#vindman

[angrybell]

Ok… I can’t decide if I should laugh or take this seriously. What is that?

It’s Lt.Col. Alexander Vindman’s (ret.) complaint against Donald Trump, Jr., Rudolph Giuliani, Julia Hahn, and Daniel Scavino.

Reading this thing is a trip. The attorney who drafted it has concocted a world in which Fox News was the closest thing to a state run TV network the US has ever seen. And that because of the relationship between the Trump Administration and the Fox network, in particular with Laura Ingram, they somehow violated 42 USC s 1985. They have also created a world in which Vindman was completely right and that no one disagreed with his notes on the call.

So… wow. Ok. What world is this and what kind of drugs get you there?

Now what, you may ask, is 42 USC s 1985? It was one of the civil rights laws passed back during Reconstruction to fight the KKK. Basically, it allows for people to sue, civilly, individuals who

conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States…If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office… or from discharging any dutieies thereof…

42 USC section 1985(1)

The fourth clause of 42 USC s 1985 prohibits conspiracies if

two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to … injury’s in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge fo the duties of his office…

So, the short version is that if you try to prevent someone, by force, intimidating, or threat, from carrying out their duties to the US, you can be civilly liable. It also creates a civil liability if you try to intimidate a witness from testifying in court or engage in a conspiracy to do so. (42 USC s 1985(2).)

Now, Vindman’s lawyer have alleged that he was intimidated by Trump partisans who went after Vindman when he was revealed to be the source of the allegation that Trump had threatened the Ukraine if they didn’t go after Biden. There’s no sticks and stones. Hell, there’s not even in burning cross. But mean tweets, according to this pleading, create the requisite intimidation.

Consider that for a moment. If this were to go to court and a judgment was granted in favor of Vindman, it would be the end of the First Amendment. Because there were no threats of violence in the tweets referenced in the complaint. It was all attacks made on Vindman’s character. And these attacks are neither new, nor novel.

But Vindman claims they are the modern day equivalent of when the KKK would intimidate Reconstruction era government workers from carrying out the law to allow former slaves to do things like vote and serve on juries. He’s saying that this was the same as when witnesses were threatened to prevent them from testifying against the KKK.

This, not to put a fine point on it, is nuts.

If you read the complaint, it reads like what Vindman really wants to do is claim he was slandered. Because much of it is about the attacks on his character. While Vindman asserts that all the attacks are false, he does on very interesting, telling thing. He does not add in a count for libel or slander.

Is it because some of the attacks were in fact true? (Having typed, this I realize I am liable to get sued by Lt. Col. Vindman (ret).)

This should be disposed of quickly by a motion to dismiss. All the actions alleged seem to be covered by the First Amendment. The complaint fails to establish the intimidation necessary to pierce that protection.

Of course, given the state of the United States District Court for the District of District of Columbia, there’s a chance it could go to an Obama appointee and the case allowed to proceed. But if it does, it creates a precedent. And this will mean the Democrats, who actually have been proven to have major media outlets doing the bidding of the Biden Administration, will be subject to the same sorts of litigation the first time they …. Oh say… criticize Justice Thomas or when someone is asked to testify against vaccine mandates if the Republicans get control of Congress starting next year.

Hopefully, the court will recognize this for the madness it is and will dismiss the case.

If you want to look it up on PACER, the case number is 1:22-cv-00257.

[liberalsarecool]

[mysharona1987]

[aunti-christ-ine]

 ‣  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/us/politics/alexander-vindman-white-house.html 

[phroyd]

Oliver North, A Criminal, Republican Hero!

Vindman, A Military Man With Character & Integrity, Criticized by the GOP

Phroyd

[hailkingcheeto]

cartoon by Bill Bramhall

[contemplatingoutlander]

As always, Trevor Noah turns the tables on much of the right’s propaganda. For instance he plays up the fact that Vindman immigrated to this country when he was three years old:

“Like what kind of baby spy thriller were you guys watching? Huh? This little toddler was just out on these streets wrecking sh*t? Is that what you think? He’s, like, a three-year-old little Russian spy? 

😂😂😂

[sarcasticcynic]

Read Alexander Vindman’s Opening Statement on Trump and Ukraine

He twice reported concerns about President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, according to a draft statement.

“In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy.”

“On July 10, 2019, ... there was a scheduled debriefing during which Amb. [Gordon] Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma. I stated to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push. Dr. [Fiona] Hill then entered the room and asserted to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate.”

“On July 25, 2019, the call occurred. I listened in on the call in the Situation Room with colleagues from the NSC and the office of the Vice President. As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said. I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security.”