26

The BBC writes

As the testimony was due to begin, Mr Trump suggested Col Vindman was a "Never Trumper witness" in a tweet.

But there's no evidence mentioned in support of that statement in that BBC article. So, is that Trump tweet a figurative statement or did Vindman sign one of those "Never Trump" letters/pledges?

Or more generally, what other "never Trump" act has Vindman done besides disagreeing with the idea that Ukraine investigating the Bidens (first at Sondland's and later at Trump's request) was in the US national security interest (and then testifying to Congress about those occurrences)?

(Aside: confusingly enough, Donald Trump Jr. implied Vindman was a "leftist" or at least "on their side".)

the gods from engineering
  • 158,594
  • 27
  • 390
  • 806
  • 4
    I am sorry, but what do you mean by "literal" evidence? After googling "types of evidence", I have not found anything which would show that this is a legal term. Do you mean "written" or "direct"? "Documentary" evidence seems to be the legalese term. – grovkin Oct 30 '19 at 09:31
  • @grovkin: By "literal" I mean Vindman saying/writing that Trump is/was not fit to be president, especially before this Ukraine issue. That was the main point of the "Never Trump" movement, as I understand it. – the gods from engineering Oct 30 '19 at 11:43
  • 3
    Shouldn't this be on Skeptics –  Oct 30 '19 at 12:57
  • 8
    @KDog: Lately, Skeptics doesn't like questions that involve the interpretation of political statements, especially when those statements don't involve science. Their main goal is to be a board for "scientific skepticism". It would have to be an unambiguous statement of fact (from Trump in this case) to work as a question on Skeptics. See https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/45184/does-turkey-make-the-structural-steel-frame-for-the-f-35-fighter for a contrast. Labelling people seldom qualifies. – the gods from engineering Oct 30 '19 at 13:07
  • 7
    This is such an odd question. Why would you ask whether there's evidence for anything Trump claims? https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/ – Black Nov 01 '19 at 02:13
  • @Black: apparently Trump tells the truth sometimes, even according to the source you mentioned. – the gods from engineering Nov 01 '19 at 15:48
  • @divibisan I felt Black's point was that we should put the burden of evidence where it belongs. If Trump has any evidence that Vindman was a "Never Trumper" then Trump can tweet it. Note that it would not make a whit of difference. Maybe Trump can prove Vindman wet his bed when he was 4 years old. – emory Nov 01 '19 at 21:36
  • @emory Yeah, I think you're right. It's hard to say when it's better to ignore or challenge these kinds of lies ... – divibisan Nov 01 '19 at 21:39
  • 2
    @Fizz: But usually only on the "stopped clock" principle :-( – jamesqf Nov 05 '19 at 16:33
  • I’m voting to close this question because any possibility of prejudiced motives in a testifier can only be relevant if it's known or probable that that testimony is false or inaccurate. The fact that testimony does not accord with an official's version of events does not establish such a probability, particularly not if such an official happens to be notoriously secretive and self-contradictory. – agc Sep 16 '20 at 00:08

4 Answers4

91

This comment is coming from the same President who called lifelong Republican Robert Mueller "a Democrat" for investigating him.

He doesn't use these words to mean what they mean. He consistently uses them as epithets to dehumanize anyone who doesn't support him. It is a cue for his in-group to consider these people 'outsiders' and 'nonbelievers'. 'Others' to be immediately distrusted.

"The Never Trumper Republicans, though on respirators with not many left, are in certain ways worse and more dangerous for our Country than the Do Nothing Democrats," Trump tweeted Thursday. "Watch out for them, they are human scum!"

'Human scum:' Donald Trump has harsh comments for 'Never Trumper' Republicans - USA Today

In the same way that "Fake News!" leads to his followers wearing shirts that promote the lynching of journalists.

Trump has provided no evidence for this specific claim. As of the writing of this answer, there does not appear to be any publicly available evidence of any sort of disqualifying personal bias on behalf of Vindman or other witnesses.

Attacking a source of information that has already been verified from multiple other sources, including his own administration, is entirely baseless anyway. It's a purely ad hominem attack that plays to the emotions of his most fervent followers.

Tal
  • 2,864
  • 15
  • 19
  • 6
    Can you add a citation/link where Trump called Mueller "a Democrat"? A bit of searching only found a Quora thread where that is stated, which is not the most reliable source. – the gods from engineering Oct 30 '19 at 13:43
  • 4
    While I tend to agree with the sentiments in this answer, most of it is unsupported opinion. That said, the 4th paragraph basically says it all: while we cannot prove a negative (that Vindman does not have significant relevant bias) there is currently no evidence to show that he is biased. – Beska Oct 30 '19 at 13:44
  • 39
    @Fizz Take it for what it is. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/975350027169206273 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/984053549742067712 The man's tweets barely count as English, but ad hominem is a consistent tactic that he uses to demonize anyone who questions him. – Tal Oct 30 '19 at 13:57
  • 1
    While there have been accounts where opponents have slain Pres. Trump in effigy in a variety of ways, should have some documentation/citation of promotion of the murder of journalists, or remove the claim – wolfsshield Oct 30 '19 at 19:26
  • 19
    @wolfsshield A brief Google search reveals this and this and this. – DJClayworth Oct 30 '19 at 19:58
  • 12
    Adding to @DJClayworth's citations for Trump rallies selling t-shirts endorsing lynching journalists, Trump himself has directly praised a Congressman who attacked a reporter for the attack itself, and refers to the news as an "enemy of the people" (a phrase whose historical usage is primarily Stalin referring to political opponents, and Nazi descriptions of Jews; in both cases leading to murders). – ShadowRanger Oct 31 '19 at 01:25
  • 2
    It is unreasonable and unnecessarily inflammatory to claim calling journalists "fake news" is to blame for the journalist lynching t-shirts. Professional journalists can be criticized for spreading fake news in America for the same reason that the government has no right to muzzle those journalists. In both cases it's about free speech. When people abuse their free speech to advocate violence (as Trump specifically didn't, but this T-shirt might), then those individuals are to be responsible for their own misdeeds. – WolfRevokCats Oct 31 '19 at 04:06
  • 3
    @Beska The question asks about him being a Never Trumper, not whether he is biased. Those are different questions. People should be free to advocate against political candidates without being labeled "biased" against them. – Acccumulation Oct 31 '19 at 04:46
  • 12
    @WolfRevokCats Trump has called for or endorced violence against Journalists or political opponents multiple times. – tim Oct 31 '19 at 10:44
  • 1
    @Acccumulation Fair enough. My point wasn't supposed to be about Vindman and whether or not he is biased...only that I thought the other paragraphs of the answer, which seem to be less supported, weakened what I thought was the important part. I probably could have been clearer. – Beska Oct 31 '19 at 12:27
  • 15
    @Beska While it is true that we could simply answer this question as "No, the president's statement is not factually true", that robs the reader of the important context regarding why he is lying and the consistent repeated pattern of his lies and behavior. I used a couple stand out examples that resonate. But this answer could easily cite dozens if we wanted to dredge through his history. This is not an isolated incident. Pretending that it is would be like describing a tree falling down without acknowledging that the forest fire raging around it is connected. – Tal Oct 31 '19 at 13:01
  • 3
    @Tal I see your point...but I'm not sure I agree (not 100% sure I disagree, either). I'm not sure if the goal should be to add context of the why. Certainly if you're trying to inform someone about the political situation as a whole, context is critical. If you're trying to answer a specific answerable question, on this type of SE site, it's not clear that surrounding context of "why" is helpful...but I would say that if it's included, it helps to support it with references, because otherwise it just makes the answer seem unsupported (even when the critical part is absolutely correct.) – Beska Oct 31 '19 at 15:06
  • @Tal (BTW, just so you know I'm not trying to attack the messenger...I +1'd the answer when it was at -2...so I'm definitely not at odds with the post as a whole...just my opinion on how to strengthen the answer further.) – Beska Oct 31 '19 at 15:10
  • 5
    @Beska I'm aware. I just wanted to say something to explain why I found the context important. Very often these instances are defended by being brushed off, "its not a big deal", "its just a turn of phrase", "he just misspoke", "he was kidding". But none of these are just on-off "mistakes". Its a consistent tactic that Trump uses virtually any time that he talks about someone he considers to be a political enemy. Whether its insulting nicknames to denigrate them, lies to attack their character, or baseless declarations that they are somehow conspiring against him. Its all the same pattern. – Tal Oct 31 '19 at 15:33
  • 3
    "dehumanize anyone who doesn't support him" Dehumanize? While Trump is certainly insulting and villifying his political opponents here, I don't see any attempt to dehumanize them. – eyeballfrog Oct 31 '19 at 16:05
  • 10
    @eyeballfrog When you tell your supporters to beat people who protest you. When you tell them that Democrats are evil lying conspirators. Journalists enemies of the state. That your opponents are foreigners, or even terrorists. When you support and openly praise conspiracy outlets that call your opponents demonically possessed pedophiles who want to kill Americans. Then yes, you can pack a lot of nasty dehumanizing associations into just calling someone a member of the group. The fact that he consistently then uses these words to apply to his own people who 'betray' him tells the whole story. – Tal Oct 31 '19 at 16:14
  • 3
    @Tal Find examples of Trump calling them things like "animals" or "vermin" and I'll be satisfied. I'd prefer if words had actual meanings. – eyeballfrog Oct 31 '19 at 16:20
  • 1
    @Tal, if you were to say “demonize” instead of “dehumanize,” there might be less argument. – WGroleau Oct 31 '19 at 16:28
  • 5
    @eyeballfrog For starters, you're moving the goalposts on the definition of the word 'dehumanizing'. He is 'othering' his opponents, that is how dehumanization works. But it doesnt really matter because he goes there literally all the time. Just do some research into his consistent usage of the word 'infest' to provoke disgust. Or perhaps his habit of calling people 'dogs'. Why provide one example when dozens are just a google search away? – Tal Oct 31 '19 at 16:35
  • 2
    @eyeballfrog: While I agree, simply as a matter of English usage, that "dehumanize" is the wrong word here, would Trump calling his critics "human scum" be a sufficient example for you? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/23/donald-trump-describes-republican-critics-human-scum/4076555002/ – jamesqf Oct 31 '19 at 17:04
  • 6
    Its probably a bad idea to encourage answers with this kind of tone in general, but I searched it in vain for a statement that was either incorrect or unfair. Sometimes, the truth is just ugly. Reluctant +1. – T.E.D. Oct 31 '19 at 17:47
  • I'm sorry, this isn't an answer, just a screed against Trump. –  Nov 05 '19 at 16:27
  • 3
    @K Dog: Unfortunately, any factual answer is going to wind up looking like "a screed against Trump". That's just the way things are. – jamesqf Nov 05 '19 at 16:35
  • https://twitter.com/RepLeeZeldin/status/1192186577084174336 This is going to leave a mark. –  Nov 06 '19 at 22:03
  • @KDog I bet Giuliani is getting a subpoena. ;) – JJJ Nov 06 '19 at 22:11
  • This will probably get lost in the comments, but I see Trump also called Mueller a "true Never Trumper" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbQC0zCS1bw – the gods from engineering Nov 16 '19 at 22:26
  • @Fizz Here are Trump's tweets that mention "never trumper" http://www.trumptwitterarchive.com/archive/never%20trumper/ttff. Apparently: Mueller's lawyer is a Never Trumper; Never Trumper Republican John Bellinger represents Never Trumper Diplomat Bill Taylor; the Trump Admin. has not stopped hiring Never Trumpers; many of the witnesses and their lawyers thus far are Never Trumpers. And "The Never Trumper Republicans, though on respirators with not many left, are in certain ways worse and more dangerous for our Country than the Do Nothing Democrats. Watch out for them, they are human scum!" – Lag Nov 17 '19 at 15:14
71

No, from ABC News (in reference to Ambassador Bill Taylor and Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman; emphasis mine):

Trump has repeatedly lambasted these officials sitting for depositions as “Never Trumpers” – he called the United States’ top diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Taylor, one, too – despite the fact that there’s no evidence they have political biases against Trump and despite both officials having long records of service for the United States.

JJJ
  • 39,094
  • 10
  • 121
  • 182
  • 2
    There's a second side to the coin here I'd like to see this answer address: Presumably a "Never Trumper" would not be found voluntarily working in the man's administration for years (thus lending it some of their own expertise and credibility). – T.E.D. Oct 31 '19 at 17:52
  • 3
    @T.E.D. I'm not sure if that reasoning holds per se. A conspiratorial person might say it's wise to stay to sabotage it from the inside. – JJJ Oct 31 '19 at 17:57
  • That's exactly the argument Trump is making of course. But I'm talking about plausible arguments that can sway a rational neutral party, not rhetorical fig-leaves for the invested True Believer. – T.E.D. Oct 31 '19 at 18:13
  • @T.E.D. but Trump doesn't need to sway a neutral party. He only needs to ensure most of his followers in the past stick with him. It's a numbers game (many senators up for reelection will look at polling numbers to see if they can afford voting against the president) and he still has the numbers. – JJJ Oct 31 '19 at 18:29
  • Of course he doesn't (at least not until next November). But the question was asking for evidence, and voluntarily working in the man's administration (even faithfully for 3 years), is pretty good evidence to the contrary. Yes, not proof, but pretty good evidence. – T.E.D. Oct 31 '19 at 18:35
  • 4
    @T.E.D. if you think so, please post that in a separate answer. I am not entirely sure if I agree, though I may if you can elaborate on the reasoning in an answer. – JJJ Oct 31 '19 at 18:38
  • 3
    Even a "Never Trumper" may willingly serve in a career (as opposed to an appointed) position viewing their service as to the Country and not being towards the man himself. – TimothyAWiseman Oct 31 '19 at 22:05
  • 2
    @T.E.D.: "Voluntarily working" might well not apply to Vindman. He's a military officer, and when you're in the military, you go where you're assigned. I think most of us who've spent time in the military have served under officers (or FTM Presidents) we disliked, or even thought incompetent. – jamesqf Nov 01 '19 at 02:19
  • @jamesqf and by the Peter principle that can be quite common, outside the military as well. – JJJ Nov 01 '19 at 02:22
  • @jamesqf - That is correct (although I suspect it isn't difficult to request a change in assignment from that post. Getting put on White House duty at that level isn't like a corporal getting assigned to a base in Nome.). However, there's a definite trend here of saying stuff like that about anyone who says anything less than complementary, including his own (ex)cabinet. At some point, the repeated claims simply quit being credible. – T.E.D. Nov 01 '19 at 11:56
  • 1
    @T.E.D.: Sure, at that level he could probably request a transfer, but OTOH as an intelligence officer who specialized in that area and speaks the language, where would he transfer to? Plus, as a career officer he might expect his posting, or related ones, to outlast the current administration. So like anyone in a similar situation, he might well see it as his duty to "suck it up", put up with the idiot in charge for a while and try to do the best he can for the country. – jamesqf Nov 01 '19 at 16:33
  • 1
    @jamesqf wouldn't bad leadership from the WH itself be a reason to stay at one's post (if allowed)? I mean, when you stay you can have some good influence on the situation, when all good people resign that only opens the way for a bad actor to replace fill those positions with people more to their liking. It's not like a company on which you've given up and move on, the US is their home and many will be invested in seeing it flourish. – JJJ Nov 01 '19 at 16:41
  • Might want to update the record on Taylor, as he's totally full of bs: https://twitter.com/RepLeeZeldin/status/1192186577084174336 –  Nov 06 '19 at 22:05
5

Is there evidence for Col. Vindman being a “Never Trumper”?

At the time of his testimony the answer was no per several other answers here, but there is now! Vindman is now a self-identified “Never Trumper”. Note however that the question was asked a year ago in an earlier context and this does not affect the several answers to the negative that were written at that time. This is a new development to an old issue, and people's views evolve as information is revealed and events unfold.

While the Atlantic's 2020-09-14 article Alexander Vindman: Trump Is Putin’s ‘Useful Idiot’ does not say so specifically, an interview with Vindeman in NBC News' Alexander Vindman says he's become a 'never-Trumper' says this:

Retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman says he’s “absolutely” become a "never-Trumper" after coming under relentless attack from President Donald Trump, telling NBC News’ Lester Holt that the White House leaked a classified memo about him to congressional Republicans in a bid to smear him.

In an interview airing Monday on "NBC Nightly News," Vindman says he’s speaking out publicly in hopes of encouraging Americans to “choose an alternative to what we have” in Trump.

Vindman says he “was not a never-Trumper before, I was nonpartisan,” echoing language he used during his pivotal testimony to Congress during the impeachment inquiry. But Vindman said that has changed “as the president's attacked and politicized me directly.”

“In taking a very sober view of where this president is taking this country, the divisions, the catering to our adversaries, the undermining of national security interests, that I am absolutely a never-Trumper,” Vindman says.

uhoh
  • 16,541
  • 3
  • 76
  • 172
  • 2
    An interesting addition, though maybe the question should be changed to capture the framing ("...'Never Trumper' in the period leading up to his whistle-blower testimony"), to avoid self-fulfillment ("I poked this dog with a stick 200 times. It snapped at me. THIS DANGEROUS DEEP-STATE DOG MUST BE PUT DOWN!") – Tom Goodfellow Sep 15 '20 at 08:14
  • @TomGoodfellow that's a good point, and it's possible that a strategy for how to handle this kind of situation has already been established in meta, and it's possible that one hasn't and this could be a good example case for such a discussion. I qualified my answer up front to make the chronology clear, but maybe something more should be added/adjusted here or somewhere else as well. Maybe that could start as a comment addressed to the OP under the question? – uhoh Sep 15 '20 at 08:30
  • @Jongia thanks for the adjustment; I've fine tuned further to make sure it doesn't exceed the scope of what I can say. – uhoh Sep 15 '20 at 12:07
3

There was an answer here (now deleted) stating this in less cautious terms, but since NYT covered the issue on Nov 6, I think it's worth mentioning that one specific accusation was leveled at Vindman by retired colonel Jim Hickman, himself a very overt Trump supporter (prior to this disclosure) and QAnon fan. In turn, this accusation was retweeted/broadcast in various ways by the pro-Trump camp, including by Donald Trump Jr and also on Fox & Friends by Pete Hegseth.

The attack emerged late on Halloween night, when a retired Army officer, Jim Hickman, claimed he had overheard Colonel Vindman — a major at the time who was chatting with Russian soldiers during a military exercise — laugh “about Americans not being educated or worldly” and talking up “Obama & globalism to the point of uncomfortable.” Mr. Hickman said he took the major aside and reprimanded him.

Through his lawyer, Michael Volkov, Mr Vindman declined to comment.

Mr. Hickman, a former lieutenant colonel whose service record indicates he served in Afghanistan and earned a Purple Heart, at some point took an interest in QAnon. A review of his past tweets found more than 100 in which he recirculated or commented on QAnon-related theories, including hoaxes about Satanism and pedophilia, and until recently he had the hashtag #Q in his profile. Reached for comment, Mr. Hickman said he did not believe in QAnon but found it “interesting.”

“I do think it’s actually been pretty accurate on predicting a lot of things,” he said.

He has also tweeted strident pro-Trump, anti-Democratic themes, writing, “It’s incredible how evil the Democrat party is.” A week before going public with his story about Colonel Vindman, he retweeted a Trump supporter urging: “STOP IMPEACHMENT! STOP THIS COUP!” [...]

As the tale gained attention on Twitter, and received pushback from some who questioned it, a new Twitter account popped up with the name Thomas Lasch, tweeting that he had worked with Mr. Hickman and remembered the 2013 episode.

Mark Hertling, a retired general who was suspicious of the pair and contacted them through direct messaging, later tweeted: “They are who they say they are.” But he added that “LTC Hickman and I agreed to disagree on LTC Vindman and many other things.”

In an interview, General Hertling, who commanded the United States Army in Europe, said that a number of things about Mr. Hickman’s recollections did not add up, including his claim of hearing what Colonel Vindman, who was born in Ukraine, said to Russian soldiers.

“Vindman would’ve been speaking to Russian soldiers in Russian, not English,” he said. “Russians, when they come to these exercises, they don’t speak English — they take pride in it.”

General Hertling added: “I asked Hickman about that, and he said, ‘Well, they were going back and forth between Russian and English.’”

An effort to reach Mr. Lasch was unsuccessful. At his home in Homosassa, Fla., Mr. Hickman said, “All I want is the truth to get out.” [...]

But those who know and have worked with [Vindman] have provided a different account. They said that Colonel Vindman, then a military attaché, was assigned to meet with Russians and gather whatever intelligence he could.

He spoke to the Russians in Russian, did not denigrate the United States and reported everything he heard, according to a person briefed on the episode, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the colonel had not publicly testified. Colonel Vindman did not have dealings with Mr. Hickman in relation to his work during the exercise, the person said, and was not reprimanded for it.

Peter B. Zwack, a retired brigadier general who was Colonel Vindman’s commanding officer during the joint exercise, said he was skeptical of Mr. Hickman’s account.

“If there was something egregious that occurred, believe me, we would have had our ears rapped in Moscow,” said General Zwack, who served as the United States’ senior defense official and attaché to Russia.

“The bottom line is, where there are Russians in an exercise in and among our units and people, we have an attaché that coordinates with them,” the general said. “It’s all just a part of an attaché’s job.”

Attachés are expected to overtly collect information on what is happening in the country in which they are posted, as well as collect information from unsuspecting foreign officials through casual conversation. The allegations made by Mr. Hickman may simply describe Colonel Vindman playing his assigned role.

(The NYT article was also syndicated by The Independent in the UK.)

I wasn't able to turn up any more recent story than this that adds anything in terms of facts (either corroborating or disproving) to this matter.

And even if the event is true as recollected by Hickman, it doesn't prove that Vindman was a "never Trumper" in the usual sense. At best it would be an indication that Vindman had some positive things to say about Obama, which apparently is unforgivable (or proof enough) in some quarters (Donald Jr.) of a "leftist" inclination on Vindman's behalf.


Trump also accused other witnesses of being "Never Trumpers". So it's now apparently becoming a tradition to ask this in the hearings:

Like George Kent and William Taylor, whose testimony preceded hers, Yovanovitch was asked if she was a “never Trumper,” a charge some of the President’s allies have used to describe the witnesses who came forward. “No,” she answered firmly.

Kent and Taylor also denied it, the latter just as laconically as Yovanovitch.

Somewhat unsurprisingly, when Vindman testfied publically, he was (together with Jennifer Williams) asked the same question. And Vindman replied:

I'd call myself "never partisan".

The Washington Examiner disputed this self-characterization of Vindman, instead stating Vindman has registered as a Democrat in the past:

Vindman, a 44-year-old Army combat veteran who received a Purple Heart for injuries sustained during an IED explosion in Iraq in October 2004, initially registered as a Democrat in New York in 1994. He was listed as a Democrat at least as recently as 2009, according to public records. In 2012, Vindman registered to vote in Washington, D.C., but did not declare a party.

I could not verify this from other sources though.

(N.B. Mueller was a "true never Trumper" according to Trump.)

the gods from engineering
  • 158,594
  • 27
  • 390
  • 806
  • I've read through the whole quote, but is there anything in there that can be construed as Lt. Col. Vindman being a never trumper? If so, please emphasize those parts. If not, please state that explicitly. – JJJ Nov 16 '19 at 22:03
  • 1
    @JJforTransparencyandMonica: I've added something to that effect. – the gods from engineering Nov 16 '19 at 22:09
  • 1
    From what I see one person says he overhears Vindman badmouthing America to some Russians, a higher up says the Russians would only talk in Russians followed by a response that they where switching between the languages and follows up with it was Vindman's job to interact with the Russian officials and to try and get any information he could from them. – Joe W Nov 16 '19 at 22:17