Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Feb 8, 2020 14:17:50 GMT -8
He touched on some items I was considering as well. They're valid questions. All those posts are BLOCKED on my end. If questions about dismissing Vindman from the NSC don't amount to anything more than policy and personnel disagreements (i.e., Orange Man Bad) then I don't see much point in addressing them. Seems we're pretty quick to give trump a pass on most everything he does here. I just know that if I did that with one of my employees, I'd be up against it here in CA,and rightfully so. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 8, 2020 15:02:58 GMT -8
He touched on some items I was considering as well. They're valid questions. I will take your word for it. i cannot think of a single valid point he made when I WAS reading his flotsam, I would be surprised if he suddenly starts now... |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Feb 8, 2020 18:29:08 GMT -8
All those posts are BLOCKED on my end. If questions about dismissing Vindman from the NSC don't amount to anything more than policy and personnel disagreements (i.e., Orange Man Bad) then I don't see much point in addressing them. Seems we're pretty quick to give trump a pass on most everything he does here. I just know that if I did that with one of my employees, I'd be up against it here in CA,and rightfully so. It's not that I give Trump carte blanche on anything he does. What I don't do--unlike members of his deranged opposition--is to assume that everything he does is corrupt, and that the burden then lies with him and his supporters to prove his innocence. That is a nonsensical standard that no one could ever satisfy, but it is what the media, the Left, and the Democrats subject Trump to 24/7. I look at the law and the Constitution and--yes--the political circumstances (like any other President) and make my judgments accordingly. In what way would you have a problem in firing an employee who was actively undermining the policies of his boss? Those in the Executive branch of the federal government serve at the pleasure of the President--meaning they are essentially "at will" employees. Short of firing someone for reasons that would fall under the various anti-discrimination protected classes, the President can hire and fire anyone he wants. And this is absolutely necessary to the orderly functioning of the government as laid out in the Constitution. Trump is the Commander-in-Chief; if he can oust the Secretary of the Navy he can fire (re-assign) a Lt. Colonel. The guy is lucky he isn't being dishonorably discharged. This Vindman situation does not fall under the regulations of anything like CA employment law, and even if it did I'm not sure how a CEO would be legally constrained in hiring and firing. In laymen's terms, here's my (imperfect) analogy to the Vindman firing: Imagine a large company has a CEO who is retiring--and whose hand-picked internal successor has been given a narrow vote of no confidence by the company's shareholders. Instead the search committee goes outside the company and hires you. Most of the remaining employees were promoted by the previous CEO and are skeptical about your hire. One of your middle-managers, by leaking internal corporate communications, helps concoct a phony scenario with other disgruntled employees and members of your #1 market competition to get you fired. He furthers the scheme in his talks with those members of the Board of Directors who previously opposed your hire. The Board--in another narrow vote--determines the allegation is unfounded and you retain your job.
You want that scheming middle manager to keep his job? And should he?I expect further firings--and maybe even some arrests (Strzok, McCabe?)--in the coming weeks, now that the impeachment cloud has been lifted. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Feb 8, 2020 23:14:40 GMT -8
It's along the lines of whistleblower retaliation by an employer. Can't do it in CA.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 9, 2020 3:58:06 GMT -8
Poor guy.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Vindeman was NOT insubordinate. He respectfully addressed his concerns through the proper channels, and did nothing that deserves punishment. At any rate, no matter what you think of Vindeman or his conduct, certainly the firing of his brother was just an act of petty revenge...and one I might point out that will not sit well with the military. Trump is very good at making enemies out of allies.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 9, 2020 4:03:28 GMT -8
With some it's a knee-jerk response.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 9, 2020 4:10:50 GMT -8
Exactly, yet many of your fellows recommend the president act this way...to be fair some of them have invented crimes and other infractions and claimed Vindeman committed them, so at least they aren't calling for his head out of revenge themselves...at least they can claim such.
|
|
|
|
Post by coach on Feb 9, 2020 12:10:43 GMT -8
Vindman is a spy for the rotten liberals. He heard NOTHING on the phone calls. The whistleblower worked with SCHTT...SCHIFF. All a set up. Lucky Vindman's next job isn't in the Brig. For any liberals to think or say anything different, is suffering from that ugly disease turtle-necked TDS.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Feb 9, 2020 12:37:36 GMT -8
Vindman is a spy for the rotten liberals. He heard NOTHING on the phone calls. The whistleblower worked with SCHTT...SCHIFF. All a set up. Lucky Vindman's next job isn't in the Brig. For any liberals to think or say anything different, is suffering from that ugly disease turtle-necked TDS. Theatrics aside, what makes you say he was a spy for the liberals... other than testifying at the impeachment? |
|
|
|
Post by coach on Feb 9, 2020 12:53:31 GMT -8
What else can he be? There were plenty and probably still are more spies in his administration. I go by all of the Leaks from the very beginning. Actually, leaks = Felonies!!!!!
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Feb 9, 2020 12:53:43 GMT -8
In talking with a retired Army officer about this issue, I thought I'd share what he said regarding Vindman:
...totally unprofessional officer. Politics and the US Army do not mix - centuries old tradition that the US Military is apolitical.
When I asked him if that included following orders that would be illegal or in contravention to the constitution :
... No one is compelled to obey an illegal order; however, opinion doesn't count especially for a serving military officer - differences in approach/ opinion are adjudicated by Congress, the Supreme Court and the American people through elections.
|
|
|
|
Post by coach on Feb 9, 2020 12:56:29 GMT -8
He betrayed the trust of the Administration he was working for. I have read accounts from soldiers that served with him. He belongs to Russia! He is pure scum and should be arrested for treason. Still may. This was a coup!!!!
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Feb 9, 2020 13:15:24 GMT -8
Russia? I thought he belonged to the Dems?
Or maybe he just decided to play politics, and he chose the losing side.
Regardless, Trump seems to be within his right to fire him. But I'm not going down the entertainment rabbit hole of accusations disguised as facts that I can't stand hearing from either the left or right.
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Feb 9, 2020 14:05:18 GMT -8
It's along the lines of whistleblower retaliation by an employer. Can't do it in CA. It seems to me you're comparing apples to oranges. First of all, Vindman was not a "whistleblower" in any legal sense of the term. That would require that the activity he/she was reporting was illegal, which wasn't the case. This was nothing more than a corrupt attempt at criminalizing a policy disagreement. Only the original anonymous whistleblower Eric Ciaramella has any protection from bring fired in retaliation, but even the entire whistleblower framework engineered in this case is highly dubious. The whistleblower statute utilized was incorrectly applied in this case and, further, the regulations for filing such a report were altered after the fact to allow for second-hand information (by the IC IG Michael Atkinson, who just happened to be the lead attorney at DOJ/NSD and was involved in processing the phony FISA applications in 2016 and 2017.....how coincidental!) Vindman perjured himself in his testimony when he said he didn't know the identity of the whistleblower, yet refused to name the second person he shared the Trump-Zelensky phone with because..... to do so would "out" the whistleblower. Liars and leakers should be fired--and the President has every legal and constitutional right to do so. End of story. Here's the testimony of Vindman's superior at the NSC, who indicated there were serious questions about Vindman's judgment and credibility. Vindman also tried (unsuccessfully) to insert his own words into the Trump-Zelensky phone call transcript and broke the chain-of-command in bringing forth his concerns to NSC lawyers (which his brother headed). |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Feb 9, 2020 14:15:21 GMT -8
Upon further review, I did agree trump was within his right to fire him ☝️. Based on my cursory evaluation, I also now agree he wouldn't be subject to whistleblower protection.
It's just tough to cut thru all the biased theatrics to evaluate taking a more objective position on these issues.
|
|
