Yep. Throw the decorated soldier under the bus. That is the Republican Way of Things now. And yes, it is obviously a coordinated talking point, and Fox News is on board.
What gets me is; do these people not realize that they will be the next under the bus? It’s perfectly obvious that Trump has no loyalty whatsoever, and will knife anyone at any time.
Are we going to have to separate you two?? :dubious:
“Wahhh, we want to be able to intimidate and threaten witnesses during the investigation!”
I mean, they are spreading malicious crap about a decorated soldier - just because he dared to have an opinion that Trump’s call to the Ukraine was troubling. He DARED to think that The Donald was not perfect.
The thing is, Republican politicians KNOW this is bullshit. But they pile it up confident their moron base does not know it is bullshit.
OK, that was legit funny. You got me.
Luv your response.
Make them sit in the corner on a stool.
Everyone needs to have a group hug(gie).
I’m wondering if Vindman might be one of the whistleblower’s sources.
And now, the pushback against the GOP smearing Vindman comes from…
:eek:
I don’t want to spread rumors about entering strange places, but the large rabbit with the pocketwatch standing next to me is asking if I want to have tea with the hookah-smoking caterpillar.
We could compile a list of Republicans who have demonstrated some tiny amount of scruples, and are willing to draw a line somewhere. It shouldn’t take long; the list is pretty short.
But what I’m saying is that there is no punishment for the United States if it refuses to comply with a subpoena up until they have lost their legal argument in court. So without punishment, nothing except good will prevents the United States from immediately complying with subpoenas.
Basically, the executive branch can stall if it wants to.
~Max
"Even before his arrival, some allies of the Republican president, including Fox News host Laura Ingraham, sought to attack Vindman’s integrity and questioned his loyalty to the United States.
…
Democratic U.S. Representative Katherine Clark wrote on Twitter that Republicans were attacking “a purple heart recipient because they can’t defend the President’s actions.” The Purple Heart is awarded to those wounded or killed while serving in the U.S. military. "
There is certainly a problem here with someone’s loyalty to the United States, and the problem lies not with the Lt. Col.
Active duty military are required* to wear their full dress uniform for any business at the White House or on The Hill. So unsurprising that the Colonel would follow procedure.
But damn that paints a certain picture, doesn’t it?
** Source: the West Wing, Episode 1.19 “Let Bartlet be Bartlet”*
Respectfully I’ll address this later, after I respond to post #3140.
I doubt seventh graders learn about the house oversight committee. I remember learning very basic things such as how a bill becomes a law, Schoolhouse Rock style. We learned that bills get stuck in committees. We did not get into any specific committees or their functions, except that bills have to go through committees before Congress can vote on it.
It wasn’t until Government class in twelfth grade that I learned what committees did, and there we learned that the Steering Committees decide what gets put to the vote, the Rules Committees do procedural rules, and the Judiciary Committees do impeachment inquiries and federal judiciary stuff. There’s no way we spent more than two days on this stuff. Other committees were largely self-explanatory, eg: the agriculture committee does agriculture laws, the budget committee does the budget, the energy committee oversees the dept. of energy, the transportation committee does highways, etc. The Oversight committee wasn’t mentioned, or if it was, it wasn’t prominent. (or I don’t remember it)
But still, I admitted that I misunderstood the House Oversight Committee’s function. eschrodinger asked why I focused on a bogus argument based on a misunderstanding of the Oversight Committee, and the answer is that I didn’t know the argument was bogus.
~Max
Very predictable, and unfortunately, very effective.
People have short memories: there was a mountain - no, a mountain range - of evidence implicating Trump and his close associates in coordinating with Russian operatives and obstruction of justice. Yet, he survived, and more to the point: people here just don’t seem to give a shit what he does.
Based on recent history, I suspect that it won’t mean jack shit what is said about Trump’s infamous phone call, or by whom. This is going to be remembered as another Iran-Contra, but perhaps a little bit worse than that.
We know how that turned out. Reagan left office pretty much as popular as when he entered it. The only thing that will bring Trump down is a hard economic downturn. That is it. Only when people perceive that they are somehow paying a price for living life under Trump will they turn on him. And even then, we’re just talking about 10% of the country, which would be enough to tilt an election I guess.
Yeah, he received a Purple Heart, but then again, he worked during the OBAMA PRESIDENCY!!! :rolleyes:
Alexander Vindman said:
Fiona Hill:
From the Washington Post:
From a Washington Post timeline of the whistleblower complaint:
John Yarmuth of the House Committee of the Budget and Nita Lowey of the House Committee of Appropriations sent a letter dated September 27, 2019 that stated:
There are plenty more examples of people calling attention to the apparent wrongs being committed by the Trump administration to many different departments and officials. I cannot understand how NOT ONE of those channels believed it was worth investigating or how they kept it quiet for so long. I wonder if any of these people who ignored warnings, complaints, and red flags will be investigated and called to answer for their willful blindness.
I’ll admit all three in an instant.
Respectfully, that has been the goalpost since at least October 1. See my [POST=21892045]post #1446[/POST], which reads in part:
~Max
Vindman opening statement .PDF
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6531807-Vindman-Statement-Final
The timing of the inquiry will be interesting. I get the sense that Pelosi’s decision to put the inquiry to a vote this week isn’t just responding to pressure from Republicans; it’s possible that there’s some momentum and she wants to take advantage of it.
Even without a conviction, impeachment could still work to the favor of Democrats. For one thing, we can be sure that it will elicit reactions from the President, many of which will be impulsive and self-destructive – that’s always a good thing from the Dems’ side, politically. But additionally, if the House can do a particularly good job laying out the case for impeachment, then that could make vulnerable Senate republicans look like total dog shit for being partisans (looking at you Susan Collins). And on the other hand, if the case is good enough to convince some Republicans to jump ship, then that divides the party. If the divisions are really, really intense, it might push some Republicans into leaving the party a la Arlen Specter.