Disclaimer: This article may contain the personal views and opinions of the author.
Retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the former National Security Council aide who was a primary witness in the first impeachment of former President Donald Trump, filed a lawsuit in February 2022 against Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani, former Deputy White House Communications Director Julia Hahn, and former deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino.
Vindmin alleged that the four named in the suit engaged in a conspiracy of witness intimidation over his testimony in then-President Donald Trump’s 2019 impeachment.
Vindman had firsthand information on the July 2019 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He was one of the officials on the call.
In Vindman’s lawsuit, he claims that Donald Trump Jr. and the others were involved in “an intentional, concerted campaign of unlawful intimidation and retaliation” over his role in Trump’s impeachment.
“This campaign of intimidation and retaliation has had severe and deeply personal ramifications for Lt. Col. Vindman,” Vindman’s lawsuit says. “It also left a stain on our democracy.”
The lawsuit alleges that the four violated sections 1 and 2 of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. Part of the act was intended to bar threats or intimidation against government officials carrying out their constitutional duties.
Federal Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., recently ruled on the case. He said that Vindman’s allegations did not give him a legal basis to sue.
In the 29-page ruling, Boasberg wrote:
“Plaintiff’s 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.”
“While it is a fairly close question.
“Vindman’s facts do not plausibly suggest that Defendants agreed to intimidate him so as to prevent him from testifying or doing his job, or to unlawfully retaliate against him.”
“The Court does not decide the validity of those attacks, regardless of whether some were outside the bounds of appropriate political discourse.
“As a limited-purpose public figure Vindman was a man in the arena.
“Defendants may have played ugly, but Vindman does not plead facts suggesting that they acted with actual malice,” the court said.
Harmeet Dhillon, the attorney whose firm was representing Donald Trump, Jr. and Dan Scavino, celebrated the ruling by tweeting, “BOOM! In other news, our firm’s clients @DonaldJTrumpJr & @DanScavino just got Alex Vindman’s bogus lawsuit dismissed. Court said their criticisms were harsh, but not a civil rights conspiracy. Congrats to our clients and thanks to my awesome Dhillon Law colleagues on the win!”
A lot of responses to Harmeet Dhillon’s tweet were positive with many thanking her for doing “great work for our Republic.”
Dhillon is the founder of Dhillon Law and the founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Center for American Liberty. She is a regular Fox News guest and the national committeewoman for the Republican National Committee.