Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council aide who testified against President Trump during the impeachment inquiry, has been removed from his White House job.
On Friday afternoon, Vindman was escorted out of the White House, his lawyer said, a dismissal that came as Trump continue to rage against the attempt to remove him from office.
“There is no question in the mind of any American why this man’s job is over, why this country now has one less soldier serving it at the White House,” David Pressman, Vindman’s attorney said in a statement. “LTC Vindman was asked to leave for telling the truth. His honor, his commitment to right, frightened the powerful.”
Pressman said Vindman will return to work at the Defense Department until he reports to the Army War College in July.
Vindman, who testified during House Democrats’ impeachment hearings, had already informed senior officials at the NSC that he intended to leave his post early — by the end of the month, according to people familiar with his decision. But Trump was eager to make a symbol of the Army officer soon after the Senate acquitted him of the impeachment charges.
Trump has complained about Vindman in private, mocking the way he spoke, wore his uniform and conducted himself during the impeachment inquiry, according to people familiar with his remarks. He has also discussed with aides removing other national security officials who testified or cooperated with House Democrats, calling them disloyal.
Pressman cast Vindman’s dismissal as vindictive and punitive, and blasted Trump’s decision.
“He did what any member of our military is charged with doing every day: He followed orders, he obeyed his oath, and he served his country, even when doing so was fraught with danger and personal peril,” Pressman said. “And for that, the most powerful man in the world — buoyed by the silent, the pliable, and the complicit — has decided to exact revenge. LTC Alexander Vindman leaves the White House today. But we must not accept the departure of truth, duty, and loyalty that he represents.”
President Trump is withdrawing his nomination for former U.S. attorney for D.C. Jessie Liu to serve as the Treasury Department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial crimes, a top position overseeing economic sanctions, according to two sources with direct knowledge.
The big picture: Liu was confirmed in September 2017 to lead the largest U.S. attorney's office in the country, overseeing a number of politically charged prosecutions that included the case against Trump associates Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and other spinoffs from the Mueller investigation.
Liu stepped down from the U.S. attorney's office last month after Trump announced his intention to nominate her to the Treasury position in December 2019.
Liu was expected to stay in her position through her confirmation — with a hearing before the Senate Banking Committee scheduled for this Thursday — but was unexpectedly informed last month that Attorney General Bill Barr was replacing her with his close adviser Timothy Shea.
She was informed that Trump was pulling her nomination Tuesday afternoon.
Behind the scenes: This was "the president's call," according to a former administration official familiar with the situation. The decision, which was made today, has administration officials questioning the circumstances that led to Trump changing his mind — with the developments in the Roger Stone case today being the only new information they are aware of.
Read a snippet that the DOJ is looking for reasons to charge Vindman with some sort of criminal, trumped up (!) charge.... stay tuned.
If Vindman disclosed the contents of a classified conversation to a third party (i.e. the whistle blower) without a "need to know" then he should face a court martial where he can present any mitigating facts. The fact that the President later declassified the conversation in no way lets Vindman off the hook.
Posts: 976 | Location: Northern California | Registered: 18 July 2005
Read a snippet that the DOJ is looking for reasons to charge Vindman with some sort of criminal, trumped up (!) charge.... stay tuned.
If Vindman disclosed the contents of a classified conversation to a third party (i.e. the whistle blower) without a "need to know" then he should face a court martial where he can present any mitigating facts. The fact that the President later declassified the conversation in no way lets Vindman off the hook.
I thought Vindman testified under oath that he does not know the identity of the whistleblower.
-------------------------------- When the world wearies and society ceases to satisfy, there is always the garden - Minnie Aumônier
Posts: 38222 | Location: Somewhere in the middle | Registered: 19 January 2010
I thought Vindman testified under oath that he does not know the identity of the whistleblower.
THIS VIDEO shows Vindman testifying about telling a third person who is presumably the whistle blower as Shiff cuts off the testimony. Vindman claims "need to know" for the mystery person but that seems unlikely.
Posts: 976 | Location: Northern California | Registered: 18 July 2005
I saw it when it happened and was surprised to see how people interpreted afterwards what went on. Seems like a lot of speculation and not how I viewed it at all.
edit: It seems that the smoking gun is never universal in today's world.
But Vindman said he doesn't know the identity of the whistleblower, right?
-------------------------------- When the world wearies and society ceases to satisfy, there is always the garden - Minnie Aumônier
Posts: 38222 | Location: Somewhere in the middle | Registered: 19 January 2010
