Posted on 02/13/2020 7:26:01 AM PST by jerod
WASHINGTON — National security adviser Robert O’Brien said Tuesday evening there had been “absolutely” no retaliation involved in Friday’s departure of Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman from the National Security Council, even as President Trump seemed to indicate that the military would “look into” whether to take disciplinary action against the Army officer.
Vindman, who had been the NSC’s director of European affairs, testified in November during the impeachment proceedings against the president, saying he considered Trump’s efforts to have Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter “inappropriate.” With his twin brother, Yevgeny, also an Army lieutenant colonel on the NSC staff, Vindman was escorted from the White House grounds Friday.
Trump said Tuesday that it would be “up to the military” whether Vindman is disciplined for his role in the impeachment proceedings. “But if you look at what happened, they’re going to certainly — I would imagine — take a look at that,” he said.
However, later in the day, O’Brien denied that there had been any retribution involved in the ouster of the Vindman brothers. “There’s absolutely no retaliation with respect to the Vindmans as far as impeachment goes,” O’Brien told CBS journalist Margaret Brennan during a question-and-answer session at the Atlantic Council in Washington. “But the president is entitled to a staff that he has confidence in and that he believes will execute his policies.”
Nonetheless, O’Brien then seemed to suggest that the Vindman brothers were engaged in an effort to “dictate” policy to Trump. “We’re not some banana republic where lieutenant colonels get together and decide what the policy is or should be,” O’Brien added...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“He certainly did not do this”.
Lakin’s service record prior to this incident does not bear that contention out. I believe that he WAS fulfilling his oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the constitution” from that usurper Obama who was born ( spawned?) God knows where. (Upon what fact purported to by a counterfeit birth certificate can you rely?)
I’m done with this nonsense. Go hang out with Lurkinanloomin.
Goodbye.
He got your goat, didn’t he?
No, but I do have a limit. He and Lurkinloomin have been nutcases for many years, worth ridicle and amusement, nothing else.
You violated the number one rule of debating, if you think that.
Yeah, now we hear YOUR nonsense. You have just shown that you are incapable of rational response to reasoned discourse. As are many who oppose us on this issue.
YOU can go hang out with the anti constitutional, progressive, open borders cultural marxists here.
Thanks to the 1st amendment, we still have freedom of association. For now at least, until they decide to disregard that part of the constitution too.
and yet the Libs want exactly that - to remove almost all powers of the Presidency and turn it into a figurehead controlled by a House designed intentionally to be chaotic from electing members very two years.
Seems to be another Cruzer who would make Anwar Al-Awlaki’s kids eligible just so the Cubanadian can run.
Same deal the Bushies made with the devils of the Democrat party, we’ll let the Kenyan from Indonesia slide so that our Mexican (George P. Bush) can run.
Yup, you hit the nail on the head. We got a whole buncha situational “constitutionalists” up in here.
Prince Archie, the son of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, is also the Earl of Dumberton. He is 8th in line for succession to the British crown. He is also a US citizen by virtue of the US Immigration and Naturalization Act owing to his mother, who is a US natural born citizen.
If you accept centurion316’s reasoning, Prince Archie is eligible to run for POTUS after the age of 35 and 14 years of residency in the US. Let us say that he did so successfully.
If the Royals were to be annihilated in a terrorist bombing at a family gathering, (ala Lord Louis Mountbatten) then Archie would assume the British crown.
Article I, section 9, clause 8 states “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
Notice that such holding IS possible WITH the consent of Congress. Envision a Congress (Democrat?) willing to grant such permission.
Is the above unlikely and absurd? Yes, utterly so, but nonetheless, POSSIBLE. I would have said the election of Obama almost as ridiculous prior to the reality of it.
The point is not whether it is likely or not. The NBC provision was designed to make such a scenario well nigh IMPOSSIBLE if the constitution is strictly adhered to.
To believe otherwise is to believe that the framers of the constitution and the founders of this republic were willing to countenance a British King as POTUS. NOW THAT is the most absurd thing of all!!!!!
The last King of Thailand was born in Cambridge MA.
Boris Johnson, current PM of the UK was born in NY.
Winston Churchill had an American mother.
Some would have us believe they are natural born citizens, but curiously, Congress bestowed honorary citizenship upon Churchill in the 1950s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.