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.
Toledo police name suspect Ka Nye Taylor in festival shooting that injured 12, hunt second gunman
Prosecutors won’t seek death penalty in Minnesota Democrat’s assassination
Ohio approves nearly billion dollar payment after court ruled state shortchanged nursing homes
Minnesota man marks FBI’s first arrest from DOJ’s ‘Most Wanted Fraudsters’ list
Musk’s xAI and SpaceX sued over ‘inescapable’ noise from data center plant
‘He Was Licking His Lips With the Blood’ – Witness to Would-Be Beheading in N. Ireland Shares Grotesque Details
House Dem lashes out at GOP efforts to probe foreign donations with stunning claim on motive
Undefeated lacrosse team’s championship dreams end in controversy after players punished over fake cigars
Video: Christian Coffee Shop Hosts Worship as Vicious Trans Activists Scream, Attack Right Outside Their Door
Trump Says US Has Gotten ‘Millions of Barrels’ of Oil Through the Strait of Hormuz ‘Every Night,’ and Iran Just Realized
Fact Check: Did California Officials Catch a Republican Woman Registering Her Dog to Vote?
‘Squad’ Dem dismisses fraud probe speculation after $29M net-worth drop
UPDATE: Victim in Would-Be Beheading Is ‘Vulnerable’ Person with Disabilities, According to Neighbors
BREAKING ALERT: US Launches Significant New Strikes Against Iran, Hegseth Warns Will Be ‘Busy Tonight’
Vulnerable House Dem’s ‘reckless spending’ on office furniture emerges as midterms heat up
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.
Toledo police name suspect Ka Nye Taylor in festival shooting that injured 12, hunt second gunman
Prosecutors won’t seek death penalty in Minnesota Democrat’s assassination
Ohio approves nearly billion dollar payment after court ruled state shortchanged nursing homes
Minnesota man marks FBI’s first arrest from DOJ’s ‘Most Wanted Fraudsters’ list
Musk’s xAI and SpaceX sued over ‘inescapable’ noise from data center plant
‘He Was Licking His Lips With the Blood’ – Witness to Would-Be Beheading in N. Ireland Shares Grotesque Details
House Dem lashes out at GOP efforts to probe foreign donations with stunning claim on motive
Undefeated lacrosse team’s championship dreams end in controversy after players punished over fake cigars
Video: Christian Coffee Shop Hosts Worship as Vicious Trans Activists Scream, Attack Right Outside Their Door
Trump Says US Has Gotten ‘Millions of Barrels’ of Oil Through the Strait of Hormuz ‘Every Night,’ and Iran Just Realized
Fact Check: Did California Officials Catch a Republican Woman Registering Her Dog to Vote?
‘Squad’ Dem dismisses fraud probe speculation after $29M net-worth drop
UPDATE: Victim in Would-Be Beheading Is ‘Vulnerable’ Person with Disabilities, According to Neighbors
BREAKING ALERT: US Launches Significant New Strikes Against Iran, Hegseth Warns Will Be ‘Busy Tonight’
Vulnerable House Dem’s ‘reckless spending’ on office furniture emerges as midterms heat up
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.
