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.

Sheridan Gorman’s university newspaper touts ICE tracker after freshman allegedly murdered by illegal alien

Movie Review: Hopeful Comedy ‘Home Delivery’ Delivers Heart, Laughs, and Free Admission for Expectant Mothers

‘Maybe It Wasn’t a Bug…’ Internet Weighs In on Man Who Discovered He Could Access 7,000 Robotic Vacuums

Battleground Dem candidate linked public displays of faith to political violence in 2023 speech

Senate passes overnight bill to fund most of Homeland Security as fight nears end and more top headlines

Fetterman tells far-left prosecutor to ‘lighten up’ after threatening to arrest ICE agents over raids

FTC commissioner likens American Bar Association to ‘communist party’ over far-left advocacy

NHL’s Nashville Predators Unveil New LGBT Logo, and It Doesn’t Land the Way They Hoped

Just In: Trump’s Legacy Will Now Appear on All New US Currency

Sorely needed US housing supply expansion may run through 3D printed homes

Israel has recognized Somaliland. Will the US follow?

Cruz says Trump’s move to strike Iran ‘most consequential decision’ of his presidency

Helicopter crashes into ocean off Hawaii coast, leaving multiple dead and injured

DHS shutdown breakthrough comes at cost for Republicans as funding fights nears end

New Jersey middle school teacher charged with child sex assault after alleged sexual relationship with student

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.