Vindman's Actions: Lawful Or Unlawful?

In 2019, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified before Congress about a phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Vindman's testimony provided evidence that resulted in a charge of abuse of power in the first impeachment of Donald Trump.

Vindman's testimony was in violation of an order from his commander-in-chief not to cooperate with the House's impeachment inquiry. However, it is unclear whether Vindman broke the law, as it depends on whether Trump's order was lawful. If Trump was trying to prevent Vindman from sharing sensitive information, his order may have been lawful. However, if he was trying to prevent Vindman's testimony altogether, his order may not have been lawful.

Vindman was subsequently removed from his post at the National Security Council and retired from the military, citing a campaign of bullying, intimidation, and retaliation by the Trump administration. In 2022, Vindman sued several Trump allies, alleging that they had intimidated and retaliated against him while he testified in Congress. The lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge, who noted that political hackery alone isn't a violation of the law.

Did Vindman's testimony break military law?

In October 2019, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified before the United States Congress regarding the Trump-Ukraine scandal. He was the first White House official to testify who was on a July 25, 2019, telephone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In his testimony, Vindman stated that he believed Trump acted 'improperly' on the call. He also said that he was "worried about the implications for the U.S. Government's support of Ukraine" and that he reported his concern to the NSC's lead counsel, John Eisenberg.

Vindman's testimony provided evidence that resulted in a charge of abuse of power in the first impeachment of Donald Trump. However, it is unclear whether his testimony broke military law. On one hand, Vindman was violating an order from his commander-in-chief not to cooperate with the House's impeachment inquiry. Additionally, Trump gets to determine what is and isn't classified, and Vindman may have disclosed sensitive information. On the other hand, the Military Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits government officials from interfering with a member of the military in communicating with Congress or an inspector general. Ultimately, it is a "murky issue" and it is unclear whether Vindman will face any legal ramifications for his testimony.

Was Vindman's removal from the NSC legal?

The removal of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman from the National Security Council (NSC) was a controversial decision that raised questions about its legality. Vindman, a military officer and the Director of European Affairs for the NSC, came into the spotlight in October 2019 when he testified before Congress regarding the Trump-Ukraine scandal. His testimony provided evidence that resulted in a charge of abuse of power in the first impeachment of President Donald Trump.

Vindman's removal from the NSC occurred on February 7, 2020, just two days after Trump's acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial. Vindman and his twin brother, Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, who was also assigned to the NSC, were both escorted out of the White House. This came after months of public attacks by Trump and his associates, who sought to discredit Vindman and punish him for his testimony. Trump had also previously implied that he might remove Vindman from his post.

The legality of Vindman's removal depends on two key factors: whether the action constituted retaliation under the law and whether Vindman was covered by the protections afforded by PPD-19, a presidential policy directive prohibiting retaliation against those who report waste, fraud, and abuse.

While the Trump administration characterised Vindman's removal as part of a general NSC staff downsizing, many saw it as an act of retaliation for his testimony. National security lawyer Bradley P. Moss described the reassignment as "ordinarily ... retaliation" and stated that it was "axiomatic this is retaliation according to the spirit, if not the letter, of the law." However, Moss also noted a potential loophole, arguing that testifying to Congress might not meet the strict requirements of PPD-19.

Vindman's attorney, David Pressman, asserted that his client's removal was a result of a "campaign of bullying, intimidation, and retaliation" by the Trump administration. He emphasised that Vindman was removed despite being appointed to a two-year position at the NSC. Additionally, Vindman's promotion to the rank of colonel had been stalled by the administration, and he ultimately chose to retire from the military due to the treatment he received.

In conclusion, while the Trump administration maintained that Vindman's removal was part of a broader staff reduction, there is substantial evidence and legal opinion suggesting that it was indeed an act of retaliation for his testimony during the impeachment proceedings. The legality of the removal hinges on the interpretation of PPD-19 and whether Vindman's testimony falls within the scope of the protections it affords.

Did Trump's comments about Vindman constitute witness tampering?

In October 2019, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified before the United States Congress regarding the Trump-Ukraine scandal. His testimony provided evidence that resulted in a charge of abuse of power in the first impeachment of then-President Donald Trump. Vindman's testimony corroborated previous statements from Fiona Hill, his former manager, and William B. Taylor Jr., acting Ambassador to Ukraine.

Vindman's testimony was that:

> In Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false and alternative narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency, which was harmful to U.S. national security [and also] undermined U.S. Government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.

Vindman also stated that he was concerned by two events, both of which he reported to the National Security Council's lead attorney. The first was a meeting between Ukrainian and US officials, in which US Ambassador Gordon Sondland asked Ukraine to launch investigations into the Bidens in order to get a meeting with President Trump. The second was a phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in which Trump asked Zelenskyy to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden.

Vindman's testimony led to him being denounced by Trump and repeatedly attacked by Republican lawmakers and television commentators. As a result, he reached out to the Army regarding his and his family's safety. In his testimony, Vindman stated:

> In Russia, my act of ... offering public testimony involving the President would surely cost me my life. I am grateful for my father's brave act of hope 40 years ago and for the privilege of being an American citizen and public servant, where I can live free of fear for mine [sic] and my family's safety.

On February 7, 2020, Vindman was removed from his post at the National Security Council. Trump implied that he had ousted Vindman for insubordination and for doing "a lot of bad things". Vindman's twin brother, Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, was also dismissed from his post at the National Security Council.

In February 2022, Vindman sued several Trump allies, including Donald Trump Jr. and Rudy Giuliani, alleging that they had intimidated and retaliated against him while he testified in Congress. The lawsuit was dismissed by Federal Judge James E. Boasberg, who noted that "political hackery alone" isn't a violation of the law.

In light of the above, it is clear that Trump's comments about Vindman were intended to discredit and punish him for his testimony. Whether or not these comments constitute witness tampering is a matter of legal interpretation. However, it is worth noting that Vindman's lawsuit against Trump's allies was dismissed, suggesting that a court may not have found Trump's comments to be unlawful.

Did Vindman's lawsuit against Trump Jr. have merit?

In February 2022, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman sued Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani, and two former White House staffers—Dan Scavino and Julia Hahn—alleging that they had intimidated and retaliated against him while he testified in Congress. The lawsuit, Vindman v. Trump Jr. et al., was based on a 19th-century federal statute, the Ku Klux Klan Act (or Civil Rights Act of 1871), which prohibits conspiracies to use "force, intimidation, or threat" to deter people from serving in federal office or to harm federal officers for doing their jobs.

Vindman's lawsuit accused the defendants of engaging in an "intentional, concerted campaign of unlawful intimidation and retaliation" that destroyed his ability to serve in any national security or foreign affairs role and ended his military career. The lawsuit also alleged that the defendants violated federal civil rights laws that protect federal officials from intimidation and retaliation.

However, in November 2022, Federal Judge James E. Boasberg dismissed the lawsuit, stating that Vindman's complaint failed to adequately show that the defendants conspired against him: "Plaintiff’s pled facts, taken as true, certainly suggest that Defendants leveled harsh, meanspirited, and at times misleading attacks against him. But political hackery alone does not violate [the law at issue]."

While Vindman's lawsuit against Trump Jr. et al. was ultimately dismissed, legal experts have argued that Vindman's claims were viable and had merit. Richard Primus and David Schulz, two law professors writing for Just Security, asserted that Vindman's lawsuit was "right on the law" and that he had asserted claims "viable enough to survive a motion to dismiss." They explained that the Klan Act addresses conspiracies to deter people from giving testimony in federal proceedings or to injure people for giving such testimony, which is precisely what Vindman alleged the defendants had conspired to do. Primus and Schulz also noted that the Klan Act does not require proof of physical violence or the threat thereof, and that conspiracies involving economic coercion or jeopardizing someone's employment can also qualify as actionable under the Klan Act.

In conclusion, while Vindman's lawsuit against Trump Jr. et al. was dismissed by the court, the lawsuit did raise serious and valid concerns about witness intimidation and retaliation, and legal experts have argued that the claims had merit and should have proceeded further in the legal process.

Did Vindman's retirement break any laws?

It is unclear whether Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman broke the law with his retirement. However, his retirement came after a series of events that started with his testimony before the United States Congress regarding the Trump-Ukraine scandal. This testimony provided evidence that resulted in a charge of abuse of power in the first impeachment of then-President Donald Trump.

Vindman's testimony revealed that he was concerned about a phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Vindman stated that he believed this call was "improper" and reported his concerns to the National Security Council's lead attorney.

Following his testimony, Vindman was denounced by Trump and faced attacks from Republican lawmakers and commentators. He was also reassigned from his position at the National Security Council (NSC) and his promotion to the rank of colonel was stalled. In July 2020, Vindman announced his retirement from the military, citing "a campaign of bullying, intimidation, and retaliation" by the Trump administration.

While there is no clear indication that Vindman broke any laws with his retirement, the circumstances surrounding it suggest that he may have faced pressure and retaliation for his role in the impeachment proceedings.

Frequently asked questions