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.

Anti-ICE agitators clash with federal agents at Minneapolis hotel, as agents deploy tear gas, flashbangs

JD Vance shares ‘crazy’ story of ICE and CBP officers being mobbed in Minneapolis

Federal immigration officials privately fume over DHS claims after deadly Minnesota shooting

Trump confirms federal review of Minneapolis shooting that killed nurse: ‘Reviewing everything’

The far-left network that helped put Alex Pretti in harm’s way, then made him a martyr

Bill Clinton says Trump admin ‘told us not to believe what we’ve seen’ after latest Minnesota shooting

Video shows masked robbers crash car through jewelry store entrance, steal owner’s gun in brazen heist

Barack and Michelle Obama slam ICE after Minneapolis shooting, urge accountability

Tim Walz compares Minnesota ICE actions to Holocaust and Anne Frank: ‘Hiding in their houses’

ICE says violent mob helped criminal escape and left ICE agent permanently maimed

Iran may have killed over 30,000 protesters in two days: Report

Dems silent on Minnesota church disruption after pressing Bondi to use FACE Act on pro-lifers

Carney pushes back on Trump’s 100% tariff threat over China trade deals with Canada amid tensions

White House accuses Walz of undermining law enforcement, blocking ICE cooperation

Here Are the Worst Countries on Earth for Christian Persecution

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.