I suspect (but of course can’t know) that Lt. Col. Vindman probably thought of himself as a Republican. He was a brave, patriotic, war hero. Then he witnessed a crime, reported it through the proper channels, as was his patriotic duty, just to have other Republicans turn on him like rabid dogs.
One thing you can say about the Trump administration is that it’s revealed a lot of people’s character.
Yes, many of us think that.
Citation Needed.
Here is Richard Neal’s letter to IRS commissioner Rettig… link.
One more time though… the 4th amendment doesn’t apply to Richard Neal’s request because he is not seeking anything from Trump. He is performing oversight over the IRS.
https://heavy.com/news/2019/11/alexander-vindman-politics-democrat-republican/ gives a pretty good run-down of it. The takeaway is that nothing much is definitively known about Vindman’s politics, aside perhaps from his testimony today. His twin brother apparently was a campaign strategist for some Democrat that ran in Georgia, but it’s not like it’s unheard of for twins to differ politically.
I’d refer you to post #5084
I am a poker dealer. I am licensed by two states and previously was licensed by two others. In all four cases, I had to expose my financial records to state licensing agencies. This was to assure them that I was not in debt up to my eyeballs making me a risk to be around money.
That was to deal a game in a casino. Not even full time. And even the biggest poker games I was likely to deal would have maybe tens of thousands on the table and a well of about $5k. Surrounded by players who own most of the money, supervisors, cameras, and knowing full well if I were to take even a few chips that didn’t belong to me, I could be fired, arrested and lose my license rendering me unable to ever deal in a casino again.
If I didn’t want these agencies to look into my finances, I needed to find another line of work.
So should Trump. He is responsible for a fuck-ton more than I ever will be, even when I have to deal with three side-pots in a huge Pot Limit Omaha game.
Sondland’s testimony tomorrow is going to be very interesting. I think he has two choices:
Tell what he knows. Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He can “remember” stuff that was not in his initial testimony. There are credible witnesses to his words and actions.
Continue to be Trump’s man, and double down. Claim that all the other witnesses are lying. Claim there was no phone call between him and Trump on an unsecured cell phone in Ukraine. Claim that it is only he who is telling the truth. Take the risk that he will not be joining Manafort, Cohen and Stone in prison, or that a pardon will be delivered to him.
It will be fascinating to see what choice he makes.
Excellent. Thanks. That distinction makes sense.
Here.
I assume Republicans would be fine with candidate Biden promising that a Biden administration would be forced to reexamine military aid unless Zelensky releases a statement stating that he understood Trump’s words to be soliciting a bribe.
As long as he doesn’t literally say “quid pro quo”.
Or worse, I’m guessing.
However, you are clearly a “Never Trumper”, so we should not listen to a single thing you say, and in fact we should insult you and chant that you should be locked up.
Because this is the only argument against your position.
No, of course not. Neal revealed nothing and claimed no investigatory aim.
Notification of allegations and having evidence listed out against you doesn’t happen until you are being charged. Not before, when you are being investigated.
Well, he is in charge of the country, but you are talking about poker!
Lance Turbo’s link to the letter from Neal with the request explained what I was after.
I’ll leave it at that. Message me if you want a response to this.
And… ya know… not to be a PITA (I know, too late), but…
No argument from me whatsoever that what you posted is exactly the narrow focus in which Chairman Neal kept his demand, and for the very reasons you stated.
The problem is, Trump has raised his privacy rights as a defense – and if SCOTUS takes up the case, it will probably be on that basis. So we have to hope they see it the same as you and me. Up to the time of this SCOTUS, I would have been confident in that. Today? Not nearly so sure. I think Trump’s defense is nuts – but then, I never thought he’d get a Muslim ban through, either.
cmosdes is correct to the extent that this issue has not been much reviewed (at all? I don’t know, haven’t really looked) by the courts. And there are differing opinions on the scope of the matter. While all agree in this article featuring 11 different legal opinions that Trump will likely have to hand over his returns, their opinions are all over the place about how and why – including the personal privacy issue. (Vox)
Worth a read. May not inspire confidence.
And I do stand by my public servant argument. There is not a career person working for Trump who didn’t have to undergo a hell of a lot more scrutiny into their private lives than he did to do their jobs in government. Oversight comes with the territory, always has. For Trump to have a higher expectation of privacy than they enjoy is simply appalling and wrong.
Nm
trump’s sole interest in Ukrainian corruption lay in obtaining a piece thereof.
Have at it if you feel the need. I’m sure plenty will follow.