There is little doubt that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s days working in the White House for the National Security Council are numbered. Trump certainly can fire him or order his national security adviser, Robert O'Brien, to fire him. My hunch is that he already removed personal items from his office.
.
The question then arises is what else can Trump do to him. Obviously he can’t initiate a trial for espionage as his Fox News idiots suggested.
.
But how can he harm his military career?
.
I know from history that it was within President Harry Truman Constitutional powers to relieve Gen. Douglas MacArther from his command. (More history.)
.
My research from the article cited below says that senior officers, that is the three and four stars, only hold those grades during the period in which they occupy positions designated as being ones of “importance and responsibility.” If generals do not retire when they lose those commands they go down one grade and with this they suffer a significant pay reduction. As a Lt. Colonel, the Army rank between major and colonel, by this definition he would not be considered a “senior officer.”
.
It is possible that the president has the power as Commander-in-Chief to determine where that officer’s next assignment is, or I suppose even to create a new command. Hello, commander of the yet to be built Moon Base.
.
Let’s say that Trump wants to punish Lt. Col. Vindman to the maximum. What could he do. The answer as this website says, is complicated.
Can Presidents ‘fire’ senior military officers? Generally, yes…but it’s complicated
Duke University Lawfire website
The legitimacy of Congress imposing statutory restrictions on the authority of the President to remove military officers was initially “subject of doubt and discussion. It remains controversial even today, particularly since there doesn’t seem to be a case precisely on point as to the constitutionality.
Nevertheless, the better view does seem to suggest that Congress’ power to set some limits on the President’s dismissal power – at least in times of peace. That power would be properly founded in Congress’ Article I, Section 8, Clause 14 authority to “make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.” Still, the “President’s power of dismissal in time of war [is something] Congress has never attempted to limit.”
So what does 10 U.S.C. § 1161(a) provide? Here is the text:
(a) No commissioned officer may be dismissed from any armed force except—
(1) by sentence of a general court-martial;
(2) in commutation of a sentence of a general court-martial; or
(3) in time of war, by order of the President.
Are we currently in a “time of war” as used by this statute? Although the phrase “time of war” is used in many U.S. statutes, there is no universally accepted definition of precisely what it means. Some court decisions indicate it means war when declared by Congress, and some statutes do use the phrase the “time of war declared by Congress.” (Italics added.)
However, the absence of the “declared by Congress” language may in and of itself mean that “time of war” is not limited to declared wars. There certainly is plenty of authority for the proposition that a “war” can exist without a formal declaration thereof, beginning with the Supreme Court’s decision in the 1800 case of Bas v. Tingy.
It would appear from my non-legal and non-military understanding that Trump would have a pretty damn difficult time ruining the Army career as much as I am sure he would like to. However the bottom line, or lines, literally from the Duke University Lawfire article suggest that if he was willing to take the heat for firing this decorated combat veteran who was wounded in action, Cadet Bone Spurs could do so:
.
Although I would bet that most officers believe that they serve at the “pleasure of the President” in the sense that the President could remove them at any time, the actual words of the commission appear to loop in the current statutory framework that provides some limits on the President’s prerogative.
In short, although the process is somewhat tangled, it is currently possible for the President to dismiss officers from the armed forces, even in the absence of criminal misconduct. That said, the incentives are such – not to mention professional propriety – that it’s extraordinarily unlikely that any President in the modern era would be obliged to force officers out, as almost all would retire if asked. But if it became necessary to compel an officer to leave the military, the Constitution and the law provide a way to make that happen.
The above was published on Sept. 15, 2016 and in view of who the president is the phrase about professional propriety becomes meaningless. It also is open to debate whether Lt. Col. Vindman would retire if Trump asked him to.
.
Certainly there would be hell to pay if Trump did anything to derail the career of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. All but the most sycophantic Trump supporters both in Congress, the military and general public would have trouble endorsing such a vindictive and unprecedented action.
.
Of course his cheerleaders on Fox News would shout glorious huzzahs for his bravery eliminating the traitor from his midst despite critics from the equally unAmerican left.
.
Does anybody want to bet he hasn’t been asking his legal advisors whether he could have him fired from the Army.
.
I am sure the sadistic and vindictive Trump would delight in ripping the hard earned epaulets off of his dress uniform in a televised White House ceremony. What would be humiliating for most soldiers should be a badge of honor for Lt. Col. Vindman.
Addendum: See my comment below.