The Democrats and the legacy media were braying incessantly about the reassignment of the Vindman twins from the National Security Council on Friday. Here is Chuck Schumer’s tweet ascribing that action to the ongoing “cover-up” by the President – cover-up being the word he regularly uses when complaining about the President’s acquittal on the Democrats’ bogus articles of impeachment:
The Pentagon assured me that patriots & whistleblowers like LTC Vindman will be protected.
Any reprisals against him or others who came forward to tell the truth are wrong and should be seen for what they are:
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) February 7, 2020
Here’s former Obama operative and now CNN talking head (of course!) Jim Sciutto caterwauling about a perfectly legal action by the President:
We asked if the president would feel liberated after the senate acquittal. And here’s the answer: he appears to be firing anyone who testified against him (and under oath by the way): Vindman, his brother, and now Sondland.
— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) February 7, 2020
And here’s the trifecta: a tweet from conspiracy queen Rachel Maddow citing a DiFi statement in the usual anti-Trump article in the Washington Post:
“Feinstein says firings are ‘as clear a case of retribution’ as she’s seen in 27 years as a senator” https://t.co/oHKqA7SKdO
— Rachel Maddow MSNBC (@maddow) February 8, 2020
What part about the fact that the National Security Council staff – part of the Executive Branch – serve at the pleasure of the President and can be removed/reassigned/fired at any time for any reason don’t they get? The Vindmans were clearly and actively undermining the President’s foreign policy; LTC Vindman admitted as much during his own testimony before the House Intelligence Committee!
On Friday night, Laura Ingraham interviewed Dinesh D’Souza (author of several excellent books and producer of some outstanding documentaries!) and Lee Smith, author of the new book, The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History, about their opinions on the firings of the Vindman twins. Here is some of that Q&A:
Ingraham: You and I have actually talked about this before – about LTC Vindman and others like him who find themselves … I guess they can’t stand the fact that they’re not sitting in the Oval Office themselves. So how is reassigning a bureaucrat worse than what the mob does to people [as some in the media have been claiming]?
D’Souza: Well, I remember distinctly from The Godfather that when Frank Pentangeli planned and was part of a coup against the boss, he expected recriminations. He didn’t think that he could try to take the big guy out and not expect there to be any consequences. Now the thing about Vindman is that Vindman was – if we can step back from this and look at it – he was part of an attempted sort of palace coup. The coup was mounted from the outside by the House, but it strikes me from the beginning how the impeachment was essentially power-driven. The Democrats had the majority in the House; they voted impeachment. The Republicans had the majority in the Senate; they voted it down. So, Vindman was part of the inside operation working with these outsiders to overthrow the President. The plot failed; the plot was defeated. Now Trump wants to clean house. If you want to call it payback, I say it’s very necessary payback.
Ingraham: The President has a right to have people that he wants to work in his administration. That’s why he’s the chief executive officer of the Executive Branch. I don’t know why people can’t understand that. Now Lee, at one point during his public testimony, Vindman sort of bragged about being asked to be defense minister [of Ukraine]. (shows video of Vindman’s testimony about that) False humility. And remember Vindman snapped at a sitting member of Congress (shows video of Vindman correcting Devin Nunes for not referring to his rank) Lee, the colonel is amazing. He was asked to be the defense minister of another country, which indicates what? That the other country thinks he’s a good advocate for THEIR interests?
Smith: This is not a common thing that happens all the time in Washington, for all that we say about the swamp and for everyone protecting strange interests and their own pet interests in Washington. Nonetheless, that is not a common thing.
Ingraham: … He doesn’t deserve a life-tenured position in the White House just because he went and testified. They want to say it’s witness retaliation under the witness protection federal statute. So they’re going to have to prove Trump intended to interfere with someone’s employment – that he intended to do that as chief executive? Good luck with proving that.
Smith: That’s not a human right to work in the White House or to work in any administration. Obviously, it’s up to the President to make the call, and I think it was an excellent decision part of an excellent week for the President to now – this is not retaliation; it’s the sound foundation of a national security strategy to makes sure he has the people on board to implement this strategy. He’s had many fantastic achievements the last three years, whether it’s getting out of the Iran deal, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the trade deals … and now he should set the foundations for more foreign policy accomplishments, whether it’s the rest of this term or his second term.
Ingraham: But you gotta have people on staff who are with you on policy, as Robert O’Brien, who is fantastic as the National Security Adviser … he has some good people in place now. But he had some doozies who were burrowed in there, and some who were appointees who were, frankly, NeverTrumpers. (playing a video in which Vindman’s boss confirmed that he had reservations about Vindman’s judgment and who Vindman was talking with, including not always adhering to the chain of command and leaking information) Dinesh, so he could have been removed and frankly should have been removed were it not for his testimony for cause because he went right to Zelensky. He as a junior staffer on the NSC when to a foreign president and started waving him off on what he thought was inappropriate conduct.
D’Souza: Vindman was actually telling the Ukrainians that they could ignore what Trump was saying and indicating on the grounds that Trump was somehow contradicting US policy. Think about this. According to Vindman, there is a thing called US policy that he, Vindman, is the spokesman for, and Trump is sort of out of synch – he’s marching out of tune. In reality, Trump MAKES policy … Vindman should be advising Trump. If Vindman disagrees with Trump, he should tell Trump. So this is a rogue officer, and no wonder he became such a useful idiot for impeachment because after all, this was a guy that always thought that he knew better than the President.
Ingraham: They’re concerned tonight, Lee, because his brother – his poor brother – why did he get dragged into this … apparently, they’re two peas in a pod, and they’re on the same anti-Trump team.
Smith: Look, one of the important things that I think that we have to understand is, this is a continuation of the operation that’s been going on for three years. I think as good as a week that this has been for the President, we need to understand this will happen again. We know who will be involved. It will be rogue intelligence officials; it will be the press, and it will most likely be Adam Schiff. The way to defend against this is for the Republican Senate to run an offense here. Let’s have investigations. Find out how these operations were conducted.
Ingraham: A friend of mine I was meeting with today said that another guy who he knows in DC – a good friend of his – works for the CIA – trashes Trump all the time. A guy who was so senior he was stationed overseas for three years, and at a very high level. He can’t stand the President and makes fun of him every day. So these are the types of people who are working in the government.
An excellent Q&A that exploded the Democrat’s narrative on the reassignment of the Vindmans! To summarize:
- Vindman was part of the Democrats’ “inside game” in the impeachment gambit against the President; he was a natural pawn given his disagreement with the President’s foreign policy
- Vindman should have been fired for cause for directly undermining President Trump with President Zelensky, as well as for ignoring the chain of command and unauthorized leaking
- Vindman’s actions were just an extension of the ongoing 3-year soft coup against the President
- The President makes foreign policy, and the bureaucracy carries it out – not the other way around
- The only way to stop the Democrats is for the Republican Senate to launch investigations of their own into the activities of the coup, Democrat corruption in Ukraine, etc.
- The federal bureaucracy at senior levels – especially the CIA – is riddled with anti-Trump people aren’t afraid at all of voicing their personal disdain for the President (no fear of retribution for doing so, which highlights how rampant those attitudes are)
- The bottom line: the members of the National Security Council serve at the pleasure of the President and can be reassigned/fired at any time