Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the former Director for European Affairs for the National Security Council, has filed a federal lawsuit alleging violations of his civil rights by Donald Trump, Jr.; attorney and Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani; former Deputy White House Communications Director Julia Hahn; and former White House Director of Social Media and Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications Daniel Scavino, Jr. He alleges a “conspiracy” to intimidate him and to retaliate against him as a witness against Donald Trump during his first impeachment proceedings. It claims that this conspiracy has left “a stain on our democracy.” The lawsuit is novel and would create new law, if successful. However, after reading the filing, I remain skeptical of the legal basis for the action.
The complaint alleges that the defendants sought to “obstruct a constitutional proceeding by intimidating and retaliating against a key witness.” The complaint alleges two counts: a conspiracy in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(1) and a conspiracy in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2). It seeks an order from the court to “permanently enjoin” the defendants from violating said laws again despite the fact that they are now private citizens. It also seeks nominal, compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages; and attorneys’ fees and costs.
It alleges:
In late 2019 and early 2020, President Trump and his allies—including members of his White House staff, members of his family and personal legal team, and at least one on-air personality employed by an allied media outlet—engaged in an intentional, concerted campaign of unlawful intimidation and retaliation against a sitting Director of the National Security Council and decorated military officer, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, to prevent him from and then punish him for testifying truthfully before Congress during impeachment proceedings against President Trump. This campaign of intimidation and retaliation has had severe and deeply personal ramifications for Lt. Col. Vindman. It also left a stain on our democracy.
Much is already known about Vindman’s objections to what he heard in the call between Trump and the Ukrainian president. He alleges that, after he made his objections known, he became the target of an unrelenting media campaign attacking his honesty and even his loyalty:
The attacks on Lt. Col. Vindman did not simply happen by accident or coincidence, nor were they the result of normal politics or modern newscycles. Rather, the coordinated campaign was the result of a common understanding and agreement among and between President Trump, Defendants, and others comprising a close group of aides and associates inside and outside of the White House, to target Lt. Col. Vindman in a specific way for the specific purpose of intimidation and retaliation. The coordination and agreement on purpose and strategy is exactly what made this unlawful campaign against Lt. Col. Vindman so damaging.
The lawsuit says the campaign was “designed to inflict maximum damage by creating and spreading disinformation that they knew would be picked up and amplified by anchors at Fox News, other right-wing media outlets, and across social media — all while Lt. Col. Vindman’s active duty status prevented him from effectively defending himself.”
There clearly was a campaign to discredit Vindman. During the impeachment, I criticized those who went after the witnesses, including Vindman, and I specifically objected to later personnel changes related to Vindman. However, Vindman did not challenge the legality of those moves. He is challenging the media campaign and a host of individuals who are not named as parties.
Moreover, the lawsuit (if it makes it past a motion to dismiss) could expose all of the parties, including Vindman, to discovery on their communications related to the media and Congress. That could trigger some difficult privilege and confidentiality fights.
The question is whether that is political speech or an actual violation of federal law. In defending Trump, his staff and allies challenged the credibility, the motivations, and the interpretation of his accusers. Vindman says that this cannot be treated as pure politics:
Whatever one thinks of the merits of the underlying impeachment, purposefully attacking witnesses for participating in an official proceeding and telling the truth cannot be dismissed as politics as usual and cannot be tolerated in a nation built on the rule of law. However toxic our politics may have become, this kind of unlawful conduct must not be accepted as “normal” in any healthy democracy.
He repeatedly accuses Fox News of being part of this conspiracy against him. (For full disclosure, I am a legal analyst on Fox News). He alleges “close coordination between Fox News and the Trump Administration,” including a “private meeting” between then-Attorney General Bill Barr and Rupert Murdoch in October 2019. It goes on to claim the “Trump Administration’s relationship with Fox News was unprecedented in American history.”
The problem with the complaint is that it would require the court to delve into political disputes between Congress and the White House. What Vindman calls “false claims” can be matters of opinion and protected as political speech. Indeed, Vindman himself has been criticized for suggesting that some viewpoints should be punished. He was attacked on some conservative sites when he suggested that a trailer Carlson posted for his new documentary, “Patriot Purge,” could be the grounds for sanctions. He called Carlson an “anarchist” and an “arsonist” and“How is this different than yelling fire in a crowded theater? Carlson is attempting to incite a riotous mob. He should be censured. I’d like to hear the arguments for/against this being protected speech.” Since he is stating that Carlson is an anarchist and an arsonist, the question appears rather rhetorical.
The inclusion of private parties in the lawsuit magnifies the constitutional concerns over free speech. Vindman does not sue former President Trump while detailing how these individuals were clearly acting with his knowledge (citing Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and now Trump’s vehement enemy). Consider this passage on Trump Jr.:
Trump Jr. has at all relevant times been in close and continuing communication with President Trump. But beyond any father-son relationship, Trump Jr. and his father coordinated their public messaging on matters involving Trump’s presidency, businesses, and political and personal advancement. Steve Bannon has observed that Trump Jr. does not take any action without his father’s approval. Michael Cohen, one of President Trump’s former personal attorneys, testified under oath that he “absolutely” agreed with Bannon’s assessment of the relationship between President Trump and Trump Jr., and further that Trump “would never let Don [Jr] do” anything important on his own. Instead, Trump Jr. acts only with President Trump’s guidance and approval.
Donald Trump Jr. was a private party defending his father against accusers. Vindman is a public figure who notably is not suing for defamation. Rather, he wants a court to allow him to sue Trump Jr. for violating his civil rights for statements that Trump made as private person speaking out on a matter of great public interest. That could make any private party or commentators subject to such a lawsuit as intimidating or unfair. Where would the court draw the line?
Indeed, the complaint reads at points like a cathartic denouncing of anyone who criticized Vindman, including media figures like Laura Ingraham who is described as the “crisis communications consigliere” for President Trump. It alleges regular communications between such media figures and the White House. Is a court really going to allow discovery on such contacts?
The Biden Administration works in close communication with allies in the media, particularly on CNN and MSNBC. Indeed, the White House Communications Office is tasked with framing issues and controversies in the media. It does so by keeping sympathetic reporters updated and informed. Indeed, the Biden Administration has had a level of cooperation with the media that may be unprecedented in killing possible scandals.
The complaint also details the “revolving door” between the Administration and the media. Yet, the Biden and Obama Administration has shown the same revolving door, including White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki. Indeed, the current controversy over Hunter Biden has placed some current officials in a curious position in responding to new developments due to their prior roles.
Much of the complaint is striking back at Ingraham and others for things that they said about Vindman. Yet, again, while claiming that Ingraham and others smeared him with false accusations, Vindman is not suing for defamation. This includes characterizing his actions on the call as akin to “espionage.” The problem is that many commentators on left have leveled the same type of hyperbolic attacks on Trump and his associates. That has been treated as an exercise in free speech. Indeed, just this week, Psaki suggested that Sen. Josh Hawley was acting like an agent for Russia and seemed to question his loyalty to the country for opposing Ukrainian entry into NATO.
The lawsuit reads more like a defamation complaint and even notes “Neither Fox News nor Ingraham ever retracted the false allegations, despite Lt. Col. Vindman’s attorney’s written request that they do so because the allegations were false and defamatory.” Yet, after a long defense of Vindman against personal attacks, the complaint pivots from defamation to the actual claim of civil right violations:
As described more fully above, Defendants and their conspirators engaged in a concerted effort to portray Lt. Col. Vindman as disloyal to the United States, as a spy for another country, and as a politically motivated saboteur. They further agreed and conspired to falsely accuse him of leaking classified information and perjury. They did so for the purpose of both deterring him from testifying in the impeachment proceedings and other proceedings implicating President Trump, and to retaliate against him for doing so. In the process, they knowingly destroyed his ability to continue his career in national security and foreign affairs. They also intended to send a clear message that a similar fate would await anyone else who testified truthfully against Trump.
Putting aside a later defamation action (though the statute of limitations is a concern), the filing could present an interesting question of whether the statute can be used to chill or curtail free speech. That was the concern that led the Supreme Court to curtail defamation actions. Vindman was a public official and is now a public figure. He is subject to the higher standard of proof in New York Times v. Sullivan.
The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. As such, public officials and public figures must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.
This is a matter of public concern and political debate. Much of Vindman’s complaint is an attack on non-parties and networks for his treatment in the media. As someone who defended him from some of these attacks, I understand his anger and frustration. However, this lawsuit asks a court to dive deeply into political speech concerning one of the most important scandals in our history. I cannot imagine many judges who would relish such an invitation.
Here is the complaint: Vindman v. Trump Jr., et al.
“a stain on our democracy.”
Anyone notice that this is the Left’s new panic point? (Covid panic is wearing thin, so they need a new one.) It’s popping up everywhere, in the form of an unspecified, undefined: “threat to democracy.” There is, of course, an implied tagline:
This “existential threat” is why you must vote for us in the midterm elections.
Sam: Your “implied tagline” is priceless! Good one!
Sam,
I noted a few weeks ago about the increased rhetoric coming from MSM about the, as you accurately put it, ” . . . unspecified, undefined: “threat to democracy.”
MSM needs to keep their base in fear to keep their ratings up, and the boogyman threat of them (de facto propaganda arm of the Dems) losing.
Is it not interesting how 2016 election was “stolen” from H Clinton (her words per a May 2019 interview) by Russian interference, to 2020 was the most secure and fair election ever, and now there is talk that the mid-terms could be illegitimate, per Biden himself?
Than again, when Dems contest an election they lost, they are patriotic. But when the GOP does, it is a threat to democracy.
Disclaimer, I voted 3rd party in 2016 and 2020. I donated twice to the Tulsi Gabbard campaign (whom lasted longer than so-called “top tier” candidate Harris campaign) and would of a third time had Gabbard ended her campaign.
I remain skeptical that Turley can write anything that isn’t Fox News biased blather not worth my time to read. Vindman made Trump look bad, so he has to be bad–never mind the merits of his comments or his valiant service to our country or the fact that Trump is a cowardly draft-dodger who insults and abuses everyone who opposes him, even a true American patriot like John McCain. But, if you want to discuss lawsuits recently filed and the merits thereof, Turley, why not discuss the Trump Organization lawsuit against prosecutors in New York, in which Trump accuses them of being motivated by racism. Now, THAT’S a scholarly subject worth your effort, Turley. The Trump lawsuit exceeds the bounds of frivolousness and outrageousness–this is just another log on the fire calculated to stir up racial animus in this country, all part of pandering to his base, and all to try to gain power, adulation and the cheers of the great unwashed who worship this pig. Trump has a well-earned reputation for being a liar, cheater and crook, going back decades. To put this in perspective, imagine, if you will, a black man who cheated people in business for years, who was sued thousands of times for refusing to pay his debts, who constantly lied, who kept two sets of books to falsely inflate his assets to juice up a Forbes rating, and another set to downplay his assets to evade taxes, and who was being investigated for his conduct by a white prosecutor. Then, imagine that he filed a lawsuit against the white prosecutors alleging “racism” as the sole reason for the lawsuit.
Natasha, it appears it is worth your time to read, not only that but also time to waste commenting.
Vindman made Trump look bad, so he has to be bad–never mind the merits of his comments
Riiiiggght made Trump look bad.
Here is what Vindman said, under oath to the question. What was it about the President Trump phone call that motivated you to go to your superiors? Vindman related that he was angered that President Trump had stepped outside the Diplomatic agenda in Ukraine as had been agreed to, and implemented by his “working group”
That was it. The President of the United States Failed to clear his thoughts with the “working group”. Vindman is a Lt Col. but he is ignorant exactly who answers to who.
I’ve got great news! Surf on over to Huffpo or CNN. They will surely have “your style” news over there. You know, everybody who doesn’t agree with them is a right-wing tool, or better yet RACIST! Buh bye now. I hear that Brian Stelter fellow really knows how to write some great stuff. Maybe try some MSNBC.com or slate.com on for size. We’re gonna miss ya!
Every time I see Vindman I am reminded of the character ‘Flounder’ from the movie ‘Animal House’.
Wouldn’t you think the Ukrainian Defense Minister had more to worry about these days
Vindman is the stain on our democracy. I cringe every time I see that weasel in a military uniform. Thank God most of our military is NOT made up of Vindman types.
Dave: I also cringe when I think of him in his military uniform. Without being mean or rude, I try to assess and consider his personality in conjunction with his testimony (and also remember when he corrected someone for not addressing him as “Colonel.”) I have come to three tentative musings:
(1)He has a twin brother; is there competition for relevance/importance? (2) His ego protection is only surpassed by Adam Schiff; and (3) he probably sleeps in his uniform .
Lt Col Scheller court martial for telling the truth, this guy wants to sue? This must be the alternate universe Peppermint Patty speaks of?
Vindman is a stain on his underwear. He’s a perfect example of the ugly, leftwing politicization of the military that has badly damaged the military’s support among the American people. I thought this guy was the Secretary of Defense for the Ukraine. What’s he still doing here?? Vindman, Milley, and Gilday should all be riding point for Biden’s next fruitless war.
Deja vu all over again 🙁
Vindman is a stain on his underwear. He’s a perfect example of the ugly, leftwing politicization of the military that has wrecked the military’s support among the American people. I thought this clown was the Secretary of Defense for the Ukraine. What’s he still doing here?? Vindman, Milley, and Gilday should all be out there riding point on Biden’s next fruitless war.
VINDMAN–the pretentious poster boy of Deep State dysfunction.
LTC Vindmann should have been court-martialed for insubordination, at the very least. Based on just what was reported of his words and deeds in open sources he would have been convicted by a panel of his peers and cashiered. At least then, the American taxpayer wouldn’t be on the hook for his pension. How he got the job he had is a mystery since he doesn’t even know the constitution of the U.S. government system.
I think the entire case for President Trump’s impeachment shows that the National Security Council should be disbanded. Lt Col Vindman alleged during the impeachment that he was the only reliable source that should have been trusted by Trump on matters of Ukrainian affairs, and was trying to impose the opinions of the Deep State/Security State upon the President.
This has been a prescription for the disasters that are being laid upon the doorstep of the nation, as it is sending us toward a dangerous confrontation with Russia.
People should disabuse themselves of the notion that most people associated with the NSC are disinterested and dispassionate public servants.
Just who the devil does Vindman think he is? “Decorated military officer’, huh? The man has a PURPLE HEART which was the lowest combat decoration until ground-gripper Pentagon officers decided they should downgrade the Air Medal and the easiest to get. All that’s required is an injury. The modern military has a decoration for everything. I once road in an elevator on a cruise ship with a young soldier in a uniform emblazoned with ribbons. Trouble was, NONE of them meant anything – they were all “I was there” and accomplishment; none were of the “hero” variety. Vindman obviously has a tremendous ego. By the way, it’s now been revealed that Hunter Biden’s activities were of concern to the State Department and Congress suppressed evidence in the fake impeachment.
They give purple hearts for paper cuts I’ve heard. Vindman was the first…
“What Vindman calls “false claims” can be matters of opinion…”
If it’s a matter of opinion, then it’s not T/F. If it’s false, then it’s not a matter of opinion, but is instead a false factual claim. Examples that Vindman mentions in the suit: “amplifying false claims that Lt. Col. Vindman was a spy for Ukraine and had disparaged the United States to foreign officials; leaking classified information for the purpose of furthering the false disloyalty narrative; falsely accusing Lt. Col. Vindman of lying under oath.”
It’s not a matter of opinion whether he was a spy or leaked classified info. These are factual matters, and you shouldn’t pretend that they “can be matters of opinion.”
“Vindman himself has been criticized for suggesting that some viewpoints should be punished. He was attacked on some conservative sites when he suggested that a trailer Carlson posted for his new documentary, “Patriot Purge,” could be the grounds for sanctions. … “Carlson is attempting to incite a riotous mob. He should be censured. …””
Interesting. Turley suggested that Trump be censured by Congress for Trump’s Jan. 6 speech. Does he believe that censuring the President is an acceptable sanction but censuring Carlson is not, and if so, why?
“The problem is that many commentators on left have leveled the same type of hyperbolic attacks on Trump and his associates.”
While they were testifying as witnesses? Please do give some examples. Because that’s what the suit is alleging: witness intimidation.
Jeff: (1) You do not intimidate a witness who has already testified and then is subsequently criticized for his testimony. (2) You don’t “censure” a private citizen (Carlson). Did you mean “censor”???–by the network?– Why would he be censored? He hosts an opinion show.
lin,
Yet again: I’m not Jeff.
At the time when Vindman testified in the House, there was no way for any of the defendants to determine whether Vindman would be called for further testimony (e.g., in the Senate trial). Moreover, if you read the suit, he argues that the goal of witness intimidation was partly to intimidate **others** from testifying.
Have you read the suit?
If you haven’t, all of this is explicitly argued there. For example: “The conspirators agreed on common, unlawful objectives—to deter Lt. Col. Vindman from testifying in the future and to retaliate against him after he did so. … The actions taken by Defendants against Lt. Col. Vindman sent a message to other potential witnesses as well: cooperate and tell the truth at your own peril.”
No, I don’t mean “censor.” I was quoting Vindman, as quoted by Turley, and Vindman used the word “censured,” and presumably that’s what he meant. Didn’t you see the quotation marks?
Of course one can censure a private citizen. Censure, verb: “express severe disapproval of (someone or something), especially in a formal statement.”
Carlson wouldn’t be censured by Congress, as Turley called for Congress to do with Trump, but that doesn’t imply that he cannot be censured by anyone.
Thanks, Anonymous, for your reply. (1) I am sorry for referring to you as Jeff. (2) No, I did not read the entire 72-page complaint, although I scanned it and tried to find alleged “facts” that constituted the two violations declared. Sounds like defendants need to motion for an amended complaint to allege with more specificity…. (3) THIS is YOUR paragraph I was referring to: ” Interesting. Turley suggested that Trump be censured by Congress for Trump’s Jan. 6 speech. Does he believe that censuring the President is an acceptable sanction but censuring Carlson is not, and if so, why?” That is YOUR comment, not VIndman’s. (4) YOUR definition of “censure” does not comport with its use in the subject comments, and further, the expansive use of the word (as you say you intended) is listed as “archaic” by merriam-webster and others.Thanks
lin, I just ignore those who refuse to give a name and so go by *Anonymous*.
(I’m gonna take you up on this one, he just won’t quit…thanks for the advice.)
“THIS is YOUR paragraph I was referring to”
And my paragraph clearly refers to the quote from Turley with its internal quote of Vindman. I had just quoted Turley and was commenting on his statement.
Again, Turley said “Vindman himself has been criticized for suggesting that some viewpoints should be punished.” As evidence for his claim that Vindman had “suggest[ed] that some viewpoints should be punished,” Turley quoted Vindman’s statement that “Carlson is attempting to incite a riotous mob. He should be censured. I’d like to hear the arguments for/against this being protected speech.”
My point is that Turley called for Trump to be censured by Congress for his Jan. 6 speech, so Turley clearly believes that censure is an acceptable form of “punishment” for speech. Vindman is likewise arguing that “Carlson … should be censured.”
“YOUR definition of “censure” does not comport with its use in the subject comments”
I disagree. According to you, what did Vindman mean by “He [Carlson] should be censured”?
“the expansive use of the word (as you say you intended) is listed as “archaic” by merriam-webster”
I wasn’t quoting M-W. I was quoting Oxford/Lexico — https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/censure — and they don’t list it as archaic. You’re also mistaken that M-W lists that meaning as an archaic meaning for the verb “censure” either (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censure).
Anonymous: First, I believe persons reading this thread will agree with me, that very few would use the word “censure” to refer to criticism from one private-party/sector to another. By the way, here’s M-W’s definition: (please notice the examples: “censure of CITY COUNCIL,” “The COUNTRY faces INTERNATIONAL censure,” “an OFFICIAL REPRIMAND,” and (importantly) ‘ARCHAIC: opinion, judgment” Here’s the definition:
Full Definition of censure
(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : a judgment involving condemnation: unorthodox practices awaiting the censure of the city council
2 : the act of blaming or condemning sternly: The country faces international censure for its alleged involvement in the assassination.
3 : an official reprimand:The lawyer’s misconduct resulted in a letter of censure from the judge.
4 archaic : opinion, judgment
MORE PERTINENTLY, as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary: “censure: the formal resolution of a legislative, administrative, or other body reprimanding a person…..
Your excuse of noun vs. verb is pretty meaningless….
Second, you asked me, “Didn’t you see the quotation marks?” No, I didn’t. Because you had none in your statement that I posted. YOU were posing the question.
PLEASE, let it go, I am moving on…
lin,
Vindman used it as a verb (“He should be censured”).
I used it as a verb (“Turley suggested that Trump be censured …”).
YOU originally used it as a verb (“You don’t “censure” a private citizen (Carlson). Did you mean “censor”?”).
I initially quoted a definition for a verb, and I explicitly noted that I was referring to its use as a verb (“Censure, verb: ‘express severe disapproval of (someone or something), especially in a formal statement’”).
But for some strange reason, you’re now focused on the definition for the noun, not the verb, and you attempt to pretend that the difference “is pretty meaningless.” Dictionaries clearly don’t agree that distinguishing between parts of speech “is pretty meaningless.” I don’t agree with your opinion either.
“MORE PERTINENTLY …”
Unless you can provide evidence that Vindman was referring solely to some kind of legal censure, it isn’t more pertinent. I certainly wasn’t referring solely to legal censure.
“you asked me, “Didn’t you see the quotation marks?” No, I didn’t. Because you had none in your statement that I posted. ”
There were quotation marks in my comment. You may want to pretend that the referent wasn’t clear, but I will not play along.
As for your request, one thing that you apparently do not understand about me: I really dislike it when people make a false claim and then run away from acknowledging their error. We all make mistakes, but truthful people don’t run from correcting them. I try to acknowledge mine. When you double down on yours and then tell me to “let it go,” it only underscores your unwillingness to say “I was wrong.”
It’s striking that in your response to my 5:18pm comment, you ignore the question I asked in my 5:18pm comment — “According to you, what did Vindman mean by ‘He [Carlson] should be censured’?” — and instead highlight a question from one of my earlier comments. Apparently you don’t want to say what you believe Vindman meant by “He [Carlson] should be censured.” OK.
You are clearly free to move on whenever you want.
(I’m going to let you save face, as otherwise you will be presumed to be telling a little white lie.) Your exact, verbatim words @10:11 a.m.–with no quotation marks around them and in a separate paragraph: “Interesting. Turley suggested that Trump be censured by Congress for Trump’s Jan. 6 speech. Does he believe that censuring the President is an acceptable sanction but censuring Carlson is not, and if so, why?”
Let our readers check out your 10:11 a.m. post and decide . I know you will respond again to save face, but no need, because (1) I forgive you, (2) not wasting any more blog space on this silliness, and (3) nobody cares.
LOL. I do not seek your forgiveness, and I have said nothing in this exchange that needs forgiving.
Apparently you spoke too soon when you said “I am moving on.” As for “nobody cares,” it seems that *you* care enough to respond.
“Let our readers check out your 10:11 a.m. post and decide”
Yes, absolutely. They’ll see the following (now italicized so that I don’t have to introduce yet another set of quotation marks:
“Vindman himself has been criticized for suggesting that some viewpoints should be punished. He was attacked on some conservative sites when he suggested that a trailer Carlson posted for his new documentary, “Patriot Purge,” could be the grounds for sanctions. … “Carlson is attempting to incite a riotous mob. He should be censured. …””
Interesting. Turley suggested that Trump be censured by Congress for Trump’s Jan. 6 speech. Does he believe that censuring the President is an acceptable sanction but censuring Carlson is not, and if so, why?
Turley’s statement and quote of Vindman (the first italicized paragraph) were the context for my response (the second italicized paragraph).
If you don’t want to “wast[e] any more blog space on this silliness,” then don’t. Personally, I do not consider it “silliness” to correct errors. But people often have different opinions.
This semantic back and forth between you two has got to be the stupidest argument ever to disgrace Turley’s blog…
Reading Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s complaints about what allegedly was done to him actually made me laugh out loud. Change the names and this is precisely what the Biden administration actually has done to the host of medical experts who dared question how the administration has handled the virus, including mandatory lock-downs that have achieved nothing except economic and mental hardship, mandatory vaccines even for children who are not at risk, and mandatory masks even though it is now accepted that masks do very little, other than providing “face decoration”. These medical experts have been shunned, ridiculed, and in some cases fired for daring to speak what is now widely known as the truth. The MSM, like the good stenographers they are, appears to have conspired with (or fallen for) Fauci and his ever changing “expert” opinions. On a purely personal level, Vindman reminds me a little of Fauci– a whiner who is not used to being told to sit down and shut up.
honestlawyermostly,
“Change the names and this is precisely what the Biden administration actually has done to the host of medical experts …”
To be clear: Vindman is claiming that he was subject to witness intimidation for what he said under oath after having been subpoenaed by Congress to testify.
Can you name a few of these “host of medical experts” who serving as witnesses under oath? I truly don’t understand why you believe that what Vindman is alleging is “precisely what the Biden administration actually has done.”
BTW, not sure if you saw my comment to you a while back that I was happy to learn that you’re an RPCV. I am as well.
Vindman is a remarkably disturbed individual for a person in the national debate.
Arrogant, seemingly delusional, apparently mendacious, thin skinned, and a drama queen.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Monument Colorado gets today’s prize for delusional projection and fanatical worship of a reality television host. Now, it’s VINDMAN who is “seemingly delusional, apparently mendacious, thin-skinned, and a drama queen”, not the pathological liar who still won’t stop lying, won’t stop trying to stir up racial animus, who attacks anyone who tells the truth about him (because it makes him look bad) and who still can’t accept the truth that he lost the election after failing to ever achieve even a 50% approval rating and despite all polls predicting his loss.
Natacha………….”Ding! Ding! Ding!”?? Did something set-off your ankle monitor?
What’s interesting is that Trump is the one who has been telling the truth, far more than other politicians or their media mouthpieces.
Do you think after the fall of CNN the media will grasp how bad their business model has been? ie, that you can’t keep LYING to the public, in service to the Democrat narrative, and continue to survive.
You can fool some of the people all of the time.
Some of the people some of the time.
but you can’t fool all the people
all the time.
This is where we are right now in the mainstream media landscape.
Vindman is a slimy treachorous traitor and people know it.
I thought Lt. Col Vindman got off fairly lightly for a mutineer. Billy Mitchel was court martialed and convicted, the marine colonel forced out recently also was court martialed. Obviously Lt. Col Vindman had higher placed friends than the other 2 officers, even though I would judge his actions worse and purely political compared to the other 2 condemning the malpractice of superiors in their conduct of purely military operations.
GEB, didn’t O5 Vindman choose to leave the military?
He should have been court-martialed and stripped of his military pension before he had a chance to retire. Yes, he got off easy…
Court-martialed for what action(s)?
For obeying a Congressional subpoena and testifying under oath?
This case will be dropped the first time the little Lt Colonel is asked to provide all correspondence with Adam Schiff. Can you say WHISTLEBLOWER!!
The never ending paradox of opposites.
It does open the opportunity for discovery. That should be very interesting indeed. What position was Vindman promised for his actions?
VINDMAN DISCREDITS himself. His EGO can’t fit into the room. i thought the Ukrainians tried to hire him as Defense Minister? Perhaps he should take the job now, since he is so important and self righteous. The Ukrainians need his oversized EGO on the front lines.
He is a self righteous LEAKER who wants another 5 minutes in the news.
Hope it goes to trial – it may not go well for him. I’d be sure to stock up on the popcorn for that one.
Om another note, it seems to me that The Lt. Col. is far more partisan than he should be, which seems to be a mounting problem for the detached professional military – on both sides of the spectrum
Speaking from direct experience, in modern times, this became a problem when Mr. Obama became president; and when the Services began selling themselves as a career “choice.” I, for one, never found it difficult to serve any Commander-in-Chief because my job was to give him the best information and the best recommendations I could. Whether he (or SECDEF or anyone else in the chain of command “liked” them was immaterial. I worked with a number of people at the Pentagon who were very, very confused about who was in charge.
Just how much does FOXNEWS pay you Turley?
FishWings, the Joe McCarthy of our enjoyable site. Hey FishMonger, care to discuss Vindman and his actions?
Something “fishy” about FishWings?
False comparison. McCarthy was a victim of the useful idiots of our press. The (in)famous reporter asking McCarthy if he had no shame ignored the fact the person in question was a communist. The press assumed this person was a nobody and no risk to our country. We know better now. The RICO act and the terrorists have shown that it is not stature of an individual but their commitment to the cause that makes them dangerous.
John Schwarz: Your last sentence is compelling thought. Thank you.
Yes, it is “commitment to the cause that makes them (Trump worshippers) dangerous”. Now, he’s trying to get the faithful disciples to take to the streets in protest for prosecutors investigating his lying and cheating in taxes and financial dealings, AND accusing the prosecutors of reverse discrimination. At his vainglory rally, he again stirred the pot of racism by telling the faithful that white people must “go to the end of the line” for COVID treatments. All proof continues to reinforce the fact that Biden won in 2020, but the disciples still fall for this sh*t, which is unbelievably dangerous.
Not as much as Soros pays you is my guess
👍🏽
Not enough!
Is CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin more your kind of guy, the sort of legal analyst you can admire? Is that what you’re saying, Fishy?
Fishwings: Just how much love and attention do you get outside of this blog’s comment section?
Gee, lin, you said that you never insulted people unless they’d insulted you first, yet here you are, insulting someone who said nothing to you.
Gee, Anonymous/Svelaz: perhaps you should look up the definition of “insult.”
And yet, there are hundreds of TRUE, REAL insults on this blog every day and you say nothing to them? You give yourself and your intentions away, buddy… And besides, as you know, humor is the best medicine in trying times….even insolent humor. Have a nice day. Yours truly, lin.
lin,
In the comments of several different columns, you’ve now referred to me as Jeff Silberman, Natacha, and Svelaz. I’m not any of those other people. I often agree with them but sometimes disagree with them.
I understand what an insult is and believe that your comment to FishWings was intended as an insult. I also believe (though of course I could be wrong) that if someone you’re not friends with said the same to you, you’d interpret it as an insult.
The comments here are filled with insults, including occasional ones from me, but I ignore the vast majority from both the right and the left. I addressed yours because you’d previously said to me “Please print (for all to see) any insult I threw out that was non-related to someone else’s insulting comments.” FishWings did not insult you or even address you, and you chose to insult him or her in reply.
-and my comment to him is neither insult nor “ad hominem” (another word you have invoked a lot lately). It was an insolent (but pointed) remark returned to FishWings after HE made a negative dig directly at the good professor. (As I previously said (and you acknowledge, I don’t attack, I just respond.)
Fishwings–just like you–just can’t seem to get enough/stay away from the professor’s column/blog….. Did FIshWings “insult” the professor? Was that “ad hominem?” Did you tell HIM so?? I would suggest, sir, that the reasons behind your specious attacks on me (and why you always have to get the last word in) are well-understood by blog readers/commenters. Have a nice day. Yours truly, lin.
“my comment to him is neither insult nor “ad hominem” (another word you have invoked a lot lately)”
First, you and I have clearly different opinions about whether it’s an insult.
Second, I didn’t suggest that it’s ad hom, and I agree that it isn’t (most insults are not ad hom, only a very specific proper subset are). I invite you to provide evidence that I’ve “invoked [the term ‘ad hom’] a lot lately.” I doubt you can.
“It was an insolent (but pointed) remark”
LOL. One of the definitions for “insolent” is “insultingly contemptuous in speech or conduct.”
“I previously said (and you acknowledge, I don’t attack, I just respond.”
No, I don’t acknowledge that. You do both.
Can’t possibly insult *Anonymous* as *not a person*.
Rasp-berry!
Then grow a pair and don’t sign on as Anonymous! Until you do, you can deserved be ignored…
*deservedly*
Allen Stewart: I apologize.
(for responding to “Anonymous”)
Anyone who wishes to ignore me is free to do so.
Personally, I think it’s the content of someone’s comments that determines whether they should be ignored. George, for example, posts bigoted (racist, sexist, xenophobic) comments every day, often repeating the same comment day after day, so I generally ignore him. He clearly will never stop being a bigot. He posts under a name, but his content is still problematic.
But of course you’re free to have a different opinion about all of this than I do.
Anonymous,
It’s true that you are not me as I never post anonymously. However, you can speak for me any time since I can’t recall a single remark you have made with which I disagree.
What irks me to no end is the fact that the Trumpists on this blog take what Turley says out of context. Whatever criticism Turley maintains, most of which I do agree or is made in good faith, is ripped out of context to support their conspiracy of a Deep State, reinforce their belief that Trump is a victim of witch-hunts, and Liberals are evil per se.
All of which Turley would vehemently deny if so confronted. It’s appalling that he does not disabuse his followers of misconstruing his values and his criticisms.
Have you noticed that when we point out that Turley called for Trump’s censure, not one Trumpist reacts negatively to his condemnation of Trump? The reason is that it completely undermines their belief that Turley sides with them. They like using Turley’s critique of the “media” to bolster their grievances. How can square Turley’s disavowal of Trump with their belief that Trump did nothing wrong on 1/6? They can’t; so they ignore it.
When I point that Turley characterized Trump as a “carnival snake charmer,” again not one Trumpist will address Turley’s sheer contempt for the man. Why? You know why. Because it proves that Turley has been and remains a NeverTrumper. It’s an inconvenient truth that they pretend to ignore.
The irony is that you and I and a handful of others are doing Turley a favor by providing a reality check to these Trumpists. We could have a fruitful debate with Turley over his positions if we could interact with him because we share the same values in the rule of law. But most of these Trumpists do not share that value. They will not abide a court of law rendering a guilty verdict upon Trump in the event that occurs. If that day does comes and his followers take to the street to declare it was a rigged trial, Turley will condemn them. Maybe once and for all they will finally realize that Turley does not embrace their Trumpist views.