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.

Ohio cancer patient sues hospital after surgeon allegedly amputated wrong leg

Utah man released after decades on death row as DNA evidence excludes him from 1985 killing

Repeat offender with lengthy rap sheet accused of gunning down Kentucky trooper during traffic stop

Eric Schmitt defends perjury trap airball at Jack Smith hearing: ‘Not a mistake’

Fox News Hires Former Top Andrew Cuomo Aide Who Helped Run Major Cover-Up

Woman on Death Row for Satanic Murder Says She Feels ‘a Kinship’ with Lindsay Clancy

Boeing lands $20B-plus Navy deal for sixth-generation fighter to deliver ‘absolute air superiority’

Watch: Broncos Stars Team Up to Give ‘All Glory to God’ on Live TV After Wild Comeback Win

‘F— her’: Jasmine Crockett torched by ex-Dem colleague over who she left off endorsement list

Suspect accused of killing Pittsburgh pediatrician sexually assaulted woman hours earlier: police

Watch: NFL Sparks Controversy Again as Mariachi Band Plays Nat’l Anthem on Monday Night Football

Bears QB Caleb Williams Accused of ‘Disrespecting the Flag’ During National Anthem

Unearthed audit exposes vulnerable Dem’s handling of COVID relief funds: ‘Gross oversight’

Woke, Anti-Trump Classic Rocker Todd Rundgren Nukes Taylor Swift: ‘Apotheosis of Mediocrity’

Trump Sets the Record Straight After ‘Hoax’ Report on What He Offered Iran

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.