Following a report in Politico — which has been denied by the White House — that security assistance to Ukraine had been frozen by the Biden administration, Rubio snarked: “Remember when freezing military aid to Ukraine was an impeachable offense?”
Rubio may have been joking, but clearly Donald Trump’s impeachment concerned far more than holding up military aid to Ukraine. It involved freezing weapons and aid from the U.S. until Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky agreed to do a personal political favor for Trump — launch an investigation into baseless accusations against a political rival. Vindman testified to that during Trump’s impeachment hearings and was later fired from the National Security Council for telling the truth.
“I suspected it was illegal, but I knew immediately that it was wrong and my duty was to report it,” Vindman said in an interview last year.
Rachel Vindman was happy to point out the difference to Rubio.
“Oh no you don’t,” she snapped on Twitter. “What was impeachable was the attempted extortion. You’re so bad at this; you can’t even troll well.”
Alexander Vindman also responded, though a bit more gently than his wife.
Other Rubio critics got into the spirit of Rachel Vindman’s attack. “Bless your little heart,” slyly noted one. To have a “quid pro quo” extortion, you “need a quid AND a quo, not just one of either.”
No rejoinder yet from Rubio.