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.
Vance refers Tim Walz, Minnesota attorney general to DOJ for criminal investigation over state’s alleged fraud
Karmelo Anthony stays silent as analysts warn defense faces uphill battle in track meet stabbing trial
Massachusetts lawmakers pass bill to scrap ‘offensive language’ from state’s General Laws
Navy sailor admits killing fellow service member as mother questions missed warning signs
Gwyneth Paltrow’s ‘Centrist’ Politics Reveal How Far the Left Has Moved: ‘My Husband Thinks I’m a Republican’
DHS approves plan to verify voter citizenship, monitor mail ballots as Trump push intensifies
DOJ Vows Action After California Blocks Federal Audit of Voter Rolls: ‘What Are They Afraid Of?’
Supreme Court Slaps Down Lower Court Ruling That Backed Biden Admin’s War on Natural Gas Appliances
New Jersey Democrats advance bill criminalizing interference with abortion, transgender healthcare
Liberals File Lawsuit to Stop White House UFC Event Celebrating America’s 250th Birthday
Los Angeles mayoral primary results: Spencer Pratt upstart campaign falls short
Platner floats jailing billionaires in fiery pre-primary speech pushing far-left agenda
LA mayoral race heads to November runoff as Karen Bass faces Mamdani-style socialist
Spencer Pratt Points Out Odd Coincidence in Vote Tally: ‘Where Have I Seen That Number Before?’
Rogue swimmer arrested after diving into 11-acre Central Park lake in failed attempt to escape NYPD
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.
Vance refers Tim Walz, Minnesota attorney general to DOJ for criminal investigation over state’s alleged fraud
Karmelo Anthony stays silent as analysts warn defense faces uphill battle in track meet stabbing trial
Massachusetts lawmakers pass bill to scrap ‘offensive language’ from state’s General Laws
Navy sailor admits killing fellow service member as mother questions missed warning signs
Gwyneth Paltrow’s ‘Centrist’ Politics Reveal How Far the Left Has Moved: ‘My Husband Thinks I’m a Republican’
DHS approves plan to verify voter citizenship, monitor mail ballots as Trump push intensifies
DOJ Vows Action After California Blocks Federal Audit of Voter Rolls: ‘What Are They Afraid Of?’
Supreme Court Slaps Down Lower Court Ruling That Backed Biden Admin’s War on Natural Gas Appliances
New Jersey Democrats advance bill criminalizing interference with abortion, transgender healthcare
Liberals File Lawsuit to Stop White House UFC Event Celebrating America’s 250th Birthday
Los Angeles mayoral primary results: Spencer Pratt upstart campaign falls short
Platner floats jailing billionaires in fiery pre-primary speech pushing far-left agenda
LA mayoral race heads to November runoff as Karen Bass faces Mamdani-style socialist
Spencer Pratt Points Out Odd Coincidence in Vote Tally: ‘Where Have I Seen That Number Before?’
Rogue swimmer arrested after diving into 11-acre Central Park lake in failed attempt to escape NYPD
Vindman says that he reported his concerns to the National Security Council’s lead counsel. He denies being the so-called “whistleblower” or knowing the identity of the “whistleblower,” or wishing to speculate about such. He concludes with another policy view: “The United States and Ukraine are and must remain strategic partners.”
At no point does Vindman accuse the president of breaking the law, but of doing what he thought “inappropriate.”
The public will not see Vindman face questions from the committee, because it is being held behind closed doors and “in defiance of a White House edict not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry,” the Times reports, though it does not explain that the reason for the White House stance is that the House has not yet authorized the inquiry.
Only one copy of the transcript of Vindman’s testimony will be provided to Republican members of the committee, who will only be allowed to review the transcript with a Democratic staffer present to observe them at all times.
Story cited here.
