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.
BLM is the Theranos of social justice.
Let the discovery begin! It will be a sight to see, and the light will be shed on all the rats. Not that the media will report on it.
The authentic stain to our democracy since 2017 has been the escalating killing of black children while Democrats brown shirts, aka BLM ANTIFA, have gotten away with murder. Genocide of blacks started with abortion and is now bookmarked with “antiracist” racists who care not a whit about black children. Vindman is a modern day Che Guevara: helps foment a coup with Marxists using guerrilla tactics against a President. The violence in our country is blood on his hands and those who handled Vindman
Black Children’s Lives Matter, Too
By Sylvia Bennett-Stone
In 2021, 311 American children under 12 were shot and killed. But I haven’t seen anyone marching in the streets demanding justice or declaring that their innocent lives mattered. On New Year’s Day, the 4-year-old niece of George Floyd was shot and wounded as she slept in her bed. Will anyone remember baby Grayson’s name besides his family, who must now find a way to live with their emptiness and grief? How can we tolerate these kinds of deaths in our communities? Why is there no outrage? The country seems too busy arguing about ideology that doesn’t mean anything to a grieving mother and pouring millions of dollars into the race grievance industry. Some people even make reckless demands to defund the police, which will only endanger more children. If young black lives lost to crossfire don’t matter to us now, when will they? It shouldn’t take the bloodshed of even more innocent children before we become “woke” to this issue. Some, like me, have personally experienced the loss of a child to street violence and are working to end it. Too many communities throughout our nation have become like war zones.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/black-childrens-lives-matter-too-blm-shooting-crossfire-murder-homicide-violent-crime-crt-defund-police-woodson-center-11643926156
Although slightly different loyalty oaths – both Trump and Vindman swore a supreme loyalty oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. The America loyalty oath is an “indirect” loyalty oath. No president (or member of the military) swears loyalty to the nation directly or to the people directly, they swear supreme loyalty to the “constitutional rule of law” or the U.S Constitution (a wartime governing charter). One cannot hold authority in the USA without agreeing to this employment contract – from presidents to FBI to CIA to local police officers.
America’s indirect loyalty oath is really what separates us from despotic regimes (ie: Nazis swore direct oaths to a single person, communists swore direct oaths to a single party, etc). America’s supreme loyalty oath is to a “constitutional rule of law” that protects individual rights and freedoms – from equal rights for African-Americans, women and minorities (14th Amendment) to gun rights for gun owners (2nd Amendment).
America’s supreme loyalty oath is arguably the greatest “check & balance” against tyranny. It empowers low level officials and even privates in the military to “refuse” unconstitutional or illegal orders from disloyal superiors – including illegal orders from presidents.
Vindman actually stepped up to serve in the military and was totally loyal to America’s supreme loyalty oath. Can a federal judge say the same for Trump? Did he honor his employment contract?
AZ….you know naught of Military Law or the Officer’s Code of Conduct and it is not within the purview of anyone in the military to analyze an order and decide if it is “Constitutional” or not.
The UCMJ imposes a duty upon the members of the Military to refuse an “Unlawful” Order only.
Along with that dictate to refuse such an Order it also lays out liabilities for refusing a “Lawful” Order.
Vindman was not loyal to the Oath he took as an Officer…..not at all.
He was bound by that Oath to obey the lawful orders of his Superiors….which he did not.
He went outside his Chain of Command…..and in all likelihood was the “Leaker” used by and protected by Adam Schiff.
If that is proven true….then he is in direct violation of Military and Federal Law….which is neither being loyal to his Oath or the Constitution.
There were ways within the Chain of Command for him to have made notice of his concerns that would have been both lawful and loyal….he chose not to follow that path.
He is an insult to the Uniform he dressed himself in trying to disguise the embarrassment he was to what that Uniform exemplifies.
I wore that Uniform, took that Oath several times in the Military and in Civilian Life some of which was as a Federal Criminal Investigator for a Military Service.
I KNOW what those Oaths demand…..and Vindman in no way lived up that.
Just like Ollie North, only pudgier.
well…i guess well finally hear from eric ciamarella..UNDER OATH…and it wil be intersting how the recent letters from nuland [2015] and kent [2016] figure into this!!!
I would like to state that I do not want to put Donald Trump up on an alter to be revered and adored. I just liked his policies. He also wasn’t a Washington insider. It’s quit evident that the ruling class in Washington hated and feared this man. What he did was he tapped into significant portion of our population that felt unrepresentative, ignored and down right attacked by a sector of this country that felt philosophies are where we are going, and that’s, that. Trumps biggest problem is himself, but again philosophically he was thinking of us, not the globalist crowd from Davos.
Vindman. What a joke.
Well, it appears that my off-topic reply to George about events from about 1612 BCE, while interesting I thought, have been obliterated; gone to the great bit-bucket in the sky…
Nope, it is still down below.
Vindeman needs to star in the remake of the classic film, Days of Wine and Roses. The 1962 film that won the Oscar (when anybody cared about them) for Henry Mancini’s theme song and walked us through the sad history of Joe Clay (Jack Lemmon) and secretary Kirsten Arnesen (Lee Remick) and their alcohol-fueled romance than ends up in a sanitarium.
Vindmin is the perfect Joe Clay and who can’t imagine him spouting that famous line strolling down the avenue with that equally perfect cast of his impeachment cohort, Jennifer Williams (an aide to Vice President Pence) who likewise was aghast at all things Trump:
“I walked by Union Square Bar. I was going to go in. Then I saw myself – my reflection in the window – and I thought, “I wonder who that bum is?” And then I saw it was me. Now look at me. I’m a bum. Look at me! Look at you. You’re a bum. Look at you. And look at us. Look at us. C’mon look at us! See? A couple of bums.”
However, I would suggest a modest change to the title: “Days of Whine and Posers.”
Vindman’s 72-page complaint could have been reduced to @7-10 pages. Relevant facts (that pertain to the actual alleged violation(s)) are buried in extraneous ones that are neither needed nor advised for initial pleadings. Usually, such a lengthy complaint is an attempt to intimidate defendants. Although I only cursorily looked at it, it seems to lack much specificity as to individual defendants, which are mostly referred to collectively as “defendants.” Of course, much of this will later be fleshed out during discovery, but that appears to be the real intent: protracted litigation.
What are the damages here? LTC Vindman’s (and his brother’s) two year military tour of duty on the NCS would have ended well before his eventual exit. The administration kept him on the NSC specifically to ensure that there was no real or perceived retaliation while the Congressional investigation and impeachment was ongoing. His name was on the Colonel’s promotion list, and forwarded to the Senate for confirmation (though he retired before it would have been effective).
Interesting…
I read the complaint, all 72 long pages, and I agree with you that there was a lot of extraneous ‘facts.’ So much so, that I had to go back and reread paragraphs in an effort to figure out where the complaint was going. A lot of states are ‘Notice Pleading’ states, i.e., if the Court can discern a cause of action from the facts pleaded, a demure will not lie. Even so, I expect the defense counsels will file numerous demurrers to this complaint
Seems like these people on the left really fear Donald Trump. Could anyone imagine Trumps behavior if he got re-elected. I’d bet the first thing he’d do is go into the FBI and start to clean house. Then of course the only thing the dims could do is do impeachment 3.0. I understand totally why the dims want to destroy him.
Independent Bob —- Not only the dims but the brights as well. Its only the Republicants dwho can’t even find the light switch to turn on…
David B. Benson: OK, your reference to “Republicants” was clever and funny, made me laugh.
Time will tell
The Democrats are certainly not acting like a party that won the last election by 8 million votes. I’ve observed and studied political history for a long time, and I can’t find a case where the party in power has put so much effort into going after the guy the beat. It leaves me two options. They knew that winning was the result of an unrepeatable black swan or they were able to better take advantage of one times rule changes that won’t be repeated.
But there are more than 2 possibilities.
Here’s a third: he’s got a firm grip on the Republican party, is planning to run for office again, and continues to be a danger.
As Chris Krebs (former CISA Director) noted on 1/30: “In the last 24 hrs the former president: (1) floated pardons for 1/6 defendants, (2) encouraged civil unrest if he’s indicted in GA/NY, (3) once again confirmed he pressured Pence to overturn a lawful election. He’s radicalizing his base to be his personal Brown Shirts.”
Evidence for (1): Trump’s statements at his rally last week. (Floating future pardons is also evidence of his intention to run for President again.)
Evidence for (2): Trump’s statements at his rally last week.
Evidence for (3): Trump’s written statement released on Jan. 30.
You may have a different opinion than Krebs about his last sentence, but can you at least agree about points 1-3?
It seems to me that the reason Biden won was because Most of Us couldn’t come to terms with another 4 more years of the Democrats & the Media’s inssistant badgering of Trump.
Since what We have now is what the Dems wanted during Trumps presidency, Then why are they so hell-bent on roasting him and his Cabinet?
Vindman got his War, the Media got it’s way (and its coming War), AOC got what she wanted, BLM got what They wanted, They (et.al.) got what they wanted. And look at US now.
Yep: Res ipsa loquitur – The thing speaks for itself
Vindman had his Oliver North moment. Maybe after his book tour, We’ll see him on Dancing with the Stars …
Good one! I don’t think that we will ever see Joe Biden’s face on a coin though.
INDE BOB: The Dems have attempted to convict DT of a crime, from Russian collusion on down to fraudulent Tax returns, fraudulent financial reports, and now insurrection. Now this dude Vindaman is suing. Barring any criminal charges prevailing, and this suit evaporates, and if DT has no major health issues, he will run and probably win in 2024. Now this will really chap many rear ends. My guess is that by 2024 few remanants of the US Constitutional Republic will remain for the US by 2024. Seems the Socialists are prevailing and winning, unless a Big Wind of Disclosures come about.
Vindman is indistinguishable from the stain on his own underwear.
EVERY LIVING THING
_________________
This is a futile and moot discussion.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and his fellow co-conspirators to the Obama Coup D’etat in America are the direct and mortal enemies of the Constitution, America and Americans.
Joshua didn’t foolishly banter with the occupants of Jericho, he dealt with the enemies of the Israelites definitively.
So should Special Counsel John “Dudley-Will-He-Do-Right” Durham, who has had the enemy delivered into his hands.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Joshua 6 NIV
Now the gates of Jericho were securely barred because of the Israelites. No one went out and no one came in.
2 Then the Lord said to Joshua, “See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men.
3 March around the city once with all the armed men. Do this for six days.
4 Have seven priests carry trumpets of rams’ horns in front of the ark. On the seventh day, march around the city seven times, with the priests blowing the trumpets.
5 When you hear them sound a long blast on the trumpets, have the whole army give a loud shout; then the wall of the city will collapse and the army will go up, everyone straight in.”
20 When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city.
21 They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.
George, what actually happened was that an astroid blew apart over the lower Jordan River valley and destroyed the mud walls of Jericho, Sodom and Gomorrah. There is a recent scientific paper about this combining the work of dozens of specialists.
David Benson,
What Power acted to cause that event to happen at exactly the right time and place?
Just asking for a friend!
Ralph Chappell, the story gets better: The explosive eruption of Thera, ending Minoan civilization, gave rise to 4 large tsunamis in the Eastern Mediterranean, surely reaching the Nile River delta and each, after the water pulled back, rushed to destroy well inland. The Bible misplaces this event in the Red Sea but the dating is right: recently firmly radiocarbon dated to 1612 BCE, so +- some years. So that’s when Noah led his Hebrews to what is now the southern desert of Israel to the mountain of the burning bush, see a recent issue of The New York Times for a picture of the burning bush at winter solstice. Then some years later the asteroid removed the entire population of the lower Jordan River valley so the Hebrews could move to the land of milk and honey.
I’m told one is not to utter the name of this god: see an Indian Jones movie, the first I think.
Steven Hawking in his book “A Brief History of Time” in conclusion of his writings stated:
If we discover a complete theory, is should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find that answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason-for then we would know the Mind of God.”
His Book requires re-reading frequently and carefully to full grasp the import of some of the better hidden observations.
I am not particularly a religious type of person….having fallen out with organized religion over the years…which upon reflection seems more due to individuals and dogma pertaining to rituals and defined conduct they dictate, rather than spiritual concepts.
Hawking is right….unless and until we fully understand and can describe why certain things have happened…..we shall not be able to fully ascribe definite causes to everything in our histories as Human Beings living on Earth.
I suppose that leaves us to rely upon Faith.
Assuming Hawking is right about the collapse of this unique Singularity (as we think it is currently) we so enjoy….then his theory of what might happen should there be a collapse that does not result in just a single equivalent singularity that led to us being here….maybe there is something to needing to have lived a “good” Life if we are here when that happens.
Just saying!
So, you’re saying that the Lord has not “delivered [the enemy] into [John Durham’s] hands?”
Hey Turleydov:
Post an article about medical monopoly capitalism and discuss this huge American problem which steals our money and kills us if we can’t pay.
Turleydog not dove
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman’s Deposition October 29, 2019, Permanent Select Committee of Intelligence.
This quote is concerning President Trump’s call to Ukrainian President Zelensky. This brief statement by Vindman (in my opinion) is illustrative of his disdain for delving into possible corruption by now current President Biden and his Son Hunter. Not knowing his motive I just wanted to place the quote for consideration.
Vindman:
“I just — I thought it was inappropriate to have — to call for an investigation — to call a foreign power to investigate a U.S. citizen. In my mind, I had spent quite a bit of time in that part of the world. I understand how the justice system works. It’s not a rule of law that governs.
These could all be orchestrated to achieve some sort of objective. And, in my mind, I thought it was, you know — if they thought that this was in their national security interests and they could potentially get away with it — you know, I’m not talking about the Ukrainians; I’m talking about foreign powers in general — and if they thought that it was in their national security interests — and this is a country that’s fighting a war against Russia — and they could get away with it, I mean, why should they really care that much about domestic politics at a different country? They’re going to do what they need to do protect and advance their own national security interests.
And, you know, this would not be — if they chose to do it, they could potentially tip the scales, and this would not be a fair investigation, and it would provide, you know, compromising on maybe even fabricated information, if need be. So these things, these thoughts were all going through my mind”
I always go to the back page of a legal filing to see what law firm is pushing it. On the back page of this one is listed a law firm and also an outfit named Protect Democracy Project, Inc. Are they listed because they are helping finance the lawsuit or offer legal advise? Who is financing Protect Democracy Project, Inc.?
Using Google I found something claiming to be a roster of its board members, staff, and advisors. I stopped Googling after I learned that two of of the co-founders and board members, Ian Bassin and Justine Florence, worked in the Obama administration.
Protect Democracy Project is the group that created the petition to fire Bill Barr, then used their media buddies to promote it heavily. Presumably as a media stunt to facilitate fundraising.
They’ve got a large staff of highly credentialed mouths to feed. Lots of people who expect to pull down six figures. Charity Navigator shows they raised over $10 million in 2019. Scaring people about imagined threats to our beloved democracy is big business. Imagine how much money they’ve separated from rich Democrats after J6. It may be a sleazy gig, but it sure looks like business is good.
Sad to see Mona Charen and Linda Chavez listed as advisors.
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and then degenerates into a racket.” Eric Hoffer
Vindman has met his first requirement necessary for running to be a U.S. Senator from Minnesota. His twin brother Adam Schiff will be at his side on the campaign trail with the proof of Trump’s wrongdoing that he’s seen with his very own eyes. (except when he’s under oath). Do you remember when the Generals said that Trump was just a Russian stooge? Natacha has already made her reservation for Vindman’s book signing. After all is said and done Vindman will probably end up a millionaire. Are we surprised to see the birth of just another grifter? Ho hum.
Biden’s DOD is broken. Secretary of the Army is an Obama holdover civil servant who graduated with a college degree in poli sci and fine arts with a masters in public policy. No military service.
“Department of the Army to initiate separation of COVID-19 vaccination order refusers”
WASHINGTON – The United States Army announced today that it will immediately begin separating Soldiers from the service who refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
Under a directive issued by Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth, commanders are to initiate involuntary administrative separation proceedings against any Soldier who has refused the COVID-19 vaccination order and does not have an approved or pending exemption request. The order applies to regular Army Soldiers, reserve-component Soldiers serving on Title 10 active-duty, and cadets.
https://www.army.mil/article/253681/department_of_the_army_to_initiate_separation_of_covid_19_vaccination_order_refusers
I wonder if LTC Vindman was the actual “whistleblower” and went directly to Adam Schiff to disclose what he knew about Trump’s call to the Ukrainian president.
As affirmed by the Inspector General, the whistleblower followed the law and filed a whistleblower complaint with the Inspector General’s office.
You have no factual basis for your suggestion.
What inspector General was that? Vidman worked for the White House.
a) You shouldn’t assume that Vindman was the whistleblower.
b) If you’d bothered to read the unclassified letter from the Inspector General to the chairs of the SSCI and HPSCI in Congress, you’d know that it was written by Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.
No part of the Intelligence community was involved in the complaint. How did the intelligence Community OIG get involved?
That you believe “No part of the Intelligence community was involved in the complaint” does not make it true. Nothing is stopping you from looking up the answer to your question. You might start by reading IG Atkinson’s letter to the Senate and House Intelligence Committee chairs.
IG’s investigations are limited to the currentIC employees. What part of this phone call called into question the IC procedures or financials? That is the Scope of IGs
Again: Nothing is stopping you from looking up the answer to your question. You might start by reading IG Atkinson’s letter to the Senate and House Intelligence Committee chairs.
You may wish me to tutor you, but I am not your tutor.
Vindman as a “lieutenant colonel” was so impressed with his self-importance, he forgot he was merely a small potato giving advice on Ukraine to the Nat’l Security Advisor that ultimately may or may not reach POTUS. He became incensed and viewed ignoring his advice as disrespectful, after all he was the “expert.” Lieutenant Colonels assigned to the WH are indeed small potatoes and frequently never advance in their military careers…why you ask, because the Army looks for leaders to command and when they seek desk jobs that carry little to no leadership responsibilities they are viewed as desk jockeys, not “command” material for advanced leadership positions. Frankly, Vindman got way out over his skis on this in my opinion. He was used by the House to foster the impeachment process, something the House leaders had been searching for since the beginning of the administration. There’s always been a hint that Vindman may have had some unusual contacts in Ukraine that might, if researched, show inappropriate relationships & potentially sharing of info that may also have been inappropriate. I think this lawsuit is not just another attempt to put himself back in the spotlight for 15 minutes and possibly turn it into a money making scheme of some type…book, movie…TV documentary…and possibly get lucky and get a settlement, although that would be a long shot.