation. You see similar protections throughout employment law. But the fact is, despite our best intentions, people who can claim such protection rarely, if ever, return to their posts without friction.

I guess it's something you have to work through if the employee is working on a plant floor. But, having someone work in the WH under these circumstances is just untenable.

 

[MT15]

And you’re basing your condemnation of him on nothing but “gossip” and innuendo. There is no basis in fact that he did anything other than what a good person in his position should do when he witnesses illegal activity. If you have facts let’s see them. But you don’t.

The smear campaign should tell you that this firing was not about just being “uncomfortable” with having him around for a few more months until his term would expire.

And to DD, you have no idea what Trump has in mind for him. No punishment will be too petty or venal. You know that’s true.

 

[Dadsdream]

Look, you can stick a post-it note saying 'not a pig' on a pig, it's still going to oink.

All you've done there is restate the same things you already said, which fundamentally remain apologist arguments. They avoid the relevant factors (why was he removed, was it justified, what are the implications of doing so) to attempt to focus on the tangential ("he'll be OK"), along with the epitome of a hollow, apologist, argument that focuses on the fact something can be done while completely disregarding the pertinent point of whether it should be done ("he can be removed so it's OK if he is removed"). No amount of repetition, rephrasing, or restating is going to change that.

Again, it is not OK for the President to remove someone who, through doing their job properly, makes him look bad because he isn't.

A rat's still a rat, Rob.
Under the Clintons, he would have died under mysterious circumstances.

 

[coldseat]

Y'all remember when the right was incensed that Bill Clinton met in an airport with Loretta Lynch? Oh those where good times, when that type of contact was considered inappropriate, even by the left. Hahahaha, now we're in Trump's reality. #ThanksRepublicans

Lindsey Graham’s disturbing comments about investigating Biden | CNN

Elie Honig writes that Lindsey Graham’s comments to ABC today about Bill Barr setting up a mechanism for communication with Rudy Giuliani to receive purportedly damaging information about the Bidens, if true, sacrifice the integrity of the DOJ.

www.cnn.com

 

[samiam5211]

A rat's still a rat, Rob.
Under the Clintons, he would have died under mysterious circumstances.

Is he a rat? Because he told the truth? Is he being accused of lying?

 

[Dadsdream]

Is he a rat? Because he told the truth? Is he being accused of lying?

Truth or lying has nothing to do with it.
Did he rat on his boss? Yes.
OK, he's a rat.
Did he tattle on his boss? Yes.
OK, he's a tattle-tale.
Simple enough.

 

[Beach Friends]

And you’re basing your condemnation of him on nothing but “gossip” and innuendo. There is no basis in fact that he did anything other than what a good person in his position should do when he witnesses illegal activity. If you have facts let’s see them. But you don’t.

The smear campaign should tell you that this firing was not about just being “uncomfortable” with having him around for a few more months until his term would expire.

And to DD, you have no idea what Trump has in mind for him. No punishment will be too petty or venal. You know that’s true.

VINDMAN: my twin brother's boss said I should bring all future concerns directly to him.

Why did you go to your brother's boss rather than follow your chain of command?

VINDMAN: I didn't have time to go through my chain of command.

You can buy that BS if you like, but I don't. Vindman's actions were shielded from inquiry by a faux concern from disclosing the identity of the Whistleblower (Eric Ciaramella).

 

[Dadsdream]

And you’re basing your condemnation of him on nothing but “gossip” and innuendo. There is no basis in fact that he did anything other than what a good person in his position should do when he witnesses illegal activity. If you have facts let’s see them. But you don’t.

The smear campaign should tell you that this firing was not about just being “uncomfortable” with having him around for a few more months until his term would expire.

And to DD, you have no idea what Trump has in mind for him. No punishment will be too petty or venal. You know that’s true.

MT15,
Earlier, you assumed that having somebody escorted off the premises at the White House was intended some sort of humiliating gesture.
Where did you get that idea? Statements by Vindman's lawyer? LOL, of course.

Trump, “the most powerful man in the world — buoyed by the silent, the pliable and the complicit — has decided to exact revenge,” said Vindman’s lawyer, David Pressman.

People with high level government security clearances are escorted when they leave a job for the last time.
You display everything you have in your possession, sign a pile of documents saying you don't have anything you're not supposed to and then they walk you to your car, which has already undergone an inspection, and you go out of the gate immediately with no side trips.
Quite simply, that's how it's done regardless of rank and humiliation has nothing to do with it.

 

[coldseat]

Truth or lying has nothing to do with it.
Did he rat on his boss? Yes.
OK, he's a rat.
Did he tattle on his boss? Yes.
OK, he's a tattle-tale.
Simple enough.

This is stupid and juvenile. He reported inappropriate behavior in government through appropriate and legal channels. He served his country and his consciences, testified truthfully and did what be believed was the right thing to do.

That's the person Trump and this administration want out of positions in the National Security team, so that the can carry out whatever illegal scheme they want. It's exactly why I could never support them.

 

[Dadsdream]

This is stupid and juvenile. He reported inappropriate behavior in government through appropriate and legal channels. He served his country and his consciences, testified truthfully and did what be believed was the right thing to do.

That's the person Trump and this administration want out of positions in the National Security team, so that the can carry out whatever illegal scheme they want. It's exactly why I could never support them.

It's HIS national security team.
If he doesn't want somebody on it, they're gone.

 

[Sandman]

Truth or lying has nothing to do with it.
Did he rat on his boss? Yes.
OK, he's a rat.
Did he tattle on his boss? Yes.
OK, he's a tattle-tale.
Simple enough.

He had an ethical obligation to raise concerns about the issues that were brought up in the phone call between Trump and the Ukranian President. He did that. If fulfilling ethical obligations makes a person a "rat" or a "tattle-tale," then give me a government full of rats and tattle-tales.

 

[samiam5211]

Truth or lying has nothing to do with it.
Did he rat on his boss? Yes.
OK, he's a rat.
Did he tattle on his boss? Yes.
OK, he's a tattle-tale.
Simple enough.

Yes, he tattled on his boss. His boss should be fired. His boss getting off doesn't justify firing someone for reporting a threat to our national security.

 

[dtc]

No, I'm OK with him getting transferred out of a position at the White House to a position at the Pentagon while keeping his rank and pay.
Serving at the White House is a duty position, held only so long as the appointing authority wants to keep you there.
Out-processing a person from the White House and in-processing them at the Pentagon will follow a very strict and well-documented series of steps which are intended to keep secure information secure. I don't think public humiliation comes into that equation.

You think that this administration is adhering to all those "very strict and well documented" steps? I mean they've been so conscious of keeping records in the right places and using secured phones and getting security clearances for all the kids so why not assume this was done by the book, as well, huh?

 

[dtc]

It would be interesting to see how Vindman does with his peers at the War College.

Words you will never hear, "hey Vindman, you have plans for lunch?

My brother is a retired Army Captain and a military consultant. He has no problem and is, frankly, outraged by what's going on.

 

[Dadsdream]

He had an ethical obligation to raise concerns about the issues that were brought up in the phone call between Trump and the Ukranian President. He did that. If fulfilling ethical obligations makes a person a "rat" or a "tattle-tale," then give me a government full of rats and tattle-tales.

Well, Sandman, if a rat made it to the National Security Council inside the White House, it would seem you've gotten your wish. Hope all's well with you. Haven't seen you in a while.

Yes, he tattled on his boss. His boss should be fired. His boss getting off doesn't justify firing someone for reporting a threat to our national security.

No, his boss didn't get fired and it's entirely possible he will remain in office through 2024. So, the tattle-tale had to go. He was never going to stay in that job much longer anyway.

 

[Dadsdream]

You think that this administration is adhering to all those "very strict and well documented" steps? I mean they've been so conscious of keeping records in the right places and using secured phones and getting security clearances for all the kids so why not assume this was done by the book, as well, huh?

Yes, I'm confident that the IT and military security details are doing their due diligence.

Say, how come everybody is so upset with the treatment of this lieutenant colonel, but nobody seems upset with the way a 4-star general was treated?
FISA abuse, wiretap abuse, altering documents . . . say, when do people stand up for Gen. Flynn here?

 

[Sandman]

Well, Sandman, if a rat made it to the National Security Council inside the White House, it would seem you've gotten your wish. Hope all's well with you. Haven't seen you in a while.

Are you suggesting that Vindman should not have raised concerns about the President unlawfully withholding funds to extort a foreign power into investigating a political rival?