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.
Dem AG running for higher office dodges questions on bid to free man who killed pregnant woman
Spanberger’s data center plan on collision course with her party’s green energy push, critics warn
King of Jordan and president of Turkey praise Trump, slam Israel for Gaza war
Bill Clinton criticizes Trump’s Kennedy Center renaming battle: ‘It’s hard to make up’
Breaking: Vance’s Task Force Purges 760,000 Names from Obamacare Rolls After Uncovering Rampant Fraud
Trump-backed Senate candidate says ‘Groceries cost too much,’ calls for Iran war to ‘end quickly’
Insiders Say Sports Gambling Giant Specifically Targets Bettors Most Likely to Be Addicts Who Lose
Trump Jr under scrutiny from own party over Putin-linked oligarch’s lavish gift
Nolan Wells’ friends cleared by grand jury as their lawyers vow to hold online accusers accountable
‘American Idol’ contestant’s murder case sent cops underground with high-powered magnet to find gun
El-Sayed Is Delighted to Have Tucker Carlson’s Support: ‘MAGA Eating Itself’
The UK’s Most Prominent Lib Outlet Keeps Trying to Make the Phrase ‘Petro-Masculinity’ Happen, Publishes Yet Another Article About Fake Climate Trend
Pentagon unveils battlefield test to ensure new generals are warfighters – not Washington bureaucrats
Fox News Power Rankings: For the Democrats, where could it possibly go wrong?
El-Sayed’s Jewish outreach ignites ‘tokenism’ fury as Michigan GOP chair makes bold prediction
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.
Dem AG running for higher office dodges questions on bid to free man who killed pregnant woman
Spanberger’s data center plan on collision course with her party’s green energy push, critics warn
King of Jordan and president of Turkey praise Trump, slam Israel for Gaza war
Bill Clinton criticizes Trump’s Kennedy Center renaming battle: ‘It’s hard to make up’
Breaking: Vance’s Task Force Purges 760,000 Names from Obamacare Rolls After Uncovering Rampant Fraud
Trump-backed Senate candidate says ‘Groceries cost too much,’ calls for Iran war to ‘end quickly’
Insiders Say Sports Gambling Giant Specifically Targets Bettors Most Likely to Be Addicts Who Lose
Trump Jr under scrutiny from own party over Putin-linked oligarch’s lavish gift
Nolan Wells’ friends cleared by grand jury as their lawyers vow to hold online accusers accountable
‘American Idol’ contestant’s murder case sent cops underground with high-powered magnet to find gun
El-Sayed Is Delighted to Have Tucker Carlson’s Support: ‘MAGA Eating Itself’
The UK’s Most Prominent Lib Outlet Keeps Trying to Make the Phrase ‘Petro-Masculinity’ Happen, Publishes Yet Another Article About Fake Climate Trend
Pentagon unveils battlefield test to ensure new generals are warfighters – not Washington bureaucrats
Fox News Power Rankings: For the Democrats, where could it possibly go wrong?
El-Sayed’s Jewish outreach ignites ‘tokenism’ fury as Michigan GOP chair makes bold prediction
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.
