Escorted off White House grounds by security and told his services were no longer needed. ...anyone surprised?...at all?
With all the troops he has fired in his staff, Lt.Col Vindman probably applauded when Pelosi ripped the speech copy.
Yup, he didn't have the balls to fire the guy while the investigation/hearing was going...yeah, what a class act.
I’m with you on this. Any time my aide goes outside the chain of command to Congress, that clown is relieved on general principle. Immediately.
it only took this long because the president and nsc protected him. He should’ve been gone months ago and likely would’ve had the army had their way. But they, maybe seeing what the SEALs are going through with disobeying the CinC, probably decided to wait until ordered to.
Outside the "chain of command"?... Again, he was SUBPOENAED. And as Lanny said, he did go through the chain of command. Unless of course, you're suggesting that he should have asked Trump for permission. In that case, no.
https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ied-to-stop-trump-from-sondland-ouster-report Group of GOP senators tried to stop Trump from Sondland ouster: A group of Republican senators attempted to stop President Trump from ousting U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland this week, though the president removed the now-former diplomat from his post anyway, sources told The New York Times. According to the paper's sources, the group of GOP senators – Susan Collins (Maine), Thom Tillis (N.C.), Martha McSally (Ariz.) and Ron Johnson (Wisc.) – thought the ousting of Sondland would look bad, especially since he was already in talks senior officials about leaving his post after the conclusion of the Senate impeachment trial. However, on Friday, State Department officials informed Sondland that he needed to resign by the end of the day. Sondland pushed back, reportedly saying that if they wanted him gone on Friday, they would have to remove him. The president then recalled him from his post, effective immediately the newspaper reported. The announcement of Sondland's outer came just hours after National Security Council aide Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman and his twin brother were removed from their posts. Vindman and Sondland were both key witnesses in House Democrats' impeachment hearings, but the Times says that the group of lawmakers only registered concern about Sondland's ouster, not Vindman's. The group conveyed its concerns to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and legislative affairs director Eric Ueland. A senior official confirmed the lawmakers' outreach, but the White House declined the Times' request for comment. The oustings have been dubbed a “Friday night massacre” by Democrats who view the moves as vindication for Trump after the president was acquitted on Wednesday in the Senate impeachment trial. Trump addressed Vindman's removal on Twitter Saturday morning, saying that he never knew or spoke to Vindman.
On a phone now, but happy to later. Basically, he should’ve been out of his position as soon as he went to the lawyers. Not because he did or didn’t do anything wrong, but because he went against what his bosses were trying to do. We know now it was partisan, but that doesn’t matter. Army wanted him gone as soon as the testimony showed him to be unacceptable to at least half of America. We in the military can not afford to have either side thinking we’re not doing as we’re told by our civilian masters. There were “political timing issues” (I’ll let you guess what those might’ve been) that negated the Army removing him from his post in November.
Again, I'm sorry, but I'm still not grasping exactly what your point is, or how the article/link I provided, somehow bolsters your point. Sundland was not in the military, so why wasn't he fired "immediately"? Are you saying that Trump's dismissal of Sundland/both Vindman brothers was anything more than revenge/vindictiveness on Trumps part, instead of firing them for poor performance?