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.
GOP sheriff leading California poll rips Newsom’s ‘love affair’ with criminals
Tech Exec. Charged with Secretly Sending Huge Quantities of Advanced AI Equipment to China
Thune reveals reason Democrats are ‘scared’ to reopen DHS
Breaking: Chuck Norris Dies at Age 86
Slain Loyola Chicago student’s family fumes over ‘murder,’ manhunt for masked gunman in attack near campus
Jimmy Gracey’s death deemed accidental after vanishing on spring break in Barcelona, police say
Top Dems brush off ties to Imam who held memorial for Iranian leader who vowed ‘Death to America’
After Telling Them to Leave, Hochul Begs New Yorkers Who Fled to FL: Please Come Back – And Drag Your Friends Back, Too – To Pay Our High Taxes
Revealed: Biden Admin Handed ‘Sweetheart Settlement’ to Iranian Front Group on Final Days in Office
WATCH: Dem senators make the case for the very bill they’re trying to kill
Cuban exiles in Miami say ‘this is the end’ for communism as island teeters on collapse
Noem, Mullin, and O’Brien show how Trump 2.0 is different
This senator offered a refreshingly candid explanation for her retirement plans
Advantages and drawbacks emerge from Trump-backed US data center expansion
Far-left firebrand dodges questions over hiring bodyguard with criminal history
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.
GOP sheriff leading California poll rips Newsom’s ‘love affair’ with criminals
Tech Exec. Charged with Secretly Sending Huge Quantities of Advanced AI Equipment to China
Thune reveals reason Democrats are ‘scared’ to reopen DHS
Breaking: Chuck Norris Dies at Age 86
Slain Loyola Chicago student’s family fumes over ‘murder,’ manhunt for masked gunman in attack near campus
Jimmy Gracey’s death deemed accidental after vanishing on spring break in Barcelona, police say
Top Dems brush off ties to Imam who held memorial for Iranian leader who vowed ‘Death to America’
After Telling Them to Leave, Hochul Begs New Yorkers Who Fled to FL: Please Come Back – And Drag Your Friends Back, Too – To Pay Our High Taxes
Revealed: Biden Admin Handed ‘Sweetheart Settlement’ to Iranian Front Group on Final Days in Office
WATCH: Dem senators make the case for the very bill they’re trying to kill
Cuban exiles in Miami say ‘this is the end’ for communism as island teeters on collapse
Noem, Mullin, and O’Brien show how Trump 2.0 is different
This senator offered a refreshingly candid explanation for her retirement plans
Advantages and drawbacks emerge from Trump-backed US data center expansion
Far-left firebrand dodges questions over hiring bodyguard with criminal history
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.
