Vindman’s Case Against Trump is Thrown Out… More Anti-Trump Lies Exposed
If you watch the news much, youâll know that former US President Donald Trump has had a steady flow of lawsuits, both federal and civil, being hurled at him over the last few years. Basically, ever since he announced his move into the political limelight, heâs been a target of the progressive and establishment left. Clearly, heâs a major threat to their agenda and all they hold dear.
Hell, heâs even been impeached not once but twice by the House of Representatives. Too bad no one else ever bought into all the hysteria. No one else except for retired Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman that is.
If you donât, this is the man responsible for the reason why Trump was supposedly impeached the first time.
According to him, Trump called up Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in 2019 to offer him a quid pro quo: Investigate Joe and Hunter Bidenâs not-so-honest business dealings in Ukraine and, more specifically, the company Burisma or lose all federal funding.
At the time, Biden was running for president against Trump, and finding dirt on his son Hunter no doubt would have or could have hurt his campaign and chances of winning. Of course, thanks to the media, we know thatâs not exactly true either.
The only problem was that Trump never had that conversation. Sure, he called the Ukrainian president on the day in question, but such an offer was never made. It couldnât have, as funding to Ukraine had never even existed, not even during Obamaâs tenure in the White House.
Of course, those facts didnât stop Vindman and others from trying to get Trump kicked out.
After Speaker Pelosi signs the Articles of Impeachment against Donald Trump, the procession of the House clerk and seven House managers starts as they walk the articles of impeachment through the Rotunda of the Capitol to the Senate. pic.twitter.com/hXsqrKJhO5
â Amee Vanderpool (@girlsreallyrule) January 16, 2020
Three years and a whole lot of failure against Trump later, and Vindman is apparently still not done with his attempts to stick it to Trump.
But yet again, Vindman doesnât have anything on Trump.
As The Hill recently reported, Vindman and another lawsuit against Trump, this one aimed at his supposedÂ âintimidation and retaliationâ of his and other witnesses during his failed 2019 case, has been struck down by a federal judge.
According to this most recent lawsuit Trump, Trumpâs oldest son Donald Trump Jr., Trump ally Rudy Giuliani and others pressured witnesses from the prior case, costing Vindman credibility during his congressional testimony against Trump.
The reason for his most recent failure?
Well, per the 29-page ruling issued by federal Judge James Boasberg, Vindman just didnât havenât enough evidence of Trump and or anyone else breaking any laws.
Boesberg, an Obama-appointed judge, said, âPlaintiffâs pled facts, taken as true, certainly suggest that Defendants leveled harsh, meanspirited, and at times misleading attacks against him. But political hackery alone does not violate (the law at issue).â
Now, itâs highly possible that even this ruling wonât deflect Vindman much.
After all, itâs been three years, and he still seems to be as sore as ever at Trump. Some close to the case have even already indicated that Vindman has other supposedly legal moves up his sleeve â all in the hopes of beating Trump.
But if this recent loss tells us anything, itâs that Vindman should have learned his lesson long ago. And that means future attacks on the former president shouldnât even be considered. Better to bow out with some modicum of dignity and grace before itâs too late.
Then again, maybe itâs already too late for that.
From the start, his actions against Trump have looked all too much like a hoax. And the fact that his efforts have been shot down not once but twice by federally appointed judges and officials only adds to that light.
Digging any further is only likely to end in the same result â his demise and utter defeat. Additionally, it only bolsters Trumpâs claims that he 1) didnât do anything wrong and 2) he didnât deserve the attacks rallied against him.
Of course, anyone in their right mind already knows all that.