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.
Trump’s go-to Michigan auto worker gets a job and the spotlight
This Isn’t Want Dems Had in Mind: Cali’s Wealth Tax Plan Handed Billionaire Zuckerberg a Massive Pay Increase
Did He Forget About 9/11? Muslim Brotherhood-Connected El-Sayed Said US Was ‘A Lot More Safe’ Under INS
Second Amendment fight moves beyond guns with Supreme Court poised for big ruling
Bush dynasty delivers another blow to GOP in Texas Senate battle as family member breaks ranks
Breaking: US Evacuates Middle East in ‘Sudden Exodus’ as ‘Advanced Stages’ of Iranian Assassination Plots Come to Light
Obama prepares to rally with Michigan Dem who once delivered scathing verdict on his presidency
Omar’s deleted tweet could give clue on alleged brother marriage
Trump’s war on drug cartels could gain powerful new ally after pivotal election
Missouri businesswoman and single mom killed when police SUV responding to emergency crashes into her Audi
Cornell rape accuser can remain ‘Jane Doe’ as judge warns threats could lead to federal charges
The parties have flipped on support for Israel
BLUE WAVE CRUSHED? Frank Luntz Warns CNN of Flawed Polling and Defiant Trump Voters
Alabama man allegedly decapitates family members with chainsaw, hours after 911 warning
DHS Testing Nonlethal Device That Causes ‘Irresistible Urge to Run’ for Use at Border
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.
Trump’s go-to Michigan auto worker gets a job and the spotlight
This Isn’t Want Dems Had in Mind: Cali’s Wealth Tax Plan Handed Billionaire Zuckerberg a Massive Pay Increase
Did He Forget About 9/11? Muslim Brotherhood-Connected El-Sayed Said US Was ‘A Lot More Safe’ Under INS
Second Amendment fight moves beyond guns with Supreme Court poised for big ruling
Bush dynasty delivers another blow to GOP in Texas Senate battle as family member breaks ranks
Breaking: US Evacuates Middle East in ‘Sudden Exodus’ as ‘Advanced Stages’ of Iranian Assassination Plots Come to Light
Obama prepares to rally with Michigan Dem who once delivered scathing verdict on his presidency
Omar’s deleted tweet could give clue on alleged brother marriage
Trump’s war on drug cartels could gain powerful new ally after pivotal election
Missouri businesswoman and single mom killed when police SUV responding to emergency crashes into her Audi
Cornell rape accuser can remain ‘Jane Doe’ as judge warns threats could lead to federal charges
The parties have flipped on support for Israel
BLUE WAVE CRUSHED? Frank Luntz Warns CNN of Flawed Polling and Defiant Trump Voters
Alabama man allegedly decapitates family members with chainsaw, hours after 911 warning
DHS Testing Nonlethal Device That Causes ‘Irresistible Urge to Run’ for Use at Border
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.
