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

[rjs330]

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.

You're being disingenuous here. Sondlands actual testimony countered his opening statement. He admitted his statement was not based on fact, but based on pressumption. When he tried to make sure he understood correctly he got the actual.answer. it's irrelevant when Trump told him as there has been ZERO evidence to counter that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

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.

Great -- where do we ship Donald to... Mars?

If he had just stuck with the facts then he would have been one of integrity of testimony. He can't be trusted.

I'm actually a little surprised Vindman hadn't already requested a transfer or resigned outright -- he had to know revenge was coming...

 

[carl_b_me]

I'm actually a little surprised Vindman hadn't already requested a transfer or resigned outright -- he had to know revenge was coming...

I've watched enough Muppets movies to know that Dr. Bunsen Honeydew doesn't always know what's about to happen.

 

[stevil]

I'm actually a little surprised Vindman hadn't already requested a transfer or resigned outright -- he had to know revenge was coming...

I think it is good to let Trump carry out his petty vindictiveness where everyone (whose eyes are open) can see it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think it is good to let Trump carry out his petty vindictiveness where everyone (whose eyes are open) can see it.

Perhaps if Donald loses in November, the Vindman brothers can be there to escort him out in January.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You're being disingenuous here. Sondlands actual testimony countered his opening statement. He admitted his statement was not based on fact, but based on pressumption.

That is only in reference to the military aid. My statement was correct: 'Sondland's opening statement was emphatic that, with regards to a White House meeting, there was a quid pro quo.'

"I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a 'quid pro quo?' As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes,"

 

[Bobber]

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.

Sorry but I'd say the first sign of acting like an adult would be to set the example of one. That starts by not using cute little mockery statements calling the President of the United States poor little Trumpie. Now does that mean I approve of the President doing somewhat the same to people? No I don't. But one has no place criticizing others for not acting like an adult when they don't do so either.

 

[Bobber]

Perhaps if Donald loses in November, the Vindman brothers can be there to escort him out in January.

Fair enough but let's not hear any more whining that they were walked out. We'll see what happens in November.

 

[Speedwell]

Sorry but I'd say the first sign of acting like an adult would be to set the example of one. That starts by not using cute little mockery statements calling the President of the United States poor little Trumpie. Now does that mean I approve of the President doing somewhat the same to people? No I don't. But one has no place criticizing others for not acting when they don't so so either.

You are right, with the caveat that the mockery was directed at Trump's supporters and not the President himself.

 

[Tom 1]

Sorry but I'd say the first sign of acting like an adult would be to set the example of one. That starts by not using cute little mockery statements calling the President of the United States poor little Trumpie. Now does that mean I approve of the President doing somewhat the same to people? No I don't. But one has no place criticizing others for not acting like an adult when they don't do so either.

I can’t think of any more appropriate response to someone like Trump actually being in charge of a country than satire, but I could certainly do a much better job of it, so I’ll take your point as far as that goes.

 

[hislegacy]

Perhaps if Donald loses in November, the Vindman brothers can be there to escort him out in January.

Or publsh a book like everyone else. No wait, intelligence ousted gets positions on CNN.

of course he is still in the Miliatry, still getting paid, still has a position open with the Ukraine

 

[TLK Valentine]

Or publsh a book like everyone else. No wait, intelligence ousted gets positions on CNN.

Well, intelligence has to go somewhere -- God knows the White House has no use for it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

 

[hislegacy]

Well, intelligence has to go somewhere -- God knows the White House has no use for it.

Don’t blame Trump is was lost eight years before he came. Just sounded better.

 

[grasping the after wind]

What did the brother do?

I don't know that the brother did anything. Reassignment is not the same as being fired. One doesn't have to have done anything negative to be reassigned. However, in these tribalistic times it is probably wise to close the door against a relative having the opportunity to seek revenge for a perceived slight to another family member. Placing the brother in a position that does not afford for such an opportunity is simply a reasonable precaution. In any event having people around one that have publicly voiced opposition to the policies you advocate is most likely foolish.

 

[grasping the after wind]

When did that happen?

You would have to ask them when they decided to assume what they assumed but it became publicly known when they testified in the House.

 

[grasping the after wind]

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

I'm sorry but I don't see the relevance of who is afforded general security clearances to the point I was making about Trump not feeling comfortable with keeping around those likely to leak and spin things to harm him. I rather doubt Trump would consider his daughter and son in law people that were disposed to do things designed to cause him harm.

 

[rjs330]

That is only in reference to the military aid. My statement was correct: 'Sondland's opening statement was emphatic that, with regards to a White House meeting, there was a quid pro quo.'

"I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a 'quid pro quo?' As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes,"

You are being disingenuous again. He later showed he had no evidence or actual knowledge of such a thing. He stated no one told him there was and when he asked he was told no. He also admitted to presuming such.

So there you have it. Sondlands opening statement is evidence of NOTHING. It's only an opinion. Which is worthless.

 

[rjs330]

I tire of this argument over and over. EVEN IF it was shown Trump delayed aid due to his desire for a corruption investigation, it was completely legal for him to do so. There was nothing wrong with it or nothing illegal about it. He has that right and since he has that right it's completely against the Constitution to impeach him for it since it can't be a high crime or misdemeanor to exert your expressed rights.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You would have to ask them when they

Your reluctance to back up your claim shows it was a fabrication.