Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Trump Fires Impeachment Witnesses Gordon Sondland and Alexander Vindman in Post-Acquittal Purge

Emboldened by his victory and determined to strike back, the president removed Mr. Sondland as ambassador to the European Union after the White House earlier on Friday dismissed Colonel Vindman.

Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union and a witness in the impeachment inquiry, was fired on Friday.Credit...Samuel Corum for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Trump wasted little time on Friday opening a campaign of retribution against those he blames for his impeachment, firing two of the most prominent witnesses in the House inquiry against him barely 48 hours after being acquitted by the Senate.

Emboldened by his victory and determined to strike back, Mr. Trump ordered Gordon D. Sondland, the founder of a hotel chain who donated $1 million to the president’s inaugural committee, recalled from his post as the ambassador to the European Union on the same day that Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, a decorated Iraq war veteran on the National Security Council staff, was marched out of the White House by security guards.

The ousters of Mr. Sondland and Colonel Vindman — along with Mr. Vindman’s brother, Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, an Army officer who also worked on the National Security Council staff — may only presage a broader effort to even accounts with the president’s perceived enemies. In the two days since his acquittal in the Senate, Mr. Trump has railed about those who stood against him, calling them “evil,” “corrupt” and “crooked,” while his press secretary declared that those who hurt the president “should pay for” it.

Even as he began purging administration officials who testified in the House impeachment inquiry, Mr. Trump assailed a Democratic senator who he had hoped would side with him during the trial but did not and called on the House to “expunge” his impeachment because he deems it illegitimate.

The flurry of actions and outbursts drew quick condemnation from Democrats, who said the president was demonstrating that he feels unleashed, and complicated the politics of impeachment for moderate Republicans who stood by him while arguing that he had learned his lesson and would be more restrained in the future.

“There is no question in the mind of any American why this man’s job is over, why this country now has one less soldier serving it at the White House,” David Pressman, Colonel Vindman’s lawyer, said in a statement. “Lt. Col. Vindman was asked to leave for telling the truth. His honor, his commitment to right, frightened the powerful.”

Colonel Vindman spoke publicly only once, after being ordered to under subpoena, Mr. Pressman added. “And for that, the most powerful man in the world — buoyed by the silent, the pliable and the complicit — has decided to exact revenge.”

The Daily Poster

Listen to ‘The Daily’: The Post-Acquittal Presidency

How has President Trump’s acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial emboldened him in the Oval Office?
bars
0:00/28:24
-28:24

transcript

Listen to ‘The Daily’: The Post-Acquittal Presidency

Hosted by Michael Barbaro, produced by Eric Krupke, Adizah Eghan, and Jonathan Wolfe, and edited by Lisa Chow

How has President Trump’s acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial emboldened him in the Oval Office?

[music]

michael barbaro

From The New York Times, I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.”

Today: President Trump has undertaken a campaign of retribution against those who crossed him during the impeachment inquiry and favors for those who have tried to protect him. Peter Baker on the post-acquittal presidency.

It’s Friday, February 14.

archived recording

[HORNS] Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States.

michael barbaro

Peter, I want to begin with retribution. How does that start?

archived recording (donald trump)

Well, thank you very much, everybody. Wow.

peter baker

The day after his acquittal in the Senate, the president gathers people in the East Room of the White House for an event. It’s not quite a press conference. It’s not quite a speech. It’s really kind of a mix, a mix of a celebration of his acquittal but a venting session of his grievances.

archived recording (donald trump)

I want to start by thanking some of — and I call them friends, because you develop friendships and relationships when you’re in battle and war.

peter baker

And he wants to thank the people who stood behind him, names them in the audience.

archived recording (donald trump)

Mitch McConnell, I want to tell you, you did a fantastic job. [APPLAUSE]

peter baker

Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader who did more than anybody to secure his acquittal in the trial. And he mentions Jim Jordan —

archived recording (donald trump)

When I first got to know Jim, I said, huh, he never wears a jacket. What the hell’s going on? He’s obviously very proud of his body. [LAUGHTER]

peter baker

— and other members of the House, the Freedom Caucus, the conservative Republicans who always stood by him in the most aggressive and assertive and staunch way. And then, of course, he turns to his enemies.

The people he blames for his ordeal, the people he thinks have treated him so unfairly, have plotted against him, been disloyal or what have you. And he names ones that you would expect, of course.

archived recording (donald trump)

Nancy Pelosi is a horrible person.

peter baker

Nancy Pelosi, he says she’s a horrible person.

archived recording (donald trump)

A corrupt politician named Adam Schiff made up my statement to the Ukrainian president. He brought it out of thin air — just made it up. They say he’s a screenwriter, a failed screenwriter.

peter baker

He names, of course, Adam Schiff, the lead House prosecutor.

archived recording (donald trump)

And then you have some that used religion as a crutch. They never used it before.

peter baker

He names Mitt Romney, the Republican, the only Republican senator to vote for conviction.

archived recording (donald trump)

But, you know, it’s a failed presidential candidate, so things can happen when you fail so badly running for president.

peter baker

These two now, of course, are really at odds. And you see the visceral anger in the president in this moment.

And he mentions Colonel Alexander Vindman, a member of his own staff, a detailee from the Pentagon working on Ukraine issues, and his twin brother Yevgeny Vindman, who also works at the N.S.C. staff. He says it almost in passing.

archived recording (donald trump)

Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and his twin brother, right?

peter baker

And he says it with such dripping disdain in his voice. You’d get the sense immediately, of course, that this is somebody who’s really angry at the president, and he’s got his attention.

michael barbaro

And remind us what puts Vindman in this list of enemies.

peter baker

Colonel Vindman was one of the members of the White House staff, the National Security Council staff who were subpoenaed by the House to testify in the impeachment inquiry. He didn’t come forward voluntarily. He was required to by law to give his testimony to the committee. And during his testimony, he told about being on the famous July 25 call between the president and President Zelensky of Ukraine when the president asked him to investigate Joe Biden and the Democrats. And Colonel Vindman told the committee that he thought that was inappropriate, and he reported it to his superiors at the N.S.C. And for that, he has been on the target list of President Trump and his allies ever since. Painted as disloyal, painted as even treasonous to the country. His patriotism questioned even though he’s a decorated veteran of the Iraq War, injured in battle, and really, a kind of a symbol to both sides of sort of where this fight has evolved.

archived recording (donald trump)

Our country is just respected again, and it’s an honor to be with the people in this room. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.

peter baker

And so he comes to the end of this sort of rambling, meandering talk that goes on for an hour and two minutes. And you get the sense that this is not the end and that there’s more to come.

archived recording

Well, President Trump has begun his revenge in the wake of his impeachment trial.

peter baker

Colonel Vindman, the same witness he had just talked about so dismissively at the East Room event finds himself escorted out of the White House by security guards and told his services are no longer needed —

michael barbaro

Wow.

peter baker

— exiled back to the Pentagon from which he came. Not just him —

archived recording

Escorted out of his job and off the White House grounds, as was his twin brother, who was also assigned to the N.S.C.

peter baker

His brother Yevgeny Vindman — who didn’t do anything, had nothing to do with the impeachment hearings at all, except to show up and sit behind his brother just as a matter of family support — also dismissed from his post at the National Security Council, marched out at the same time by security and sent back to the Pentagon.

archived recording

Today, Vindman’s lawyer issued a statement saying, quote, “The truth has cost him his job, his career and his privacy.”

peter baker

You can understand why a president might not want somebody on his staff who had testified an impeachment hearing against him. But it was handled in a way that was meant to maximize the public message, right? I’ll tell you what I mean by that. The N.S.C. is currently undergoing a downsizing. And in fact, the plan was to move Colonel Vindman out as part of that, or at least to use that as the cover to to say, it’s not about reprisal. It’s not about his role in impeachment. It’s just part of this overall restructuring. And that’s frankly how other presidents might have handled a situation like that.

michael barbaro

Come up with a rationale.

peter baker

Come up with a rationale, come up with a public face-saving kind of storyline, a narrative, at least, that even though people would see through it, would at least have the veneer of looking professional rather than vindictive. That was not what the president wanted. He made sure they did this separate from that reorganization. They did not explain it as part of that reorganization. And they did not deny when we called them that day that this was what it looked like, which was, of course, an act of retribution.

michael barbaro

OK, so what happens next?

peter baker

Well, we thought that was the story for the day, these two brothers being marched out of there.

michael barbaro

Right.

peter baker

And then we discover as the evening arrives that it’s not over.

archived recording

Now we’re getting word that the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, he is out as well.

peter baker

Gordon Sondland, you may remember him. He was the ambassador to the European Union, who had been deeply involved in the Ukraine pressure campaign, on the phone with the president and required to testify, became a key witness in the House hearings. He said that they were operating on the order of the president himself. He said that it was clearly a quid pro quo, and he said that everyone was in the loop. Suddenly, it turns out he’s out as well. Now, as with Vindman, there was a way to do this that would have minimized the public kerfuffle. Gordon Sondland actually was ready to leave. He had told his superiors at the State Department that he was ready to step down on his own. And he got word that Friday you have to resign today, they told him. But he says, no. I don’t want to resign on the same day that you’re pushing out these Vindmans as if I’m part of some sort of purge.

michael barbaro

Wow.

peter baker

If you want me today, you’re going to have to fire me. And they called back and said, OK, you’re fired.

michael barbaro

So at this point, it’s clear that this is a vindictive purge of anyone who did anything that put the president in a negative light during the impeachment process. And what is the reaction to that, that very clear and deliberate message from the president inside Washington?

peter baker

Certainly among Democrats, even among a few Republicans who say what’s the message you’re sending? If you respond to a subpoena, as ordered by the law, and you give your testimony, you shouldn’t be punished for doing that. The president’s view is, why should I have people I can’t trust working for me? It’s my right as the president to have a staff that serves my interests that I believe is loyal. And he’s made clear that loyalty is a number one when it comes to this president. There’s no other quality that matters more to him.

michael barbaro

And, Peter, as somebody who’s covered many White Houses, is he right about that? Is it ultimately a presidential prerogative to decide if someone testified against you, that, you know, you no longer want them around, you don’t want them in those jobs anymore, especially presidential appointments?

peter baker

It’s a good question, right? Because it does feel like it would be untenable to have testified and provided damaging testimony against the president, and then come to work every day afterwards. You would think, in fact, you might not want to necessarily do that. But the question isn’t what’s the right place then for that person to work. The question is what the message the president is trying to send by what he’s doing, right?

michael barbaro

Right.

peter baker

This president has made a point of making sure everybody knows these people are out, and they’re out because of him and because he will not tolerate disloyalty.

michael barbaro

OK, so that is the campaign of retribution so far, post acquittal, which brings us to the campaign of protection for the president’s allies.

peter baker

Right. It’s not enough just to go after his perceived enemies. Now it’s time to do something to protect his friends. And for him, this is going to start with a colorful character and longtime friend and adviser named Roger Stone, who’s about to go to prison.

michael barbaro

We’ll be right back.

So, Peter, before we get to how the president is trying to protect Roger Stone, remind us who Roger Stone is.

peter baker

Roger Stone has been in American politics going back decades.

He is somebody who calls himself a dirty trickster.

archived recording (roger stone)

I’m certainly guilty of bluffing and posturing and punking the Democrats. Unless they pass some law against [BLEEP] and I missed it, I’m engaging in tradecraft. It’s politics.

peter baker

He’s a self-proclaimed fan of Richard Nixon. Even to this day, he has a Richard Nixon tattoo.

michael barbaro

Right.

peter baker

He’s somebody who’s involved early on in some of the Reagan and Dole campaigns, but over the years kind of drifted off into the side, really kind of more of a fringe character, a conspiracy theorist, a provocateur.

archived recording 1

In 1980, Stone began a lobbying firm with Paul Manafort that unapologetically catered to human rights abusers.

archived recording 2

He has these maxims on how he conducts his political strategy. One of his rules is never turn down an opportunity to have sex or be on television.

archived recording 3

We’ve seen a lot of colorful characters in the world of political consulting, none more colorful than Roger Stone. And that is the most charitable adjective you can apply to the single weirdest man possibly in the history of political consulting.

peter baker

He’d been friends for years with Donald Trump. And like Roger Stone, Trump comes from the outside, right? He was not part of the Republican establishment. But suddenly, he’s powering forward toward a presidential bid. And he brings with him people like Roger Stone, who had not been in the center of American politics now for years.

michael barbaro

Right. And my recollection is that it’s during that campaign that Roger Stone gets into very significant trouble.

peter baker

Right. He becomes wrapped up in the whole story about the Russian hacking of the Democratic emails.

archived recording

Hillary Clinton’s campaign dealing with more email problems. The email account of campaign chairman John Podesta was hacked and many of the emails released.

peter baker

Things he said gave the impression that he might have known about it in advance.

michael barbaro

Right.

archived recording

So were you surprised when John Podesta’s emails came out, as you seemed to predict ahead of time?

archived recording (roger stone)

I was interested, like the rest of the country.

archived recording

Were you surprised?

archived recording (roger stone)

No, I wouldn’t say that I was surprised.

peter baker

And that puts him right in the heart of this. Is he a link between the Trump campaign and Russia through perhaps WikiLeaks, which is the cutout that the Russians used to get these emails out. And so, once the president wins and comes into office, his friend Roger Stone finds himself under investigation for what he knew and when he knew it. And then Congress jumps in. They call Stone to testify at the House Intelligence Committee. And this is where he really gets into trouble.

archived recording (roger stone)

We had a very frank exchange. I answered all of the questions. I made the case that the accusation that I knew about John Podesta’s email hack in advance was false, that I knew about the content and source of the WikiLeaks disclosures regarding Hillary Clinton was false.

peter baker

He starts telling things that are demonstrably not true. And he ultimately ends up getting charged with lying to Congress. He also tries to get an associate of his to not tell the truth, threatens him even, threatens to kill his dog.

michael barbaro

Whoa.

peter baker

And he was put on trial. And last fall Roger Stone was convicted of seven crimes, seven felonies, including lying to Congress and witness intimidation.

michael barbaro

And these are conditions on very serious charges of obstructing a congressional investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. That’s right. I remember thinking when that happened, like, whoa. This is the big leagues for Roger Stone.

peter baker

Exactly. And the question is, why is he lying? Why is he obstructing? Is he trying to protect the president? This is how this all fits together, right? This goes back to the whole Russian interference. This goes back to the Mueller probe. This goes back to the things that have dominated this presidency for three years and frustrated this president for three years. So he sees Roger Stone’s conviction as an illegitimate shot at him, at himself, the president. A way of trying to take him down because they couldn’t take him down any other way.

michael barbaro

OK. So Peter, how does the president try to protect Stone after this conviction?

peter baker

So even as he’s in the middle of this campaign of retribution against the Vindman brothers and Gordon Sondland, he is increasingly aware that the sentencing for Roger Stone is coming up. And then, when Monday comes around and the prosecutors present their recommendation for a sentence to the court, the prosecutors ask for seven to nine years behind bars. That’s the normal sentence that would be required under the sentencing guidelines passed by Congress for crimes of the type that Roger Stone was convicted of. So they didn’t go outside of those guidelines. They simply said we want to sentence him to what the guidelines say. That doesn’t mean the judge would go along with it, but that was their recommendation. Well, that set the president off.

archived recording

The president expressed his outrage on Twitter, calling it a very unfair situation, adding, “Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!”

peter baker

In the middle of the night, he starts sending out tweets, angry tweets. How can this happen? Nine years, this is outrageous. And they’re going after him. How come they don’t go after my enemies but they go after him? And that just sort of sets the town ablaze.

archived recording

Controversy in the nation’s capital now over a sentencing recommendation for President Trump’s longtime friend Roger Stone.

peter baker

Here’s a president weighing in directly on a court case involving a friend of his. This is something that we have not seen really since Watergate. Presidents don’t, especially publicly, weigh in on prosecutions of people that they are personally connected to, at least except in the venue of issuing pardons at some point, which they sometimes do. So this has shocked a lot of people. But what really shocked a lot of people in Washington was when they woke up a few hours later on Tuesday and they saw not only these tweets, but they saw that the attorney general of the United States, Bill Barr, had essentially overruled the career prosecutors.

archived recording

Breaking news involving President Trump. A stunning reversal in the sentencing recommendation for Trump confidant Roger Stone.

peter baker

And said, no, we’re not going to ask for a sentence this heavy. We’re going to ask for something lighter.

michael barbaro

So not seven to nine years, something less.

peter baker

Not seven to nine years, something less. It doesn’t specify what, but something below what the guidelines would normally call for. And so this is causing a huge furor in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington.

archived recording

What is going on? President Trump knows how to get away with stuff when we’re not watching.

peter baker

The four career prosecutors who worked on the Stone case, all four of them, quit.

archived recording

We’re following some truly stunning, breaking news, still developing by the minute this hour. Federal prosecutors in the Roger Stone criminal case have resigned this afternoon.

peter baker

One after the other. One, two, three, four, just like that.

archived recording

This does not happen. Prosecutors don’t resign just days before they go to sentencing after a case that they’ve worked so hard on.

peter baker

One of them actually quits his job altogether, leaves the Justice Department as a whole.

archived recording

In protest.

peter baker

Well, they don’t say it, but that’s the obvious conclusion. Yes, they’re protesting the overruling of their recommendation. And I think that they felt like they had an ethical obligation. If they had told the court this is the sentence we think is appropriate, and then suddenly a day later the same department is coming and saying, no, we don’t — how is that tenable for them to continue on that case?

michael barbaro

And, Peter, given what has just happened — the firing of Vindman, Sondland, Vindman’s brother — what is the reaction to this intervention? Not just the retribution, but this protection?

peter baker

Well, in effect, the Democrats are saying we told you so, right?

archived recording (chuck schumer)

No serious person believes President Trump has learned any lesson. He doesn’t learn any lessons. He does just what he wants, what suits his ego at the moment.

peter baker

Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader in the upper chamber goes to the floor and gives a pretty passionate speech in which he says that the natural consequence of acquitting the president on the Ukraine matter means that he feels completely unleashed and empowered to do whatever he thinks is right for his own political interests.

archived recording (chuck schumer)

We are witnessing a crisis in the rule of law in America, unlike one we have ever seen before. It’s a crisis of President Trump’s making, but it was enabled and emboldened by every Senate Republican.

peter baker

Even amongst some Republicans, you’re seeing you know some discomfort, particularly among moderate Republicans who tried to give the president the benefit of the doubt by standing with him in the impeachment trial. A couple of them had said even, well, maybe he’ll have learned a lesson from all of this and he’ll be more measured, he’ll be more restrained in the future and that that would be a good thing. Well, what you’re hearing a lot of people saying is that doesn’t seem to be the case. And I think that the question going forward is going to be, is it just a burst of energy and lashing out in the days after the acquittal, or is this the beginning of a month’s long recalibration of his administration? What is he going to do going forward?

michael barbaro

Right. Is this the post-aquittal presidency, one in which enemies are punished and allies are at all costs protected?

peter baker

Right, exactly. And that the instruments of government are to serve the president’s interests, not just the public’s interests.

michael barbaro

Peter, what you have described here is what an old school political terms might be called a strategy of carrots and sticks, but on steroids, right? You protect those who have done right by you, and you punish those who have somehow wronged you. And in the case of the president, that “steroided up” strategy clearly worked when it came to impeachment. And we talked to you. We talked to many of our colleagues about the fact that there was genuine fear of crossing this president, and that that influenced how the Senate voted in the impeachment trial. So if this strategy is working — and by all accounts, it is working — why shouldn’t the president keep it up?

peter baker

Well, it’s a great question. I think one of the things we’ve learned about the last three years is that the norms, the standards, the lines that we used to think of that constrained a president were more aspirational and conceptual than they were legal. You go look. You go back far enough, you’re going to find plenty of presidents who punished their enemies and protected their friends. But in the post-Watergate period in particular, when we put in new guardrails, we put a new laws, we put in new systems, we thought that that had been minimized at the very least, right? That, yeah, you’re going to probably give an appointment to somebody who’s been good to you. And you’re going to maybe take away a grant from the state of somebody who crossed you on a vote. These things happen. They happen under any presidency. This is that, as you put it, on steroids. And it’s overt. It’s right out there in the open. He wants everybody to know what he’s doing. He wants everybody to understand. You are loyal to this president or you should get out. And that’s true of people in government. That’s true of people even in Congress. He’s made very clear that the Republican Party has no room for anybody who is not on his side. You’re either in his camp or you’re not.

michael barbaro

And, of course, there’s a larger context here, which is we’re in the middle of a presidential election. And I wonder how this behavior by the president fits into his re-election strategy.

peter baker

You say that all this fits into a broader approach by this presidential politics. It’s not about unifying. It’s about dividing. It’s about us versus them. And this is what the appeal is to his constituents. It is: I am fighting for you. And they are trying to stop me. It’s the deep state, it’s the Democrats, it’s the fake news media. They’re all trying to stop me, and by extension, you. And that’s why you should stick with me in this election this fall. So this idea that Washington is all alarmed by retributions and protections of friends because it violates norms doesn’t hurt his appeal to many of his voters out there, because it’s part of this larger argument that he’s making. And the larger argument is I am a force of disruption. I am a force that is shaking things up. And the reason why you’re seeing things in the news that are bad about me is because they’re fighting back. And you should stay with me because it’s not just me. It’s about you too.

michael barbaro

Peter, thank you.

peter baker

OK, thank you.

michael barbaro

On Thursday, in an interview with ABC News, Attorney General Bill Barr said that the president’s interference in cases like Roger Stone’s was making it all but impossible for him to run the Department of Justice.

archived recording (william barr)

To have public statements and tweets made about the department, about people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending in the department and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors and the department that we’re doing our work with integrity.

michael barbaro

But Barr did not directly criticize the president, and confirmed in the interview that he had overruled prosecutors to recommend a more lenient sentence for Stone.

We’ll be right back.

Here’s what else you need to know today.

archived recording

Are there any senators in the chamber wishing to change their vote? If not, the yeas are 55, the nays are 45. The joint resolution as amended is passed.

michael barbaro

On Thursday, a bipartisan majority in the Senate passed a resolution requiring President Trump to seek authorization from Congress before taking further military action against Iran. The legislation, which was already passed by the House, is an unusual move to restrain presidential power and reflected the growing unease within Congress over Trump’s approach to Iraq, which many fear could lead to all-out war. It follows Trump’s decision six weeks ago to kill Qassim Suleimani, a top Iranian military commander, without the authorization of Congress.

“The Daily” is made by Theo Balcomb, Andy Mills, Lisa Tobin, Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Annie Brown, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Larissa Anderson, Wendy Dorr, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Alexandra Leigh Young, Jonathan Wolfe, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, Adizah Eghan, Kelly Prime, Julia Longoria, Donna Summer, Jazmin Aguilera, M.J. Davis Lin, Austin Mitchell, Sayre Quevedo, Neena Pathak, Dan Jimison. Dave Shaw, Sydney Harper, Daniel Guillematte, Hans Buetow and Robert Jimison. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Mikayla Bouchard, Stella Tan, Lauren Jackson, Julia Simon, Mahima Chablani and Nora Keller. That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Michael Barbaro. See you on Tuesday after the holiday.

Image
Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman preparing to testify in November during the House impeachment inquiry.Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times

Mr. Sondland took a more measured approach, confirming that he had been dismissed without offering any protest.

“I was advised today that the president intends to recall me effective immediately as United States ambassador to the European Union,” he said in a statement hours after Colonel Vindman’s dismissal. “I am grateful to President Trump for having given me the opportunity to serve, to Secretary Pompeo for his consistent support and to the exceptional and dedicated professionals at the U.S. Mission to the European Union.”

Mr. Sondland and Colonel Vindman were key witnesses in the House impeachment hearings. Mr. Sondland, who was deeply involved in the effort to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations into Mr. Trump’s Democratic rivals, testified that “we followed the president’s orders” and that “everyone was in the loop.” Colonel Vindman, who was on Mr. Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s president, testified that it was “improper for the president” to coerce a foreign country to investigate a political opponent.

It may have been untenable for them to keep working for a president with whom they broke so publicly, but the White House made no effort to portray the ousters as anything other than reprisals. Mr. Trump foreshadowed Colonel Vindman’s fate hours ahead of time when asked if he would be pushed out. “Well, I’m not happy with him,” the president told reporters. “You think I’m supposed to be happy with him? I’m not.”

The president continued to assail lawmakers who voted for conviction, targeting Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, who bitterly disappointed Mr. Trump by sticking with his party. “I was told by many that Manchin was just a puppet for Schumer & Pelosi,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter, referring to Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “That’s all he is!”

Even as Mr. Trump flew to North Carolina to highlight his economic record, he called on the House to “expunge” his impeachment, an idea with no precedent or basis in the Constitution. “They should because it was a hoax,” he told reporters. “It was a total political hoax.” And he accused Ms. Pelosi of committing a crime by ripping up a copy of his State of the Union address. “She broke the law,” he asserted.

The president’s critics had warned that he would feel unbound if acquitted, and some said the dismissals proved their point, quickly calling them “the Friday night massacre,” as Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, put it.

“These are the actions of a man who believes he is above the law,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the lead House impeachment manager. Mr. Schumer said the White House was running from the truth. “This action is not a sign of strength,” he said. “It only shows President Trump’s weakness.” Ms. Pelosi said, “This goes too far.” At the Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. asked the audience to stand in support of Colonel Vindman.

The White House would not discuss the Vindman decision. “We do not comment on personnel matters,” said John Ullyot, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, celebrated the dismissals, offering mock thanks to Mr. Schiff. “Were it not for his crack investigation skills, @realDonaldTrump might have had a tougher time unearthing who all needed to be fired,” he tweeted.

“The president had every right to make the moves that he did today,” Representative Lee Zeldin, Republican of New York, said in an interview. “Moving Lt. Col. Vindman, for example, is a good move based on the fact that there is a lack of trust. He disagrees with the president’s policies.” As for Mr. Sondland, “the president can recall an ambassador at any time with or without cause, and in the case of Gordon Sondland, the guy was a hot mess, anyway.”

Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, expressed no regrets over Mr. Sondland’s dismissal. “Somehow I think America will be able to deliver foreign policy without Gordon Sondland,” he said by text message.

Other witnesses have left with less drama recently. Marie L. Yovanovitch, the ambassador to Ukraine who was recalled from her post last spring because she was seen as an obstacle to the president’s plans, retired last month from the Foreign Service. William B. Taylor Jr., who replaced her in an acting capacity, was essentially brought back early, as well. And Jennifer Williams, a career official working for Vice President Mike Pence, quietly returned to the Defense Department.

Several had already left government, like Fiona Hill, the Europe policy chief at the National Security Council, and Kurt D. Volker, the special envoy for Ukraine, who resigned days before testifying. But others remain, including George P. Kent at the State Department, Laura Cooper at the Defense Department and David Holmes at the embassy in Ukraine.

Mr. Sondland began discussions with senior officials about leaving shortly after he testified in November, according to two people briefed on the matter. He believed that remaining would be unrealistic given his role in impeachment and hoped to exit gracefully.

A decision on timing was postponed until after impeachment, but on Friday, State Department officials told Mr. Sondland that they wanted him to resign, the people said. Mr. Sondland relayed to them that he would not step down amid what was clearly a purge of impeachment witnesses and that he would have to be fired, they said. In response, State Department officials recalled him.

Colonel Vindman’s brother seemed to be collateral damage. Yevgeny Vindman, who goes by Eugene, worked as a lawyer for the National Security Council and had no role in the impeachment hearings other than showing up to sit behind his brother when he appeared in November. He was given no explanation for his dismissal “despite over two decades of loyal service to this country,” said Mr. Pressman, the lawyer. “He deeply regrets that he will not be able to continue his service at the White House.”

Both Vindmans, whose White House tours were scheduled to last until July, will retain their Army ranks and return to military service. Alexander Vindman, who had been expecting the move and had begun removing personal items, was told he would go to the Pentagon before moving to the National War College in July as originally planned. Yevgeny Vindman was more surprised and was told he would report to the office of the Army general counsel.

Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper said service members who return to the military would be welcomed back. “We protect all of our persons, service members, from retribution or anything like that,” he told reporters.

Mr. Trump, on the other hand, has made clear his personal antipathy for both Vindmans. “Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and his twin brother, right?” he said on Thursday during a rambling hourlong venting session at the White House, his voice dripping with disdain. “We had some people that — really amazing.”

On Friday, Mr. Trump retweeted a message from a supporter advocating Alexander Vindman’s dismissal: “Vindman’s behavior is a scandal. He should be removed from the @RealDonaldTrump White House ASAP to protect our foreign policy from his machinations.”

Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican who voted to acquit the president but expressed hope that he would learn a lesson from the impeachment, said witnesses should not be punished. “I obviously am not in favor of any kind of retribution against anyone who came forward with evidence,” she said in Maine, according to The Portland Press Herald.

Colonel Vindman has been subjected to virulent attacks on his patriotism on Fox News and social media. The president called him a “Never Trumper,” a term the colonel rejected. Fox aired a segment suggesting his service in the White House might amount to “espionage.” And Senator Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, attacked him on Twitter: “How patriotic is it to badmouth and ridicule our great nation in front of Russia, America’s greatest enemy?”

With impeachment over, Mr. Trump is debating additional personnel changes. Some advisers are encouraging him to part ways with his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, who was involved in freezing security aid to Ukraine, which paved the way for impeachment.

Other advisers are telling Mr. Trump to delay major changes until after the November election. Some hope that Representative Mark Meadows, Republican of North Carolina, will join the White House as a senior adviser. Mr. Meadows traveled with the president on Friday to North Carolina.

Mr. Trump denied that Mr. Mulvaney would be pushed out in favor of Mr. Meadows. “I have a great relationship with Mick,” the president told reporters on Friday. “I have a great relationship with Mark. And it’s false.”

Peter Baker and Michael S. Schmidt reported from Washington, and Maggie Haberman and Danny Hakim from New York. Lola Fadulu contributed reporting from Charlotte, N.C.

Peter Baker is the chief White House correspondent and has covered the last four presidents for The Times and The Washington Post. He also is the author of five books, most recently “Impeachment: An American History.” More about Peter Baker

Maggie Haberman is a White House correspondent. She joined The Times in 2015 as a campaign correspondent and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on President Trump’s advisers and their connections to Russia. More about Maggie Haberman

Danny Hakim is an investigative reporter for the business section. He has been a European economics correspondent and bureau chief in Albany and Detroit. He was also a lead reporter on the team awarded the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News. More about Danny Hakim

Michael S. Schmidt is a Washington correspondent covering national security and federal investigations. He was part of two teams that won Pulitzer Prizes in 2018 — one for reporting on workplace sexual harassment and the other for coverage of President Trump and his campaign’s ties to Russia. More about Michael S. Schmidt

A version of this article appears in print on  , Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump Hits Back, Firing Witnesses After Acquittal. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT