Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council’s director for European Affairs, deserves better from conservatives.
My colleague Tiana Lowe rightly condemned the original conservative furor over Vindman’s testimony. But following Friday’s release of the transcript of that testimony, conservatives on Twitter are again attacking the Army combat veteran. In a series of tweets, The Federalist’s Sean Davis suggested the transcript shows Vindman was “evasive and argumentative.” Others on Twitter joined the fray.
In reading throught the testimony of Alexander Vindman, I’m struck by how evasive and argumentative Vindman and his criminal defense attorney are during questioning. And how desperate Schiff and his staff are to prevent witnesses from answering certain questions. pic.twitter.com/eers6TvKII
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) November 8, 2019
But their assessments are wrong.
The transcript actually shows Vindman becoming occasionally frustrated at repeated Republican attempts, implicit but obvious, to undermine his character and question his motives. And the problem here is that Vindman was quite clear about his motives.
Testifying under oath, Vindman referenced a July 10 White House meeting with officials from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. In that meeting, Vindman says, Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland made clear to the Ukrainians that they would have to commit to investigating Hunter Biden if they wanted a White House visit. Vindman testified as to why that was a problem in terms of a Ukranian political tradition, which expects corrupt quid pro quo arrangements, and in terms of a White House push for a politically motivated investigation of a U.S. citizen. Vindman explained that he confronted Sondland to this effect after that meeting.
On the July 25 phone call between President Trump and Zelensky, which sits at the heart of the impeachment investigation, Vindman drew specifics as to why he regarded Trump’s conduct as problematic, and why he reported it as such. Vindman also noted differences between the White House transcript of that call and his recollection of its actual content. Throughout the transcript, Vindman accurately identifies the U.S. national security interest in supporting Ukraine, and the strategic context of systemic Russian attacks against it.
The Republican questioners had little interest in breaking down this testimony.
Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio was actually fair to Vindman and asked pointed questions, but he was the rare exception. Instead, just as Democrats at the hearing were trying to extract from Vindman whatever they could portray as most damaging to Trump, Republicans such as Rep. John Ratcliffe sought to undermine Vindman’s character. Ratcliffe also told the hearing that Zelensky truly believes his comment that he felt no pressure from Trump, but this is extraordinarily unlikely.
Regardless, the key here is that Vindman’s testimony suggests he was honest and direct in relaying his thinking at the time and now. Where he was not direct, it was because Republicans were pushing him to identify the whistleblower or privileged discussions with other officials on the National Security Council. Vindman is understandably unwilling to identify the whistleblower due to his responsibility to the government’s whistleblower identity protocols.
The efforts of these conservatives put them in poor company. Putin’s propaganda outlets are also focusing fire on Vindman. That’s no surprise. They want to destroy anyone who values democracy more than Putinism.
But if you’re still not convinced that Vindman deserves more respect, consider this line from Vindman’s opening statement. As the Soviet emigree turned American soldier put it, “Upon arriving in New York City in 1979, my father worked multiple jobs to support us, all the while learning English at night. … For many years, life was difficult. In spite of our challenging beginnings, my family worked to build its own American dream. I have a deep appreciation for American values and ideals and the power of freedom. I am a patriot.”
Until we have reason to doubt those words, they speak to a life of honorable and continuing national service.
