Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman: A Weasel

Above, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.

The Democrats and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's attorney are hiding something.

They are keeping secret the person Vindman reports to in his "chain of command".

Rush Limbaugh discussed this today:

RUSH: Now, there’s one other thing that I want to get to, and I still have voluminous sound bites to get to, but it came up earlier today. 

We had a question from a caller about a half hour ago, 45 minutes ago about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman. He was on the phone call, he leaves the phone call, and he goes and reports to somebody outside the chain. And this caller’s husband is military and realizes what Vindman did is way outside the chain of command, so he wanted to know who he works for.

And I do too. I made the point that in the normal chain of command Lieutenant Colonel Vindman would report to the president. Everybody there would. Everybody in the State Department, everybody in the Foreign Service reports to the president. That’s who they work for, except these people do not. The people who have testified, and especially the two today, do not consider the president to be the person to whom they report. 

Vindman has a chain of command, and he obeys it. But the top of it is not the president. So who is it? Who does Lieutenant Colonel Vindman work for? It is the question. 

Because if you answer that question, you find out how all this happened. There’s a phone call between Trump and Zelensky in July. In August Adam Schiff is told about it by the whistleblower who is informed by somebody, we think Vindman. And then Schiff puts in motion this whole whistleblower report with the inspector general, and it takes us to where we are today. 

Who does Vindman work for? Who do any of these ambassadors who have testified, who do they really work for? Who are they reporting to? To whom are they discussing these events? They are in the executive branch. That means they work for the president, whether he appointed them or not. Whether they are appointees or whether they are career, they work for the president. But these people obviously aren’t. 

So Vindman’s got a chain of command, but it does not feature the president at the top. Who is at the top? Who is giving Lieutenant Colonel Vindman orders that he is following? And Vindman constantly talks about the chain of command as though it is inviolate and it’s sacred. And in his world, it is. The chain of command is the glue that keeps everything together in the military, and he’s got one, and he is following the chain. 

But who’s at the top of that one?

Rush said that Rep. Ratcliffe tried to find out during Vindman's closed-door testimony:

RUSH: And in Vindman’s closed-door testimony in Schiff’s basement room in the Capitol, Representative Ratcliffe got close to making the case that Vindman was insubordinate during his October 29th deposition and Vindman lawyer erupted. Now, I have the transcript here, and it runs about a page and a half, and I don’t know that even I, with the talent that I possess, could make this compelling for a page and a half. 

But suffice it to say that when Ratcliffe asked this question, to who the hell do you report to? What is your chain of command? These are my words that Vindman was asked. Vindman’s lawyer erupted. “I object to that characterization. It’s pretty obvious what you’re trying to do, sir.” Ratcliffe: “Let me ask the question.” The lawyer: “I’m representing my witness here, and this is my client. For you, I mean this insinuation, if you guys want to go down this road, God be with you.” Ratcliffe: “Let me ask my question, because what I heard –” “You don’t have a jury here, sir. You don’t have the public here.” Ratcliffe: “I understand that. I’m making a record.” “Well, eventually you will, and you can do it then.” Ratcliffe: “I will.” “Right now we’re gonna object.” 

So Vindman’s lawyer objected to Ratcliffe trying to elucidate who do you work for, Vindman. Who are you reporting to? Because it clearly isn’t the president. Now, in the real world, this is insubordination. In Washington it is Trump guilty of insubordination because he’s not following the usual channels. He’s not going through the usual channels of the national security apparatus, which is populated by people who are trying to sabotage, undermine, and destroy Trump.

Sean Davis of The Federalist came to this conclusion:

Vindman was insubordinate, ignored chain of command, leaked, and lied to Congress about not knowing who the whistleblower is, when he clearly knows because he was the whistleblower's primary source. 

He deserves to be court-martialed under the UCMJ.

I agree, Vindman should be court-martialed.

Also, Vindman's testimony rubbed some veterans the wrong way, including some prominent war heroes. See their reactions by going here and here.

To read more, go here.