Alexander Vindman, Chow Thief, Won’t Face Disciplinary Action

| February 16, 2020

The U.S. Army said it has no plans to investigate Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, after President Trump suggested the former White House aide who voiced concerns about his actions toward Ukraine should face disciplinary action.

Col. Vindman testified in a Trump impeachment hearing in November that the president’s July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which led to his impeachment, was “inappropriate and improper.” A week ago, Col. Vindman and his twin brother, Army Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, a lawyer, were escorted out of the White House and removed from their jobs at the National Security Council, and Mr. Trump a day later called Col. Vindman insubordinate.

National security adviser Robert O’Brien said earlier this week that it had been his decision to remove the brothers and that it wasn’t in retaliation for Col. Vindman’s testimony against Mr. Trump.

Call me ‘old school’ if you will, but jumping the Chain of Command because you disagree with the POTUS’ political views is reprehensible.

As if that were not bad enough, I know of very few crimes more egregious than being a Chow Theif.   Lt. Col. Vidman should be stripped of all rank and dishonorably discharged for such a thing.  One does not hoard food while their troops go hungry.

Our friend SSgt Bellavia wanted to add his perspective to a recent interview on the matter.    Enjoy…


Ya gotta love that guy.    Have a nice day.

Source: Alexander Vindman, Who Drew Trump’s Ire, Won’t Face Disciplinary Action – WSJ

Category: Big Army, Politics

Comments (84)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. RetiredDevilDoc8404 says:

    Those assignments on Johnston Island are still unfilled for some odd reason. Chow thief and his lawyer brother could work on their “wonder twin” powers there while they scrub seagull crap off the run way with toothbrushes; they could also reflect on the bad decisions that brought them to that point. Unless Chow Thief is a ring knocker, I’m figuring there will be enough people who sit on promotion boards that might want to see a guy like him gone, and his OER is probably not going to be a good one (isn’t getting shitcanned akin to relief for cause?). He and his wonder twin should just slink away and find a new career – maybe they’ll need a new StayPuft Marshmallow Man or a new Michelin Man. Point to ponder for other Docs, when Chow Thief was wounded, did they use battle dressings on him or a tire repair kit given his resemblance to Bibb the Michelin Man?

    • Club Manager says:

      Watch that shit RetiredDevilDoc, I actually volunteered for Johnson Island in 72′. WAR STORY ALERT: I was a club manager at Hickam on a concurrent from CINCPAC. Well by then the golf course club house manager smack on the ocean and with Nam winding down the personnel wienies said it was time to leave beautiful Hawaii since I was approaching six years there. I was in base housing and asked for a tour at Johnson and could leave the family ensconced. I volunteered for the isolated tour with the knowledge I could probably get a hop back and forth to Hickam weekly on official business and see the family, then PCS back to Hickam. The Personnel folks thought it was a great idea and sent me to Castle instead. Being assigned to SAC was the catalyst for my obtaining an Army Warrantship. Second best decision I ever made. (The first was enlisting in the USAF).

  2. 5th/77th FA says:

    “Reprehensible.” Good choice of a word and an excellent descriptive adjective for this tool. Chow thief is lucky he wasn’t on the staff of, oh say, George Smith Patton or better yet “Dugout Doug” MacArthur. Tom Jackson probably would have had him tied to a post and shot by musketry. I’m sure that President Trump put the word out to let this fool go on and finish his career suicide. You know that some of the news media will keep an eye on him and any little thing that appears to be “retribution” for him being a back stabbing low life deep state plant will be plastered all over the place.

    An old business proverb went something like this…”When you work for a man, for Heavens Sake Work For Him If you must disparage or talk about your employer, then resign your position and when you are away from that place, only then can you speak your feelings.”

    I’m wid you Dave on his self serving ass and the proposed punishment. I would add making his next duty station out in Kansas, turning boulders into gravel.

    • Commissar says:

      He followed a lawful subpoena. Which he was required to do by law and the UCMJ. He answered questions honestly.

      He is not going to be punished because he DID NOTHING WRONG.

      Knock off the cultish bullshit.

      • AW1Ed says:

        Except he could have refused to testify and let Trump claim Executive Privilege, or claimed under advice of counsel his Fifth Amendment Rights under the Constitution.

        He had his own agenda, and played it out. Knock off the cultish bullshit.

        • LC says:

          I’m not a legal expert, but I don’t think it works that way. Once he was given a subpoena, he’s required to obey it. It’s up to POTUS or the White House Counsel to assert the right of executive privilege. They didn’t, so regardless of what you feel about Vindman’s politics, he did follow procedure.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        When you throw “cultish”, it is actually funny.

        Not up to Slow Joe’s level, but on the plus side of funny.

        The irony that fuels that humor is clearly lost on you, however.

      • Mason says:

        He leaked information and operated outside his chain of command. I know as an expert in the law, you’ll see how leaking classified conversations between two heads of state is wrong. As an (alleged) officer in the US Army, you can also see how one might find it wrong to go around your CoC because you disagree with the President.

        Remember, Vindman testified that the reason he did what he did was that Trump’s actions didn’t align with American foreign policy interests. Constitutionally, foreign policy is the sole discretion of the President. Vindman, an appointed officer of the United States military, specifically and explicitly tried to interfere in the Constitutionally assigned duties of the President.

      • SFC D says:

        He answered questions with what he “thought”, what he “felt”, what he “interpreted”. Not exactly the same as “facts”. He testified with the answers his political masters demanded.

        • Anonymous says:

          Expected a grateful Democrat replacement administration would select him for COL/O6– progressive bureaucrats and their bootlickin’.

      • Hondo says:

        Both Mason and AW1Ed are correct here, Commissar.

        Executive Privilege is a well-established principle in Constitutional law. Ditto the President’s primacy in Foreign Policy. (The only roles for Congress in the making of US foreign policy is for the Senate to ratify formal treaties and for both houses to approve Federal funds to carry it out; the House has zero advisory role in making US foreign policy under the Constitution.)

        Here, Vindman disagreed with the President’s foreign policy decisions regarding the Ukraine. He took it upon himself to attempt to subvert those decisions – when subpoenaed by a body (the House) that has zero advisory role in setting US foreign policy. “Altruistic considertions” my ass – the guy simply disagreed with what the POTUS was doing and took it upon himself to change things.

        Think about that for a moment. Here, you have a 44 y/o Army LTC attempting to subvert US foreign policy as set by duly-appointed Constitutional authority (e.g., the POTUS) because he disargeed with same. If you’re OK with that, either you’re dumber than I thought possible or you have zero respect for the US Constitution.

        That type of insubordination wasn’t OK when MacArthur attempted it during Korea. It wasn’t OK when Singlaub did it during the Peanut Farmer’s administration. It wasn’t OK when McChrystal’s staff was stupidly insubordinate during the SCoaMF’s administration. And it wasn’t OK when Vindman attempted to subvert US foreign policy here.

        Case freaking closed.

        • 5th/77th FA says:

          At the risk of being accused/slandered/complimented for being “cultish”, tanks, Hondo, SFC D, Mason, 11B, and AW1Ed. If being “cultish” means being a part of the number, then I consider myself in good company. Took me a minute to decide if the ctuntolihu, socialistic commissar, larsie boi was speaking/replying to me. Guess he was, since his comment is directly below mine and my comment was a stand alone. Thinking along the same lines as Dave Hardin has got to be worth something too, even tho I don’t have a drop dead good looking Soviet to fetch and carry for or a fuzzy pink robe. I am still a little confused on the ROE in re trolls and the feeding there of. Not even sure if Larsie Boi is considered a troll or just a seagull.

          From Hondo’s comment to the commissar; “…either you are dumber than I thought possible or you have zero respect for the US Constitution.” Hondo you are spot on with both. Treading lightly on the new ROE for trolls I will state this. I have quit asking how stupid can some people be, they seem to take it as a challenge. And so I can’t be guilty of a direct attack on a commenter, I will state this too. With all due respect, Commissar you are acting like an asinine POS Seagull. Please quit your squawking and take your fecal matter elsewhere. Bless your heart. At the end of it all LTC Chow Hound (apologies to good dogs everywhere) works for the POTUS. And he screwed up royally, probably at the instructions of someone else. Donald John Trump is the CinC, NCA, HMFIC, and can have fired or reassigned any person wearing a uniform.

          • AW1Ed says:

            The TAH FNG has a pretty good definition of trolls.

            “Become a disruptive troll (e.g., someone who comments here merely to “stir up sh!t” and p!ss off the site’s readers without ever making a substantive point), and once that’s apparent you’ll very possibly be told, “AMF” too.”

            While I disagree with Lars, and he generates heated discussion, he is not in my mind a troll. He states and defends his opinions, even as he knows he’ll get dog-piled for his efforts. I actually admire that.

            He also gives back what he gets, so who is at fault here?

            As stated, this is now part of the board’s character, cooked in, and I’m not about to get between Lars and the crew here, short of threats of violence.

            Yeah, the TAH FNG tab likely needs a refresh, and one of us, “In our spare time….” should take care of that.

            • 5th/77th FA says:

              ‘Ed… 😉 😀 😆 “…in addition to…with a corresponding…”

              We will endeavor…we will persevere.

        • LC says:

          Did the White House assert Executive Privilege in Vindman’s case? I know they did for McGahn, but I didn’t think they did for Vindman.

          And no, it wasn’t a ‘disagreement’ about US policy, it was a concern that something improper occurred. And the very first person he spoke with about it was John Eisenberg, the White House lawyer for National Security issues – that is, the correct person to speak to about it if you’re trying to ascertain whether that improper thing was, in fact, illegal.

          He wasn’t trying to set US policy, he was reporting a possibly illegal request. But hey, don’t believe me, let’s talk to noted liberal and ‘Never Trumper’… former Chief of Staff and Marine General John Kelly:

          But hey, what does that guy know about any of this stuff, right?

          • SFC (R) Blizz says:

            He fell under whistleblower statutes. He was going to testify regardless of Trump asserting Executive privilege or not. Remember, he was a committed democrat who was actively working to subvert the President. Democrats changed the whistle blower rules just so he and his CIA buddy could be protected and testify against the President

          • timactual says:

            ” it was a concern that something improper occurred”

            It was his OPINION that something improper occurred. He expressed what seems to be a minority OPINION, not fact. The majority opinion was expressed in the publicly available (made so by Trump) transcript. Anyone, who can’t tell the difference between their OPINION (possibly wishful thinking) of an event and the actual event has no place on the NSC, or in any other position requiring objective analysis and judgement.

            ” the correct person to speak to about it”

            So how did his brother get in the loop?

      • RetiredDevilDoc8404 says:


        You allegedly were an officer, weren’t you taught to follow your chain of command and not go outside it? Or were you one of the John Murtha type Blue Falcons? He committed career suicide by wanting to be in the spotlight, now he has to pay the price for being on the Semper I program. That’s a lesson your sorry azz should have been taught a long time ago.

  3. Club Manager, USA ret. says:

    But I digressed. LTC Vindman knew exactly what he was doing and anticipated the repercussions. He was approaching the mandatory retirement date at 30 because he had no chance of promotion not having held the requisite command positions. He was a liberal whose values are not those of the current administration and he did not anticipate getting a fat cat GS15 SES job after retiring from the Trump White House. All this sorry sonovabitch did was set himself up for a less than WW (water walker) OER and a downgrade of his end of tour and/or end of military service award from a Legion of Merit to an oak leaf cluster for his National Defense Service Medal. I am hoping they award him an Army Achievement Medal which could be the highest insult a retiring LTC with 30 years of active duty. I don’t think we have anything lower that will say, “Thank you for your service and on the way out please keep our safety policy in mind and don’t let the door hit you in your fat ass.

    • Commissar says:

      WTF? He was a FAO. He absolutely would have been promoted. FAO’s do not require BN command time for Colonel. Or even General grade.

    • Hondo says:

      Vindman was commissioned in Jan 99. Even counting his ROTC time, he’s nowhere near 30 years of service.

      FWIW: in the Army, LTCs are generally limited to 28 years of commissioned service, not 30.

      • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

        IMHO the sooner they get rid of him, the better.

      • Club Manager, USA ret. says:

        Thanks for the catch. In reviewing his bio trying to figure out a couple of his unusual ribbons (Guard or Reserve) I though he was approaching 30 but in checking it is 20. Regardless, his career was not distinguished, his Purple Heart questionable as his CIB. Looks like he did his best to get his ticket punched and I give him credit for the Ranger tab. Given physical appearance, I don’t think he would have reached 0-6. Would have paid money to watch him take the PT test.

  4. Hate_me says:

    He’ll have a ship named after him, as soon as the next democratic president is inaugurated.

  5. USMC Steve says:

    That is just the famously retarded “big army” doing what they do best. Trump can legally take the fat asshole’s commission, since he “serves at the pleasure of the president”. He should do that. It might dissuade the next disloyal fuck who comes along.

    • Jus Bill says:

      Trump is too smart for that. He knows if he terminates that fat little cockroach, the Dims will deify him.

  6. A Proud Infidel®™ says:

    Chow Thief = 24K Blue Falcon in serious need of a blanket party every night. He sounds like the kind of Blue Falcon Officer who would leave his Troops while in the field to go shower, sleep on clean sheets and be back out in the morning to treat them like shit, the breed that would be frag bait in Vietnam!

    • Cameron Kingsley says:

      Sounds like something Douglas Neidermeyer would do.

    • rgr769 says:

      He is right up there with a certain LTC battalion commander I experienced in the Viet of the Nam. He used to sit outside the TOC bunker on the firebase and eat a hot “A” meal from the Arty battery while my men securing the perimeter only had C-rats. What PO’d us is that he sat where we could see him doing it, when he could have just eaten in the TOC. Needless to say that this and other behavior so endeared him to us line-dogs that there was a rumor that they raised a several thousand dollar bounty that would go to the man who killed him.

      • timactual says:

        You actually got to see your battalion commander? I never got to see any of the three battalion commanders I had. I only saw two or three of the 4-6 (I have lost count) company commanders I had.

        I did see a general once. 1st Cav Div. Cmdr. showing a gaggle of press around LZ Stud during Operation Pegasus. All starched and spit-shined and wearing his cute little patent leather holster with the cute little personal pistol. We all thought he looked very “STRAC”. We were so proud.

  7. Wing Wiper of Very Little Brain says:

    …IIRC, he’s still on track for an in-person assignment to the Army War College at Carlisle Barracks, PA. Passing that lines you up for 06, but there are still plenty of places a full bird idiot can be sent to until they get the hint.

    He’s a war hero? No probs, he’ll do fine in the DMZ, or better yet in the respective Sandboxes, looking right at the enemy.

    • Hondo says:

      Selection for resident War College is indicative that an O5’s file is competitive for selection to O6 – but it’s no guarantee of selection for O6. That’s especially true if the officer is male and subsequently steps on his male appendage.

      Vindman has been publicly called “insubordinate” by the POTUS and got thrown off the NSC staff as a result. That probably qualifies as “stepping on the male appendage”.

      • Anonymous says:

        Have your Bn command “checked” (12-month OER in the file, even if you’re continuing on for 24 or more months)…

        • Hondo says:

          Actually, if I recall correctly that would be expected. Unless my memory is faulty all Army officers are required to receive at least one OER annually; if no other event occurs triggering an OER, the officer receives an annual report covering the previous 12 months. Would have to find and check the reg to be sure, and I’m not going to do that tonight.

          FWIW: also as I recall, an eval covering a shorter period than a year can also be sumbmitted under select circumstances prior to certain central selection boards. I’m pretty sure that’s referred to as a “complete the record” eval. It can be good or bad for the officer’s file depending on whether the officer has done a good or bad job in a new duty assignment.

  8. MSG Eric says:

    That video commentary from Bellavia is comedy gold. So glad I saw it when it first came out.

    I don’t recall for sure, but I don’t remember Vindman providing anything other than a lot of “I think” and “my perspective was”? No actual evidence of anything?

    He probably is looking for his next job and he’ll have a guaranteed spot on MSNBC and/or CNN for years.

  9. SFC D says:

    I had a BDE commander, a COL, get a DUI. Basically got a minor wrist slap as punishment, but was exiled to West Point as Chief of Staff, where he was left to rot. Retired as a COL still, but he probably had 2 stars in his future. Send Vindman as SLJO.

  10. AW1Ed says:

    rgr769 schooled me on what a chow thief is from a Ranger trainee perspective. One is issued a single MRE for each day in the field. A chow thief will steal food from the unattended ruck from another trainee.

    That should be cause from an instant drop from training and further disciplinary action.

    • rgr1480 says:

      Yeah, but this action does not appear to qualify as “chow theft.” From the article, the FF (Fat “Fellah”) didn’t share the pogey-bait that he had. If he had STOLEN someone’s chow, he’d be gone by end of day.

      We actually had a student in our class — during Florida Phase — STEAL food from another student’s ruck. That thief was gone by close of business!

      — 1480

      • rgr769 says:

        In my class we lost about half our class by the tabbing ceremony in Florida, but no one dared to steal another man’s C-rats. Anyway, not one caught in the act.

      • timactual says:

        I loved Florida phase. Of course, I was just supporting the effort and got to eat and sleep a bit more than y’all did. We were warned to closely secure all foodstuffs while in the field lest the candidates find them. They didn’t warn us the cadre (?) would also scarf up anything they could find. One guy left a can of C-rats out and one of the cadre, a Captain, glommed onto it and was stuffing it down his throat as he walked by. The owner of the C-rat spoke up about somebody stealing his food (mostly to annoy an officer, I think). I did enjoy the sight of a Captain throwing a hissy fit and stalking away. One of my many fond memories of Aux. Field #6 and Ft. Walton Beach. I do sympathize with the Captain, though, even as I still smile at his discomfiture.

  11. Ex-PH2 says:

    I have a better idea. Put him in supply until he’s hit retirement, then give him a going-away party and pipe his flabby ass over the side.

    And don’t nobody salute him on his way out.

    • Jay says:


      Supply respectfully DECLINES the nomination to babysit the chubby fuck til retirement. Maybe he can sit in the Motor T tool room and count sockets?

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Okay, then, how about HMMIC in charge of head** cleaning detail?

      I blame all of you for me waking up at 3AM this morning and making me fix Punkin a snack.

      ** Head = Navy slang for bathroom

    • Anonymous says:

      Garrison CDR at Bagram… gets to work in the crappy Soviet building w/ no shitter.

  12. David says:

    I’m thinking an apparent promotion somewhere as Commanding… in charge of 3 fuckups, or Liaison… to Antarctic Aborigines would do the trick.

    • AW1Ed says:

      Thule Greenland is nice this time of year. Should get all the way to -6 degrees F today.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      My house needs cleaning, and the garden shed needs the junk winnowed and disposed of. I think an appropriate wage for that should be about $0.25/hr, no tips, and if he makes a goof, he has to start over.

      I’ll bet his flabby paws are pale and pasty and have never seen a bar of soap that really got them clean.

  13. Hack Stone says:

    LTC Alexander Vindman was not fired, he was “relieved because the President lost confidence in his judgment”. If that excuse worked when President Obama shitcanned General MacChrystal, it should fly here.

  14. Commissar says:

    He did his duty. Those of you turning on him are being sheep or cultists.

    The notion that you think Donald Trump has
    more credibility than literally anyone else ridiculous.

    • AW1Ed says:

      No, he should have requested reassignment if he couldn’t get behind the Commander-In-Chief’s policies.

      It’s really Trumps fault- an FNG error. Replace EVERYONE from the prior administration, especially in such a toxic environment like we have today. Where do you suppose all those leaks were coming from?

      • According to various articles on the net, Bolton got Vinny and the ‘whistle-blower’ their jobs on the NSC.

        Bolton may have started the entire impeachment mess, because Trump wouldn’t obey Bolton’s orders.

        Since one is ‘civil service’ and the other ‘military’, reassignment is the only legal thing that could be done.

        Goddard Station, Antarctica needs a couple of ‘ice scrapers’ assigned. It’s a shame to miss this opportunity.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Lars, do you really believe that Vindman was NOT in this mess for himself?

      If you do believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I’d like to sell you. You always miss the real point – Vindman and others like him have been scattered through history to get what THEY wanted out of other people, and nothing else. And they frequently ended up in the executioner’s hands, once things got straightened out.

      Try reading up on Bloody Mary Tudor and what happened to her.

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      Do you ever even think anything other than what your perfessers tell you to?

    • rgr769 says:

      No, what LTC Chow Thief did was leak classified info to the so-called whistleblower at CIA so the D-rat conspirators could start their impeachment hoax.

      • Fyrfighter says:

        Would that be the so-called whistleblower that’s dating Schiffs daughter?

        • LC says:

          Got a source for that? I know Schiff’s daughter’s boyfriend shares the same first name as the alleged whistleblower, but unless he’s constantly wearing a very convince disguise, it’s not the same person. On top of that, while it does happen, most 21-year old women don’t date 33-year old men.

          In short, the evidence ‘for’ is that .. they share a first name. By that account, I’m married to a famous actress. The evidence ‘against’ -both photographic and statistical- is considerable.

        • rgr769 says:

          Maybe that would be Eric the Rat of the CIA, who was fired from the NSC over a year before Trump’s classified call with the President of Ukraine.

      • Steve Cox says:

        That would certainly qualify him for a court-martial.

    • USMC STEVE says:

      Did his duty include espionage? Handing classified information to someone without the need to know falls squarely in that arena, and they know he did that.

      Unfuck yourself socialist.

  15. timactual says:

    Dear Sgt. Bellavia;

    With all due respect, GFY.

    • USMC STEVE says:

      I am sure he would think the same of you, if he bothered to think of you.

      • timactual says:

        Evidently neither of you have had the pleasure of serving under an officer with behavior like that. The “chow thief” bit is just a symptom. The disease is a lot worse.

  16. STSC(SW/SS) says:

    Chow Thief huh, just as bad as being a Water Buffalo or taking a Hollywood Shower on a submarine. You could get extra duty or restricted from showering for a week. One of the Nukes on my first boat told us a story of one such sailor was caught several times staying to long in the shower and was forced to qualify Evaporator Watch and stand several watches as punishment.

    Vindman did look a little too rotund to be wearing his dress uniform. Wonder what his Fitness Reports said.

    • AW1Ed says:

      The frigate crew hated us rotorheads ’cause we used so much fresh water to rinse the salt off of the helo as part of corrosion control. I suppose it didn’t help a lot when we showed up in shorts, shower shoes (Navy for flip-flops) and shampoo…

      All was forgiven when we did the mail run, or brought back goodies like ice cream and fresh fruit from the carrier.

      Until the next fresh water wash-down, that is.

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      Vindman the Blue Falcon looks like someone who would do no more than the bare minimum of his PT Tests.

  17. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    Retribution, not retribution, it doesn’t really matter because he was in a position that serves at the pleasure of the president and when the president is no longer pleased with your service you’re out. Period.

    Vindman “thought” the call was improper because he “felt” it was not an appropriate topic of conversation between two heads of state. He’s certainly welcome to that opinion. Just as Trump is well within his authority to remove those who don’t find his foreign policy actions to their liking.

    That phone call was less an abuse of power than arresting some poor bastard over a video no one watched for initiating the Libyan 9-11 embassy attack and not a single Democrat felt there was anything worth investigating there. The sudden outrage over Vindman’s removal is laughable in contrast. Vindman still has a job, he’s still free to roam the country…no one took his freedom without due process in direct violation of every constitutional protection originally afforded us all as citizens. So if an actual violation of the first amendment doesn’t outrage you, this Vindman business should be a total non-issue for you just as the Nakoula Basseley Nakoula issue meant nothing to you.

    Spare me the histrionics.

    • Hondo says:

      As much as the Nakoula case stinks, VOV, I’m not sure I’d use that one as an example.

      Yeah, the Federal government made a scapegoat out of him to deflect attention from Benghazi. But the guy was a multiple-time felon (attempted meth production/distribution and financial fraud). Conditions of his parole for the latter crime forbid him to use aliases or the Internet without supervision – and he did both in preparing his film in question. He then lied to Federal investigators about that.

      Doing anything to attract attention to yourself if you’re violating probation conditions is stupid. Lying to Federal authorities about same is doubling down on stupid.

      The Nakoula case seems to me a classic example of “no good guys on either side”. Nakoula was both stupid and a had exhibited a multi-year pattern of felony behavior – and the goverment seems to have been dirty there as well.

      • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

        He was put in jail because he used an alias, which was a probation violation. Probation violators typically don’t go to jail for that. They get a court summons and admonition to cut the crap for the duration of their probation.

        He was essentially jailed for blaspheming Islam, using a technicality of his probation. The reason we know he was jailed for blasphemy is because Clinton told Charles Wood that “We will make sure that the person behind the video is arrested and prosecuted.” Her comment is clear, he would not be in jail had he not made the video. She admits they intend to violate his right to speak.

        Now his charges don’t reflect that. He did time for probation violation, for the crime of using an alias.

        You are right, he’s not a great citizen. That’s what made him such an easy target. Our President at the time said to the UN, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam…”

        THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TOLD THE WORLD THAT DISSENT AGAINST ISLAM WOULD NOT BE TOLERATED IN THE FUTURE. If that isn’t a clear message about his thoughts on your first amendment rights I don’t know what is…

        Without a whisper of complaint from the same jerkoffs crying about Vindman now…I stand by my words. If this case doesn’t concern you, piss off with your concerns about Vindman. It’s what we do to the least of our brethren because we can that should upset us all.

        • Hondo says:

          Not arguing that Nakoula wasn’t used as a scapegoat; I think that’s obvious too. Just saying that his case was technically sound, even if politically motivated. Thus any 1st Amendment violation is hard as hell to demonstrate since technically he wasn’t jailed for that.

          FWIW: his post-Benghazi jailing was actually the 2nd time Nakoula had been jailed for probation violations. He’d previously violated probation conditions for his 1997 drug bust in the early 2000s and ended up doing a 2nd year in jail for same. He’d since committed another felony ($700+k financial fraud) and done 21mo for same; at the time of Benghazi, he was serving 5 years supervised release. That might well have had some bearing on the judge’s decision to incarcerate him in 2012; that incident made him a repeat offender in terms of violating probation.