Yes, I suppose Henry Olsen is correct that President Trump has the right to remove Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman (along with his identical twin brother), as Mr. Olsen claimed in his Feb. 11 op-ed excerpt, “Trump was entitled to fire Vindman and Sondland.” Did Mr. Trump also have the right to frog-march Lt. Col. Vindman out of the White House as if he had committed a crime and had to be forcibly removed lest he commit another offense? How about humiliating him on Twitter with nasty insinuations or perhaps indicating in remarks at the White House that Lt. Col. Vindman should be investigated by the Defense Department for disciplinary action? Where does this stop, Mr. Olsen? How difficult must it be to continue to defend the indefensible.

Stephanie Peat, Falls Church

Henry Olsen, in his defense of President Trump’s vindictive firing of Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, seemed a little short on the particulars of the case — not to mention President Trump’s history of vindictiveness. 

Mr. Olsen glossed over the firing of Lt. Col. Vindman’s twin brother, who had nothing to do with his brother’s damaging testimony. Mr. Olsen’s characterization that “this president values loyalty highly” failed to include the fact that this president only values one-way loyalty highly. 

Finally, I wonder if when Mr. Olsen wrote, “It’s one thing to reorder one’s personnel; it’s another to destroy a person’s livelihood,” did he forget about the case of former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, who was deliberately fired hours before he was eligible for full retirement — thus going far “to destroy a person’s livelihood”?

Let’s hope the voters don’t have memories as short and selective as Mr. Olsen’s.

Norman Michael Harman, Harpers Ferry, W.Va.