Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

A soldier involved in an IED attack doesn't have the opportunity to "refuse a Purple Heart." I'm sure everyone in the vehicle was given one as a matter of course - that's how this works. The fact you're trying to suggest Vindman should've refused his is DISGUSTING.

I hope you're a troll and not an American because you are a repulsive human being.

And, you are clueless.

And, you do know that paperwork is required for a Purple Heart? And, no, you don't get one just for being in the vehicle. I was not suggesting that Vindman should have refused his, I am just pointing out that most people do not realize how they are awarded. Clearly, you do not.

Basically, two things are required: that you be in an incident that involves the enemy and that you get medical attention for the injury. The injury does not have to be serious. But, I'm sure you know that.

The policy is a little more detailed about what involves the enemy, etc, but that is pretty much it.
And, most professional soldiers i know would not correct a Congressman in the manner that Vindman did. It wasn't necessary. He goes to work in a civilian suit, he's accustomed to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The President should fire Mister Vindman for insubordination. Participating with Maloney in that DNC as is sickening.

The President should then order Vindman be court-martialed for violating the Hatch Act this morning.

What insubordination?
What Hatch Act violation?

You are not credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A soldier involved in an IED attack doesn't have the opportunity to "refuse a Purple Heart." I'm sure everyone in the vehicle was given one as a matter of course - that's how this works. The fact you're trying to suggest Vindman should've refused his is DISGUSTING.

I hope you're a troll and not an American because you are a repulsive human being.

And, you are clueless.

And, you do know that paperwork is required for a Purple Heart? And, no, you don't get one just for being in the vehicle. I was not suggesting that Vindman should have refused his, I am just pointing out that most people do not realize how they are awarded. Clearly, you do not.

Basically, two things are required: that you be in an incident that involves the enemy and that you get medical attention for the injury. The injury does not have to be serious. But, I'm sure you know that.

The policy is a little more detailed about what involves the enemy, etc, but that is pretty much it.
And, most professional soldiers i know would not correct a Congressman in the manner that Vindman did. It wasn't necessary. He goes to work in a civilian suit, he's accustomed to it.

Re-read yourself. You look ridiculous nitpicking over details that have no import on whether the President committed impeachable acts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A soldier involved in an IED attack doesn't have the opportunity to "refuse a Purple Heart." I'm sure everyone in the vehicle was given one as a matter of course - that's how this works. The fact you're trying to suggest Vindman should've refused his is DISGUSTING.

I hope you're a troll and not an American because you are a repulsive human being.

And, you are clueless.

And, you do know that paperwork is required for a Purple Heart? And, no, you don't get one just for being in the vehicle. I was not suggesting that Vindman should have refused his, I am just pointing out that most people do not realize how they are awarded. Clearly, you do not.

Basically, two things are required: that you be in an incident that involves the enemy and that you get medical attention for the injury. The injury does not have to be serious. But, I'm sure you know that.

The policy is a little more detailed about what involves the enemy, etc, but that is pretty much it.
And, most professional soldiers i know would not correct a Congressman in the manner that Vindman did. It wasn't necessary. He goes to work in a civilian suit, he's accustomed to it.

NP. Are most professional soldiers you know testifying in an impeachment inquiry and being subjected to attacks on their character and professional experience? I think most people - whether professional soldiers or not - would cite their experience/ranking/education/accomplishments in the face of such treatment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A soldier involved in an IED attack doesn't have the opportunity to "refuse a Purple Heart." I'm sure everyone in the vehicle was given one as a matter of course - that's how this works. The fact you're trying to suggest Vindman should've refused his is DISGUSTING.

I hope you're a troll and not an American because you are a repulsive human being.

And, you are clueless.

And, you do know that paperwork is required for a Purple Heart? And, no, you don't get one just for being in the vehicle. I was not suggesting that Vindman should have refused his, I am just pointing out that most people do not realize how they are awarded. Clearly, you do not.

Basically, two things are required: that you be in an incident that involves the enemy and that you get medical attention for the injury. The injury does not have to be serious. But, I'm sure you know that.

The policy is a little more detailed about what involves the enemy, etc, but that is pretty much it.
And, most professional soldiers i know would not correct a Congressman in the manner that Vindman did. It wasn't necessary. He goes to work in a civilian suit, he's accustomed to it.

Yes, I do know - I used to help prepare and process that paperwork. Funny how you're just parroting a RW attack - the same attack, btw, that was used against John Kerry in 2004. Funny, too, how people who aren't Republicans are never deserving of their Purple Hearts.

[Anonymous]

These hearings are heartbreaking. But I love that they have highlighted and brought to national attention the incredibly accomplished and dedicated people that we have working in our govt.

We have true patriots serving our country. The Republicans need to regroup because they just look worse and worse and worse.

[Anonymous]

Excellent summary by Schiff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Excellent summary by Schiff.

Yes! I think so too.

I can't help but wonder who will play him when this is finally made in to a movie. He is amazing.

[Anonymous]

I notice that Republicans have not rebelled against the questioning rules this time.

[Anonymous]

Maybe Aidan Quinn?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I notice that Republicans have not rebelled against the questioning rules this time.

That a million dollar miscalculation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A soldier involved in an IED attack doesn't have the opportunity to "refuse a Purple Heart." I'm sure everyone in the vehicle was given one as a matter of course - that's how this works. The fact you're trying to suggest Vindman should've refused his is DISGUSTING.

I hope you're a troll and not an American because you are a repulsive human being.

And, you are clueless.

And, you do know that paperwork is required for a Purple Heart? And, no, you don't get one just for being in the vehicle. I was not suggesting that Vindman should have refused his, I am just pointing out that most people do not realize how they are awarded. Clearly, you do not.

Basically, two things are required: that you be in an incident that involves the enemy and that you get medical attention for the injury. The injury does not have to be serious. But, I'm sure you know that.

The policy is a little more detailed about what involves the enemy, etc, but that is pretty much it.
And, most professional soldiers i know would not correct a Congressman in the manner that Vindman did. It wasn't necessary. He goes to work in a civilian suit, he's accustomed to it.

If you have the choice to accept a medal, then I think it's that individual's decision and shouldn't be second-guessed by someone else. Nor do I think a member of Congress should minimize that person's medal to score political points. Especially if that member didn't serve. What the hell happened to the Republican Party? I

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These hearings are heartbreaking. But I love that they have highlighted and brought to national attention the incredibly accomplished and dedicated people that we have working in our govt.

We have true patriots serving our country. The Republicans need to regroup because they just look worse and worse and worse.

I wholeheartedly agree. Plus 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A soldier involved in an IED attack doesn't have the opportunity to "refuse a Purple Heart." I'm sure everyone in the vehicle was given one as a matter of course - that's how this works. The fact you're trying to suggest Vindman should've refused his is DISGUSTING.

I hope you're a troll and not an American because you are a repulsive human being.

And, you are clueless.

And, you do know that paperwork is required for a Purple Heart? And, no, you don't get one just for being in the vehicle. I was not suggesting that Vindman should have refused his, I am just pointing out that most people do not realize how they are awarded. Clearly, you do not.

Basically, two things are required: that you be in an incident that involves the enemy and that you get medical attention for the injury. The injury does not have to be serious. But, I'm sure you know that.

The policy is a little more detailed about what involves the enemy, etc, but that is pretty much it.
And, most professional soldiers i know would not correct a Congressman in the manner that Vindman did. It wasn't necessary. He goes to work in a civilian suit, he's accustomed to it.

NP. Are most professional soldiers you know testifying in an impeachment inquiry and being subjected to attacks on their character and professional experience? I think most people - whether professional soldiers or not - would cite their experience/ranking/education/accomplishments in the face of such treatment.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think he is doing it because his life is at risk (although it is) I think he is doing it to be sure that people understand the seriousness that he takes his position when he testifies. And he is smart to.

The only reason Nunes called him Mr Vindeman was to try to ignore his standing and accomplishments.

Yeah, it was a power play by Nunes, LTC Vindeman recognized it as such, and he didn't allow that maneuver to stand.

Nunes, that treason weasel, was very disarespectful to that officer.