Beyond just dismissing Democrats’ claims of political retaliation, some Senate Republicans on Monday offered a vigorous defense of President Donald Trump’s unceremonious ouster of two key impeachment witnesses just 48 hours after the Senate voted to acquit him.
Sounds like Susan Collins is concerned. So we have that going for us.
Only Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), cited in the Times’ report as also lobbying against the removals, took the principled position when talking to reporters Monday that witnesses should not be punished for complying with subpoenas.
Oh goddess, Susan is concerned again.
If you had one sincere bone in your body, Susan, you would resign.
“I do Nazi anything wrong with that.”
Yep, sounds about right.
Tulsi Gabbard was interviewed by Neil Cavuto on Fox News Saturday, and here’s what she had to say:
"On Saturday, Fox News host Neil Cavuto asked Gabbard if she agreed with the comparison of Vindman’s firing to October 20, 1973, when President Richard Nixon’s attorney general and deputy attorney general resigned instead of firing Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox. The congresswoman responded that she has been outspoken about her dissenting opinions on many of Trump’s decisions, especially with regard to foreign policy. In this case, though, she said Trump could make whatever choice he wanted.
“Ultimately, whether people like it or not, there are consequences to elections and the president has, within his purview, to make the decisions about who he’d like serving in his Cabinet,” Gabbard told Cavuto.
And this is “news” because why???
“I’d dismiss him for that,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) said.
Better Headline: “Blunt Blunt Blunts Criticism.”
Eventually, Trump will run out of people he can fire at which point he will burst into flames. There will be no one to put out the fire, because fire departments are a socialist conspiracy.
I’m neither pro nor con for Tulsi, but this is stupid. There was NO election that this relates to. Trump was elected and he selected these 2 to serve. Yes, he can hire and fire (within reason) at will, but it’s usually best to have a “reason” other than “he told on me.”
Why would the criminal accomplices not defend the boss’s getting even with the stoolies? These are not gallant gentlemen and ladies, they’re crooks and liars.
“My general position is that anyone who answers a congressional subpoena, comes forward and testifies should not face retaliation,”
Madame Windsock’s position is also that people who lawlessly ignore congressional subpoenas should face no retaliation or accountability either. Convenient, huh?
As each senator spoke, Nino Rota’s “Speak Softly, Love” wafted gently in the background.
I’d have thought it would be “Blutrote Rosen”…
Her comment about trump’s “cabinet” doesn’t make sense.
And the normal process for lower-level jobs like the one for Lt Col Vindman is to have his employer (Army) submit his name to the head of the NSA for approval. Typically, unlike cabinet positions like the Secretary of Defense, the President doesn’t get involved with positions like these. (Vindman was the Ukraine specialist. There is also a specialist for China, another for Russia, for North Korea, etc, etc. - too many for any President to screen personally)
I figured the GOP made suggestions.
Tulsi says and does whatever her Russian Handlers tell her to do.
Just like Trump.
Breaking: Pauly Walnuts says Tony was perfectly within his rights and did nothing wrong having Ralphie whack Little Jackie by telling him to “do the right thing”. Story at 11.
I love how none of them consider submitting to a lawful subpoena something you HAVE to do. God almighty.
OT, but the fascism is ramping up nicely and they have found their excuse to begin mobilizing their purge of liberal elected officials, even prosecuting them…