Another enemy of the state in the crosshairs

The Army intends to fully support the officer who is testifying in the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump.

Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a combat veteran and a Purple Heart recipient, serves on the National Security Council. On Tuesday, he went before Congress after being subpoenaed by the House Intelligence Committee.

Without referring to Vindman by name, Trump has repeatedly accused him of having a political axe to grind by describing him as a "Never Trumper witness."

"Lt. Col. Vindman, who has served this country honorably for 20+ years, is fully supported by the Army like every Soldier, having earned a Purple Heart after being wounded in Iraq in 2004," Matt Leonard, an Army spokesperson, told Task & Purpose.

When Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman appeared before members of Congress on Tuesday to discuss what he knew about President Trump’s conversations with Ukraine’s president, he was violating an order from his commander in chief not to cooperate with the House’s impeachment inquiry.

He is likely protected from legal ramifications from showing up to testify, a former Army judge advocate told Military Times on Thursday. But it remains to be seen whether what he told legislators could get him charged with a crime ― and, of course, how his choice to rebel against his White House chain-of-command will affect his career.

“It’s not far-fetched,” Sean Timmons, a managing partner at Tully Rinckey, said. “It’s a murky issue.”

It comes down to whether Trump’s order was lawful, he said. If Trump was trying to prevent Vindman from sharing sensitive information, it could be. If he was trying to prevent testimony, period, it’s not.

The Military Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits government officials from interfering with a member of the military in communicating with Congress or an inspector general. Adding to the complexity is that the president gets to determine what is and isn’t classified.

“If the president were to order the lieutenant colonel not to testify, that would not be a lawful order,” Timmons said. “However, it gets tricky, because you have to obey orders unless it is manifestly unlawful. It’s not clear if such an order would be manifestly unlawful if the president is using his executive authority to prohibit the communication of information that the executive branch determines to be classified, sensitive, top secret, not to be disclosed to anyone without prior authorization.”
In any case, Vindman’s testimony would need to be limited to avoid disclosing anything out of order, Timmons said.

The White House’s impeachment inquiry policy is laid out in an Oct. 8 letter from its senior counsel, Pat Cipollone, calling the investigation invalid and unconstitutional.