Vindman the American Soldier

elvis

And now, the other side of the story.


In an eye-opening thread on Twitter last week, retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Jim Hickman said that he "verbally reprimanded" Vindman after he heard some of his derisive remarks for himself. "Do not let the uniform fool you," Hickman wrote. "He is a political activist in uniform."


His series of tweets, soon after Vindman offered his anti-Trump impeachment testimony to Rep. Adam Schiff's panel, were confirmed and corroborated. The story Heine put together from the tweets ran like this: He was apologetic of American culture, laughed about Americans not being educated or worldly, & really talked up Obama & globalism to the point of (sic) uncomfortable. He would speak w/the Russian Soldiers & laugh as if at the expense of the US personnel. It was so uncomfortable & unprofessional, one of the GS [civil service]employees came & told me everything above. I walked over & sat w/in earshot of Vindman, & sure enough, all was confirmed. One comment truly struck me as odd, & it was w/respect to American's "falsely thinking they're exceptional", when he said, "He [Obama] is working on that now." And he said it w/a snide 'I know a secret' look on his face. I honestly don't know what it meant, it just sounded like an odd thing to say.


Regardless, after hearing him bash America a few times in front of subordinates, Russians, & GS Employees, as well as, hearing an earful about globalization, Obama's plan, etc., I'd had enough. I tapped him on the shoulder & asked him to step outside. At that point I verbally reprimanded him for his actions, & I'll leave it at that, so as not to be unprofessional myself.


Heine then confirmed the tweets, first with Hickman himself, via his LinkedIn page, and then with Hickman's superior, Lt. Col. Thomas Lasch. It was good reporting with cross-checking, given that something like this out on Twitter could be fake news — but apparently was found to be not. This raises questions about the kind of people being brought into the White House, supposedly to work on "national security" at six-figure salaries. Some of these people, such as Vindman, were Trump-hating partisans who seethed with Trump-loathing and were the first to jump at the chance to testify for the Schiff panel...


It sounds as though it's long past time for Trump to clean house. This kind of disloyalty to the commander in chief is where it's led. Based on the recollections of the Army men, it started early.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/so_vindman_was_ridiculing_rednecks_and_sneering_about_american_exceptionalism_to_russian_officers.html?fbclid=IwAR27AfM6LnhlupCY9BtdmTNIEPn6TzzukyBUPhXSG6GjtpS4HB2-HLRXYHI

SaveComment111Like4
Comments (111)
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
paprikash

Not surprised at all. And this is the liberals’ newest hero.

5 Likes Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Stan Areted

THANK YOU, ELVIS!

The truth is certainly not the left's narrative.

"Lt. Colonel Vindman," indeed! Little Igor.


MAGA President Trump, cleaning out the swamp the water is now low and we see more Igors! Well he came from Ukraine the corrupt Igor comes by it naturally.

3 Likes Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

What's not to say that it isn't Hickman who is the political activist looking to curry Trump's favor?

8 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

Isn't this more he said she said that you don't particularly like elvis?

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
numbersjunkie

I haven't seen anyone else come out to collaborate this person's claim, although I have seen others who worked with Vindman say they never saw him behave in this manner. Was there anything in his record to substantiate the claims - if not, why not? If so, they would have been mentioned or "leaked". I also saw one claim that the accuser is a member of QAnon. Sounds like a smear campaign, and a poor one at that.

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

The American Thinker -- surely an unbiased source of information -- NOT !

  • Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources and failed fact checks.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-thinker/

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
numbersjunkie


5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Here's the link to retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Jim Hickman's Twitter thread. You can see his military position and memory of the event was confirmed by an unsolicited comment in the thread, by his commanding officer at the time, Thomas Lasch.

https://twitter.com/Jim_Hickman13/status/1190077852680634368?s=20

Twitter is hardly legal evidence under oath, and sure, anybody who wants to can dismiss Hickman's and Lasch's comments as "he said she said."

In the same way, those who distrust Vindman can dismiss subjective statements that Vindman's motivation for his actions against Trump's policy were never partisan in nature.

But those who decry negative comments about Vindman, because he's served in the military, should note that Lt. Colonel Hickman served in two wars, and was awarded a Purple Heart, along w/2 Bronze Stars, Legion of Merit, and more.

3 Likes Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse


1 Like Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Vindman was under oath. However, I know all arguments are useless.

How a politician has managed this kind of absolute power is shocking......but he has and his supporters will never question a thing he does and will attack anyone who dares challenge him. That is not a healthy democracy.

14 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

About conspiracy-loving QAnon-fan Hickman -- From November 6, 2019:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/us/politics/trump-vindman-twitter.html

Mr Hickman, a former lieutenant colonel whose service record indicates he served in Afghanistan and earned a Purple Heart, at some point took an interest in QAnon.

A review of his past tweets found more than 100 in which he recirculated or commented on QAnon-related theories, including hoaxes about Satanism and paedophilia, and until recently he had the hashtag #Q in his profile.


Reached for comment, Mr Hickman said he did not believe in QAnon but found it “interesting.”


“I do think it’s actually been pretty accurate on predicting a lot of things,” he said.

He has also tweeted strident pro-Trump, anti-Democratic themes, writing, “It’s incredible how evil the Democrat party is.” A week before going public with his story about Colonel Vindman, he retweeted a Trump supporter urging: “STOP IMPEACHMENT! STOP THIS COUP!”

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
51gerri

Amen nana h

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Vindman was under oath. However, I know all arguments are useless.

I'd have to go back and read everyone's comments again to be sure, Nana, but I don't statements saying that Vindman lied under oath. I sure haven't.

Vindman listened to the call with Zelensky and Trump, and a week later went against the policy decision made by his commanding officer, and told Ukrainian officials they should not become involved. Under testimony, he said he did it because he thought it was wrong, and that he thought the mention of the Bidens would come across as a political play. He testified he did not tell the Ukrainians to stay uninvolved because of any understanding he had about the legalities of Trump's decision. He just thought it was wrong. It was a policy disagreement.

That was not Vindman's decision to make. Trump made the decision, Trump set the policy, and Vindman acted against it. That alone is obvious reason for Vindman to be removed from the NSC. Trump cannot and should not trust him to support Trump's policies (and that's Vindman's job when he's part of the National Security Council.)

4 Likes Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Nana H

What's not to say that it isn't Hickman who is the political activist looking to curry Trump's favor?

His CO, that's who.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

......and your point would be ?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

Trump's Policy? .....Hey Ukraine, you won't get your appropriated defence funds to keep the russians from killing your citizens and taking your land unless you make an announcement that you are investigating the Bidens, got it? I'll toss in an invite to the WH and Pence for your inauguration as a bonus if you do it fast enough.

That's not a "policy", that's impeachable!

Too bad the gop blocked Bolton from giving the details of this drug dealing "policy"

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Just a sharing of trash. Too bad more don't follow the advice to wait for responses to a sensational claim.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
THOR, Son of ODIN(2)

Members of the US Military have a higher obligation to the US Constitution than to unlawful orders from any superior.

"I Was Only Following Orders" is not a winning defense.


3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

.....Hey Ukraine, you won't get your appropriated defence funds to keep the russians from killing your citizens and taking your land unless you make an announcement that you are investigating the Bidens, got it? I'll toss in an invite to the WH and Pence for your inauguration as a bonus if you do it fast enough.

That's a fictional account. Channeling Schiff's playwright-inspired parody, are we?

That's not a "policy", that's impeachable!

Only in a completely partisan process, vgkg, and conducted in such a way that denied the president any semblance of fairness or due process. Enjoy the supposed asterisk after Trump's name if you like, but history won't judge it to be a statement of any importance when they write about Trump's accomplishments as president.

4 Likes Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Members of the US Military have a higher obligation to the US Constitution than to unlawful orders from any superior.

If it had truly been an unlawful order (it absolutely was not) I'm sure that Schiff and the Lawfare crew would have found a way to incorporate it into an article of impeachment.

When will the left stop fantasizing about crimes that Trump never committed, and that the House Democrats never even charged him with? My guess is, never.

3 Likes Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

It wasn't a crime. It was a High Crime. Not the same thing.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

It really is irrelevant what Political party Vindman is or was if he was telling the truth as he saw it. I don’t see how anyone can say it was a policy decision. Trump was trying to shake down Zelensky. More than one person testified to that fact. The WH lawyers went so far as to bury the transcript. They knew it was wrong so they tried to cover it up. They are still covering it up. Trump will eventually cross a red line too far for them and they will be to blame.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

"It is shameful to question their patriotism, their love of this nation."

People can be motivated to do things that are in absolute conflict with the clearly defined legal parameters of their job, while still sincerely caring about their country.

The FBI agent who falsified the information on the Carter Page FISA application may have believed it was the best thing he could do for the country, if he believed Trump needed to be stopped at any cost.

That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not his action was illegal, or outside of acceptable limits as defined by departmental regulations.

Conflating the two things is just a transparent attempt to wrap Vindman in a patriotic shield, to imply his actions can't be questioned in any way. That's complete nonsense.

3 Likes Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cyn427 NoVaZone7

"conducted in such a way that denied the president any semblance of fairness or due process."

This again? He ordered his staff NOT to comply with any requested documents or subpoenas. He was invited to testify and could have done so in person or on video as did Clinton. Underlings such as Bolton's deputy sued to avoid testifying in order to tie the whole thing up in court. Although the vote was along party lines, Republicans did and do serve as part of the Intelligence Committee and were privy to all evidence.

He was denied nothing.

Innocent people do not behave that way.

9 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Conflating the two things is just a transparent attempt to wrap Vindman in a patriotic shield, to imply his actions can't be questioned in any way. That's complete nonsense.


Isnt that exactly what Trump has done and the GOP has done by covering for him?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

Only in a completely partisan process, vgkg, and conducted in such a way that denied the president any semblance of fairness or due process.

Geeezeus Mudhouse you can't be serious, you think that 17 witnesses describing the same "drug deal" under oath knowing that trump will pike them is all either BS or a deep state conspiracy? Trump denied his own due process by blocking all first hand witnesses to testify, then his servants in the senate refused to call them as witnesses to exonerate him. The unending excuses defending this demigod is beyond ........well, beyond everything. But I still have faith in ya and all the others here to eventually come around. Call me an optimist, nyuk.

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Geeezeus Mudhouse you can't be serious, you think that 17 witnesses describing the same "drug deal" under oath knowing that trump will pike them is all either BS or a deep state conspiracy?

Not one witness had firsthand knowledge of any crimes, high, misdemeanor, or otherwise.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

The lawyers who hid the transcripts knew what they said. Instead of witnesses they were his lawyers. They should be indicted themselves.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Handsy Joe thinks we should all give Vindman a standing ovation and a medal.

For leaking.

When I read this I thought is it any wonder this Obama bootlicker hates Trump's America-first agenda?

To Vindman, America is dirt on his shoes. He was the "big man on campus" and thought very highly of himself in his Ukraine assignment.

I don't think he's long for the military.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bob_cville

>Not one witness had firsthand knowledge of any crimes, high, misdemeanor, or otherwise

Because of the undeniable, incontrovertible obstruction that Trump engaged in, in blocking them all from testifying.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Not only did Vindman, leak, he lied. The "whistle blower" complaint did NOT align with the phone call transcript.

Vindman fed Ciaramella a Schiff parody, and the cabal never expected Trump to release the call.

2 Likes Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Yeah, we're not dumb, so stop insulting our intelligence. The crats had the chance, and the responsibility to call witnesses. Why would they call more witnesses to further destroy their case, when they can trigger a bunch of useful idiots to spread their nonsense?

1 Like Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

lurker, the "crats" got the Trump haters' hopes up with all their bluster and narrative propped up by the MSDNC media. It was a wall of baloney, in stereo, every single day.

How could they not believe? Why would they question?

2 Likes Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

You are too late lurker, trump has already insulted your intelligence.....and the weird thing is that you should see it clearly.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

They're called victims of psychological warfare. They're addicted to propaganda. Tabloid mentality.

Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

Nah, addicted to reality.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

lurker, the Russians are very, very skilled at psychological warfare.

Vindman turned out to be an apparatchik for the embedded unelected bureaucrats.

2 Likes Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

What about the Repub senators that have said the House proved it’s case and what trump did was definitely wrong?


Why is Graham doing an investigation thru the DOJ instead of extorting the Ukrainian President again?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

"He was denied nothing."

Did his team get to cross examine the "witnesses?"

Nope. That wouldn't be the case in a real trial. The Schiff Show was just an opportunity to smear the president.

3 Likes Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

vgkg: Geeezeus Mudhouse you can't be serious, you think that 17 witnesses describing the same "drug deal" under oath knowing that trump will pike them is all either BS or a deep state conspiracy? Trump denied his own due process by blocking all first hand witnesses to testify, then his servants in the senate refused to call them as witnesses to exonerate him. The unending excuses defending this demigod is beyond ........well, beyond everything. But I still have faith in ya and all the others here to eventually come around. Call me an optimist, nyuk.

Not one of the 17 witnesses in the House had anything other than subjective guesses about Trump's motives for the requested investigation; not one presented evidence of a crime.

Trump did not have due process; his counsel was never allowed to cross examine any of the 17 witnesses whose testimony was presented in the House, and presented again later in the Senate trial.

All of the new witnesses requested by the Republicans were refused by Schiff and Nadler, and Trump was not allowed to have counsel present, or to cross examine any witnesses, until the last few days of the 78 day House process. Pelosi's initial process rules, and her later October 31 resolution, completely blocked Trump's counsel from attending any hearings, or cross examining witnesses, until Nadler began Judicial committee hearings.

When Nadler finally had two Judicial committee hearings in the closing days, he only called law professors and attorneys; no fact witnesses. Pelosi ordered the articles of impeachment to be written at the end of the first Judiciary hearing; she didn't even wait until the second hearing.

By contrast, in the Clinton impeachment, the House Republicans afforded the Democrats the right to subpoena and cross examine their own witnesses from the start, as agreed upon by both parties. Clinton's counsel presented over one dozen witnesses over a period of two days in the House.

Trump exercised his Constitutional rights to court. The House never subpoenaed Bolton, and chose to avoid court delays by rushing to impeach. Then Pelosi sat on the articles for 33 days.

No new witnesses were called in Clinton's Senate trial. And in Trump's Senate trial, the Senators voted that no witnesses were required before they voted to acquit Trump.

3 Likes Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Democrats sacrificed thoroughness and diligence for expediency. They thought they could foist the burden of proof on the Senate, and berate them into capitulating to their demands, what with the MSDNC media at their disposal.

2 Likes Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Which is why it was good for the country for the Senate to not agree to do the House's work for them. The entire process had been turned on it's head badly enough already.

Enough of a damaging precedent had already been set by allowing a completely partisan and incomplete impeachment case to be handed over to the Senate. The more the Senate did to accept this kind of badly prepared case, and try to remedy the problems with it, the more it would have become accepted in the future.

2 Likes Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Trump’s lawyers didn’t have an opportunity to call or cross-examine witnesses when the House obtained most of its evidence.

This is factually true, but neither unusual nor even relevant to the question of whether or not witnesses should be allowed at the Senate trial.

The target of a criminal investigation never gets to call or cross-examine witnesses during the pre-indictment investigative phase of a criminal proceeding. Prosecutors routinely present testimony to grand juries in secret. Much of the time, the target doesn’t even know that the investigation is taking place, much less have an opportunity to participate in it.

In this case, there was no investigation by the Department of Justice and no special counsel report on which the House could rely in deciding whether or not to impeach the president. So the House had to conduct its own investigation.

And it did so in a manner more favorable to the target than would normally be allowed.

While the president’s counsel didn’t participate personally, Trump’s congressional defenders were not only present when witnesses were questioned, but were given the opportunity to participate actively. Criminal defendants could only dream of being given that sort of access during the pre-indictment, investigative phase.

Now, an impeachment proceeding is not a criminal trial. But that being said, there is no legal or principled basis which required the House to grant the president the right to call and question witnesses during the course of its pre-indictment investigation.

There’s nothing in the Constitution, no statute, no House rule, and no case law supporting such a proposition.

The fact that there is some scant precedent for allowing such participation doesn’t make it mandatory. And the so-called precedents—the Nixon and Clinton impeachment proceedings—are highly distinguishable because in each of those cases thorough investigations were performed by independent special counsels before the House even began its deliberations.

https://thebulwark.com/the-gops-sham-no-witnesses-arguments-explained/

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Kathy

Trump’s lawyers didn’t have an opportunity to call or cross-examine witnesses when the House obtained most of its evidence.

This is factually true. but...

Just the facts, ma'am. Thank you. Next witness.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

I don't think he's long for the military.

Not to worry, he's eligible for a nice, fat pension. And then a book deal!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Kathy, the first half of that excerpt (up to the word, Now....) is debunked by the author himself, when he admits that impeachments aren't a criminal procedure. It's a political procedure, as many here have correctly pointed out.

"there is no legal or principled basis which required the House to grant the president the right to call and question witnesses during the course of its pre-indictment investigation."

Well, nothing except the American public's general belief in the importance of fairness and due justice. People have a stubborn fondness for those things, and public opinion matters in a political process.

The left tried this during the Kavanaugh hearings, as well (remember the arguments that "innocent until proven guilty" wasn't really a thing?) That didn't go well for the Dems.

Attorney Rotner is welcome to his opinion, of course. But none of it negates any of the facts I typed above. And personally, I don't think it will help the Dems when people go to the polls in November.

4 Likes Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Not to worry, he's eligible for a nice, fat pension. And then a book deal!

And maybe he'll become a regular contributor on CNN!

3 Likes Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

So why was his brother fired too?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Both Vindmans were re-assigned, not fired.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Trump's prerogative.

1 Like Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

Ok, pretending that being re-assigned to a completely different job isn't the same as being fired from a current job...

Why was his brother also "reassigned"?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Trump's prerogative.

1 Like Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

Right, his perogative. And just a coincidence that it was 2 days after the acquittal.

It's revenge. Even if I believed these claims that Vindman "deserved" it, there's no indication that his brother did anything wrong other than being related to someone who spoke against Trump.

Reminds me of certain dictators who hurt and threaten family members to keep people in line.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Yes, anything he wants to do now is his prerogative...anything.

Do Trump supporters think a President should go unchecked. If not who is left to check him?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Reminds me of certain dictators who hurt and threaten family members to keep people in line.

Reminds me of leaders who intend to do their job as effectively as they can, and who aren't afraid of removing impediments to that process.

1 Like Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

Yeah, like anyone who speaks against him. Or anyone related to someone who speaks against him.

The world is watching and only his supporters believe this is anything but pure revenge, and a warning that he will destroy the careers of anyone who speaks against him. Oh and the careers of their family members too for good measure.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Chi

Ok, pretending that being re-assigned to a completely different job isn't the same as being fired from a current job...

Military assignments are ephemeral. Finite. Transitional.

That is their nature.

I can tell you 100% that none of you knows why the Vindmii were reassigned. I can tell you 100% that all of you will blame Trump and assume nefarious intent.

Your question isn't serious, imo.

1 Like Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Mudhouse, now that is truly scary.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Chi

Right, his perogative. And just a coincidence that it was 2 days after the acquittal.

It's prerogative, and it's not coincidence. It's consequence.

Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

What's truly scary is watching Trump haters bandy about words like "dictator" and "socialism" when they have no clue what they really mean.

No dictator would reassign someone who tried to overthrow him. They would dispatch them, probably in a public square.

2 Likes Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Do Trump supporters think a President should go unchecked. If not who is left to check him?

Nana, I've seen you post this question before, and there's a reason you're not getting answers to it. It only makes sense to people who see Trump as a power-crazed tyrant out to destroy the country until he's stopped by (whatever.)

The rest of us see him as a US president doing a great job for the country, in spite of the efforts of an astonishing number of people to remove him from office, impede his progress, and damage his credibility.

See the difference?

1 Like Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

No. Please tell me who, or what , is left to put any checks on the Presidency.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Mudhouse, now that is truly scary.

Nana, why would an American president doing his job be a scary thing to you?

1 Like Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

No. Please tell me who, or what , is left to put any checks on the Presidency.

Last time I checked, the laws of our country haven't blinked out of existence. (Did I miss a breaking story on CNN?)

1 Like Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

If you do not understand the powers of an unfettered President on world security then there is no sense in me trying to explain it to you.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Okey dokey then.

1 Like Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Great question, I'm holding my breath.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Well I guess you must have blinked. He has a AG who says he is above the law while in office, a Republican party that has given him free reign for fear of retribution and a base that will forgive him everything.

Again I ask, what checks exist against the President?


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

The laws of our country, our government's system of checks and balances between the branches, the process of impeachment, and our ability to vote for the president of our choosing every four years.

Same as with any president of the US.

(Better?)

I thought of another thing to add. Which political party has the majority in the House or the Senate can also act as a check on a president.

1 Like Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Nope........your AG has made it clear a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime. He has also said no investigation of a candidate, or their campaign, in 2020 can be undertaken without his approval and your Republican Senate has said they will not demand a system of checks and balance. The reality is very different than your theory.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

I can tell you 100% that all of you will blame Trump and assume nefarious intent.

Just like 100% of his supporters will defend his actions.

Your question isn't serious, imo.

It's very serious. I can see why Trump supporters would want to dismiss it though as it brings up uncomfortable thoughts about Trump punishing family members for someone's actions.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

All the raucous noise from the WH/Team Trump about no witnesses, no one knowing what the president's motives were -- as if there were no such person as Lev Parnas, the archivist of Trump's Ukraine Adventure, or Rudy Giuliani.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

It's prerogative, and it's not coincidence. It's consequence.

Consequence of what? What did his brother do?

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

https://theintercept.com/2019/10/10/trump-crimes-law/


THE ACTUAL LAWS TRUMP HAS BROKEN, JUST WITH THE UKRAINE AND CHINA AFFAIRS, COULD LAND HIM 10 YEARS IN PRISON


3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Only a tyrant punishes a persons family for something someone has done.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Consequence of what? What did his brother do?

No doubt it's a matter of national security. We don't need to know.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Nope........your AG has made it clear a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime.

Nana, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel has taken that position for a long time. They determined that back in 1973 with Nixon, and again in 2000 with Clinton. Their opinion that the prosecution of a sitting president would be unconstitutional is just that (an opinion, I think) but it certainly didn't originate with Bill Barr.

Nana: He has also said no investigation of a candidate, or their campaign, in 2020 can be undertaken without his approval

Barr's announcement is in response to IG Horowitz's report on the 2016 investigations that took place under Obama. It's a response to the violations of FBI department procedures that led to FISA warrants now being declared invalid by the FISA court. Also because of how the FBI handled the investigation into Hillary's server. https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/06/politics/justice-department-investigations-2020-candidates/

How is the above related to your question about checks on presidential power? Isn't this a good thing, considering the abuses of 2016?

Nana: and your Republican Senate has said they will not demand a system of checks and balance.
I don't know what this refers to, sorry. Any more info, so I can look it up?

1 Like Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
olliesmom

Chi, if you are the boss, and don't trust someone in your company, not to mention they are lying about you, you should fire them. At least, he was just reassigned.

2 Likes Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

Olliesmom, was his brother also lying? That's who I am talking about. Why was he "reassigned"?

Or is it like Elvis said and we don't need to know? Sounds convenient!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Trump doesn’t need a reason to reassign someone but we all know he is sending a message to everyone who thinks they can testify against him.

That is why any whistleblower needs protection. The President is not above the law although he may get cover from his party and AG temporarily. At some point he will leave office. Hopefully.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Kathy

Trump doesn’t need a reason to reassign someone but we all know...

Mind reading again.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

Mind reading again.

We've asked for evidence, but are told "we don't need to know". Not much left except speculation and I hope the 2020 voters are doing a lot of that. Sure looks bad to me.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Well, I guess he lost your vote. Rats.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Olliesmom, was his brother also lying? That's who I am talking about. Why was he "reassigned"?

It's obvious that some people had no interest in the hearings. The hearings are all on youtube for those who live in countries where it wasn't shown, and wish to be informed.

Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

Yes, anything he wants to do now is his prerogative...anything.

That's right Nana, I wake up this morning to yet more excuses to excuse the inexcusable.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

If you know the answer, lurker, then please share. What did his brother do that deserved being reassigned?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

Not one witness had firsthand knowledge of any crimes, high, misdemeanor, or otherwise.

That is the point!!!!! Trump blocked all first hand witnesses and documents.


Mudhouse, now that is truly scary.

Nana, why would an American president doing his job be a scary thing to you?

Well, a POTUS with nuclear clout , economic power, the ability to crush us lesser countries with a silly tweet or a vindictive action because his 'feelings' got hurt scares the bejezus out of me.

The fact the most powerful nation in the world cannot control it's own POTUS and is no longer a beacon of justice is frightening to say the least.


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Trump blocked all first hand witnesses and documents.

Ubro, a critical difference is, the House Dems had every right to pursue subpoenas for documents and witnesses they wanted in court. They simply chose not to.

The House Dems blocked all new witnesses requested by the Republicans, and they had no legal recourse at all, because of the way Pelosi structured the rules of Trump's impeachment.

Those are facts.

2 Likes Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
THOR, Son of ODIN(2)

Actually,

Impeachment Investigators Subpoena White House and Ask Pence for Documents on Ukraine



WASHINGTON — House impeachment investigators widened the reach of their inquiry on Friday, subpoenaing the White House for a vast trove of documents and requesting more from Vice President Mike Pence to better understand President Trump’s attempts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals.

The subpoena, addressed to Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, calls for documents and communications that are highly delicate and would typically be subject in almost any White House to claims of executive privilege. If handed over by the Oct. 18 deadline, the records could provide keys to understanding what transpired between the two countries and what steps, if any, the White House has taken to cover it up.

White House, Pentagon, Giuliani reject House subpoenas
10/15/19
The White House, the Pentagon and President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani
on Tuesday all refused to comply with House Democrats’ impeachment
inquiry subpoenas, escalating the fight between the administration and
Democratic lawmakers.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

They chose not to . . .

The White House promised a certain long and drawn-out fight against every subpoena.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
THOR, Son of ODIN(2)

Notice the rewriting of historical facts.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

We have noticed, and we're not going to cut you any slack for it.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

Ubro, a critical difference is, the House Dems had every right to pursue subpoenas for documents and witnesses they wanted in court. They simply chose not to.

No the critical point is if they could have exonerated Trump he would have let them testify.

Really, look at Trump's past. His stall tactic has always been to hold everything up in court for ever, he is a con, and a master manipulator. He has manipulated his base to believe that they only had to go to court to get the witnesses and they swallow it hook line and sinker, without even considering that had he been innocent he would have been eager to let the truth out. Guilty as H**l.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
THOR, Son of ODIN(2)


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

ubro(2a)

Ubro, a critical difference is, the House Dems had every right to pursue subpoenas for documents and witnesses they wanted in court. They simply chose not to.

No the critical point is if they could have exonerated Trump he would have let them testify.

No, ubro. You don't understand that this is not about exonerating Trump. It's about not allowing the erosion of the balance of power between the 3 branches of the US government. Allowing the Legislative branch to supercede the constitutionally designated job of the Judicial branch would have usurped constitutionally designated Executive branch powers.

Your Canadian system is different, and we don't want your system here.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

and we don't want your system here

One person doesn't want the Canadian system, and she speaks only for herself.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

I see nothing in Ubro' s post even remotely suggesting that the US should adopt the Canadian system. Harsh attack in my view.

As far as the argument that this was about protecting the balance of power.....now that's a stretch.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Do the Republicans see how Trump has totally eroded the power of Congress. First withholding money Congress delegated then hiding the fact, then obstructing witnesses, and finally a coverup by the Senate GOP because fear of retaliation.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

No the critical point is if they could have exonerated Trump he would have let them testify.

Ubro, I respect your right to your opinion, of course, but the above is just a subjective guess.

None of us know what other witnesses would have brought to light, and it looks like we'll never know what the Republican-requested witnesses denied by the House Dems would have brought to light, either.

And Elvis is right. The attempt by the House Dems to say that a US president doesn't have the right to take his case to court is actually an abuse of power by the House Dems. The Legislative branch can't block the Executive branch from going to the Judicial Branch. The Judicial branch exists to settle disputes between the other two branches!

That attempt wouldn't have lasted five seconds in a real court. The only reason the Dems could write that up as an article of impeachment (Obstruction of Congress, not mentioned in the Constitution) is because impeachment is a political process, not a legal court process. I think the Senate should have rejected that one on face anyway, because of the point Elvis brought up.

************

Thor, that's exactly what I mean. The House Dems could have pursued those subpoenas in court. That's what has happens in impeachments. Legal battles are fought over witnesses and documents. But Pelosi didn't have the stomach for it, or the time, or (my guess) the case. The Lawfare attorneys knew that part of the argument would be that Pelosi's lack of a full House vote didn't trigger the Constitutional right for the Dems to issue valid subpoenas.

I'm not an attorney, I'm not arguing that myself. That's what the White House counsel was arguing. For whatever reason, the House Dems chose not to pursue it in court. That was their choice.

2 Likes Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

No, ubro. You don't understand that this is not about exonerating Trump. It's about not allowing the erosion of the balance of power between the 3 branches of the US government.

And yet, the refusal of the Senate to allow witnesses in a trial did just that.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

"For whatever reason, the House Dems chose not to pursue it in court. That was their choice"

Because the courts would have dragged it out for years possibly, which is exactly what the Republicans hoped would happen. The Dems kept going despite people ignoring the subpoenas to keep things moving and get the impeachment done. It was the right move imo.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

I'm not arguing whether or not it was a right or wrong move for the Dems; that's up to them, and they had every right to do what they thought was best. But impeachment was never designed to be a fast process. Previous impeachments included investigations that went over a period of years. During those investigations, legal battles were fought over documents and witnesses.

Pelosi and Schiff wanted this impeachment to go fast. Fine, but that decision has consequences, and one consequence is, they didn't bring an adequate case to the Senate, and Trump was acquitted.

1 Like Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

And yet, the refusal of the Senate to allow witnesses in a trial did just that.

No offense intended, ubro, but on this point, I throw up my hands with you and anyone else stuck in the wrong-minded rut. The thread's about Vindman's anti-Trump agenda, anyway. Movin' on.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Vindman's anti-Trump agenda

Vindman's anti-crime agenda

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Ah, back on topic. Thank you, Nancy.

Vindman, doesn't/didn't have the legal authority to have an agenda in this context. His personal opinion was, and should be, irrelevant with respect to his service.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Vindman, doesn't/didn't have the legal authority to have an agenda in this context.

Vindman does have an obligation to uphold the US Constitution.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/us/politics/Alexander-Vindman-trump-impeachment.html

“I did convey certain concerns internally to national security officials in accordance with my decades of experience and training, sense of duty, and obligation to operate within the chain of command,” he plans to say.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Vindman does have an obligation to uphold the US Constitution.

Nancy, here's a link to Vindman's testimony. It's a lengthy exchange, but around page 152, he states that he didn't bring the call to the attention of others because he was making a judgement on criminality.

On page 153, he states he was not making a legal judgement.

On page 155, Ratcliffe asks him if he thought the call was wrong because of a legal question, and Vindman replies that he was "not lodging a criminal complaint or anything of that nature."

Repeatedly, Vindman testifies that he thought the call was wrong, and that he was making a moral and ethical judgement, and that he "had deep policy concerns."

It sounds very noble to say that Vindman was trying to uphold the Constitution. The problem is, he never said that in his testimony, and no one that I know of has alleged that Trump's phone call to Zelensky was a violation of the Constitution.

https://www.scribd.com/document/434064258/Vindman-pdf

1 Like Save     Thanked by elvis
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Vindman testifies that he thought the call was wrong, and that he was making a moral and ethical judgement

Sounds as if he was indeed upholding the US Constitution -- there's a higher authority than the president.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

The Constitution is not a guide to moral and ethical judgment (American spelling of "judgment"), You are likening the Constitution to the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, you get the idea.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

The US Constitution is a guide to ethical and legal governing.

2 Likes Save    
Browse Gardening and Landscaping Stories on Houzz See all Stories
Most Popular Two of the Best Friends in American Literature Lived Here
Avid ‘Betsy-Tacy’ readers will want to put these 1890s homes on their must-see list
Full Story
Design Through the Decades Design Through the Decades: The 1940s
Midcentury designers turn their attention to household storage, family rooms, molded furniture and movie star glam
Full Story
Houzz Tours Houzz Tour: Color and Personality in 500 Square Feet
This Los Angeles home for 4 has a small footprint, but the family is big on creative solutions and styling
Full Story