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.
James Talarico Tries To Play Moderate at CNN Town Hall, Gets Owned on Abortion by Catholic Voter
Watch: El-Sayed Visibly Stunned When NBC Turns Screws on Muslim Brotherhood Connection, Forces Him to Answer
Fox News ‘Antisemitism Exposed’ Newsletter: Israel haters admit what they really want
Obama’s billion-dollar baby: Chicago center’s price tag hits monumental milestone, tripling original estimate
Investigators zero in on possible cause of Wisconsin plane crash that killed 6
DOJ gives California 48 hours to review list of possible noncitizens on voter rolls
Infinitely Gracious Caitlin Clark Defends Sulking Teammate Who Confirmed She Resents Clark
The Virtue Signaling Behind the Failing Somalia-to-Welfare Funnel
This sparsely populated red state quietly climbed to the top of America’s financial rankings
Most dramatic moments from Rep Mike Lawler’s fiery debate against Dem Cait Conley in battle for House control
The GOP Senate candidates skirting Trump’s diesel deal with Putin
San Jose girl, 8, dies after living in cockroach-infested home as mother, stepfather face charges
Former White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt opens up about Trump, motherhood
Pentagon sends hundreds of Army troops to Latin America for training as drug-trafficking campaign expands
Trump announces advanced weapons testing ‘super range’ in Montana
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.
James Talarico Tries To Play Moderate at CNN Town Hall, Gets Owned on Abortion by Catholic Voter
Watch: El-Sayed Visibly Stunned When NBC Turns Screws on Muslim Brotherhood Connection, Forces Him to Answer
Fox News ‘Antisemitism Exposed’ Newsletter: Israel haters admit what they really want
Obama’s billion-dollar baby: Chicago center’s price tag hits monumental milestone, tripling original estimate
Investigators zero in on possible cause of Wisconsin plane crash that killed 6
DOJ gives California 48 hours to review list of possible noncitizens on voter rolls
Infinitely Gracious Caitlin Clark Defends Sulking Teammate Who Confirmed She Resents Clark
The Virtue Signaling Behind the Failing Somalia-to-Welfare Funnel
This sparsely populated red state quietly climbed to the top of America’s financial rankings
Most dramatic moments from Rep Mike Lawler’s fiery debate against Dem Cait Conley in battle for House control
The GOP Senate candidates skirting Trump’s diesel deal with Putin
San Jose girl, 8, dies after living in cockroach-infested home as mother, stepfather face charges
Former White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt opens up about Trump, motherhood
Pentagon sends hundreds of Army troops to Latin America for training as drug-trafficking campaign expands
Trump announces advanced weapons testing ‘super range’ in Montana
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.
