Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Trump Fires First Person After Being Acquitted By Senate

#1

Trump Fires First Person After Being Acquitted By Senate

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was fired by the National Security Council and escorted off of the White House grounds, Fox News has confirmed.

“Vindman was on detail to the National Security Council from the Department of Defense, and it is expected he will return there,” the report added.


https://www.analyzingamerica.org/breakin...source=myc
Me sarcastic? No couldn't be. I am much too dim witted to grasp the quaint subtleties of such potent mockery!!!
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#2

I think you mean Mr. Vindman.

Now this clown can go be the defense minister to Ukraine, his rightful position.
Reply

#3

He's going to go do similar work for maybe exactly the same amount of money only three miles away.
This is a nothingburger. Not the first time people made lateral moves due to personal conflicts and won't be the last.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#4

(02-07-2020, 07:15 PM)mikesez Wrote: He's going to go do similar work for maybe exactly the same amount of money only three miles away.
This is a nothingburger. Not the first time people made lateral moves due to personal conflicts and won't be the last.

Lateral move, lol.....you never disappoint.
Reply

#5

(02-07-2020, 07:15 PM)mikesez Wrote: He's going to go do similar work for maybe exactly the same amount of money only three miles away.
This is a nothingburger. Not the first time people made lateral moves due to personal conflicts and won't be the last.

As a citizen you and I are allowed to say whatever we want about the President with no fear of repercussion.

As a member of the United States military you're not allowed to be overtly critical of the commander-in-chief. So.....
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#6

(02-07-2020, 08:12 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote:
(02-07-2020, 07:15 PM)mikesez Wrote: He's going to go do similar work for maybe exactly the same amount of money only three miles away.
This is a nothingburger. Not the first time people made lateral moves due to personal conflicts and won't be the last.

As a citizen you and I are allowed to say whatever we want about the President with no fear of repercussion.

As a member of the United States military you're not allowed to be overtly critical of the commander-in-chief. So.....

Not to mention he has a reputation as an overly political ladder climber. That idiot Sondland is gone too.
Reply

#7
(This post was last modified: 02-07-2020, 08:45 PM by mikesez.)

(02-07-2020, 08:12 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote:
(02-07-2020, 07:15 PM)mikesez Wrote: He's going to go do similar work for maybe exactly the same amount of money only three miles away.
This is a nothingburger. Not the first time people made lateral moves due to personal conflicts and won't be the last.

As a citizen you and I are allowed to say whatever we want about the President with no fear of repercussion.

As a member of the United States military you're not allowed to be overtly critical of the commander-in-chief. So.....

In public, yes, you're not supposed to be critical.  But if you feel that you've received illegal orders, or seen someone else in the military doing something illegal, you have a duty to report, and to disobey.

Remember, we did not accept the "just following orders" defense at Nuremburg.  Even though trying to make Ukraine a pawn of the Republican party isn't as bad as genocide, the principle applies to all illegal acts.

Whether or not the act was actually illegal is irrelevant.  You have a duty to report and disobey if you think it's illegal.  The legal system works out if it was illegal or not, not you.

(02-07-2020, 08:30 PM)homebiscuit Wrote:
(02-07-2020, 08:12 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: As a citizen you and I are allowed to say whatever we want about the President with no fear of repercussion.

As a member of the United States military you're not allowed to be overtly critical of the commander-in-chief. So.....

Not to mention he has a reputation as an overly political ladder climber. That idiot Sondland is gone too.

Sondland was a civilian.  Different rules apply.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#8

(02-07-2020, 08:45 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(02-07-2020, 08:12 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: As a citizen you and I are allowed to say whatever we want about the President with no fear of repercussion.

As a member of the United States military you're not allowed to be overtly critical of the commander-in-chief. So.....

In public, yes, you're not supposed to be critical.  But if you feel that you've received illegal orders, or seen someone else in the military doing something illegal, you have a duty to report, and to disobey.

Remember, we did not accept the "just following orders" defense at Nuremburg.  Even though trying to make Ukraine a pawn of the Republican party isn't as bad as genocide, the principle applies to all illegal acts.

Whether or not the act was actually illegal is irrelevant.  You have a duty to report and disobey if you think it's illegal.  The legal system works out if it was illegal or not, not you.

(02-07-2020, 08:30 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: Not to mention he has a reputation as an overly political ladder climber. That idiot Sondland is gone too.

Sondland was a civilian.  Different rules apply.

Just stop.
Reply

#9

(02-07-2020, 09:04 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote:
(02-07-2020, 08:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: In public, yes, you're not supposed to be critical.  But if you feel that you've received illegal orders, or seen someone else in the military doing something illegal, you have a duty to report, and to disobey.

Remember, we did not accept the "just following orders" defense at Nuremburg.  Even though trying to make Ukraine a pawn of the Republican party isn't as bad as genocide, the principle applies to all illegal acts.

Whether or not the act was actually illegal is irrelevant.  You have a duty to report and disobey if you think it's illegal.  The legal system works out if it was illegal or not, not you.


Sondland was a civilian.  Different rules apply.

Just stop.

What do you think should happen to Vindman? do you think reassigning him to the Pentagon should be the end of it, or do you think he should get more punishment?
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#10

(02-07-2020, 09:47 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(02-07-2020, 09:04 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: Just stop.

What do you think should happen to Vindman? do you think reassigning him to the Pentagon should be the end of it, or do you think he should get more punishment?

Well, firstly, you don't have a a duty to report what you feel is illegal. It doesn't matter how you feel. He reported something that wasn't illegal and undermined his boss for what appears to be political purposes. 

Secondly, I don't care what happens with him. Sounds like he'll be just fine at the Pentagon. What do you think should happen to him?
Reply

#11

(02-07-2020, 10:24 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote:
(02-07-2020, 09:47 PM)mikesez Wrote: What do you think should happen to Vindman? do you think reassigning him to the Pentagon should be the end of it, or do you think he should get more punishment?

Well, firstly, you don't have a a duty to report what you feel is illegal. It doesn't matter how you feel. He reported something that wasn't illegal and undermined his boss for what appears to be political purposes. 

Secondly, I don't care what happens with him. Sounds like he'll be just fine at the Pentagon. What do you think should happen to him?

Feel is not quite the right word.  Think was the right word.
The point is, it doesn't matter if it's actually illegal, if you think it's illegal, don't do it, and report it.  Tell the proper channels. You'll either get reassigned with an explanation that you were wrong, or your superior will get disciplined if you were right.  The Vindman case is somewhere in between.  Even though he was right, because the impeachment failed, reassigning him is the appropriate remedy.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#12
(This post was last modified: 02-08-2020, 02:19 AM by JagNGeorgia.)

(02-07-2020, 11:53 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(02-07-2020, 10:24 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: Well, firstly, you don't have a a duty to report what you feel is illegal. It doesn't matter how you feel. He reported something that wasn't illegal and undermined his boss for what appears to be political purposes. 

Secondly, I don't care what happens with him. Sounds like he'll be just fine at the Pentagon. What do you think should happen to him?

Feel is not quite the right word.  Think was the right word.
The point is, it doesn't matter if it's actually illegal, if you think it's illegal, don't do it, and report it.  Tell the proper channels. You'll either get reassigned with an explanation that you were wrong, or your superior will get disciplined if you were right.  The Vindman case is somewhere in between.  Even though he was right, because the impeachment failed, reassigning him is the appropriate remedy.

No, sir. 

It isn’t about what you feel or think. You must know it’s illegal to be insubordinate or to report the activity of your superior. Otherwise, the entire system is caught up in a never ending cycle of petty undermining behavior. 

You can’t assign a self righteous motive to excuse his behavior. He wasn’t right, by the way. He did nothing more than offer his opinion.
Reply

#13

Just another Mikesez post where he assigns motive to fit his narrative.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#14

(02-08-2020, 08:08 AM)Last42min Wrote: Just another Mikesez post where he assigns motive to fit his narrative.

What motive did I assign, and to whom?
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#15

(02-08-2020, 02:17 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote:
(02-07-2020, 11:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: Feel is not quite the right word.  Think was the right word.
The point is, it doesn't matter if it's actually illegal, if you think it's illegal, don't do it, and report it.  Tell the proper channels. You'll either get reassigned with an explanation that you were wrong, or your superior will get disciplined if you were right.  The Vindman case is somewhere in between.  Even though he was right, because the impeachment failed, reassigning him is the appropriate remedy.

No, sir. 

It isn’t about what you feel or think. You must know it’s illegal to be insubordinate or to report the activity of your superior. Otherwise, the entire system is caught up in a never ending cycle of petty undermining behavior. 

You can’t assign a self righteous motive to excuse his behavior. He wasn’t right, by the way. He did nothing more than offer his opinion.

People disagree about what the law says all the time.
This is all handled by legal staff who are smarter than you or me. Soldiers are adults. The consequences of obeying orders could be death. And there are real consequences for disobeying orders as well, even though there is sometimes a duty to disobey.
A soldier with a sincere and reasonable disagreement is unlikely to face punishment beyond reassignment if the higher level staff disagree with how he reads or understands the law. but a soldier just seems to me making trouble and doesn't seem to be sincere or reasonable about why they think the thing is illegal, could be discharged, perhaps even dishonorably discharged.
If a majority of the House of Representatives and constitutional scholars agree with Vindman, he belongs in the first category, not the second.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#16

(02-08-2020, 11:44 AM)mikesez Wrote:
(02-08-2020, 02:17 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: No, sir. 

It isn’t about what you feel or think. You must know it’s illegal to be insubordinate or to report the activity of your superior. Otherwise, the entire system is caught up in a never ending cycle of petty undermining behavior. 

You can’t assign a self righteous motive to excuse his behavior. He wasn’t right, by the way. He did nothing more than offer his opinion.

People disagree about what the law says all the time.
This is all handled by legal staff who are smarter than you or me. Soldiers are adults. The consequences of obeying orders could be death. And there are real consequences for disobeying orders as well, even though there is sometimes a duty to disobey.
A soldier with a sincere and reasonable disagreement is unlikely to face punishment beyond reassignment if the higher level staff disagree with how he reads or understands the law. but a soldier just seems to me making trouble and doesn't seem to be sincere or reasonable about why they think the thing is illegal, could be discharged, perhaps even dishonorably discharged.
If a majority of the House of Representatives and constitutional scholars agree with Vindman, he belongs in the first category, not the second.

You simply don’t understand how the government or military work. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: you don’t have to have an opinion on everything. 

The majority of the House agreeing with you means nothing when they make their decisions based on politics. Anyone with a modicum of understanding in basic criminal law / case law can tell you that there was no legal standing for obstruction and abuse of powers for impeachment. I wouldn’t use the House agreeing with Vindman as a justification for his actions. They would’ve done the same for anyone that furthered their agenda.
Reply

#17

Vindman should be breaking rocks at Leavenworth
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#18

(02-08-2020, 12:37 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote:
(02-08-2020, 11:44 AM)mikesez Wrote: People disagree about what the law says all the time.
This is all handled by legal staff who are smarter than you or me. Soldiers are adults. The consequences of obeying orders could be death. And there are real consequences for disobeying orders as well, even though there is sometimes a duty to disobey.
A soldier with a sincere and reasonable disagreement is unlikely to face punishment beyond reassignment if the higher level staff disagree with how he reads or understands the law. but a soldier just seems to me making trouble and doesn't seem to be sincere or reasonable about why they think the thing is illegal, could be discharged, perhaps even dishonorably discharged.
If a majority of the House of Representatives and constitutional scholars agree with Vindman, he belongs in the first category, not the second.

You simply don’t understand how the government or military work. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: you don’t have to have an opinion on everything. 

The majority of the House agreeing with you means nothing when they make their decisions based on politics. Anyone with a modicum of understanding in basic criminal law / case law can tell you that there was no legal standing for obstruction and abuse of powers for impeachment. I wouldn’t use the House agreeing with Vindman as a justification for his actions. They would’ve done the same for anyone that furthered their agenda.

You simply don't understand the constitution.
The branches are co-equal and can use their delegated powers and responsibilities with their own sole discretion. High crimes and misdemeanors was understood to be a broad term, inclusive of abuse of power. But even if it were not so, The house was given some discretion to decide what high crimes and misdemeanors are, and the Senate sole discretion to decide what the consequences should be.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#19

(02-08-2020, 10:44 AM)mikesez Wrote:
(02-08-2020, 08:08 AM)Last42min Wrote: Just another Mikesez post where he assigns motive to fit his narrative.

What motive did I assign, and to whom?

You don't even understand the subtext of your own argument. While I agree with your conclusion, you don't know whether Vindman "felt" or "thought" something, so why even draw the distinction? It's a completely unnecessary and stupid argument, but you can't seem to let anything go.
Reply

#20

(02-08-2020, 01:25 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(02-08-2020, 12:37 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: You simply don’t understand how the government or military work. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: you don’t have to have an opinion on everything. 

The majority of the House agreeing with you means nothing when they make their decisions based on politics. Anyone with a modicum of understanding in basic criminal law / case law can tell you that there was no legal standing for obstruction and abuse of powers for impeachment. I wouldn’t use the House agreeing with Vindman as a justification for his actions. They would’ve done the same for anyone that furthered their agenda.

You simply don't understand the constitution.
The branches are co-equal and can use their delegated powers and responsibilities with their own sole discretion. High crimes and misdemeanors was understood to be a broad term, inclusive of abuse of power. But even if it were not so, The house was given some discretion to decide what high crimes and misdemeanors are, and the Senate sole discretion to decide what the consequences should be.

I have a far better understanding then you have. The bold implies that they’re free to do as they wish and would also justify any action Trump took that ultimately had him impeached. Theres a reason they couldn’t cite a criminal offense. It doesn’t matter anyway because I’m talking about Vindman’s behavior not having been justified because there’s no criminal offense or illegal activity on behalf of the President, and how it relates to undermining your boss on feelings as you suggested was appropriate.
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!