More Now Calling to Court-Martial Lt. Col. Vindman

Here's more, from Newsmax:

Despite U.S. whistleblower protections and warnings against reprisals, a former Trump and Bush administration advisor believes Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman must be "court martialed" for speaking out against the president and violating his chain of command.

Christian Whiton tweeted Saturday:

"To protect the military from being seen as political, Vindman must be court martialed for speaking contemptuously of the President and violating the chain of command. The law isn't optional just because an officer hates his commander in chief."

Whiton is not the first one to call for Vindman answering to his violation of chain of command when he facilitated the whistleblower's complaint against President Donald Trump and subsequently testifying against the president in the House impeachment inquiry.

The Federalist co-founder Sean Davis tweeted in November:

"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-martialied under the UCMJ."

Even one of the Senate jurors took to Twitter this week to call out Vindman as a "political activist." Citing his commanding officer, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., tweeted:

"Vindman's commanding officer, Army Lt. Col. Jim Hickman: 'Do not let the uniform fool you. He is a political activist in uniform.'"

Blackburn then spoke out against Vindman to Fox News' "The Ingraham Angle":

"You look at what his commanders, Vindman's commanders, have said, and he has a problem with judgment," Blackburn told host Laura Ingraham this week. "That had been pointed out. He had one commander that said he is a political activist in uniform. He has had problems with going outside of his chain of command, which is exactly what he did here.

"And I talk to a lot of military members on a regular basis. They have a real problem with some of the things and the manner in which he conducted himself in this matter."

Vindman is a member of the National Security Council, which works in the West Wing of the White House. He was listening in on a call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy last July and said he was concerned about Trump's request that Ukraine investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of Trump's rivals in the upcoming election.

Vindman, a Ukrainian-American who worked his way through the military ranks before being posted to the White House in July 2018, testified during the House impeachment inquiry last fall and relayed his concerns to lawmakers. He received a Purple Heart for injuries in a roadside bomb during service in Iraq. His family came to the United States when he was a child.

Business Insider confirmed the story as well:

When Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman appeared before members of Congress on Tuesday to discuss what he knew about President Trump's conversations with Ukraine's president, he was violating an order from his commander in chief not to cooperate with the House's impeachment inquiry.

He is likely protected from legal ramifications from showing up to testify, a former Army judge advocate told Military Times on Thursday. But it remains to be seen whether what he told legislators could get him charged with a crime ― and, of course, how his choice to rebel against his White House chain-of-command will affect his career.

"It's not far-fetched," Sean Timmons, a managing partner at Tully Rinckey, said. "It's a murky issue."

It comes down to whether Trump's order was lawful, he said. If Trump was trying to prevent Vindman from sharing sensitive information, it could be. If he was trying to prevent testimony, period, it's not.

The Military Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits government officials from interfering with a member of the military in communicating with Congress or an inspector general. Adding to the complexity is that the president gets to determine what is and isn't classified.

"If the president were to order the lieutenant colonel not to testify, that would not be a lawful order," Timmons said. "However, it gets tricky, because you have to obey orders unless it is manifestly unlawful. It's not clear if such an order would be manifestly unlawful if the president is using his executive authority to prohibit the communication of information that the executive branch determines to be classified, sensitive, top secret, not to be disclosed to anyone without prior authorization."

In any case, Vindman's testimony would need to be limited to avoid disclosing anything out of order, Timmons said.

The White House's impeachment inquiry policy is laid out in an Oct. 8 letter from its senior counsel, Pat Cipollone, calling the investigation invalid and unconstitutional.

"Lt. Col. Vindman, who has served this country honorably for 20-plus years, is fully supported by the Army like every soldier, having earned a Purple Heart after being wounded in Iraq in 2004," Army spokesman Matt Leonard told Military Times on Thursday. "As his career assignments reflect, Lt. Col. Vindman has a long history of selfless service to his country, including combat. Lt. Col. Vindman is afforded all protections anyone would be provided in his circumstances."

A spokesman for the National Security Council, Vindman's official command, declined to comment on whether he might face an Article 15 investigation.

"So I think, ultimately, it would be a gray area for the officer in question," Timmons said. "What do I do here? Do I follow the president's directive and comply? Or do I follow my conscience?"

And on the other hand, he added, if he received a subpoena from Congress and failed to comply, he could face charges of conduct unbecoming an officer under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Beyond any possible legal fallout, Timmons added, it's more likely that Vindman has torpedoed his career by testifying before Congress.