Mr. Vindman and Sondland are no longer at the Whitehouse.

[Allandavid]

What I worry about, is not whether this is punishment, but if it is for future purposes.

Why is he removing people with an ethical and social conscience?
Why the ambasador to EU?

What future plans does Trump have where these people would be seen as hurdles?
Obviously he is also sending a message to all people (all future whistleblowers) that if the speak up against his criminal or unethical activities then he will ruin not just their careers but also there family if they are government employees.

Agreed. And I find another thing that is interesting...

Many of Trump’s apologists on these pages use the excuse that Vindman ‘got what he deserved’ for expressing opinion, rather than fact, in his hearing. They give no evidence of this, but, more significantly, Trump mentioned nothing of this in his justification for removing him. Just that he was “insubordinate “....whatever that means...

 

[Belk]

Seeing as the two of them went out of their way to assume Trump's motives were entirely malevolent and testify as if their assumptions were hard factual first hand evidence, I would assume that Trump would justifiably feel uncomfortable allowing them to be in a position to leak information and spin narratives to harm his Presidency. Only a complete idiot would allow them to remain in a position to undermine him. That would be akin to drawing a target on your back and handing a knife to someone that had previously stabbed you in the back.

What did the brother do?

 

[Allandavid]

What did the brother do?

Just like his brothers, served his country loyally...but forgot that the only priority is to serve the corrupt president loyally...

 

[Zanting]

Of course - just because the president says "two plus two" doesn't in any way, shape or form mean that he actually meant "four".

So you don't believe people can read and discern for themselves? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Zanting]

No, the argument goes that since he didn't actually, literally say the words "quid pro quo" (except that time after he was caught and knew it would come up), there can't have been any.

He did say the words quid pro quo to Sondland who's testimony in the house stated "When I asked President Trump what he wanted, he said "I want nothing, I want nothing, no quid pro quo."" You must have missed his testimony.

 

[Allandavid]

He did say the words quid pro quo to Sondland who's testimony in the house stated "When I asked President Trump what he wanted, he said "I want nothing, I want nothing, no quid pro quo."" You must have missed his testimony.

Yes, Trump is alleged to have said this....AFTER he got caught!!

Now, in a spirit of fairness, please also quote where Sondland also testified that there WAS a quid pro quo...

 

[essentialsaltes]

Seeing as the two of them went out of their way to assume Trump's motives were entirely malevolent

When did that happen?

 

[Bobber]

No, I'm not surprised that people with enough moral gets fired , for telling the Truth about Trump.

You mean like all the Dem types that filed in the FISA requests with 17 inconsistencies and lies all that went against the President?

 

[hislegacy]

Yes, Trump is alleged to have said this....AFTER he got caught!!

Now, in a spirit of fairness, please also quote where Sondland also testified that there WAS a quid pro quo...

Here ya go:

Video shows Sondland admitting he has no evidence against the President except for his presumption.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Honest question:

can you name a president who would have kept him? From the Presidents perspective (wether you agree with it or not), could you place trust in him?

That I can't say for sure... A high-ranking military officer, being called to give statements in regards to a president who's facing impeachment is a rather rare scenario with regards to US history.

What I can say, is that Trump has had a track record of turnover that does stand out from other previous presidents...

Especially in regards to people he directly appointed, and referred to as "the best".

Tracking turnover in the Trump administration

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Seeing as the two of them went out of their way to assume Trump's motives were entirely malevolent and testify as if their assumptions were hard factual first hand evidence, I would assume that Trump would justifiably feel uncomfortable allowing them to be in a position to leak information and spin narratives to harm his Presidency. Only a complete idiot would allow them to remain in a position to undermine him. That would be akin to drawing a target on your back and handing a knife to someone that had previously stabbed you in the back.

That argument may hold water if Trump had a track record of being very scrutinizing with who he requests security clearances for, regarding sensitive information.

However, that's not been the case with his administration...
Whistleblower says Ivanka, Jared got security clearance over experts' advice

 

[Allandavid]

Here ya go:

Video shows Sondland admitting he has no evidence against the President except for his presumption.

As I thought you would, you ignored my request. Sondland also testified later that there WAS a quid pro quo...but you won’t go there, will you?

 

[essentialsaltes]

You mean like all the Dem types that filed in the FISA requests

'Dem types'? I think you'll find it's NSA and FBI types who file FISA requests.

 

[hislegacy]

As I thought you would, you ignored my request. Sondland also testified later that there WAS a quid pro quo...but you won’t go there, will you?

Incorrect, this was the cross examination which refuted his testifying of a quid pro quo.

 

[Zanting]

Yes, Trump is alleged to have said this....AFTER he got caught!!

Now, in a spirit of fairness, please also quote where Sondland also testified that there WAS a quid pro quo...

That"s what the house Democrats claim and want everyone to believe. They don't want anyone to focus on the FACT that the articles of impeachment were drawn up BEFORE the phone call occurred.

And yes to be fair...Sondlond did say he PRESUMED that's what the President wanted, but when pressed what the President actually said on the call...the rest is history.

 

[Tom 1]

I think it’s terrible how more people don’t feel sorry for poor little Trumpie. All these demands that he should behave like an adult are so hateful.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Incorrect, this was the cross examination which refuted his testifying of a quid pro quo.

It did no such thing. Sondland's opening statement was emphatic that, with regards to a White House meeting, there was a quid pro quo. Trump's statement to Sondland about 'no quid pro quo' only came after he was caught, which does not make it very convincing, much less a refutation.

 

[DaisyDay]

He did say the words quid pro quo to Sondland who's testimony in the house stated "When I asked President Trump what he wanted, he said "I want nothing, I want nothing, no quid pro quo."" You must have missed his testimony.

You must have missed my parenthetical comment - which is weird, since you quoted it. Or is it that you don't understand what you read?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Many of Trump’s apologists on these pages use the excuse that Vindman ‘got what he deserved’ for expressing opinion, rather than fact, in his hearing. They give no evidence of this, but, more significantly, Trump mentioned nothing of this in his justification for removing him. Just that he was “insubordinate “....whatever that means...

Indeed. Vindman was issued a subpoena by Congress. He responded.
He was sworn in to tell the truth or else go to prison. He chose the former.

"Insubordination" would indicate that he somehow disobeyed instructions from Donald... what instructions would those be?

 

[rjs330]

Yep, Mr bone spurs fires a brave hero who put his body on the line for his country and put his career on the line for his country.
He told the truth and now he has been fired for it.
Also his brother has been fired for it too, by a vindictive and corrupt president who wants to surround him self with corrupt loyal lackies.

Prior to Trump you had an independant Justice System, you had a AG with integrity.
Now you have cabinet positions "for sale" to the highest bidder.
An AG who grovels to the President, doing his biding in the expectation of getting favours back.
You have many intelligent and honest officials fired and replaced with Republican partisan lackies.

Trump, building the Swamp as fast and deep as he can.

I'm less concerned about Sondland, who wasn't qualified, he bought his position as ambassador.

Anyone who is untrustworthy should be reassigned. You can't trust anyone who gives opinions and assumptions and suppositions of something he has no knowledge or understanding of. If he had just stuck with the facts then he would have been one of integrity of testimony. He can't be trusted.