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.
Socialists take fight west, target Colorado in latest bid to oust Democratic Party establishment
Fetterman unleashes on ‘dirtbag’ wing of Dems after far-left victories: ‘Orgy of socialism’
Trump supporters rip Amy Coney Barrett after Supreme Court setbacks
A California dog rescue hid a grim secret: more than 100 dogs buried beneath it
DuckDuckGo’s AI Assistant Claims Trump and Vance Have Died from Rabies
CBS crew attacked by multiple men near Chicago museum, suspects arrested: police
That Thing That ‘Never Happens’ Happened Again – NYC Clerk Caught Fixing Election with Oversize Garbage Can Filled with Ballots – Court Docs
Helicopter reports drone encounter near JFK hours after JetBlue’s possible drone strike
Trump taps acting Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling for permanent role pending Senate confirmation
Clarence Thomas Irks MSNOW Reporter by Laughing Off Questions at Capitol
San Francisco archdiocese agrees to $395M settlement with 530 clergy abuse survivors
Ex-NFL Superstar Chris Johnson, 40, Diagnosed with ALS, Can No Longer Speak
Alaska Supreme Court allows second Dan Sullivan to appear on ballot
Watch: Radical Leftist Scott Weiner Roasted – Deranged Pride Activists Encircle, Attack Him for Not Being Woke Enough
US and Iran Reach New Agreement After Days of Trading Strikes
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.
Socialists take fight west, target Colorado in latest bid to oust Democratic Party establishment
Fetterman unleashes on ‘dirtbag’ wing of Dems after far-left victories: ‘Orgy of socialism’
Trump supporters rip Amy Coney Barrett after Supreme Court setbacks
A California dog rescue hid a grim secret: more than 100 dogs buried beneath it
DuckDuckGo’s AI Assistant Claims Trump and Vance Have Died from Rabies
CBS crew attacked by multiple men near Chicago museum, suspects arrested: police
That Thing That ‘Never Happens’ Happened Again – NYC Clerk Caught Fixing Election with Oversize Garbage Can Filled with Ballots – Court Docs
Helicopter reports drone encounter near JFK hours after JetBlue’s possible drone strike
Trump taps acting Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling for permanent role pending Senate confirmation
Clarence Thomas Irks MSNOW Reporter by Laughing Off Questions at Capitol
San Francisco archdiocese agrees to $395M settlement with 530 clergy abuse survivors
Ex-NFL Superstar Chris Johnson, 40, Diagnosed with ALS, Can No Longer Speak
Alaska Supreme Court allows second Dan Sullivan to appear on ballot
Watch: Radical Leftist Scott Weiner Roasted – Deranged Pride Activists Encircle, Attack Him for Not Being Woke Enough
US and Iran Reach New Agreement After Days of Trading Strikes
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.
