Posts

Alexander Vindman Slams Mike Waltz Plan to Clear Deep Staters From National Security Council

/1 Comment/in , /by

Retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman criticized incoming National Security Adviser Mike Waltz’s plan to clear out each “intelligence official” serving in “various departments and agencies” throughout the federal government who is “currently detailed” to the National Security Council (NSC).

In a post on X, Vindman responded to an interview Waltz had with Breitbart News’s Washington bureau chief Matthew Boyle, where Waltz spoke about how intelligence officials serving in various departments and agencies under President Joe Biden’s administration would be “expected to vacate the premises by 12:01 p.m. Eastern” on January 20, when President-elect Donald Trump is inaugurated.

“Yesterday, President Trump’s National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz @michaelgwaltz, announced a sweeping directive to terminate all national security staffers loaned from other departments and agencies who serve in apolitical, non-partisan senior staff roles,” Vindman wrote.

He continued:

Waltz framed this decision as a means to eliminate Biden-era appointees and enforce absolute alignment with Trump’s policy agenda. Notably, Waltz justified this move by referencing my role in exposing Trump’s abuse of power, which led to his first impeachment. Using my actions as a rationale, Waltz aims to purge scores of professionals from the Department of Defense, Department of State, CIA, and other agencies—not because of their conduct, but due to a demand for blind allegiance to Trump.

(Read more from “Alexander Vindman Slams Mike Waltz Plan to Clear Deep Staters From National Security Council” HERE)

What You Need to Know About Alex Vindman’s Lawsuit Against Trump Officials

/1 Comment/in , , /by

On Feb. 2, Alex Vindman, the driving force of the first impeachment of President Donald Trump, filed suit in a federal court in D.C. against Donald Trump Jr, the former president’s son; Rudy Giuliani, the president’s former personal attorney; Julia Hahn, the former special assistant to the president; and Daniel Scavino Jr, a Trump communications official.

Vindman’s lawsuit alleges the four defendants conspired to intimidate and retaliate against him, in violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. Here’s what you need to know about Wednesday’s lawsuit. . .

As noted, Vindman sued the four Trump-connected defendants under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. While Vindman’s reliance on that federal statute, which sought to address violence and other discriminatory practices in the Reconstruction South, strikes an odd chord, the Supreme Court has made clear that courts should give the various reconstruction statutes “a sweep as broad as their language.” The language on which Vindman relies in his first count, Section 1985(1), is indeed broad, providing:

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, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties; the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

Thus, to properly allege a claim under Section 1985(1), Vindman need not allege any racial bias. Rather, he merely needs to “allege four elements: (1) an agreement between two or more persons; (2) to participate in an unlawful act, or a lawful act in an unlawful manner; (3) an injury caused by an unlawful overt act performed by one of the parties to the agreement; (4) which overt act was done pursuant to and in furtherance of the common scheme.” (Read more from “What You Need to Know About Alex Vindman’s Lawsuit Against Trump Officials” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

Turns Out Alexander Vindman Is The Dopey Hack We All Thought He Was

/0 Comments/in , /by

Alexander Vindman, the retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel who helped plot the botched impeachment of former President Donald Trump in what amounted to a failed coup attempt, thinks Tucker Carlson should be “censured” for saying things Vindman doesn’t like about the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

In a tweet Thursday responding to a trailer Carlson posted for his new documentary, “Patriot Purge,” Vindman asked, idiotically, “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.”

Well since you asked, the argument for Carlson’s documentary being protected speech is right there in the Bill of Rights, on the first page, where it says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. That includes reporting and commentary that some people, even disgraced former Army officers who try to remove duly elected presidents, disagree with.

It’s embarrassing for Vindman that this needs to be spelled out for him, but “protected speech” under the First Amendment includes pretty much everything except a handful of specific situations, none of which remotely have to do with Carlson’s documentary.

For example, you can’t call for imminent lawless action (or incitement). You also can’t issue what’s called a “true threat,” which the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003 defined as “those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” Fighting words is another, quite limited category of unprotected speech that’s restricted to face-to-face interactions meant to provoke a violent reaction from the person being addressed. Not covered in any of these categories is, say, political reporting and commentary that Vindman doesn’t like. (Read more from “Turns Out Alexander Vindman Is The Dopey Hack We All Thought He Was” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.