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.
Militant Antifa Leftist Indicted for Allegedly Trying to Torch GOP Headquarters
A Better Way for Christians to Engage Politics and Culture
Dem senators deflect questions on Platner’s scandal-plagued campaign: ‘Not following that race closely’
Trump champions bid to nix clock changes by adopting permanent daylight saving time
GOP caps turbulent week, pointing finger at White House for immigration bill blunder
Army cuts helicopters, pushes ‘Amazon for war’ as drone combat reshapes military
Massive SPLC-linked grant under fire as watchdog exposes ties to middle school programs
DOJ bolsters South Florida team investigating alleged anti-Trump conspiracy
Fox News True Crime Newsletter: Alex Murdaugh’s new defense, Luigi Mangione’s decision, Tyler Robinson’s fight
Rep. Tom Kean Jr. says he expects to return to Congress ‘in the next couple of weeks’ after missing 100 votes
Teen suspect tied to 12 attacks in chaotic Austin shooting spree identified as illegal alien
More than 300 arrested in sprawling California crackdown on child exploitation crimes
Former US attorney charged with felony hit-and-run after Houston crash, police say
Plan for Trump’s ‘Triumphal Arch’ Clears Another Important Hurdle with DC Commission Approval
Texas congressional candidate claims she never called for ‘internment camps’ after party leaders condemn her
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.
Militant Antifa Leftist Indicted for Allegedly Trying to Torch GOP Headquarters
A Better Way for Christians to Engage Politics and Culture
Dem senators deflect questions on Platner’s scandal-plagued campaign: ‘Not following that race closely’
Trump champions bid to nix clock changes by adopting permanent daylight saving time
GOP caps turbulent week, pointing finger at White House for immigration bill blunder
Army cuts helicopters, pushes ‘Amazon for war’ as drone combat reshapes military
Massive SPLC-linked grant under fire as watchdog exposes ties to middle school programs
DOJ bolsters South Florida team investigating alleged anti-Trump conspiracy
Fox News True Crime Newsletter: Alex Murdaugh’s new defense, Luigi Mangione’s decision, Tyler Robinson’s fight
Rep. Tom Kean Jr. says he expects to return to Congress ‘in the next couple of weeks’ after missing 100 votes
Teen suspect tied to 12 attacks in chaotic Austin shooting spree identified as illegal alien
More than 300 arrested in sprawling California crackdown on child exploitation crimes
Former US attorney charged with felony hit-and-run after Houston crash, police say
Plan for Trump’s ‘Triumphal Arch’ Clears Another Important Hurdle with DC Commission Approval
Texas congressional candidate claims she never called for ‘internment camps’ after party leaders condemn her
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.
