Military Guards Paid For By Taxpayers Were Used To Defend Man Who Betrayed Donald Trump

( )- The corpulent “Impeachment Star Witness,” retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman filed a lawsuit last Wednesday alleging Donald Trump Junior, Rudy Giuliani, and two other Trump allies conspired to intimidate him from testifying in Trump’s impeachment hearing and retaliated against him after he did.

In his 73-page legal complaint, Vindman claims that after his subpoena, he became a target of “a dangerous campaign of witness intimidation” from former President Trump “and a group of conspirators” who were trying to stop him from testifying before the House.

In his lawsuit, Vindman claims he and his wife were so fearful of their safety, they considered moving to a military base, though they ultimately didn’t for fear doing so would “spur further unwanted media attention.”

However, the lawsuit adds, Vindman requested and received protection from the military “for a period of time” and that local police sent additional patrols past the Vindman home “in response to the fear of physical harm to the family.”

And apparently, that’s the fault of Don Junior, Rudy Giuliani, and Trump’s other “conspirators.”

The lawsuit alleges that the actions of the defendants violated the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, a statute designed to address violence and discrimination in the Reconstruction South.

After he testified before the House, Vindman alleges in his suit that Trump allies retaliated against him, first by temporarily blocking his promotion, then by removing him and his brother Yevgeny from their positions in the White House.

USA Today allowed Vindman to write an op-ed promoting his decision to sue which pretty much tells you everything you need to know about this garbage lawsuit.

In his op-ed, Vindman conceded that “sharp-elbowed politics” shouldn’t be against the law, noting that public figures are fair game for criticism. However, he explains, his case was different. He argues that the attacks on him were “calculated to inflict maximum personal and professional damage,” and in the United States, “that violates the law.”

Law professor Margo Cleveland, writing at The Federalist last week, said while Vindman’s suit may not get tossed out of court, in the end, he may regret moving ahead with it.

Cleveland said in a civil suit, “discovery will be lit.” Unlike the House where Adam Schiff went out of his way to allow Vindman to refuse to answer questions, that won’t be the case in a civil suit. What’s more, the defendants will be entitled to question witnesses under oath, including the so-called “whistleblower” whom Adam Schiff kept hidden.