Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and his brother fired and escorted out of White House.

[Cooky]

Who else wants to ignore me, eh..? Line up, and hit that ignore button. Go ahead. I like it.

 

[metis]

Who else wants to ignore me, eh..? Line up, and hit that ignore button. Go ahead. I like it.

Masochism?

 

[metis]

LOL. Vindman appears to be a gay incestophile with his twin brother. That's how he looks to me.

Sorry but I don't get that impression at all, and even if I felt it I wouldn't say it publicly w/o knowing.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Sounds like you're real sick. I'm putting you on ignore.

I also put him on ignore. First time I’ve ever used that feature.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Trump is officially a disgrace.

 

[sooda]

I also put him on ignore. First time I’ve ever used that feature.

Good.

 

[Cooky]

I also put him on ignore. First time I’ve ever used that feature.

I'm sorry for insulting your god, Vindman. You can worship him in peace now.

 

[Cooky]

Trump is officially a disgrace.

Do you worship Vindman too? Just curious. Or are you going to put me on ignore?

 

[Cooky]

Good.

I hope you put me on ignore, for insulting your God, Vindman.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It's a fact. Many people found a huge problem with that call. Many of them testified, saying exactly that.

Funny how nobody on the side defending Trump ever acknowledges that practically every single person who listened in on that call thought it was problematic. Funny thing, that.

I think another poster just showed you that Vindman didn't leak anything.

Yes, POTUS often replaces people. Duh. But not in such a vengeful, vindictive manner. Talk about missing the point.

It is funny how no one on the side defending Trump acknowledges how inappropriate the call was, according to many in Trump’s own orbit, isn’t it?

Again, as always, I am reminded of the indulgent parents of a spoiled toddler. They are so concerned with making sure the child isn’t punished by unfair teachers at school, that they never get around to punishing the child themselves ... at all. It’s fascinating to me how people who claim they don’t necessarily support Trump or his behavior, nevertheless tenaciously defend him against any criticism they perceive to be unfair ... and conveniently forget to even address whether Trump’s behavior was worthy of any criticism - at all. Which completely misses the point.

 

[Cooky]

Now back to the liberal echo-chamber...

 

[MonkeyFire]

Do you worship Vindman too? Just curious. Or are you going to put me on ignore?

Suffering can stop but a douche bag is what it is.

 

[Shad]

He didn't mess up. He reported the unusual call, as he should have. And as others did.

He didn't report to his superior nor the IG. He talked to lawyer and a person he wont identify. That is him messing up. He said as much in the hearing if you watched it.More so he refuses to identify the 3rd person even though Vindman says he does not know the whistle blower. Ergo another judgement issue.

You seem oblivious as to how this is different from "maintaining employment" in a private sector job.

Wrong. My point is solid especially considering Vindman was in the military. Try again. Look up insubordination and try again.

The government works for the people, not the individual President.

So? There is a procedure to follow which Vindman didn't. He messed up.

 

[Shad]

It's a fact. Many people found a huge problem with that call. Many of them testified, saying exactly that.

So? Having an issue does not make something illegal nor impeachable

Funny how nobody on the side defending Trump ever acknowledges that practically every single person who listened in on that call thought it was problematic. Funny thing, that.

Wrong. 3 people were present on the call. Only one, Vindman, had an issue. Watch the hearing again.

I think another poster just showed you that Vindman didn't leak anything.

Wrong

Yes, POTUS often replaces people. Duh. But not in such a vengeful, vindictive manner. Talk about missing the point.

You seem to ignore judgement issues which Vindman has and that his opinion let to a failed impeachment. His judgement is questionable thus is grounds for removal.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is funny how no one on the side defending Trump acknowledges how inappropriate the call was, according to many in Trump’s own orbit, isn’t it?

Again, as always, I am reminded of the indulgent parents of a spoiled toddler. They are so concerned with making sure the child isn’t punished by unfair teachers at school, that they never get around to punishing the child themselves ... at all. It’s fascinating to me how people who claim they don’t necessarily support Trump or his behavior, nevertheless tenaciously defend him against any criticism they perceive to be unfair ... and conveniently forget to even address whether Trump’s behavior was worthy of any criticism - at all. Which completely misses the point.

Amazing, isn't it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I also put him on ignore. First time I’ve ever used that feature.

My first time too!

 

[SkepticThinker]

He didn't report to his superior nor the IG. He talked to lawyer and a person he wont identify. That is him messing up. He said as much in the hearing if you watched it.More so he refuses to identify the 3rd person even though Vindman says he does not know the whistle blower. Ergo another judgement issue.

John Kelly says he did exactly what people in his position are trained to do in that situation. In other words, he did the right thing.
I'm gonna go with his opinion over yours, I think.

Wrong. My point is solid especially considering Vindman was in the military. Try again. Look up insubordination and try again.

John Kelly disagrees on this one too.
He says they are trained to refuse to follow illegal orders. Again, he says Vindman did the right thing.

So? There is a procedure to follow which Vindman didn't. He messed up.

See above.

 

[Cooky]

My first time too!

Hey skeptic. How you doing today buddy? Let me know, okay?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

John Kelly says he did exactly what people in his position are trained to do in that situation. In other words, he did the right thing.
I'm gonna go with his opinion over yours, I think.


John Kelly disagrees on this one too.
He says they are trained to refuse to follow illegal orders. Again, he says Vindman did the right thing.



See above.

Okay, but did General Kelly look up insubordination? Tell him it’s a military term. (facepalm)

I guess we’ve moved on from smearing Vindman for “leaking”, since that’s clearly false.

Maybe he was fired for wearing his uniform and asking to be addressed by his rank instead of “Mister”. That’s not allowed in the military. Look it up. (double facepalm)

 

[Cooky]

Okay, but did General Kelly look up insubordination? Tell him it’s a military term. (facepalm)

I guess we’ve moved on from smearing Vindman for “leaking”, since that’s clearly false.

Maybe he was fired for wearing his uniform and asking to be addressed by his rank instead of “Mister”. That’s not allowed in the military. Look it up. (double facepalm)

Hey, dude. Good morning!