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.
Taxpayer-funded ‘Meth Mansion’ under fire as crime concerns mount around homeless campus
Priceless Video: Living Wall of Riot Cops Opens, Pulls in Unsuspecting Anti-ICE Punk, Closes Like He Was Never There
Trump admin backs off controversial $2B fund, clearing path for stalled GOP immigration bill
Watch: MSNBC Shill Is Scared to Attend July 4 Parties but Was Somehow Fine When BLM Burned Down Minneapolis Behind Him
Teen athlete arrested, three horses pulled from competition after alleged overnight barn attack
Biden’s posh vacation enclave roiled as church axes July 4 tradition over ‘whiteness’ debate: ‘Spewing lies’
Judge denies Tyler Robinson secrecy request and orders hearing on prosecutors’ statements
Marine combat veteran bets big on Hispanic outreach in bid to flip Dem-held House seat
Video: Panicking Anti-ICE ‘Medic’ Is Almost in Tears Begging Rioters to Leave as NJ State Police Roll in the Big Guns
Teenage Barrel Racing Competitor Arrested After Horse-Stabbing Rampage
British diplomats were driven insane trying to find very specific gift for Trump, tranche of emails reveals
Mamdami marks Pride Month, says honoring ‘queer and transgender’ contributions would take more than 30 days
Pro-Gun Organizations Slap Virginia With Complaint Alleging Virginia Defied Court Orders on Gun Control
Chemical Tank Disaster Victim Remains are Found
Fourth US drug boat strike in a week kills more ‘narco-terrorists’
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.
Taxpayer-funded ‘Meth Mansion’ under fire as crime concerns mount around homeless campus
Priceless Video: Living Wall of Riot Cops Opens, Pulls in Unsuspecting Anti-ICE Punk, Closes Like He Was Never There
Trump admin backs off controversial $2B fund, clearing path for stalled GOP immigration bill
Watch: MSNBC Shill Is Scared to Attend July 4 Parties but Was Somehow Fine When BLM Burned Down Minneapolis Behind Him
Teen athlete arrested, three horses pulled from competition after alleged overnight barn attack
Biden’s posh vacation enclave roiled as church axes July 4 tradition over ‘whiteness’ debate: ‘Spewing lies’
Judge denies Tyler Robinson secrecy request and orders hearing on prosecutors’ statements
Marine combat veteran bets big on Hispanic outreach in bid to flip Dem-held House seat
Video: Panicking Anti-ICE ‘Medic’ Is Almost in Tears Begging Rioters to Leave as NJ State Police Roll in the Big Guns
Teenage Barrel Racing Competitor Arrested After Horse-Stabbing Rampage
British diplomats were driven insane trying to find very specific gift for Trump, tranche of emails reveals
Mamdami marks Pride Month, says honoring ‘queer and transgender’ contributions would take more than 30 days
Pro-Gun Organizations Slap Virginia With Complaint Alleging Virginia Defied Court Orders on Gun Control
Chemical Tank Disaster Victim Remains are Found
Fourth US drug boat strike in a week kills more ‘narco-terrorists’
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.
