Retribution has begun, Col. Vindman fired

[veritas1]

You want to pretend the Trump party Senators would have voted any other way is laughable. Facts do not matter.

That isn't the issue. By all rights, the Democrats shouldn't have voted for removal, either, based on what they were presented in the articles.

 

[US&THEM]

That isn't the issue. By all rights, the Democrats shouldn't have voted for removal, either, based on what they were presented in the articles.

Oh yes it is. Romney voted on the facts and now it is not safe for him to attend CPAC. Like the 5th grade

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I thought Schiff didn't know who the WB was, so how could he know the question would lead to the fake WB?

For some reason, you think it is plausible that Schiff, the whistleblower, and Vindman somehow conspired to frame Trump.

Yet we have the ICIG confirming what the whistleblower said.

A parade of witnesses confirming what the whistleblower said.

Trump confirming what the whistleblower said.

Official White House documents confirming what the whistleblower said.

Mulvaney confirming what the whistleblower said.

And so on and so forth.

Do you somehow still believe that Trump did not do what the whistleblower outlined? Do you still think the whistleblower faked everything?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The House could have subpeonaed him

Trump could have simply complied. Okay? Trump could have done his duty and complied instead of blocking the investigation. Did you ever consider for one moment that maybe Trump had the duty to that?

Blocking investigations is not a due process right.

and sought a court order if necessary.

They are already pursuing the legal issue via the McGahn case. And the House has signaled they will continue investigating Trump and subpoenaing witnesses.

That is the well established procedure.

It is a well-established tradition for Congress and the White House to resolve disputes over executive privilege through compromise and negotiation. It is NOT well-established procedure for the President to forbid senior aides from testifying before Congress. FURTHERMORE, this has been an issue already decided upon by the Courts at the district level. See Miers and the recent Jackson ruling. I would encourage you to read those rulings as well. The bottom-line is Trump has refused to comply at all with Congress. This is highly unusual. Not enough Nixon did this. So, you are just flat-out wrong about the things you believe and the things you are writing as it concerns these very important issues. You have been fed a pack of lies by hucksters like Levin and Hannity and Limbaugh.

There are a number of witnesses they could have brought in, but chose not to.

Who. Who else could they have brought in that Trump did not block?

Once the articles are established, the Senate can consider only those articles.

This is a lie. This is not true in any way whatsoever.

Don't throw out the idea that witnesses are required in the Senate by either precedent or law. They are not.

They are neither forbidden nor required by law. In terms of precedent, the fact that most trials have witnesses, and that trials have had witnesses for CENTURIES, even before the formation of the United States...is a pretty big precedent, don't you think?

In civil procedure there a number of defenses, eg failure of process, lack of jurisdiction, etc. The relevant one is failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This exists in some form of every legal system known to man. The articles of impeachment did not state a violation sufficient for the Senate to consider whether the violation actually took place.

This is bunk. Pure bunk. Go back and read the impeachment clauses. Go back and read the Federalist Papers. Go back and read the notes from the Constitutional Convention. Research what High Crimes and Misdemeanors mean, not the idiotic Dershowitz version, the actual, historical definition from when the Constitution was written. Read the actual Articles of Impeachment the House submitted.

This is entirely in keeping with the Constitution, the Rule of Law and the laws of this country. It was not exactly dismissed without trial, but close.

I'm sorry but you ignorant of the Constitution. You have no idea what you're about.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Vindman was the problem. His superior, Mr. Morrison, and a few others had expressed their concerns about his judgment and the possibility that he was a leaker. That was not fully examined in the hearings but it did come out that Dr. Hill talked with nobody about the phone call

Dr Hill went to the NSC lawyer as well about the same concerns Vindman expressed.

Bolton instructed both Dr. Hill and Vindman to go to the NSC lawyer after the Sondland incident on July 10th.

Don't let people like Hannity mislead you. Hannity and all the other pro-Trump propaganda television show hosts are lying to you.

Jennifer Williams spoke to no-one about the call, but Vindman spoke to 5 different people, maybe more, including the whistleblower. Why he was not further outed, exposed and indicted in the House hearings for his leak of the call is anyone's guess.

Vindman is not the problem. Trump is the problem. What would you do if you so your boss engage in an act of corruption?

 

[marke]

Dr Hill went to the NSC lawyer as well about the same concerns Vindman expressed.

Bolton instructed both Dr. Hill and Vindman to go to the NSC lawyer after the Sondland incident on July 10th.

Don't let people like Hannity mislead you. Hannity and all the other pro-Trump propaganda television show hosts are lying to you.

Vindman is not the problem. Trump is the problem. What would you do if you so your boss engage in an act of corruption?

Leaking the call is a violation of federal law. Hill did not leak the call. Williams did not leak the call. Vindman bragged about leaking the call to at least 5 people, including the supposedly 'unknown' whistleblower.

What a moron.

 

[Jay59]

Trump could have simply complied. Okay? Trump could have done his duty and complied instead of blocking the investigation. Did you ever consider for one moment that maybe Trump had the duty to that? Blocking investigations is not a due process right.

I'm sorry but you ignorant of the Constitution. You have no idea what you're about.

They are already pursuing the legal issue via the McGahn case. And the House has signaled they will continue investigating Trump and subpoenaing witnesses. It is a well-established tradition for Congress and the White House to resolve disputes over executive privilege through compromise and negotiation. It is NOT well-established procedure for the President to forbid senior aides from testifying before Congress. FURTHERMORE, this has been an issue already decided upon by the Courts at the district level. See Miers and the recent Jackson ruling. I would encourage you to read those rulings as well. The bottom-line is Trump has refused to comply at all with Congress. This is highly unusual. Not enough Nixon did this. So, you are just flat-out wrong about the things you believe and the things you are writing as it concerns these very important issues. You have been fed a pack of lies by hucksters like Levin and Hannity and Limbaugh.

I'm sorry but you ignorant of the Constitution. You have no idea what you're about.

Who. Who else could they have brought in that Trump did not block?

That is not a question you hand to the opposition. You must figure it for yourself.

This is a lie. This is not true in any way whatsoever.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5:

The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.​

I'm sorry but you ignorant of the Constitution. You have no idea what you're about.

They are neither forbidden nor required by law. In terms of precedent, the fact that most trials have witnesses, and that trials have had witnesses for CENTURIES, even before the formation of the United States...is a pretty big precedent, don't you think? This is bunk. Pure bunk. Go back and read the impeachment clauses. Go back and read the Federalist Papers. Go back and read the notes from the Constitutional Convention. Research what High Crimes and Misdemeanors mean, not the idiotic Dershowitz version, the actual, historical definition from when the Constitution was written. Read the actual Articles of Impeachment the House submitted.

I'm sorry but you ignorant of the Constitution. You have no idea what you're about.

I'm sorry but you ignorant of the Constitution. You have no idea what you're about.

That's my line.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Schiff could have called any witnesses he wanted to in the House. He failed to do so and now he and his followers want to blame the GOP for his failures. THAT is the truth.

Trump blocked important witnesses from testifying.

Trump should have done his duty, abide by his oath and comply with Congressional subpoenas.

Instead, he obstructed the investigation like some petty thug.

The House didn't fail. Trump failed. And now, just like always, Trump wants to distract his followers from his own corruption. And you fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Leaking the call is a violation of federal law.

This isn't true.

Leaking isn't necessarily a violation of federal law. A person can leak information and it not be a crime.

Fox News really sucks at giving people the truth.

I am routinely flabbergasted by how inaccurate some of the things you and others on here repeat.

Here is some reference material I know you won't read, because Trump cultists don't read, and like being uninformed:

Leaks and the Media | Freedom Forum Institute

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I'm sorry but you ignorant of the Constitution. You have no idea what you're about.

I'm sorry but you ignorant of the Constitution. You have no idea what you're about.

Prove it then.

That is not a question you hand to the opposition. You must figure it for yourself.

You made the point. Back it up or give up.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5:

The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.​

This doesn't prevent the Senate from finding out the truth of what happened by calling for witnesses who could provide first-hand testimony as it concerned the charges alleged.

The fact is you and other Trump supporters were afraid those witnesses would implicate Trump.

I'm sorry but you ignorant of the Constitution. You have no idea what you're about.

I'm sorry but you ignorant of the Constitution. You have no idea what you're about.

That's my line.

Prove it then.

 

[Jay59]

Prove it then. You made the point. Back it up or give up. This doesn't prevent the Senate from finding out the truth of what happened by calling for witnesses who could provide first-hand testimony as it concerned the charges alleged. The fact is you and other Trump supporters were afraid those witnesses would implicate Trump.
Prove it then.

You are awfully free with the word fact when you bring none. If you wanted the witnesses, you should have brought them in the proper forum and written articles with actual charges, not made up BS.

Trump beat you. Deal with reality.

 

[marke]

This isn't true.

Leaking isn't necessarily a violation of federal law. A person can leak information and it not be a crime.

Fox News really sucks at giving people the truth.

I am routinely flabbergasted by how inaccurate some of the things you and others on here repeat.

Here is some reference material I know you won't read, because Trump cultists don't read, and like being uninformed:

Leaks and the Media | Freedom Forum Institute

Vindman's bosses, Dr. Hill and Mr. Morrison, both expressed concerns about Vindman's judgment, his failure to adhere to the chain of command and the possibility that he was leaking sensitive government secrets. Vindman shared his thoughts about the secret call with at least 5 people who had no business being involved with the call and yet democrats claim the man was as tight-lipped as a mummy. He was a leaker and he admitted it in testimony and. surprisingly, liberal leftist democrats never seemed to notice.

 

[Nickyjo]

Trump has been very patient with these Trump-hating moles in the NSC. But now it is time for them to go.

Do you realize how paranoid you sound? Besides, what’s not to hate about Trump: he’s a crook, an admitted abuser of women and a liar.

 

[haymarket]

Yes, I believe they are referred to as 'the founders'.
It seems you disagree with the system of governance established by the founders. I can't help you, other than to point out that they provided a mechanism to modify the constitution.

And as long as the modern Republican Party feels it has an advantage because of the Electoral College they will never amend the Constitution to deprive themselves of that perceived advantage.

 

[marke]

Do you realize how paranoid you sound? Besides, what’s not to hate about Trump: he’s a crook, an admitted abuser of women and a liar.

Democrats hate Trump for unjust reasons because democrats do and think as an ungodly mob of one mind and one voice.

 

[Praxas]

Democrats hate Trump for unjust reasons because democrats do and think as an ungodly mob of one mind and one voice.

Trump supporters are satan worshipers that eat babies and engage in homosexual acts. They are one voice and one mind.

 

[Paradoxical]

For some reason, you think it is plausible that Schiff, the whistleblower, and Vindman somehow conspired to frame Trump.

Yet we have the ICIG confirming what the whistleblower said.

A parade of witnesses confirming what the whistleblower said.

Trump confirming what the whistleblower said.

Official White House documents confirming what the whistleblower said.

Mulvaney confirming what the whistleblower said.

And so on and so forth.

Do you somehow still believe that Trump did not do what the whistleblower outlined? Do you still think the whistleblower faked everything?

Mr. Heisenberg, you forget some very simple facts. The IG was ALSO in cahoots with Schiff and he was the one that changed the form to allow second hand information. You forget that LL of these people know one another and that, of all the attorney in the world they could have chosen,they chose Mark Zaid, an attorney who openly solicits people who want to depose Trump and who VOWED a=way back in 2017 to bring down Trump with the help of CNN. You forget that Schiff hired two people just before this who know Vindman and the ALLEGED whistle blower, who really isn't and was used as a place holder to lend credence to the charges. You forget that the WB said that Trump demanded an investigation and used the word I instead of us.You forget that 15 other people listened to that call and never said a word. You forget that NO ONE testified as to a quid pro quo an that Zelinsky himself said there wasn't.

It's OK you won;t admit the obvious. Your Psyche won't allow you to.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

You are awfully free with the word fact when you bring none.

There is simply no prohibition in the Constitution or based on our traditions preventing the Senate from bringing forward new witnesses. This is pure fiction on your part. And if you disagree, then prove it.

If you wanted the witnesses, you should have brought them in the proper forum

A Senate trial is just as proper of a forum as any other forum. It's a trial, and there isn't rule, law, or Constitutional provision forbidding such a thing. This is pure fiction that you and other Trump loyalists have invented to justify a rigged trial. I challenge you to present evidence to the contrary.

Also, the House is already fighting against the same legal argument Trump's White House is using in the case of these witnesses via the McGahn case. The McGahn case will take several more months to resolve. It doesn't make sense to keep going to court over new witnesses for the same legal argument. The House only needs to win the McGahn case.

and written articles

There was nothing wrong with the articles. Impeachment articles can include more than just violations of criminal statutes. Impeachment articles can concern violations of the Constitution and charges related to abuse of office, and sometimes these things have no criminal law analog.

Trump beat you. Deal with reality.

I recognize the fact that Republican Senators decided to become complicit in covering up Trump's corruption by voting for a rigged trial. I get that.

What I am not going to admit is that it was the right and correct thing to do. It wasn't. You are just parroting Hannity-style pro-Trump talking points without any basis in our laws and our constitution. Thems the facts. You don't know what you're talking about. You're just repeating what you were told on Fox News like a lemming or a robot.

 

[veritas1]

Oh yes it is. Romney voted on the facts and now it is not safe for him to attend CPAC. Like the 5th grade

If there were evidence of any impeachable crime by Trump, it would have been in the articles. Pierre Delecto simply demonstrated his personal spite for the guy who accomplished what he completely failed to do. I'm sure the fact that a close aide of his served on the Burisma board with Hunter Biden and still serves on it, also weighed into the calculation.

 

[veritas1]

Trump blocked important witnesses from testifying.

Trump should have done his duty, abide by his oath and comply with Congressional subpoenas.

Instead, he obstructed the investigation like some petty thug.

The House didn't fail. Trump failed. And now, just like always, Trump wants to distract his followers from his own corruption. And you fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.

1. The House never subpoenaed John Bolton.

2. Trump has a right to exercise executive privilege like every other POTUS regardless of the left attempting to strip him of this prerogative.

3. "Obstruction of Congress" is not an impeachable crime, or even a definable one.

4. The House "investigation" was a sham where the GOP wasn't even allowed to call its own witnesses. It was more akin to something the Soviets would have cooked up.

 

[Jay59]

There is simply no prohibition in the Constitution or based on our traditions preventing the Senate from bringing forward new witnesses. This is pure fiction on your part. And if you disagree, then prove it. A Senate trial is just as proper of a forum as any other forum. It's a trial, and there isn't rule, law, or Constitutional provision forbidding such a thing. This is pure fiction that you and other Trump loyalists have invented to justify a rigged trial. I challenge you to present evidence to the contrary. Also, the House is already fighting against the same legal argument Trump's White House is using in the case of these witnesses via the McGahn case. The McGahn case will take several more months to resolve. It doesn't make sense to keep going to court over new witnesses for the same legal argument. The House only needs to win the McGahn case. There was nothing wrong with the articles. Impeachment articles can include more than just violations of criminal statutes. Impeachment articles can concern violations of the Constitution and charges related to abuse of office, and sometimes these things have no criminal law analog. I recognize the fact that Republican Senators decided to become complicit in covering up Trump's corruption by voting for a rigged trial. I get that. What I am not going to admit is that it was the right and correct thing to do. It wasn't. You are just parroting Hannity-style pro-Trump talking points without any basis in our laws and our constitution. Thems the facts. You don't know what you're talking about. You're just repeating what you were told on Fox News like a lemming or a robot.

I'm sorry but you ignorant of the Constitution. You have no idea what you're about.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Mr. Heisenberg, you forget some very simple facts. The IG was ALSO in cahoots with Schiff and he was the one that changed the form to allow second hand information.

Nope.

No Hearsay Rule Change for Whistleblowers - FactCheck.org

What is it that you think is false about what the whistleblower reported?

You forget that LL of these people know one another and that, of all the attorney in the world they could have chosen,they chose Mark Zaid, an attorney who openly solicits people who want to depose Trump and who VOWED a=way back in 2017 to bring down Trump with the help of CNN.

Zaid's personal opinions don't matter. If you have proof that Zaid "set up" Trump then prove it, otherwise stop yapping about something you can't prove.

What is it that you think is false about what the whistleblower reported?

You forget that Schiff hired two people just before this who know Vindman and the ALLEGED whistle blower, who really isn't and was used as a place holder to lend credence to the charges.

What is it that you think is false about what the whistleblower reported?

You forget that the WB said that Trump demanded an investigation and used the word I instead of us.

What is it that you think is false about what the whistleblower reported?

You forget that 15 other people listened to that call and never said a word.

What is it that you think is false about what the whistleblower reported?

You forget that NO ONE testified as to a quid pro quo an that Zelinsky himself said there wasn't.

That is flat-out not true. You need to go back and read the actual transcripts.

There is lack of direct-evidence about Trump's intent, but that's because Trump BLOCKED important witnesses who could have provided first-hand, direct evidence.

There is a lot of circumstantial, based on the testimony, and documentary evidence, that many people involved in the process understand there to be a quid pro qup./

And I know you've been listening to the goofy Hannity Cliff Notes conspiracy theory version of events, but I got news for you. Hannity has been lying to you.

It's OK you won;t admit the obvious. Your Psyche won't allow you to.

I want you to explain to me what is it that you think is false about what the whistleblower reported?

Be specific.

Or stop yapping.

You keep avoiding the question.

I want you to explain to me what is it that you think is false about what the whistleblower reported?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I'm sorry but you ignorant of the Constitution. You have no idea what you're about.

Boohoo. Stop whining.

I don't care about your feelings Jay59. Grow up. Present a logical argument or stop responding. Either way, I don't care.

Get over yourself.

Come to the table with a logical argument supported by the facts, or go home. I don't care.

 

[Jay59]

Boo hoo. Stop whining. I don't care about your feelings Jay59. Grow up. Present a logical argument or stop responding. Either way, I don't care. Get over yourself. Do your homework. Come to the table with a logical argument supported by the facts, or go home. I don't care.

Excellent advice. Follow it.

Ophelia: Do not, as some ungracious pastors do,
Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven.
Whiles, like a puffed and reckless libertine,
Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads.
And recks not his own rede.

Hamlet: Act 1, scene 4​

 

[hanger4]

Wasn't there a bit before that mentioning the Mafia too?

If you can hear all that and still think it's being passed off as the verbatim account of the call, I know the president for you.

You were corrected, *He told everyone it was a fake version before he offered it.* is not true.