Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The Impeachment Trial

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Fake news.

    What part of "serves at the pleasure of the president" don't you guys understand?

    Apparently the part that contradicts their a priori judgment that Trump is always wrong and always acting from bad motives.
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Fake news.

      What part of "serves at the pleasure of the president" don't you guys understand?
      We all serve at the pleasure of our employer, because it's the president doesn't change the whistleblower law. And if you don't think that removing a person, along with his brother, from their positions for blowing the whistle is retaliation then, well, let's just assume you actually know better.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
        We all serve at the pleasure of our employer, because it's the president doesn't change the whistleblower law.
        Vindman wasn't a whistle blower, you dumbass.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
          And if you don't think that removing a person, along with his brother, from their positions for blowing the whistle is retaliation then, well, let's just assume you actually know better.
          Jim, the statute is very clear -- while I challenge the notion that Vindman falls under the whistle blower definition, EVEN IF HE DOES, he has not been fired, reduced in rank, limited as to gainful employment (heck, he'll write a book and make a bundle), or otherwise harmed, except possibly a bruised ego.

          He can STILL smugly insist that he be referred to as "Lt Col Vindman". (Ranking member, it's Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, please)
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Vindman wasn't a whistle blower, you dumbass.
            And Trump didn't change whistleblower requirements so he could file specious charges against someone. All's fair in #Resistworld, amirite?
            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
            sigpic
            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              He can STILL smugly insist that he be referred to as "Lt Col Vindman". (Ranking member, it's Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, please)
              I still wish the Congressman had shot back, "MISTER Vindman, will you please answer the question?"
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                ... amirite?
                What number is that on the periodic table?

                (or, is that one of the precious stones)
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  I still wish the Congressman had shot back, "MISTER Vindman, will you please answer the question?"
                  It almost looked like a cheesy attempt to emulate Col Jessup in A Few Good Men.
                  Kaffee: I'm not through with my examination. Sit down.
                  Col. Jessup: Colonel.
                  Kaffee: What's that?
                  Col. Jessup: I would appreciate it if he would address me as "colonel" or "sir." I believe I've earned it.
                  Judge Randolph: Defense counsel will address the witness as "colonel" or "sir."
                  Col. Jessup: [to Judge] I don't know what the hell kind of unit you're running here.
                  Judge Randolph: And the witness will address this court as "judge" or "your Honor." I'm quite certain I've earned it. Take your seat, Colonel.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    Jim, the statute is very clear -- while I challenge the notion that Vindman falls under the whistle blower definition, EVEN IF HE DOES, he has not been fired, reduced in rank, limited as to gainful employment (heck, he'll write a book and make a bundle), or otherwise harmed, except possibly a bruised ego.

                    He can STILL smugly insist that he be referred to as "Lt Col Vindman". (Ranking member, it's Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, please)
                    Like I said, I'll just assume that you actually know better.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      Like I said, I'll just assume that you actually know better.
                      I do. And I'll assume you don't.

                      Jim - show ONE THING I said in that post that was not true. I doubledog dare you with whipped cream, hot fudge and a cherry on top.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        Vindman wasn't a whistle blower, you dumbass.
                        According to the military whistleblower act members of the armed forces cannot face retaliation for "protected communications," including Congressional testimony, you moron.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          I do. And I'll assume you don't.

                          Jim - show ONE THING I said in that post that was not true. I doubledog dare you with whipped cream, hot fudge and a cherry on top.
                          For one thing, right off the bat, your challenge that Vindman doesn't fall under the Whistleblower act is wrong. For another, that he, along with his brother were not retaliated against is just plain dumb, if you actually believed it.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            For one thing, right off the bat, your challenge that Vindman doesn't fall under the Whistleblower act is wrong.
                            That's a matter of opinion, Jim.

                            For another, that he, along with his brother were not retaliated against is just plain dumb, if you actually believed it.
                            OK, if you were a legitimate whistle blower, and I'm your boss, and I called you a back-stabber, have I committed a crime? That's the key here, Jim. Not that Trump is a meanie, but did he actually violate the law?
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                              According to the military whistleblower act members of the armed forces cannot face retaliation for "protected communications," including Congressional testimony, you moron.
                              Don't try to play this game, Jimmy, you're not nearly smart enough for it. Leaking privileged information to third parties (i.e. Eric Ciarmella) is not protected communications. Remember, Mr. Vindman confessed to going outside of his chain of command, and he lied when he said he didn't know the identity of the whistle blower. In so doing, he proved himself to be politically motivated and untrustworthy, and Trump was right to remove him from the White House inner circle.

                              Seriously, man, your talking points are letting you down more than usual.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                Vindman wasn't fired, and it would ONLY be a crime if he were fired, demoted, reduced in rank, or whatever - as a result of retaliation for his testimony.

                                Let's look at what you're actually referencing...

                                (e) Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.


                                Absolutely not applicable. Vindman still has a job, was not reduced in rank, pay was not decreased -- the only 'harm' done was, perhaps, his ego was bruised, and that's not covered in the statute.
                                Andrew, the lawyer, disagrees.
                                That was in no way an ordinary redeployment. It is, however, a test of how much authoritarian bullying and intimidtion of the others, that you will put up with.
                                “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                                “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                                “not all there” - you know who you are

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                307 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X