Laura Ingraham and law professor John Yoo suggested Purple Heart recipient Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman may be guilty of “espionage” for speaking out against Donald Trump’s betrayal of the United States.
As you probably know by now, The New York Times broke the news last night that Vindman, who listened in on Trump’s July 25th phone call with Ukraine’s President Zelensky would testify today:
Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman of the Army, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, twice registered internal objections about how Mr. Trump and his inner circle were treating Ukraine, out of what he called a “sense of duty,” he plans to tell the inquiry, according to a draft of his opening statement obtained by The New York Times.
So Laura Ingraham wasted no time smearing Vindman as anti-American. Ingraham never spent a moment putting her fanny in danger for the country. Nor did Yoo, though he worked to legalize torture by those who did. The two showed no compunction about accusing Vindman, who received a Purple Heart after being wounded in Iraq by a roadside bomb, of espionage. It was all in service to protecting President Bone Spurs who has openly betrayed the U.S.
The transcript below is via Media Matters. It does not convey Ingraham’s contemptuous laughter as she spoke about Vindman.
INGRAHAM: [G]et this, this is buried in the New York Times piece tonight, but I found it very interesting.
He's a decorated colonel, by the way, in the Iraq War -- but because Col. Vindman emigrated from Ukraine along with his family when he was a child and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian officials sought advice from him, about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani, though they typically communicated in English.
Now, wait a second, John. Here we have a U.S. national security official who is advising Ukraine, while working inside the White House, apparently against the president's interest, and usually, they spoke in English. Isn't that kind of an interesting angle on this story?
JOHN YOO: I find that astounding, and in -- you know, some people might call that espionage, but it doesn't actually seem to add any new facts to what we know.
Yoo, is not just any Trump loyalist throwing around unfounded smears against a patriot. He’s a professor at University of California’s Berkeley Law School as well as director of the school’s Korea Law Center, the California Constitution Center, and the Law School’s Program in Public Law and Policy.
It’s a minor point, but how is Yoo ‘astounded’ by something that “doesn’t actually seem to add any new facts”? Astonishment implies surprise at something new, as in: I am astounded at all of Yoo’s credentials that Ellen adduced; he is a disgrace to U. of Cal.
Re: Dershowitz’s claim that ‘Hamiliton said impeachment votes shouldn’t be partisan’: 1) The founders’ opposition to partisan impeachment was merely one facet of their opposition to partisanship in general, but that turned out to be unrealistic, quaintly naive, with regard to many key issues, including impeachment. 2) There are Republicans (Justin Amash, for sure) who will vote for impeachment, so it will not be “exactly” along partisan lines. Deshowitz’s claim also doesn’t say much for his (or Republicans’) openness to evidence.
Seriously, these idiots are attacking anything they can since the facts speak for themselves. Kinda hard to argue “he didn’t say that” when everybody else in the room says, “yup, he said that”.