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.
Top 5 moments: Noem clashes with Dems in fiery hearing as drones, deportations erupt into flashpoints
See the Biden-era ‘DEI’ coins Bessent scrapped as Trump team restores patriotic 250th designs
Video: Charlie Kirk Assassination Suspect Tyler Robinson Smiles and Laughs as He Makes First Court Appearance
13 House Republicans Side with Democrats, Vote to Overturn Trump Executive Order
Twice-deported Honduran accused of stabbing passenger on Charlotte light rail faces federal charges
US set to seize tens of millions in Venezuelan oil after tanker interception, White House says
Leavitt accuses CNN reporter of trying to ‘push narratives’ during heated White House exchange
New York to spend millions helping people cope with ‘collective trauma’
Alleged gang hit man captured after yearslong manhunt for 3 separate murders in Philadelphia: ‘The very worst’
Dueling healthcare bills rejected by Senate as Obamacare subsidies set to expire
Bulgarian government toppled by citizens over claims of corruption, embezzlement
Dem rep opens House hearing by telling Noem to resign in fiery statement
BREAKING: Kilmar Abrego Garcia Released by Obama Judge – Freed Despite MS-13, Trafficking, and Wife-Beating Allegations
Republican rift puts spotlight on high-stakes showdown over Trump-driven red state redistricting
Dem Lawmaker Admits ‘I Don’t Feel Good About Being White Every Day,’ Wants to Drag Kids Down with 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.
Top 5 moments: Noem clashes with Dems in fiery hearing as drones, deportations erupt into flashpoints
See the Biden-era ‘DEI’ coins Bessent scrapped as Trump team restores patriotic 250th designs
Video: Charlie Kirk Assassination Suspect Tyler Robinson Smiles and Laughs as He Makes First Court Appearance
13 House Republicans Side with Democrats, Vote to Overturn Trump Executive Order
Twice-deported Honduran accused of stabbing passenger on Charlotte light rail faces federal charges
US set to seize tens of millions in Venezuelan oil after tanker interception, White House says
Leavitt accuses CNN reporter of trying to ‘push narratives’ during heated White House exchange
New York to spend millions helping people cope with ‘collective trauma’
Alleged gang hit man captured after yearslong manhunt for 3 separate murders in Philadelphia: ‘The very worst’
Dueling healthcare bills rejected by Senate as Obamacare subsidies set to expire
Bulgarian government toppled by citizens over claims of corruption, embezzlement
Dem rep opens House hearing by telling Noem to resign in fiery statement
BREAKING: Kilmar Abrego Garcia Released by Obama Judge – Freed Despite MS-13, Trafficking, and Wife-Beating Allegations
Republican rift puts spotlight on high-stakes showdown over Trump-driven red state redistricting
Dem Lawmaker Admits ‘I Don’t Feel Good About Being White Every Day,’ Wants to Drag Kids Down with 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.
