Vindman’s miffed that military brass offered no support or protection after impeachment testimony

Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE


CHECK OUT WeThePeople.store for best SWAG!

Retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the shady Democrat witness who was sarcastically termed a “super patriot” by Rush Limbaugh during President Donald Trump’s impeachment last year, is back in the news once again.

He appeared on CNN this Monday to complain that the military wasn’t supportive enough of him last year when he purposefully chose to bypass the normal chain of command and secretly work with congressional Democrats to make a national stink over a phone call that has since been shown to have been perfectly normal.

The segment on CNN’s “Outfront” began with fill-in host Bianna Golodryga laying out the foundation for Vindman’s dubious sob story.

“It has been a year since the president’s impeachment, which really upended your career and life. Both you and your twin brother were removed from your posts at the NSC. And you ultimately left the Army after intense pressure from the president and his allies to deny your promotion to colonel,” she said to him.

“Given that, everything you went through, did the top brass in the military do enough to support and protect you?” Burnett then asked.

Vindman responded by filling in the rest of the pieces of his sob story.

Listen:

“The bottom line is no, they haven’t. And I think in certain ways … the former Secretary of Defense [Mark] Esper probably misrepresented the amount of support I was receiving. At no point did any senior leader, civilian or military, attempt to contact me and, you know, indicated that I was still in good standing in the military,” he said.

“Certainly, after I left the White House, I had no contact with anybody that could have indicated that, you know, my military career was — would move forward as normal.”

But why should his military career have continued “as normal?”

Testifying before Congress last year, he admitted to having bypassed the chain of command when complaining about the president’s otherwise benign call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

“In your deposition, you emphasize the importance of chain of command. You were a direct report to Dr. Fiona Hill and then Mr. Tim Morrison and they were your seniors, correct?” Republican Rep. Brad Wenstrup asked him at the time.

“That is correct,” Vindman replied.

“When you had concerns about the 7/25 call between the two presidents, you didn’t go to Mr. Morrison about that, did you?” Wenstrup pressed.

“I immediately went to John Eisenberg, the [National Security Council’s] lead legal counsel,” the “super patriot” admitted.

“That doesn’t seem like chain of command,” Wenstrup replied.

Listen:

Allegations also emerged last year that Vindman is a political activist who hates America.

“Do not let the uniform fool you. He is a political activist in uniform,” a man identifying as “retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Jim Hickman” claimed at the time.

The figure identifying as “Hickman” went on to claim that he once overheard Vindman trash-talking American to a group of Russian soldiers.

“He would speak with the Russian soldiers and laugh as if at the expense of the US personnel. It was so uncomfortable and unprofessional, one of the GS [civil service] employees came and told me everything . . . . I walked over and sat within earshot of Vindman, and sure enough, all was confirmed,” he alleged.

Instead of broaching any of these facts and allegations, Golodryga continued the discussion on “Outfront” by giving Vindman’s sob story credence and making it about immigration, despite it in fact being about disobedience and insubordination.

“It’s really disappointing to hear because, you know, you and I both as small children came to this country as political refugees fleeing the Soviet Union,” she said.

“You know, the last time someone questioned my loyalty or called me a Russian sympathizer was maybe in 3rd grade. Yet you have President Trump and members of Congress questioning your loyalty after coming forward. … So, what is your message to other immigrants who may want to serve this country in some form of capacity and look at that and say, you were right and you were punished for doing the right thing, and maybe here, right doesn’t matter?”

The notion that perhaps he’d done the wrong thing didn’t even exist in her head. Thus, it was inconceivable to her that the military didn’t support him. Ironically, some feel the military should have “supported” him even less by reprimanding him.

Look:

He’s very lucky indeed, though in his and CNN’s world, he’ll forever be the victim — not to mention the so-called “hero.”

“I think that in the end, I have no regrets about how things turned out. … I think my role may have been in certain ways more important in that I was able to do my part, defend this nation in a very meaningful manner, and expose corruption via the chief executive. And I feel in that regard that I have served my nation,” he said in concluding remarks.

That’s certainly one way of looking at things …

Vivek Saxena

Comments

Latest Articles