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.
FBI and Texas authorities arrest 276 suspected child predators, rescue 89 children in sweeping operation
Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s $1.8 Billion ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund,’ Setting Up Critical Hearing
‘There Are No Words’: 6th Grader Dies on School Trip
Federal judge orders Trump’s name removed from Kennedy Center, says only Congress can rename it
Spanberger ripped over ignored ICE detainer after illegal alien with 18 prior charges accused of sex assault
House Republican Don Bacon says he wants ‘pariah state’ Russia booted from UN Security Council
Louisiana passes new congressional map
Pope Leo meets with Chicago’s far-left mayor, George Floyd’s family lawyer at the Vatican
Democrats eye Blanche and Patel subpoenas after Bondi deflects Epstein questions
Anti-ICE agitator screams ‘I’ll kill your whole f- family’ day after Dem gov praises ‘peaceful protesting’
‘Divisive’: Martina McBride Pulls Out of America 250 Birthday Concert Over Politics
Not Satire: Newsom Took Money That Could Have Helped Stop Palisades Fires and Spent It Teaching American Indians to Start Fires
Former Russian president warns Europe’s ‘peaceful sleep is over’ after Romania drone hit
Kevin Kiley’s two-front fight: Battling California redistricting while defending his own seat
Dead voter allegation fuels concerns about voting safeguards as blue state official turns herself in
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.
FBI and Texas authorities arrest 276 suspected child predators, rescue 89 children in sweeping operation
Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s $1.8 Billion ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund,’ Setting Up Critical Hearing
‘There Are No Words’: 6th Grader Dies on School Trip
Federal judge orders Trump’s name removed from Kennedy Center, says only Congress can rename it
Spanberger ripped over ignored ICE detainer after illegal alien with 18 prior charges accused of sex assault
House Republican Don Bacon says he wants ‘pariah state’ Russia booted from UN Security Council
Louisiana passes new congressional map
Pope Leo meets with Chicago’s far-left mayor, George Floyd’s family lawyer at the Vatican
Democrats eye Blanche and Patel subpoenas after Bondi deflects Epstein questions
Anti-ICE agitator screams ‘I’ll kill your whole f- family’ day after Dem gov praises ‘peaceful protesting’
‘Divisive’: Martina McBride Pulls Out of America 250 Birthday Concert Over Politics
Not Satire: Newsom Took Money That Could Have Helped Stop Palisades Fires and Spent It Teaching American Indians to Start Fires
Former Russian president warns Europe’s ‘peaceful sleep is over’ after Romania drone hit
Kevin Kiley’s two-front fight: Battling California redistricting while defending his own seat
Dead voter allegation fuels concerns about voting safeguards as blue state official turns herself in
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.
