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.
‘Happy Somali Independence Day!’ Ohio Capital Account Deletes Post Declaring City Would Fly Foreign Flag Week of July Fourth
Cruz pushes bill to hold tax-exempt sponsors accountable as DOJ probes Singham network
Why Four Million Christians in This Southeast Asian Nation Are In Danger
Democratic senate candidate called for mass release of criminals during prison abolition webinar
Cities brace for holiday weekend teen takeovers putting bystanders at deadly risk, former prosecutor warns
Trump kicks off Fourth of July weekend with symbolic salute to America’s legacy and more top headlines
We asked Americans to grade the economy. Then we asked if it would change their vote.
FBI Reportedly Concludes All Nancy Guthrie Ransom Messages Were Fake
54-Year-Old Defends Himself From Three Masked Thugs on Chicago Bus, Leaves Them Nursing Stab Wounds
James Carville breaks with famous ‘It’s the economy, stupid’ slogan because of Trump
WATCH: Controversial SCOTUS decision strikes a divide among lawmakers
Appeals court blocks Trump admin from holding migrants without bond for over 90 days
Judge blocks Philadelphia law targeting masked federal officers
The Democratic socialists are no longer on the fringe
BREAKING: Protester Sets Himself on Fire Outside UN Building in NYC
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.
‘Happy Somali Independence Day!’ Ohio Capital Account Deletes Post Declaring City Would Fly Foreign Flag Week of July Fourth
Cruz pushes bill to hold tax-exempt sponsors accountable as DOJ probes Singham network
Why Four Million Christians in This Southeast Asian Nation Are In Danger
Democratic senate candidate called for mass release of criminals during prison abolition webinar
Cities brace for holiday weekend teen takeovers putting bystanders at deadly risk, former prosecutor warns
Trump kicks off Fourth of July weekend with symbolic salute to America’s legacy and more top headlines
We asked Americans to grade the economy. Then we asked if it would change their vote.
FBI Reportedly Concludes All Nancy Guthrie Ransom Messages Were Fake
54-Year-Old Defends Himself From Three Masked Thugs on Chicago Bus, Leaves Them Nursing Stab Wounds
James Carville breaks with famous ‘It’s the economy, stupid’ slogan because of Trump
WATCH: Controversial SCOTUS decision strikes a divide among lawmakers
Appeals court blocks Trump admin from holding migrants without bond for over 90 days
Judge blocks Philadelphia law targeting masked federal officers
The Democratic socialists are no longer on the fringe
BREAKING: Protester Sets Himself on Fire Outside UN Building in NYC
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.
