Only a complete idiot thinks this wasn't retaliation.

So, you're happy that he was retaliated against for following a lawful subpoena?

He served at the pleasure of the president. That means the President can fire them at any time without cause. They have no contract, no union, and no recourse whatsoever. Most appointed Government positions at higher levels are “at the pleasure”. Appointed Ambassadors are a great example. I have no problem what so ever with it...

Do you know what happens when a boss retaliates against someone for following the law and doing their job?

Even when that boss is a political figure?

They go to jail.

Because being fired for obeying the law is against the law.

Even for Presidents.

But not Trump. Because not a one of you will hold him accountable.

You'll Yes, Dear Leader till the cows come home.

Again he served at the pleasure of the president. PERIOD!

Just because you have the authority to do something, WHY you do it is so very very very important.

That you cannot understand that is problematic.

He's insubordinate. That alone can cause you to be fired for cause.

He followed the law. If following the law is insubordination, you're in the wrong country.

The issue isn't the subpoena you moron. Insubordination to the President. He supposedly reported "alarming" concern about his phone call to a superior, yet testified he thought the President did nothing wrong. He dragged the presidency through the mud because he got a case of the ill feels. Incompetent at best, disloyal at worst. He was advising Ukrainians against the President's interests, often trash talked America to them, one NSC official said his conclusions are unreliable, and he didn't report that the Ukriane government asked him to become their Minister of Defense three times. Never should have been there in the first place. He would be considered a hostile witness in a criminal proceeding. A "National Security" Council person who doesn't know when to keep is trap shut.

If you think he said Trump did nothing wrong, you didn't listen to his testimony. AT ALL.

He followed the law. He did the right thing.

Then he got fired in retaliation.

Vindman was asked point-blank in the hearing and he said he thought the President did nothing wrong, after initially raising concern with his superior. You obviously didn't watch the hearings you recalcitrant troll.

Actually, what he said was, "I wasn't prepared to necessarily make that kind of judgment.
I thought it was troubling and disturbing, but, you know, I guess, I guess I couldn't say whether it was illegal. I'm not an attorney"

Then he goes on at other points to talk about how he's not a lawyer.

This is what responsible adults who are professionals do- they tell you what they think was right or wrong and then talk to a lawyer.

Like he did.

No, bad mouthing Trump behind his back is not following the law. And yes I did listen, And thanks for the false assumptions.

Testifying in front of congress on camera isn't behind anyone's back.

And clearly, no you didn't.

So your gonna beat a strawman and assume falsehoods because you wish them to be true.
"NSC co-workers said that Vindman, like Ciaramella, openly expressed his disdain for Trump."
https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/e11aa4ce-4432-47c3-aeec-b6f6140707d4/2020-02-05-senator-ron-johnson-offical-statement-on-imeachment-with-enclosures.pdf

Vindman even testified that he talked about Trump behind his back.

The subpoenas were not lawful, nor was the circus rigged hearings. The president had every right to use executive privilege to not answer any subpoenas, and to direct them under him not to... and, well... yeah. This happened.

Trump just gave more reason for himself to face some form of consequences than three years of bumbling incompetent Democrats. I do not believe that there were grounds to impeach, and in any event the dems blew it. Still, this is not acceptable to me as voter.

Get your priorities fixed if you think this guy who caused all sorts of havoc in congress and inciting more unfounded, divisive, sensationalist hate in this country shouldn't have been punished.

Maybe. But firing him makes Trump appear vindictive rather than justified. His punishment should not further embarass the presidency nor provide ammo for the opposition.

Well all things considered...

1) It doesn't sully the presidential office at all.

2) The Democrats will ALWAYS have something to whine about. It's always frivolous and hypocritical. Might as well not e even listen to them.

and 3) the man clearly was a backstabber causing trouble. His false allegations passed off as "whistleblowing" are disruptive to the presidential office and to the nation.

2g3mm3.gif (click to show) Clapping

In the OP's meme of course.

lol ( :

haha

Context: I work in employment law, and have defended employers against cases of retaliation brought by discharged employees.

We were concerned by — and paid money to settle — cases of retaliation that were way, way more tenuous than this.

The key factors to consider in assessing cases of retaliation are: (1) whether the employee engaged in protected conduct, (2) whether the employer has motive for punishing that conduct, (3) the timeline between the protected conduct and the termination, and (4) if such evidence exists — which it rarely does — extrinsic written or verbal evidence that the employer’s decision to discharge the employee was directly linked to the protected activity.

In light of all those factors: This is hands-down the most open-and-shut case of retaliation I’ve ever seen.

1. Protected conduct: Testifying in relation to an investigation against one’s employer is a classic example of protected conduct. We even had an example based on exactly this hypothetical for our oral arguments is our first year of law school.
2. Motive: These two witnesses’ testimony was not favorable to Trump, which gives him a motive to retaliate.
3. Timeline: Trump firing these guys two days after he was safely acquitted is the most suspicious timeline I’ve ever seen.
4. Extrinsic verbal/written evidence: Trump straight up admitted to reporters when asked about this: “I’m not happy with him.”

I can only assume that the Trump Administration was so open and obvious about these firings because they are more interested in sending a message than in whatever legal consequences, if any, may ensue.

If this kind of thing isn’t illegal in the context of those serving a Presidential Administration — and I’m not sure since I defended private employers, not the White House — it should be.

Trump has just sent a message that he can, and will, purge any and everyone in his Administration who voluntarily speaks up.

Between that — and the baseless and sweeping claims of executive privilege we just saw in the impeachment trial, which went unchallenged by the GOP Senate — Trump has made himself effectively unaccountable to the law.

But not unaccountable to voters. Let’s hope.

Except it's not. Because the resulting investigations and hearings that ensued uncovered absolutely no evidence.

This is more like an employee of a company making up completely false statements. It's not whistleblowing if the allegations aren't even remotely true.