Tuesday, February 11, 2020

Vindman needed to be fired

The NY Times published this letter:
To the Editor:

Re “Trump Hits Back, Firing Witnesses After Acquittal” (front page, Feb. 8):

Given the treatment of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, Ambassador Gordon Sondland and others, no one should ever again question the need for whistle-blowers to maintain anonymity, if they wish. Thank you, Mr. President, for making the case so clearly and so powerfully.

And, thank you to these two gentlemen and all those who had the courage, including Senator Mitt Romney, to do what they believed was right. I suspect history will applaud your efforts.
This is twisted Trump-hater thinking.

America has never allowed anonymous witnesses. I don't know if pre-revolutionary England allowed it, as the founders were against it, and our Constitution expressly forbids it.

The NY Times portrayed the firing of Vindman and Sondland as some sort of punishment, but I don't see it that way. They testified that they did not agree with our American foreign policy, and even implied that they ought to be working to undermine it.

Vindman even appeared to be more loyal to Ukraine than to America. The Ukrainians apparently thought so, and offered him high-level jobs in Ukraine.

Trump needs to have personnel to carry out his policies. That is all that is needed to explain the firings.

As for Romney, he made a big deal how he was following his conscience, and his religious beliefs. In case that sounds noble, it is the opposite of what he should have been doing. He should have been judging the evidence in the case to determine whether an impeachable crime had been committed. It is not a matter of conscience. He was just using his weirdo religious beliefs as an excuse for carrying out his grudge against Trump. He was not that much different from the law professor witnesses, except that they follow a different religion.

No comments: