New ‘Impeachment Inquiry’ Star Witness Admits Protecting the ‘Interagency’

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.

Watch: UK Police Do It Again, Attack White Kid for Crime of Being Slammed on Ground by Black Kid

Watch a Gun-Range Officer Halt Some Hollywood Antics on the Spot

California Man Pleads Guilty to Harassing Guthrie Family With Fake Ransom Notes

Newsom blames Trump for DOJ probe, but reports say investigation predates his administration

Samuel Alito Warns Mail-In-Ballot Ruling Leaves Giant Opening For Voter Fraud

Navy suspends search for sailor who went missing when helicopter went down in Arabian Sea

Top highlights from Trump’s late night July 4 address: ‘No dream in history is bigger’

PHOTOS: Record fireworks show lights up DC for America’s 250th birthday

Manson murders allegedly tied to CIA mind control experiments: congressional testimony

Trump made money, bought up stock from crypto companies after his SEC dropped cases against them

Expert who fled Cuba warns of ‘vicious cycle’ that will lead to ‘communists in double digits’ in Congress

9/11 Museum CEO reflects on lasting impact of terror attacks as America marks 250th birthday

Before the Boston Tea Party, there were New Hampshire’s Pine Tree Riots

America’s 250th celebration in nation’s capital boosted by iconic automaker’s 2-week tribute to innovation

Trump set to deliver ‘historic’ speech celebrating America’s 250th anniversary

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.