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 disrupt Minnesota church, shout down worshippers during Sunday service
Retired South Carolina couple found dead in homicides at home
BREAKING: DOJ to Charge Don Lemon Under the ‘KKK Act’ for Inciting Church Raid
Trump warns US can no longer think ‘purely of peace’ as he pushes for Greenland control
Noem hammers Walz, Frey for ignoring 1,360 ICE detainers for criminal illegal aliens
Gut-Punch: Image of Man Comforting Little Boy During Leftist Attack on Christians Should Be Seared Onto Our Brains Forever
Breaking: DOJ Confirms Charges Are Coming for Don Lemon and Anti-ICE Agitators Who Invaded Church
FBI responds to theft of conservative journalist’s camera by activists in Minneapolis
Elon Musk pours a staggering $10M into Kentucky Senate race, backing pro-Trump business outsider
The Lincoln Project continues to enrich leaders as its co-founder wants $100 million more
Alert: Maryland Dems Introduce Bill to Ban All ICE Agents Hired Under Trump from Ever Serving in Law Enforcement Again
The Case for Jailing Don Lemon – How the DOJ Arrested, Tried, Convicted, and Punished Three J6 Journalists
Experts warn Minnesota school closures after ICE shooting will harm kids for ‘political points’
White House-backed GOP bill would revoke citizenship after Somali fraud scandal
Law Professor: Anti-ICE Governors Are Acting Like Anti-Civil Rights Segregationists
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.
Anti-ICE agitators disrupt Minnesota church, shout down worshippers during Sunday service
Retired South Carolina couple found dead in homicides at home
BREAKING: DOJ to Charge Don Lemon Under the ‘KKK Act’ for Inciting Church Raid
Trump warns US can no longer think ‘purely of peace’ as he pushes for Greenland control
Noem hammers Walz, Frey for ignoring 1,360 ICE detainers for criminal illegal aliens
Gut-Punch: Image of Man Comforting Little Boy During Leftist Attack on Christians Should Be Seared Onto Our Brains Forever
Breaking: DOJ Confirms Charges Are Coming for Don Lemon and Anti-ICE Agitators Who Invaded Church
FBI responds to theft of conservative journalist’s camera by activists in Minneapolis
Elon Musk pours a staggering $10M into Kentucky Senate race, backing pro-Trump business outsider
The Lincoln Project continues to enrich leaders as its co-founder wants $100 million more
Alert: Maryland Dems Introduce Bill to Ban All ICE Agents Hired Under Trump from Ever Serving in Law Enforcement Again
The Case for Jailing Don Lemon – How the DOJ Arrested, Tried, Convicted, and Punished Three J6 Journalists
Experts warn Minnesota school closures after ICE shooting will harm kids for ‘political points’
White House-backed GOP bill would revoke citizenship after Somali fraud scandal
Law Professor: Anti-ICE Governors Are Acting Like Anti-Civil Rights Segregationists
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.
