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.

WATCH: Top 5 most memorable moments in American State of the Union history

DHS suspends TSA PreCheck, Global Entry as partial government shutdown continues

California woman hospitalized with chemical burns after portable charger explodes while sleeping

High school senior facing more than 300 felony charges in alleged sextortion scheme targeting minors: reports

Bianco says ‘Democrat policy is indefensible’ as GOP candidates top California governor polling

Pima County sheriff warns in NBC interview DNA tech issues in Nancy Guthrie case may take ‘months’ to resolve

Newsom weighs in on social media age restrictions, citing experience as a parent: ‘We need help’

FBI investigates criminal damage to federal ICE warehouse facility in Arizona

Hours After Publicly Appearing With Newsom, CA High Speed Rail Chief Arrested on Suspicion of Spousal Battery

Trump pulls endorsement from GOP lawmaker over alleged lack of support for administration’s tariff agenda

Is a Donald J. Trump Airport on Its Way? Big Move from Trump Family Suggests It’s Coming

The Sting: How a DEA Supervisor Was Caught Getting Non-Americans Into the Country as Fake Law Enforcement Assets, According to Court Docs

Nancy Guthrie disappearance fuels rise of ‘mom detectives’ swapping tips and losing sleep

Colombian nationals allegedly ran fake law firm, impersonated federal judges to defraud migrants out of $100K

Mamdani promotes NYC where ‘every family can afford a home,’ rips ICE’s ‘cruelty’ amid budget blowback

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.