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.
California immigration judge sues DOJ, alleging she was fired for being a registered Democrat, a woman over 40
Trump’s Psychedelic Push May Open a Door Christians Should Question
Schumer’s ‘No. 1 target’ says voters will see her Democrat Senate challenger as too extreme
Leftist Influencer’s Mangione Celebration Resurfaces After He Opposes Death Penalty for Child Murderer
Obama Presidential Center looks to ‘put presidency in context’ as tickets sell out
DOJ investigating left-wing Fairfax County prosecutor over alleged unlawful discrimination
DOJ dangles massive signing bonuses for lawyers ready to fight ‘lawless’ cities far beyond DC
Rubio heads to Rome amid Trump’s unpopular feud with Pope Leo
Dem representative admits to working with Mexico to sneak oil into Cuba, despite blockade
Merz ends first year as most unpopular German chancellor in post-war history
US Forces Strike as Iranian-Flagged Vessel Attempts to Violate Blockade
Cole Allen’s alleged Trump assassination attempt may have been driven by Iran war: intel report
DHS blasts Minnesota board for unanimously pardoning illegal immigrant convicted of 3 assaults
Man Charged for Allegedly Shooting at Secret Service Agents on JD Vance Motorcade Route
Cory Booker Admits Dems Are Coming for Supreme Court if They Win Midterms
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.
California immigration judge sues DOJ, alleging she was fired for being a registered Democrat, a woman over 40
Trump’s Psychedelic Push May Open a Door Christians Should Question
Schumer’s ‘No. 1 target’ says voters will see her Democrat Senate challenger as too extreme
Leftist Influencer’s Mangione Celebration Resurfaces After He Opposes Death Penalty for Child Murderer
Obama Presidential Center looks to ‘put presidency in context’ as tickets sell out
DOJ investigating left-wing Fairfax County prosecutor over alleged unlawful discrimination
DOJ dangles massive signing bonuses for lawyers ready to fight ‘lawless’ cities far beyond DC
Rubio heads to Rome amid Trump’s unpopular feud with Pope Leo
Dem representative admits to working with Mexico to sneak oil into Cuba, despite blockade
Merz ends first year as most unpopular German chancellor in post-war history
US Forces Strike as Iranian-Flagged Vessel Attempts to Violate Blockade
Cole Allen’s alleged Trump assassination attempt may have been driven by Iran war: intel report
DHS blasts Minnesota board for unanimously pardoning illegal immigrant convicted of 3 assaults
Man Charged for Allegedly Shooting at Secret Service Agents on JD Vance Motorcade Route
Cory Booker Admits Dems Are Coming for Supreme Court if They Win Midterms
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.
