They were fired from their job, escorted out. And Trump has every right to do this. And it's also clearly vindictive and wrong. After they were fired, they were "welcomed back". "We welcome back all of our service members, wherever they serve, to any assignment they are given," Defense Secretary Mark Esper had said Friday when asked about Vindman's expected ouster. "We can confirm that both Lt. Cols. Vindman have been reassigned to the Department of the Army, out of respect for their privacy, we will not be providing any further information at this time," an Army spokesperson said. The vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. John Hyten, told CNN that "it will be up to the Army" to determine where Alex Vindman goes next. "But I'm sure there's still room for his talents in the United States Army, it's just not in the current job," he said.
Nope. You dont keep working for your employer when you are fired. Also your employer doesn't pick your next job when you are fired. They were given Pentagon jobs. That's not firing. 'Removal' is the correct term
You ask so nicely. I really want to say, "Sure bud, I'll turn them off for ya. No problems" But can't really trust it given that you seem to support a vindictive man that has no respect for the law and the process and will stab a man if it fits his agenda. Can help but project Trump's lack of values and integrity onto his supporters. It's pretty sad.
The same mark esper that said this? https://thehill.com/policy/defense/...service-members-from-retribution-amid-reports
In trump's desired homeland russia, they would "reassign" people that to Siberia... wonder where the two Vindmans are going?
And of course, trump and his enablers will keep attacking the war hero who simply did his duty by telling the truth... and show this was simply a vindictive act of retaliation.
They all serve at the discretion of the President. None have been fired. They are being re-assigned. They are not docked in pay. Of course the president is going to clean house. The problem was that he didn't do it sooner. No sympathy here. I expect everyone but Gordon will end up on CNN making bank. If they can't leverage this publicity into something that pays, then that's on them. Gordon is rich anyway, plus he wasn't exactly a whistleblower. I have a problem with Vindman is discussing policy with his CIA whistleblower buddy. There's supposed to be a rank and order, especially with those in the military. The president, like him or not, is his commander-in-chief. He lives in a country where he's allowed to disagree and not be shot for it. But someone in his position is not allowed to undermine the highest ranking commander. I don't have a problem with his testimony. He told his truth. He clearly disagreed with what was going on. Keep it in house or ask to be re-assigned. Don't take privileged conversations to your buddy to share with a sympathetic political party. Atkinson is a turd. Would love to finally hear his 'sealed testimony'.
Fine if that’s how you view it. That isn’t at all important. It’s vindictive and wrong. The kind of things that happen under authoritarian rules and supportive of “head on a pike” if you ever do anything that trump doesn’t like.
Yes. 'Head on a pike' is very similar to moving someone to a different Pentagon job. Also it's true of any job, that if you do something your boss doesn't like that there are consequences
They lost their jobs for telling the truth and doing what they were supposed to do. And they were escorted out of the white house to embarrass them, as if they had been fired for cause, as if they had done something wrong. And, the fact that esper stated they wouldn't suffer from retribution for telling the truth... they were victims of retribution. trump and his son went as far as tweeted it... so I don't know the point of spinning it now. Worse, it sends out a message... tell the truth against what we do and you will also be victims of retribution.
I have a bit of a problem with the retribution/retaliation/revenge narrative going on here and in the media. Anyone who has ever had at-will employees knows that those employees serve at the pleasure of the employer. If you lose the confidence of your employer, your employer has every right to, and is free to, let you go. Only real exceptions would be civil service jobs and union employees (and tenured academics I suppose).In those cases you'd have to prove bad behavior. Again, if an at-will employee has lost the confidence of the employer, that employer would be an idiot to continue tolerating that employee in whatever job that individual holds. I don't know what people here or elsewhere would expect otherwise in the case of Vindman et al.
How many time have we heard trump defender said don’t take his word literally? Head on a spike isn’t to be taken literally. Trump and his supporters know this well. Their past and current actions speak clearly. Laws and norms do limit what US busn can do. Beside that, the government isn’t a corporation or company. Authoritarian government is closer to what a company is.
once again, Trump may have mixed motives which include vengeance--I don't deny that. But absent the motive of vengeance, Trump as you say would still have every right to fire anyone he wants to. So I have a hard time thinking that that action is "wrong."
