Lost amidst the midterm results was one huge victory for former President Donald Trump: Alexander Vindman’s lawsuit against the former president was thrown out.
Remember Lt. Col. Vindman? Back in the day, he was the primary testimonial evidence against Trump when the then-president was accused of a quid pro quo with Ukraine and impeached. Hero of the resistance. Someone who would clearly prevail over the corrupt ex-president.
Except when he failed, of course.
According to The Hill, “a federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit brought by retired Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman that accused former President Trump’s eldest son Donald Trump Jr., Trump ally Rudy Giuliani and others of witness intimidation and retaliation related to Vindman’s congressional testimony against the former president.”
Vindman testified that Trump instituted a quid pro quo for congressional funding funneled to a massively corrupt Ukrainian government. While this ended in an impeachment vote and a stupidly solemn procession of the articles of impeachment to the Senate, nobody seemed to be convinced.
He filed a lawsuit in February claiming “a group of conspirators formed an agreement to intimidate and unlawfully retaliate against him” in violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, according to federal documents.
Judge James Boasberg dismissed Vindman’s lawsuit on Tuesday in a 29-page ruling, arguing the plaintiff had been unable to make a strong argument against the defendants — former President Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and others.
Boasberg, one of former President Barack Obama’s appointees to the U.S. District Court in Washington, was not impressed. In his ruling, he found that there was no “adequate showing” that anyone named in his lawsuit conspired against him.
“Plaintiff’s pled facts, taken as true, certainly suggest that Defendants leveled harsh, meanspirited, and at times misleading attacks against him,” Boasberg wrote. “But political hackery alone does not violate [the law at issue].”
For those who forget, Vindman claimed that, during a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump offered a quid pro quo to the Ukrainian leader: Investigate Joe and Hunter Biden’s dealings in the country or lose aid.
Never mind that there hadn’t even been aid under the Obama administration, which happily let Crimea fall to Russia. This was Serious Stuff™ and deserved impeachment.
“The alleged deal involved an exchange of U.S. military aid for an investigation into then-Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and his ties to Ukrainian businesses during the run-up to the 2020 presidential election,” The Hill claimed.
“Vindman was serving as director for European affairs at the National Security Council (NSC) at the time of Trump’s July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and promptly raised concerns about the discussion with the NSC’s lead counsel, leading to his eventual subpoena by Congress.”
Vindman testified, we got a made-for-TV impeachment process, and then we got this:
After Speaker Pelosi signs the Articles of Impeachment against Donald Trump, the procession of the House clerk and seven House managers starts as they walk the articles of impeachment through the Rotunda of the Capitol to the Senate. pic.twitter.com/hXsqrKJhO5
— Amee Vanderpool (@girlsreallyrule) January 16, 2020
Three years on, Vindman and his defenders did nothing but lower the bar for impeachment. They searched for the crime and then pretended they found it. They rended their garments and gnashed their teeth.
And what did it all come to? Nothing.
Vindman doubtlessly has other legal maneuvers in his pocket. He shouldn’t use them.
This has the scent of a hoax, and that scent has persisted since 2019. Thanks for the advice, Alexander.
As for an actual case, a court rejected it. That should tell you all you need to know about Vindman’s effort. Nice distraction.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.