Don's Stalinist purge has begun

The Legal Limits on Trump’s Reprisals Against Impeachment Witnesse
https://www.lawfareblog.com/legal-limits-trumps-reprisals-against-impeachment-witnesses

 

I stopped reading after these false claims...

Trump didn't "solicit political favors from Ukraine."

And firing people who do not agree with your foreign policy is not vengeance.

Why do left-wingers keep making crap up!

 

Just as you have one for creating a reality that suits your needs of the moment

 

Nonsense whether loyal to the country or not isn't the question. The question is was he willing to help Trump implement Trump's foreign policy. If the answer was no he should have left instead of playing saboteur

 

It doesn't conclusively prove that Vindman leaked the book excerpts, and the column doesn't make that claim. It does establish him as suspect number one however. Since the book was there to be reviewed for classified information in the first place, leaking any part of it is at minimum a firing offense and possibly a criminal one. Don't you agree?

 

Vindman is still in the service, and has his same rank...he wasn't ousted.

 

You make it exceedingly difficult to have a rational conversation when you deny facts in evidence.

 

You want it to, but it doesn't. From the NYT...........

"Mr. Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.
Multiple people described Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/politics/trump-bolton-book-ukraine.html

What I agree about is if there was any evidence Vindman leaked the manuscript you can be sure the WH would have announced it to justify Vindman's dismissal.

 

Which means that you make it exceedingly easy to debunk any of your unnamed unidentified anonymous fake news articles.

 

Interesting how you've replied so many times in this thread yet you fail to answer this simple question. Perhaps if I bold and underline it for you then you will see it this time?

 

This sounds like the New York Times trying to hide their source. Who were the "multiple people?" Did any of them speak on the record that they had access to Bolton's manuscript?

 

What proof do you have that Vindman leaked the manuscript?

 

Reports Tie Trump Withdrawal Of Former US Attorney’s Nomination To Politically Sensitive Cases
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/...eys-nomination-to-politically-sensitive-cases

President Donald Trump withdrew a high-profile Treasury Department nomination over the nominee’s old job, as top federal cop in Washington, D.C., reports indicate.

Jessie Liu, the former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, was scheduled for a confirmation hearing Thursday for her nomination to become Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes. But Trump abruptly pulled the nomination Tuesday night.

Now, multiple outlets report that the change was a result of Liu’s old job, where she supervised a number of politically sensitive cases including those against Trump confidante Roger Stone and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Sherrod Brown (D-OH) said in a hearing Wednesday that “it appears this is another stop on the President’s personal retribution tour; an attempt to ensure that [Liu] did not come before the Banking Committee tomorrow to answer, under oath, questions about those prosecutorial decisions.”

 

I never claimed such. Simply that we know that he actually had access to the manuscript at the time. Meanwhile, I'm waiting for you to provide names of those "multiple people" you claim also had access.

I noticed that you dodged that question.

 

Yes, you did, in post #102.

 

It used to be a thing of respect and honor.

No longer.

Hell you people trashed this guy for wearing his UNIFORM

 

If not then what was the point of Post 102?

 

Many of us are decorated veterans. It appeared to have been worn to give his testimony more credibility than it deserved.

 

You are conflating two different issues. There is enough circumstantial evidence to suspend his clearance and dismiss him from any job that requires handling classified information.

The other issue, whether there is actual proof that he's the leaker, I don't know. That would require more evidence I would think.

 

See post #144.

 

Gee, that's complete bullshyte.

 

For one he was assigned to review manuscripts for release.

 

Explain why the president is wrong to remove a member of his security council who testified in public about a classified phone call that he, as a security council official, was responsible in part to transcribe. Give it your best arm waving shouting best,

 

Regardless of your opinion for why he wore his uniform...you trashed him for wearing it. NO respect for the military or the uniform

 

He testified because he was subpoenaed. By law he was required to do so