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.
Samaritan’s Purse Plane Hijacked While on Aid Mission
WATCH: Dem lawmaker thanks Trump for pardon, says it came as a surprise amid re-election bid
Watch: Jake Tapper Masterfully Takes Down Dems, Critics Accusing Trump of Sleeping During Meeting
State Department announces renaming USIP ‘Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace’
PA school faces fury after Muslim club’s pro-Palestinian display leaves Jewish students ‘shaken’
Haitian gang leader learns sentence for orchestrating kidnapping of 16 American missionaries
Illinois church Nativity shows baby Jesus zip-tied by ICE agents
GOP dismisses off-year races as Democrats eye 2026 Senate takeover
Trump to Yank SNAP Food Aid from Dem States Who Refuse to Share Data to Catch Fraudsters
Rep Nancy Mace slaps down early retirement rumor: ‘BIG FAT NO from me’
As Trump’s standoff with Maduro deepens, experts warn the next move may force a showdown
Federal Agents Flood New Orleans to Take Down Illegal Immigrant Robbers and Rapists
Dystopia: UK Woman Recalls Being Arrested by Multiple Officers for Hate Crime While She Was Naked, After Sending Harmless Text Message
Decomposed body found in Connecticut after standoff with man who opened fire at police
Adams issues orders blocking NYC from boycotting Israel as clash with Mamdani grows
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.
Samaritan’s Purse Plane Hijacked While on Aid Mission
WATCH: Dem lawmaker thanks Trump for pardon, says it came as a surprise amid re-election bid
Watch: Jake Tapper Masterfully Takes Down Dems, Critics Accusing Trump of Sleeping During Meeting
State Department announces renaming USIP ‘Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace’
PA school faces fury after Muslim club’s pro-Palestinian display leaves Jewish students ‘shaken’
Haitian gang leader learns sentence for orchestrating kidnapping of 16 American missionaries
Illinois church Nativity shows baby Jesus zip-tied by ICE agents
GOP dismisses off-year races as Democrats eye 2026 Senate takeover
Trump to Yank SNAP Food Aid from Dem States Who Refuse to Share Data to Catch Fraudsters
Rep Nancy Mace slaps down early retirement rumor: ‘BIG FAT NO from me’
As Trump’s standoff with Maduro deepens, experts warn the next move may force a showdown
Federal Agents Flood New Orleans to Take Down Illegal Immigrant Robbers and Rapists
Dystopia: UK Woman Recalls Being Arrested by Multiple Officers for Hate Crime While She Was Naked, After Sending Harmless Text Message
Decomposed body found in Connecticut after standoff with man who opened fire at police
Adams issues orders blocking NYC from boycotting Israel as clash with Mamdani grows
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.
