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.
Is ‘Ilhan Omar’ a Fake Name? New Court Filing Identifying Omar’s Alias Has Americans Questioning Her Real Name
El-Sayed erupts at GOP rival over Muslim Brotherhood accusations in fiery Senate debate
California Driver Crashed While Watching X-Rated Content – Police Say She Killed a Retired Sunday School Teacher
DOJ urged to investigate Slotkin over threats to young professionals seeking work in Trump administration
France in flames is preview of what ‘DSA’ Democrats want for US, senator warns
Popular Food Delivery App Will Pay Millions After DOJ Says American Gig Workers Were Discriminated Against
Records Show Minnesota’s Democratic Senate Nominee Peggy Flanagan Lied About Her Past: Report
US pulls personnel from Saudi Arabia as kingdom comes under Houthi fire
Dr Oz takes Americans behind the doors of ‘clubhouse for crooks’ as feds hunt Medicare fraud
Trump supporters confronted with painful gas prices deliver striking response: ‘I’ll take that any day’
Mamdani-Linked Democratic Congressional Nominee Detained by IDF While in West Bank
Cuban American lawmakers hail Raúl Castro arrest warrant, vow to keep fighting for Cuba’s freedom
American woman masterminds $6 million marriage fraud scheme, Department of Justice says
Man Who Claimed His Wife Was Taken by ICE Arrested on Murder Charge After Human Remains Found
Grandfather gunned down in road rage attack days after burying Air Force son; convicted murderer charged
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.
Is ‘Ilhan Omar’ a Fake Name? New Court Filing Identifying Omar’s Alias Has Americans Questioning Her Real Name
El-Sayed erupts at GOP rival over Muslim Brotherhood accusations in fiery Senate debate
California Driver Crashed While Watching X-Rated Content – Police Say She Killed a Retired Sunday School Teacher
DOJ urged to investigate Slotkin over threats to young professionals seeking work in Trump administration
France in flames is preview of what ‘DSA’ Democrats want for US, senator warns
Popular Food Delivery App Will Pay Millions After DOJ Says American Gig Workers Were Discriminated Against
Records Show Minnesota’s Democratic Senate Nominee Peggy Flanagan Lied About Her Past: Report
US pulls personnel from Saudi Arabia as kingdom comes under Houthi fire
Dr Oz takes Americans behind the doors of ‘clubhouse for crooks’ as feds hunt Medicare fraud
Trump supporters confronted with painful gas prices deliver striking response: ‘I’ll take that any day’
Mamdani-Linked Democratic Congressional Nominee Detained by IDF While in West Bank
Cuban American lawmakers hail Raúl Castro arrest warrant, vow to keep fighting for Cuba’s freedom
American woman masterminds $6 million marriage fraud scheme, Department of Justice says
Man Who Claimed His Wife Was Taken by ICE Arrested on Murder Charge After Human Remains Found
Grandfather gunned down in road rage attack days after burying Air Force son; convicted murderer charged
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.
