You can’t be serious, Les. You of all people should have understood, without me explaining further, what harsh meant in Soviet times: gulag, Siberia, loss of life. None of that happened above.
Amazing that someone with your experience doesn't recognize (or deliberately down-plays) the fact that things gradually get out of hand. We're not talking about a coup. It all starts with small steps/precedents, but once stepped on the slippery slope of moral/legal decline, things will gradually get worse, and the extreme examples that were referenced do not paint a happy perspective, certainly not a situation one would strive for.
The President has the right to choose his team. Which means hiring and firing.
Yes, and one would hope that those decisions are well-informed, and for the benefit of the USA. Not for personal gain.
You can’t seriously expect him to work with a snitch and someone with a persuasion that his holy duty is to take down the President of the United States because he disagrees with him politically.
Who are you referring to???
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, who did his duty when he observed questionable behavior that put the safety of the USA at risk, or when he was called by Congress to testify?
His brother? A snitch? What on earth did he do wrong, other than being the brother of?
Ambassador Sondland, who was called by Congress to testify, and had to change his earlier untenable testimony to avoid the legal consequences?
Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who had to abandon her post within a day, without knowing the reasons, and who was called by Congress to testify?
Chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, someone else?
