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: Bernie Sanders Instantly Regrets Asking Conservative Student a Question During Town Hall
ICE Agents Arrest Illegal Alien Found Working as a Police Officer in Suburban Chicago
Massachusetts woman charged with threatening to kill federal agents while interfering with immigration arrest
Trump warns Hamas war will resume if terror group ‘continues to kill people in Gaza’
Bernie Sanders ripped after clash with GOP audience member over gov’t shutdown blame: ‘Just got wrecked’
Blue state governor vows ‘zero tolerance’ approach to street takeovers after violent attack on law enforcement
New Anti-Conversion Law in India Leaves Christians Vulnerable to Attacks
Police Seek Public’s Help Amid Search for Suspects in Deadly Homecoming Mass Shooting
Trump’s Iran gamble pays off as WWIII doomsayers now praise Israel-Hamas ceasefire
Trump dangles access to net unprecedented fundraising hauls
‘A Ridiculous Question for Me to Be Given’: Trump Hits Back at Reporter Who Asked Him About Taking Out Foreign Leader
Police chase ends with truck explosion and fire in dramatic scene captured on camera
Ramaswamy: 2025 GOP wins in New Jersey, Virginia, would ‘set the table for…more decisive victories’ in 2026
Trump Admin Retooling IRS to Go After Left Wing Groups Funding Political Violence: Report
Judge sides with Democrat historian to temporarily block Trump presidential library deal in Florida
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.
Watch: Bernie Sanders Instantly Regrets Asking Conservative Student a Question During Town Hall
ICE Agents Arrest Illegal Alien Found Working as a Police Officer in Suburban Chicago
Massachusetts woman charged with threatening to kill federal agents while interfering with immigration arrest
Trump warns Hamas war will resume if terror group ‘continues to kill people in Gaza’
Bernie Sanders ripped after clash with GOP audience member over gov’t shutdown blame: ‘Just got wrecked’
Blue state governor vows ‘zero tolerance’ approach to street takeovers after violent attack on law enforcement
New Anti-Conversion Law in India Leaves Christians Vulnerable to Attacks
Police Seek Public’s Help Amid Search for Suspects in Deadly Homecoming Mass Shooting
Trump’s Iran gamble pays off as WWIII doomsayers now praise Israel-Hamas ceasefire
Trump dangles access to net unprecedented fundraising hauls
‘A Ridiculous Question for Me to Be Given’: Trump Hits Back at Reporter Who Asked Him About Taking Out Foreign Leader
Police chase ends with truck explosion and fire in dramatic scene captured on camera
Ramaswamy: 2025 GOP wins in New Jersey, Virginia, would ‘set the table for…more decisive victories’ in 2026
Trump Admin Retooling IRS to Go After Left Wing Groups Funding Political Violence: Report
Judge sides with Democrat historian to temporarily block Trump presidential library deal in Florida
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.
