Calls to court-martial Lt. Col. Vindman: ‘The law isn’t optional just because an officer hates his commander in chief’

(FBN video screenshot)

A former Trump administration adviser tweeted Saturday that U.S. Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman should be court-martialed for testifying against President Donald Trump.

“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,” former adviser Christian Whiton of the Center for the National Interest wrote. “The law isn’t optional just because an officer hates his commander in chief.”


He’s not the only one who’s expressed this opinion.


Nor was the tweet posted by Whiton on Saturday the first example of him pushing for Vindman’s potential court-martial.

Speaking with Fox Business Network host Lou Dobbs last November, he argued that Vindman’s behavior was a violation of military rules.

“You see Vindman, this bureaucrat who poured himself into an Army outfit to go and frankly speak contemptuous things against the commander-in-chief, incidentally, a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,” he said.

“If you did that as a private in the Army you would get court-martialed. I guess if you’re, you know, a never-Trump bureaucrat deep state crybaby you get away with it.”

Listen (disable your adblocker if the video doesn’t appear):

(Source: Fox Business Network)

Could the “super patriot” actually be court-martialed, though? The answer is highly complicated and extremely murky, meaning there is, in fact, no clear-cut answer.

Starting with the basics, when Vindman testified before Congress last year, he did so in violation of an order reportedly issued from up top.

“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,” the Military Times confirmed last October.

But he could potentially be “protected” from any negative repercussions for his decision “to rebel against his White House chain-of-command.” It just depends.

“It comes down to whether Trump’s order was lawful. … 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 Times further noted.

“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.”

But was he really a whistleblower? He bypassed the normal chain of command practiced by all military soldiers, including even whistleblowers. He admitted as much while testifying last year.

“In your deposition, you emphasize the importance of chain of command. You were a direct report to Dr. Fiona Hill and then Mr. Tim Morrison and they were your seniors, correct?” Republican Rep. Brad Wenstrup asked him at the time.

“That is correct,” Vindman replied.

“When you had concerns about the 7/25 call between the two presidents, you didn’t go to Mr. Morrison about that, did you?” Wenstrup pressed.

“I immediately went to John Eisenberg, the [National Security Council’s] lead legal counsel,” the “super patriot” admitted.

“That doesn’t seem like chain of command,” Wenstrup replied.


Speaking with Fox News host Laura Ingraham last Thursday, Sen. Marsha Blackburn noted that both his commanders and his peers have had complaints about his behavior.

“You look at what his commanders said — he has a problem with his judgment,” she said. “That’s been pointed out. He had one commander who said he is a political activist in uniform. He has had problems with going outside of his chain of command, which is what he did here.”

“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.”


The Department of Defense has for its part pledged to protect Vindman.

In a statement to Senate Minority leader Charles Schumer issued last month, the department pledged that it “will not tolerate any act of retaliation or reprisal” against Vindman.

It’s not clear whether attempting to hold the “super patriot” accountable for his alleged breach of basic military rules would necessarily constitute “retaliation or reprisal.”


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Vivek Saxena


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles