New ‘Impeachment Inquiry’ Star Witness Admits Protecting the ‘Interagency’

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.

Ford Pays a $19.5 Billion Price After Realizing it Fell for Biden’s EV Scam

Statue of Little-Known Civil Rights Activist Replaces Robert E. Lee in U.S. Capitol

Nearly two-thirds of American voters back social media ban for kids under 16, Fox News poll shows

Trump set to address the nation in primetime White House speech as Americans report economic squeeze

DOJ should not have dropped Trump codefendant charges: Jack Smith

Trump unveils disparaging ‘Presidential Walk of Fame’ plaques under Biden and Obama portraits

Newly Declassified Emails Show FBI Desperately Wanted to Avoid Mar-a-Lago Raid, Begged Biden’s DOJ for Other Options, But Was Denied

Former Texas coach allegedly used AI document to groom teen with manipulation tactics: report

Scott Jennings Dismantles CNN Guest’s Insane Susie Wiles Conspiracy Theory with a Single Question

Senate Republicans block Schiff effort to force release of Caribbean strike footage

Maine ‘mama bear’ facing threats as parents battle to keep 8-year-old boy off girls’ basketball team

Trump on thin ice with breadwinners and MAGA over lackluster economy

WATCH: Doctor-lawmaker blames Obamacare for driving health costs higher

Creeps at PornHub Are Being Extorted by Creep Hackers Threatening to Publish Creep Customers’ Porn Habits Just in Time for Christmas

Several House Republicans Side With Democrats in Attempt to Extend Obamacare Subsidies

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.