Trump publicly admits he fired White House official as retaliation for impeachment testimony

at everybody's favorite blog:

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/02/on-the-removal-of-sondland-and-vindman.php

On the removal of Sondland and Vindman
by Paul Mirengoff
(Posted on February 10, 2020)

Two of the key witnesses in the Trump impeachment have been removed from their positions. Gordon Sondland is out as Ambassador to the European Union. Lt. Col Alexander Vindman has been reassigned from the National Security Council to the Pentagon.

Democrats are crying foul, of course. But was it improper for Trump to take these personnel actions?

Sondland’s case seems easy to me. Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President. Trump lost confidence in Sondland. Thus, his removal made sense.

Vindman’s case is somewhat different and less easy for me. Unlike Sondland, he’s a career government employee and military man. Thus, ousting him from the government would be highly problematic, in my view.

However, Vindman wasn’t ousted from the government. He was reassigned to the Pentagon.

As far as I know, Vindman will suffer no loss of pay or rank. Nor is it extraordinary for NSC staffers to be sent back to their previous posting. As I understand it, these people often circulate back and forth from their Department to the White House. In fact, Vindman was scheduled to rotate back to the Pentagon this summer.

It may well be true that Vindman’s reassignment was in retaliation for his testimony, or at least that retaliation was one of his motives. In defending his decision, Trump cited Vindman’s report of his conversation with Ukraine’s president, calling it “inaccurate.” (I think Vindman’s report and his testimony held up well.)

In addition, Trump cited “insubordination.” He was relying, I assume, on an order from the White House that Vindman not testify before Congress.

Trump also said that the person Vindman reported to at the NSC gave him “a horrendous report.” However, during his testimony Vindman read from his fitness report. It stated: “Alex is a top 1 percent military officer . . . He is brilliant, unflappable, and exercises excellent judgment.”

In any event, the bottom line for me is that the president should have NSC staffers he trusts. He doesn’t trust Vindman. Thus, it made sense to transfer him back to the Pentagon.

Had Trump gone further and taken some extraordinary measure of retaliation — e.g., firing Vindman from the government, demoting him, or slashing his pay — that would be objectionable, in my view. But Trump didn’t. He simply moved Vindman back to his old posting (albeit unceremoniously), as is commonly done with NSC staffers.

The counterargument is that “whistleblowers” like Vindman won’t come forward in the future if they face the consequences he did. But that’s why the lack of severity of these consequences is important. I’m confident that Vindman would have acted just as he did had he known that doing so would hasten his move back to the Pentagon.

Trump could have waited until this summer, when Vindman was scheduled to leave. That might have been the more prudent course. However, I don’t think the flak Trump is taking for reassigning Vindman is deserved.
​

 

Wonder why he didn't address Vindman's brother's reassignment...

 

The vote regarding the Equal Protection Clause was 7–2, and regarding the lack of an alternative method was 5–4.[3] Three concurring justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature.

And it seems that the Florida AG was the person who brought the case which makes my point for me.

The Supreme Court decision allowed the previous vote certification to stand, as made by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, for George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes. Florida's votes gave Bush, the Republican candidate, 271 electoral votes, one more than the required 270 to win the Electoral College, and the defeat of Democratic candidate Al Gore, who received 266 electoral votes (a "faithless elector" from the District of Columbia abstained).

So the state has all the power.

 

For those supporting the firing/reassignment...

I had a Top Secret DoD clearance at my job. I was required to report if I happened to see any company private or confidential documents lying in open view if no one was present. Same if I saw something I assumed to be a password. Now, assume I walked past my boss’s boss’s boss’s desk and saw a confidential document. If I don’t report it and I was found out, it was a fireable offense. So...I report it. An investigation is made and it turns out the boss was reprimanded but not fired. He then has me reassigned so I am no longer a direct report to him.

Justified?

 

Re-assigned, no dock in pay or demotion in rank? Dunno. However, Lt. Col. V serves at the discretion of the President. So that analogy isn't exactly apples to apples.

It's being reported that Trump has re-assigned or let go approx. 70 NSA employees leftover from the Obama administration. Before everyone gets upset, Obama cleaned house of the Bush admin's staff.

 

No worries about butting in. My whole point was to pressure test some of the avenues of election contention. If there’s one thing that gives me some comfort it’s that there aren’t Republican AG’s in Michigan, Wisconsin, or Minnesota. God help us if it comes down to Florida and Broward County again.

I did mostly want to pressure test the theory of Trump issuing an EO written with some actual constitutional coherence that Congress does not pass a bill to overturn said EO. We know McConnell is highly unlikely to go along with a rebuke and we all know that the legality of EO’s is up in the air in the courts if Congress does not have coherent laws passed that make EO actions illegal.

I get a lot of “oh crazy lib” nonsense but I see no harm in pressure testing these scenarios. None of us are constitutional scholars of course but it’s a conversation that people seem to blow off and I think that’s a mistake.

 

Vindman served at the discretion of a President who never knew him, spoke to him or met him (as far as he knew). Since he did not work directly for the President, I put a couple of layers of management in my example. And regardless of no demotion or drop in pay, I was taken away from a job I liked and put into a new situation. Also, I forgot to mention, my brother, who did absolutely nothing was reassigned out of a job he liked as well.

 

“I hope that’s a last-week phenomenon. And it’s not going to carry on in the future,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) of Trump’s retributions since being acquitted. He declined to implore Trump to put an end to it: “I’m not going to tell him how to do his job.”

Kellyanne Conway says more officials may be ousted after Trump’s Senate acquittal

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...-more-officials-ousted-trump-acquittal-113138

 

Imagine supporting a guy this vindictive and childish. It’s honestly hard to fathom.

 

Nearly every employer is at-will meaning they serve at the pleasure of the CEO...yet you are not allowed to fire someone for testifying against you. Why is the president once again above the law the rest of us have to follow?

Trump is a mafia thug. When will you admit it?

 

Obama let go almost all of the Bush administration civil servants simply because of different politics. I would say Trump was naive in assuming the career diplomats could do their job without letting their bias or policy disagreement compel them to undermine his policy. I'm sure there are a few who have been able to carry out their duty but it looks like he's been burned and in every instance except Somland, it's been by an Obama holdover.

You want to talk about an authoritative state? Talk about these same folks who fought to undermine him from day one. The State knows better than the voters. Now that sounds more like China or Russia than it does America.

I have no sympathy for Vindman. If he can't parlay his 15 minutes of fame into a big pay day, then he's not good at the game he stepped into.

Brennan
Clapper
Comey
McCabe
Rosenstein
Strzock
Page
Atkinson
Vindmon
Ciaramella
Misko
Yovanovitch
Holmes

There's more but that's a pretty good list of examples that are Obama holdovers who disagreed with the President outwardly. Not just impeachment witnesses, but folks who openly admitted their bias. Each example can be found by a simple google search. I would imagine that every President who is of a different party than their predecessor will now clean house.

 

lol

 

This is just factually untrue.

You sound like Rush now.

Many if not most of those were appointments by Republicans. Again you are spewing mistruths and half truths here. I really am beginning to think you are just another right-wing propagandist.

 

Another reprisal...

 

Sounds like you've met your match if that's what you think. If we are going for an extreme position that Trump is trying to force a dictatorship then let's play the game. Here's an extreme right narrative for ya: The fact that they were Republican appointees doesn't excuse them from being leftovers getting comfy from 8 years in the Obama admin, where the insiders rule us from behind their desks and aren't held accountable to the voters.

Your conspiracy theory sounds far fetched. Mine happened.

 

trump wants more retaliation against Lt. Col. Vindman...

 

You seem to be confusing the dismissal of the people who testified in the impeachment hearings with the typical transitions that take place between administrations, they are not the same things and honestly this is not a difficult concept at all. The dismissal of Sondland and both Vindmans a couple of days after Trump's acquittal is blatantly obvious political retribution to anyone who doesn't have their head up Trump's a**.

Also, Rosenstein was not an Obama holdover, he was appointed by Trump and only served in his position during the Trump administration. I understand that you probably view anyone that isn't completely subservient to Trump as an Obama holdover but that isn't the case. Beyond that, this whole idea that all these people are out to get Trump because they are politically biased is just laughable and really is some truly incredible projection.

I really can't emphasize this enough: the constant pushing of these nonsense conspiracies by both Trump and his supporters is not only completely false and dangerous, it makes you look really, really dumb and gullible. I promise you that the entire world is not out to get Donald Trump, most of us are just able to recognize when a dangerous jack *** with zero self-restraint is given way too much power.

 

Obama kept many many Bush appointees. So that statement you made before was not correct that Obama cleaned house.

Secondly, Trump has cleaned out not only of Obama appointees but of HIS OWN appointees.

Sounds like you are just a Trumpster trying to fake that you are not. Are you my match? Whatever floats your boat. I'll let the others decide on that one.