It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is asking that every agency inspector general investigate retaliation against whistleblowers who report presidential misconduct, after the firing of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman from the National Security Council.
Schumer’s letters to 74 inspectors general, which will be sent Monday, comes after Vindman, a star witness in the House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, was removed from his position at the White House on Friday, along with his twin, Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, an ethics lawyer at the NSC.
Both brothers are active-duty Army officers and were reassigned to the Pentagon.
In a letter to Acting Inspector General Glenn Fine at the Defense Department, Schumer described the NSC firings as “part of a dangerous, growing pattern of retaliation against those who report wrongdoing only to find themselves targeted by the President and subject to his wrath and vindictiveness.”
The Pentagon Inspector General, Glenn Fine, has opened an investigation on James Baker, the director of the Defense Department’s Office of Net Assessment (ONA). Baker is a holdover from the Obama era and the investigation will probe charges that he is retaliating against a whistleblower.
Adam Lovinger is a senior ONA official and sources say he warned consultants about “rigged” contracts within the ONA. This included politically-connected deal such as one that Lovinger disclosed with a contractor who Chelsea Clinton has called her “best friend.”
Whistleblowers are protected under Presidential Policy Directive-19. It specifically states that it “prohibits retaliation against employees for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse.”
originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: Trueman
I do think that something should be done to limit retaliation against whistle-blowers. This could set a dangerous precident if not.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: lostbook
The issue with Vindman was his admission to not following the orders of the Commander in Chief, essentially running his own version of foreign policy in direct contradiction to Trump.
Now, Trump may have retaliated...but this fact alone give him miles of plausible deniability.
With Sondland...his essentially lying (at first attributing stuff to Trump, later retracting it saying it was what he believed to be true without any actual evidence to support him) is, again, worthy of being fired. Again...miles of plausible deniability.
If people would choose to avoid #resist tactics while in Trumps employ, they'd likely find themselves not being fired. Just my opinion. But i would have fired them both as well. And I have (arguably) far more integrity that Donald Trump.
Politicizing whistleblowers is a dangerous precendent.
originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: Trueman
I do think that something should be done to limit retaliation against whistle-blowers. This could set a dangerous precident if not.
Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman expects to serve out the remainder of his time on the National Security Council, according to his attorney.
"He is still there," White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham also confirmed to the Washington Examiner.
With Sondland...his essentially lying (at first attributing stuff to Trump, later retracting it saying it was what he believed to be true without any actual evidence to support him) is, again, worthy of being fired. Again...miles of plausible deniability.
originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: Trueman
I do think that something should be done to limit retaliation against whistle-blowers. This could set a dangerous precident if not.
originally posted by: xuenchen
Schumer, Pelosi, and several other Democrat "Leaders" need a forced psychiatric examination a.s.a.p. 😃 😎 😃