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.
Pentagon orders mandatory testosterone tests for male troops 30 and older
15-year-old accused of firing into crowd during deadly Seattle mass shooting claims self-defense
Maine’s high court gives father final say over daughter’s church attendance
FAA seeks permanent airspace restrictions near Trump’s Mar-a-Lago as expert warns rules are ‘not good enough’
Watch: Black Entrepreneur Humiliates Jemele Hill on CNN After She Claims Capitalism and White Supremacy Are Connected
The primary is over; now come the primetime mistakes
Trump Clarifies Stakes of Texas Senate Battle: If Talarico Wins, ‘I Will Be the Last Republican President’
Blue state creates six-figure role for trans inmate services amid budget shortfalls
Breaking: Mass Shooting in Downtown Minneapolis, Civilian Killed, Officers Shot
NFL Fans Stunned to Learn of Subtle Field-Goal Trick the Patriots Used Against Opponents in the Belichick Era
Apple Relents to Pressure from Trump, Makes ‘Lake America’ Change on Maps App
‘A little pissed’: Jeffries ally turns his back to centrist who voted to condemn DSA
Jelly Roll Gets What He Asked For: Report Shows Social Media Following Plummets After He Goes Woke on Kimmel
Putin swears there won’t be mass mobilization, accuses Ukraine of ‘state terrorism’
Grandmother, Fiancé Turned Semi-Truck into Rolling Dungeon, Imprisoned 4 Children for 6 Nightmarish Years: Cops
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.
Pentagon orders mandatory testosterone tests for male troops 30 and older
15-year-old accused of firing into crowd during deadly Seattle mass shooting claims self-defense
Maine’s high court gives father final say over daughter’s church attendance
FAA seeks permanent airspace restrictions near Trump’s Mar-a-Lago as expert warns rules are ‘not good enough’
Watch: Black Entrepreneur Humiliates Jemele Hill on CNN After She Claims Capitalism and White Supremacy Are Connected
The primary is over; now come the primetime mistakes
Trump Clarifies Stakes of Texas Senate Battle: If Talarico Wins, ‘I Will Be the Last Republican President’
Blue state creates six-figure role for trans inmate services amid budget shortfalls
Breaking: Mass Shooting in Downtown Minneapolis, Civilian Killed, Officers Shot
NFL Fans Stunned to Learn of Subtle Field-Goal Trick the Patriots Used Against Opponents in the Belichick Era
Apple Relents to Pressure from Trump, Makes ‘Lake America’ Change on Maps App
‘A little pissed’: Jeffries ally turns his back to centrist who voted to condemn DSA
Jelly Roll Gets What He Asked For: Report Shows Social Media Following Plummets After He Goes Woke on Kimmel
Putin swears there won’t be mass mobilization, accuses Ukraine of ‘state terrorism’
Grandmother, Fiancé Turned Semi-Truck into Rolling Dungeon, Imprisoned 4 Children for 6 Nightmarish Years: Cops
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.
