Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-New York) today repeated an old smear of LTC Anthony Vindman, to wit: that Vindman circumvented his chain of command when raising concerns about Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Plus, Zeldin charged, Vindman told the whistleblower about the call and then lied to Congress when asked whether he knows the whistleblower. These charges are, first and foremost, a complete diversion from the sum and substance of the impeachment hearings.
The impeachment hearings focused on whether President Trump tried to get a foreign government (Ukraine’s) to investigate a domestic political rival, Joe Biden, while using Congressionally-authorized aid as leverage to secure such an investigation.
The impeachment hearings proved conclusively that this was, in fact, the case, and Republican members of Congress know that that’s the case. So, rather than contest these basic facts, or objective reality, they have homed in on completely irrelevant side issues to try and divert attention away from Trump’s obvious culpability and wrongdoing.
Thus Zeldin’s charges against Vindman.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) leveled these same charges while adding a new one, to wit: that Vindman raised concerns about the phone call because he objected to Trump’s foreign policy vis-a-vis Ukraine.
Again, given the importance of U.S. civil-military relations and how poorly understood these relations are, even within the U.S. military, it is important to review these charges and explain why they are completely false.
First, did Vindman circumvent the chain of command? Zeldin and Blackburn note that Tony Morrison was Vindman’s supervisor. Yet, Vindman did not first notify Morrison before contacting National Security Council (NSC) lawyers to express concerns that he (Vindman) had about Trump’s phone call with Zelensky.
Therefore, viola! Vindman circumvented his chain of command and was insubordinate.
Not so fast. While the chain of command is clear, explicit, and unambiguous in a war zone, it is typically more porous and flexible in a politicized and bureaucratic work environment.
A squad of Marines under fire in Fallujah, for instance, need to know—to the man—who, exactly, they are accountable to. Staff officers working on the National Security Council in Washington, D.C., by contrast, typically have many masters and more complex, multifaceted work relationships.
While Tony Morrison may have been Vindman’s immediate supervisor, he no doubt was one of many people Vindman worked directly for and with. Plus: the military sometimes gives U.S. servicemen and women explicit authorization to bypass their chain of command on matters involving sensitive personal or legal matters.
For example, if a member of the U.S. military is sexually assaulted, they are told explicitly that they can reach out to a myriad of people, and not just their immediate supervisor in the chain of command.
Given the sensitive nature of the president’s phone call, and the myriad political, legal, and policy issues that it raised, it is entirely reasonably to think that Vindman believed he had authority to reach out directly to NSC lawyers with his concerns.
Morrison, moreover, was a career Capitol Hill politico and Trump political appointee who seemed more concerned about protecting the president than in adhering to the rule of law and preventing presidential wrongdoing.
In fact, during the impeachment hearings, Morrison told Congress that “I feared at the time of the call, on July 25, how its disclosure would play in Washington’s political environment.”
Morrison had been on the NSC for more than a year, but had been Vindman’s supervisor for only six days at the time of the phone call. Vindman no doubt understood that his new boss was a domestic political hack and Trump apologist. He therefore might reasonably have concluded that he needed to reach out to the NSC lawyers directly and without interference from Morrison.
This is not insubordination; it is prudence and wisdom—and that is something the U.S. military expects of its leaders and officers. Indeed, we expect our military men and women to exercise sound and prudential judgement, and not to be automatons who mindlessly follow orders and slavishly follow their immediate supervisors no matter what.
So no: Vindman did not circumvent the chain of command, and he was not insubordinate. He was thoughtful, prudential, and tactical in what he did and how he did it. The U.S. military at least respects that.
Second, did Vindman tell the whistleblower about Trump’s call, and then lie to Congress when asked whether he knows the whistleblower?
Zeldin and other Trump apologists note that Vindman, upon advice of his counsel, refused to identify the intelligence community official with whom he discussed the call. And, when asked to name that person, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) quickly interjected and instructed Vindman not to answer that question if doing so might reveal the identity of the whistleblower.
Therefore, they conclude, Vindman must know the whistleblower; otherwise, why would he not answer the question?
Again, not so fast. Here’s what most likely happened and why it is entirely reasonable to conclude that Vindman truthfully told Congress he does not know the whistleblower:
Vindman discussed the call with the person now known to the House Intelligence Committee as the whistleblower. However, Vindman did not then know, nor was he subsequently told, that that person is the whistleblower. After all, it’s not as if the whistleblower wears a neon sign around his neck identifying himself as “The Whistleblower.”
Instead, the whistleblower sought and received anonymity as the law allows, and did not draw attention to himself.
Thus it is entirely reasonable to believe that when Vindman spoke with the whistleblower, he knew him only as a colleague and not as “The Whistleblower.” And it is entirely reasonable to believe that Vindman never asked that colleague whether he is the whistleblower.
Knowing who the whistleblower is, after all, would not help Vindman; it would hurt him, as the charges leveled by Zeldin and Blackburn show—though if he had to hazard a guess as to who the whistleblower is, Vindman probably would guess right.
Still, the reality is: Vindman does not know the whistleblower, because the whistleblower no doubt never identified himself as such to Vindman. So no, Vindman did not lie to Congress. He answered honestly and forthrightly, as the law demands.
Third, did Vindman raise concerns about Trump’s call because, as Blackburn alleges, he had a policy dispute with the president? No, of course not. We debunked this canard in a separate article about the smearing of Vindman:
Obviously the president (and Congress) decide U.S. foreign policy. No one—including Vindman—disputes that. That’s never been at issue.
Indeed, Vindman did not raise concerns about Trump’s phone call because he disagreed with Trump’s policy, or the policy of the U.S. government vis-a-vis Ukraine. To the contrary: he was an enthusiastic supporter and executor of that policy.
Instead, he raised concerns because it appeared to him that Trump was demanding that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent (Joe Biden), and because he believed that such a demand would undermine stated and long-standing U.S. foreign policy.
Unfortunately, it takes some time and effort to explain all this and to defend the honor and integrity of LTC Vindman. Yet, it takes almost no time at all for Trump, Zeldin, Blackburn and other agents of disinformation to smear the man. But at least because of the impeachment hearings, all of us can know the truth.
Feature photo credit: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via the Washington Post.
