New ‘Impeachment Inquiry’ Star Witness Admits Protecting the ‘Interagency’

The New York Times has obtained the opening statement of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman, the top White House expert on Ukraine, who will testify to the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday about his concerns about President Donald Trump’s telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July.

The statement, leaked to the Times — though committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has likened impeachment to a “grand jury” proceeding, which is typically conducted in secrecy — is described by the Times as the first account of someone who actually listened in on the telephone call, as opposed to hearing about it second- or third-hand.

In his statement, Vindman — a Ukrainian-American and decorated Army officer who was awarded the Purple Heart after being wounded by a roadside bomb in Iraq — outlines his own views on “The Geopolitical Importance of Ukraine.” He adds: “The U.S. government policy community’ s view is that the election of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the promise of reforms to eliminate corruption will lock in Ukraine’ s Western-leaning trajectory.”

Vindman says that he became concerned in the spring of 2019 about “outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency.”

That concern for the fate of the “consensus views of the interagency” informed Vindman’s approach to the president’s contacts with Zelensky.

Watch: Trump’s NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya Unloads on Fauci Over Texts Showing He Thought One Thing, But Said Another to American Mothers

Zuckerberg Superyacht Accused of Ignoring Vessel’s Call for Help – Alaskan Cruise Captain Comes to the Rescue

Trump directs CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz to end Medicaid gender transition funding for minors

Suspect in off-duty Philadelphia officer’s car theft linked to killing of Penn State student: police

DOJ won’t rule out new charges for Reflecting Pool vandals as Trump calls to revisit dropped cases

Vulnerable Dem’s campaign pitch clashes with ‘radical’ voting record on top culture war issue

Man wanted in robbery tied to Penn State student’s murder now sought after off-duty cop shootout

Democrats give Senate GOP new midterm ammo in opposing federal voter ID

Syria’s death sentence for Assad puts new strain on revamped relationship with Russia

Watch: Another Talarico Clip Comes Back to Bite Him as He Characterizes Christians as ‘Causing Trouble’

Socialist Wisconsin governor candidate referred to America as ‘abundance of suffering,’ resurfaced post shows

HHS bureaucrats accused of ‘sabotaging’ RFK Jr’s efforts to expose Fauci records

Russia Releases American Military Veteran Who Was Taken Prisoner During Biden Administration

Replacement GOP nominee named after Rep Chuck Edwards drops re-election bid

US Marine veteran released from Russian prison after 1,666 days of detention

He was pleased with Trump’s first congratulatory call to Zelensky in April 2019, but became alarmed in early July when the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, “started to speak about Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure [a] meeting with the President.” Vindman does not identify those investigations.

Later, during a debriefing with American officials, Sondland “emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election , the Bidens, and Burisma,” Vindman recalls. That is when Vindman pushed back, saying Sondland’s statements were “inappropriate” and the National Security Council would not be involved.

On July 25, when the president called Zelensky to congratulate him on his party’s parliamentary victory, Vindman listened in on the call. He says: “I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’ s support of Ukraine.” Notably, the transcript of the call suggests that Trump did not “demand” an investigation of the Bidens.

Vindman goes on to say that he concluded that if Ukraine was seen as a partisan player in U.S. politics, that could undermine “bipartisan support” for better relations with Ukraine. “This would all undermine U.S. national security,” Vindman argues, substituting his views — or those of the “interagency” — for those of the president himself.