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.
Trump’s attempted assassin sent mysterious texts about 3D printer leading up to Butler, Pa. shooting: report
DHS exposes dilemma behind SCOTUS deportation fight: ‘We have two choices’
MAGA mom’s dire warning over tech guardrails as Trump puts pedal to the metal on race with China
Activist network wants you scared of AI killing people — unless China’s using it
Boston-bound plane vanishes with 6 on board; Coast Guard launches search off Nantucket coast
Japan seeks US help to bring North Korean abductees home
Lawmaker’s stunned face and other viral moments cap rough week for political class
Top investigator in Biden-era election probe wanted to tear key constitutional right away from lawmakers
Look: Grok AI Leaves Only 1 Out of 40 Standing When Asked to ‘Remove the Fake Gods’ from Image
Fed expected to raise interest rates again, against Trump’s wishes
El-Sayed Suggests Football Is Unethical, Based on ‘Toxic Masculinity’… But Turns Out He Was HS Team Captain
‘Fauda’s’ new season is a gripping, moving tribute to the victims of Oct. 7
Arab parties set up for kingmaker role in Israeli election despite Netanyahu’s move to ban them
Three college students face federal charges over alleged threats against Trump ahead of campus rally
Trump planning a 10-state travel blitz in the midterms’ closing stages — visiting all but one battleground
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.
Trump’s attempted assassin sent mysterious texts about 3D printer leading up to Butler, Pa. shooting: report
DHS exposes dilemma behind SCOTUS deportation fight: ‘We have two choices’
MAGA mom’s dire warning over tech guardrails as Trump puts pedal to the metal on race with China
Activist network wants you scared of AI killing people — unless China’s using it
Boston-bound plane vanishes with 6 on board; Coast Guard launches search off Nantucket coast
Japan seeks US help to bring North Korean abductees home
Lawmaker’s stunned face and other viral moments cap rough week for political class
Top investigator in Biden-era election probe wanted to tear key constitutional right away from lawmakers
Look: Grok AI Leaves Only 1 Out of 40 Standing When Asked to ‘Remove the Fake Gods’ from Image
Fed expected to raise interest rates again, against Trump’s wishes
El-Sayed Suggests Football Is Unethical, Based on ‘Toxic Masculinity’… But Turns Out He Was HS Team Captain
‘Fauda’s’ new season is a gripping, moving tribute to the victims of Oct. 7
Arab parties set up for kingmaker role in Israeli election despite Netanyahu’s move to ban them
Three college students face federal charges over alleged threats against Trump ahead of campus rally
Trump planning a 10-state travel blitz in the midterms’ closing stages — visiting all but one battleground
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.
