Lost amidst the midterm results was one huge victory for former President Donald Trump: Alexander Vindmanās Lawsuit against the former president was thrown out.
Remember Lt. Col. Vindman? Back in the day, he was the primary testimonial evidence against Trump when the then-president was accused of a quid pro quo with Ukraine and impeached. Hero of the resistance. Someone who would clearly prevail over the corrupt ex-president.
Except when he failed, of course.
According to The Hill, āa federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a Lawsuit brought by retired Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman that accused former President Trumpās eldest son Donald Trump Jr., Trump ally Rudy Giuliani and others of witness intimidation and retaliation related to Vindmanās congressional testimony against the former president.ā
Vindman testified that Trump instituted a quid pro quo for congressional funding funneled to a massively corrupt Ukrainian government. While this ended in an Impeachment vote and a stupidly solemn procession of the articles of Impeachment to the Senate, nobody seemed to be convinced.
He filed a lawsuit in February claiming āa group of conspirators formed an agreement to intimidate and unlawfully retaliate against himā in violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, according to federal documents.
Judge James Boasberg dismissed Vindmanās Lawsuit on Tuesday in a 29-page ruling, arguing the plaintiff had been unable to make a strong argument against the defendants ā former President Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and others.
Boasberg, one of former President Barack Obamaās appointees to the U.S. District Court in Washington, was not impressed. In his ruling, he found that there was no āadequate showingā that anyone named in his Lawsuit conspired against him.
āPlaintiffās pled facts, taken as true, certainly suggest that Defendants leveled harsh, meanspirited, and at times misleading attacks against him,ā Boasberg wrote. āBut political hackery alone does not violate .ā
For those who forget, Vindman claimed that, during a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump offered a quid pro quo to the Ukrainian leader: Investigate Joe and Hunter Bidenās dealings in the country or lose aid.
Never mind that there hadnāt evenĀ been aid under the Obama administration, which happily let Crimea fall to Russia. This was Serious Stuffā¢ and deserved Impeachment.
āThe alleged deal involved an exchange of U.S. Military aid for an investigation into then-Democratic presidential candidate Joe Bidenās son, Hunter Biden, and his ties to Ukrainian businesses during the run-up to the 2020 presidential election,ā The Hill claimed.
āVindman was serving as director for European affairs at the National Security Council (NSC) at the time of Trumpās July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and promptly raised concerns about the discussion with the NSCās lead counsel, leading to his eventual subpoena by Congress.ā
Vindman testified, we got a made-for-TV Impeachment process, and then we got this:
Very Seriousā¢.
Three years on, Vindman and his defenders did nothing but lower the bar for Impeachment. They searched for the crime and then pretended they found it. They rended their garments and gnashed their teeth.
And what did it all come to? Nothing.
Vindman doubtlessly has other legal maneuvers in his pocket. He shouldnāt use them.
This has the scent of a hoax, and that scent has persisted since 2019. Thanks for the advice, Alexander.
As for an actual case, a court rejected it. That should tell you all you need to know about Vindmanās effort. Nice distraction.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.