Replies

"Your witness, sir."

"When did you first hear the name Eric Ciaramella?"
"And who said his name to you?"
"When did you first hear the name Sean Misko?"
"And who said his name to you?"
"How many times have you met Adam Schiff?"
"What was discussed in those meetings with Mr. Schiff?"
"How much were you and your wife paid to appear in the anti-Trump Lincoln Project ad?"
"What attracted you and your wife to Lincoln Project?"
"Was it the chance to work with disgraced Lincoln Project co-founder John Weaver?"
"Did you talk to your brother Yevgeny about the Bolton manuscript?"
"What were the financial terms of your book deal with Harpers?"
"Didn't you admit that there was so little interest in your book that you begged on Twitter for retweets to 'get the word out'?"

"As noted by constitutional legal scholar Jonathan Turley, you did not challenge the legality of your transfer to DoD, but rather you are "challenging the media campaign and a host of individuals who are not named as parties." Are you at all aware of the Sullivan rule, Mr. Vindman?"
"You have a history of filing lawsuits against people who simply do not agree with you, Mr. Vindman, isn't that correct? You currently have a federal lawsuit against President Trump? And didn't you lament, in a petulant, overwrought blog post, that "The First Amendment gravely limits the available tools to seek accountability for the right-wing media." "The First Amendment gravely limits."
"That's quite a statement for someone who wore the uniform, don't you agree, Mr. Vindman? You took a purple heart from a country that has a First Amendment -- Freedom of Speech, the bedrock of free discourse of opinion in the United States -- that you don't agree with? Given that the Ukraine offers no guarantees to their citizen's Freedom of Speech, in Ukraine's juvenile, utterly-compromised 'constitution', could you be that incredibly, internally-conflicted about this dichotomy, that that your judgment has been completely distorted and perhaps given over to self-delusion?"
"Further, in this blog post, did you not also decry the limits of defamation law in the United States?
"By design, defamation law makes intentional, malicious lying an expensive habit, but this works only if people are willing to bring civil cases against the peddlers of disinformation...Even after leaving the Army, I rationalized inaction, thinking that litigation against these media outlets and individuals would paint me as litigious and seeking personal gain. This was a mistake. Now, I propose a different solution: Legal action must be taken to rein in the right-wing media apparatus...More recently, voting technology companies Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic have filed billion-dollar defamation lawsuits against Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani...I wish I had taken similar action, and I hope others will."
"Are you aware that the District of Columbia has statutory protections against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation?"
"Under the law, any act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest will be protected. Such acts include any written or oral statement made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; or in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest.
In addition, any other expression, or expressive conduct, that involves petitioning the government, or communicating views to members of the public in connection with an issue of public interest, is protected."
"Do you know what the penalties are for SLAPP in the District of Columbia? 'The court may award [ the Respondent ] the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney fees?'"
"Are you aware that there is a push in the District of Columbia to support "SLAPPback" lawsuits, that would permit victims of frivilous litigation to recover compensatory and punitive damages for abuse of the legal process?"