COLORADO SPRINGS: Two civil servants jumped rank to testify against their president. U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman serves as the Director for European Affairs for the U.S. National Security Council. Veteran foreign service officer, Jennifer Williams works for the vice president as Special Advisor on Europe and Russia.
Both civil servants appearing before the House Select Intelligence Committee were tasked with conducting inquiries related to Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Williams, who listened in on President Trump’s call with the newly elected president of Ukraine, Zelinsky, termed the call “unusual.” And Vindman, who corrected Representative Adam Nunes’ addressing him as “Mister,” saying “Lt. Col Vindman, please,” shared his snide critique of President Trump with the remark, “This is America, here right matters.”
In seven short words, “Who do these people think they are?!”
Most of the testimony before Rep. Adam Schiff’s committee has indicated that Vindman, Williams, Ambassador to the European Union Gordan Sondland and other members of the so-called inter-agency group are expressing their pique at not being consulted or “in on” presidential discussions regarding Ukrainian policy.
They obviously disagree with the President’s overall policy of extreme review of American aid to foreign countries in general, including Ukraine. Such presidential review by law and in fact centers on his mandate to subject donee foreign countries to judicious review and evaluation as to corruption in such countries. In other words, the president’s job is to not waste American aide on unworthy recipients.
The President and he alone is ordered by law to direct foreign policy.
Civil servants serve at the pleasure of the Commander in Chief. They are in their positions to carry out the President’s policies. The fact that this brouhaha has begun as a result of a so-called “whistleblower,” backed by some civil servants with their noses out of joint begs questions about the legality and authenticity of the whistleblower.
In fact, there are actual cases of whistleblowers exposing corruption within the federal government. It is a right and, if properly executed, a useful tool by which federal funds and policies are correctly administered.
In the eighties, there was a real whistleblower at the Department of Transportation.
Staff revealed that one of their colleagues operating in the office of transit assistance had diverted small shares of federal funds when they were issued to U.S. transit agencies to his personal bank account.
Revealing this crime was inevitable as the civil servant hosted noon-day lunches at his DC strip club, drove flashy cars and otherwise publicly threw his new-found riches around. To nail this rat was clearly an appropriate use of the whistleblower law. There was nothing political about their actions. Well-meaning and honest civil servants used the law as it was intended to be used.
Civil servants work at the pleasure or displeasure of the president.
Interagency communications, in general, are a good thing as cabinets share information and reduce potential duplication of effort. It appears that the power of such interagency groups has grown to such a level that these participants have begun to place their own views and conclusions above those of the chief executive. They have jumped the shark and in doing so with respect to the current impeachment fever, they have lost sight of the constitution and their own roles within the bureaucracy.
For civil servants whose hair is on fire that their policy-making roles having been usurped by – gasp – the president and his senior advisors, it was a bridge too far.
In the current political climate of democrat rage over the results of the 2016 presidential election, by-passed civil servants within the State Department and related agencies, it appears that the door has been left wide open courtesy of partisan democrats for disgruntled employees to jump ranks and exact revenge for their reduced roles under this administration.
The enactment of this federal level pique at an activist president is not limited to the civil service.
Political appointees as well have elevated their own importance to a level of believing their appointments are firm and not subject to change by the incoming president. In fact, it is common practice with respect to these appointees is for them to submit letters of resignation upon the election of a new president.
More than civil servants, appointees are tainted by their political biases, and so it is understandable that when a new direction for the federal government is enacted, they have two choices: They can work hard to implement presidential policies putting aside their own politics. Or they can leave.
A career diplomat and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Youvanovitch, was faced with exactly that choice when President Trump was elected. She is reported to have said disparaging things about candidate Trump during the election and reportedly had objections to the presence of his presidential envoy, Rudy Giuliani, in Ukraine.
In time she was asked to leave her post in Ukraine by the president.
Whereupon, Ms. Youvanovitch took her pique directly to Chairman Schiff’s impeachment hearings.
She was a useful partisan tool of the democrat’s piling on about the president. As a disgruntled employee, one would think her complaints would be better directed to a human resources communicant, not within an impeachment hearing.
At the end of the day, the impeachment investigatory hearings were caused and are bolstered by partisan bureaucrats who have lost sight of their own constitutional role within the federal government. They have lost sight of their proscribed allegiance to carrying out the mission of a duly-elected president.
They have bumbled and fumbled their way to a complicit media with leaks, innuendo, and outright lies. These particular civil servants have become, to use a euphemism, too big for their britches.
These civil servants would do well to remember they work for the American people and as such report to American’s elected leader, President Trump. If they are so unhappy to remain within their mandated roles due to partisan feelings, they should resign.
To remain behind and undercut these United States is immoral, bordering on outright treason.