Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman .... an American

[Gun Smoke]

turn your TDS off for a second,


take a step back, and look,

GOP went after a DEM,,, got him impeached, spent multiples of millions to do so, and got what?

absolutely nothing,


fast foward,

Dem going after a GOP ,,,,,

3 yrs and still nothing, but posturing, MSM hoopla, and Orange Man Bad,,,


what do you think will happen, a Nixon moment (I am not a crook, but I resign??)

doubtful,,,

and likely reelected

And Clinton was clearly, undeniably guilty of perjury, an impeachable crime.

They never got into all the Whitewater murders, his other affairs while in the WH and his sales of classified information to China.

[lyman]

Accusing someone of TDS is a sure-fire signal that useful discussion is at an end. Might want to make a note of that.

I'm aware of the last 3 years of drama and my preference is to decide it at the next election. That said I understand why the House wants to cover the backs of their Presidential candidates. If Trump can use the power of the government to smear Biden and suffer no consequences it's a safe bet that he'll do it again, and again. If the shoe was on the other foot this forum would be crapping it's drawers for impeachment.

You don't want to detail-strip the case against Trump, then don't. But you'll get nowhere telling me that detail-stripping is a bad idea because 20 years ago a similar gun came to market and it turned out to be fake.

not accusing when it is a known fact, you have even acknowledged it in the past, so don't get yourself all bent,


no need to detail strip anything,, all that matters not and you know it,
we can has out every politician in DC, pro cons, what they had for breakfast, who they are married to and sleeping with, blah blah blah,

someone (including us) voted them in,
we may be able to vote them out, or vote someone else (clearly an individuals choice) but meanwhile can we move on with actual governing,, and not more witch hunts?



btw,, Biden,, he needs no help, his past is more than enough of a smear

[Sandpebble]

Back to the content of the original post .....

As expected there were quite a few here with a critique of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman ......

but at at least he was no Michael Flynn .....

[m1ashooter]

Having taken the officers oath of commissioning we swear to defend the constitution of the United States period. We do not swear allegiance to the President. I'm with holding judgement on this Lt. Colonel until someone proves to me what part of the Constitution the President violated. Hell the problems in the Ukraine are not our problem. I wouldn't give them a dime.

Here is the quote from him that's gaining traction. "I was concerned by the call," Vindman said, according to his testimony obtained by The Associated Press. "I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government's support of Ukraine." Note the I do not think its proper part. That is an opinion! Just as me saying I think its proper to ask that a person be investigated because I believe it true. Lets deal with facts not feelings. Did the President break a law? fact or feeling.

[togor]

Having taken the officers oath of commissioning we swear to defend the constitution of the United States period. We do not swear allegiance to the President. I'm with holding judgement on this Lt. Colonel until someone proves to me what part of the Constitution the President violated. Hell the problems in the Ukraine are not our problem. I wouldn't give them a dime.

Here is the quote from him that's gaining traction. "I was concerned by the call," Vindman said, according to his testimony obtained by The Associated Press. "I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government's support of Ukraine." Note the I do not think its proper part. That is an opinion! Just as me saying I think its proper to ask that a person be investigated because I believe it true. Lets deal with facts not feelings. Did the President break a law? fact or feeling.

Impeachment is not confined to matters of law. That is a fact. Another fact is that the Justice Department OLC expresses legal opinions about things, often kept secret and not directly subject to judicial review, which are treated as legal facts by the executive branch. Judgement, motives and conduct are most certainly impeachable.

So it's okay for Trump to put an either-or to the Ukranians? Either make Biden look bad or get used to dealing with Putin's people with a little less support. I hear a lot of b*thing about process. Someone gonna tell me that kind of process is okay?

[m1ashooter]

Togor I'm not a lawyer just a retail manager who deals with ass holes every day and getting tired of them. If the Democrats want to impeach Trump then they need to get off their asses and do it. As for the Justice Departments OLC legal opinions they are just that, Opinions based on what they believe is the interpterion of the law. If Trump broke any law as written by Congress or outlined in the Constitution then let the Democrats start quoting the page and paragraph.

The Colonel who this topic was about was called in to talk about his opinion. I should be called in then to voice my opinion which is counter to his. Opinions don't matter in my sphere of influence.

[togor]

Well m1ashooter, they can quote page and paragraph and probably will (at which point I guess you will have a decision to make), but additionally, it's not just about a written rulebook for being President, because there isn't one. What I find interesting is the highly selective demands coming out of the administration. For example, they demand a public display of the whistleblower, on the principle that a public process is necessary, but immediately refuse to produce administration people to that same public process.

I'll call it my "10% rule", that 10% of a citizen's loyalty is withheld from any individual office-holder, regardless of degree of devotion, and saved in reserve for the principles of our self-governing republic itself, which at the moment are entrusted to us to defend and preserve. I also think that wise leaders would understand such a "10% rule", and not demand absolute loyalty from their followers. Trump by that view fails the test.

[Fred Pillot]

I can't believe how transparent these three have become.

[dryheat]

Does the fact that Trump had never been involved in politics before on a major scale and carried some of his learned habits with him when he took office carry any weight? Or is it that he's the New Guy and is intruding on the Real Politicians turf? Most of the sniping isn't from "real politicians". A lot of it is from the newbys. Now McCain was a respected member, but like Goldwater, he got nicer in his old age. They could see the change coming. That doesn't mean that change isn't challenged.

[togor]

Does the fact that Trump had never been involved in politics before on a major scale and carried some of his learned habits with him when he took office carry any weight? Or is it that he's the New Guy and is intruding on the Real Politicians turf? Most of the sniping isn't from "real politicians". A lot of it is from the newbys. Now McCain was a respected member, but like Goldwater, he got nicer in his old age. They could see the change coming. That doesn't mean that change isn't challenged.

You're onto something here. Trump has been heavily litigious in actual court as well as public opinion his entire adult life, certainly since the early 70's, when dad and he signed the Consent Decree with the Justice Dept. over discrimination in apartment rentals. Since then he alternately fights government and tries to profit off of it, sometimes both at the same time. If someone has been watching Trump his whole career, then the Russia/Mueller business and now the Pelosi House are a seamless continuation of his ethical style to the current position. Now I suppose one can brush this stuff off as "Trump Being Trump" but really, saying that it's okay to break rules and create a cult of personality in the White House if you're Donald Trump, but not otherwise? That sounds silly. My 10% rule is meant for moments like this. Anyhow putting the country first means putting basic rules of conduct ahead of any candidate or policy preference. That means holding Trump to account for what transpired here.

[lyman]

saying that it's okay to break rules and create a cult of personality in the White House if you're Donald Trump, but not otherwise? That sounds silly. My 10% rule is meant for moments like this. Anyhow putting the country first means putting basic rules of conduct ahead of any candidate or policy preference. That means holding Trump to account for what transpired here.

take this part of what you posted and replace with whatever past popular president, (Kennedy, Clinton, etc)

then you say that it is different,,,


but is it really?

[togor]

take this part of what you posted and replace with whatever past popular president, (Kennedy, Clinton, etc)

then you say that it is different,,,


but is it really?

I would not say it's different at all. The fact that you assume I would tells me you don't get where I'm coming from. My 10% rule means exactly what I say it means, Red or Blue.