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: ‘The View’ Hit Its Lowest Low Ever as Joy Behar Attacks ‘Narcissistic’ Jesus in Blasphemous On-Air Rant

Trump taps former deputy surgeon general to helm CDC

Ketanji Brown Jackson Publicly Attacks Her Supreme Court Colleagues for ‘Utterly Irrational’ Decisions

Scamming the West: What’s really behind the UN’s ahistorical transatlantic slavery resolution

Israel and Lebanon take a critical step forward on the road to peace

The un-shock effects of ‘Undertone’

Greenland talks on ‘good trajectory,’ White House says amid Trump takeover push

House punts Trump spy powers extension after conservatives block deal, forcing end-of-month showdown

Trump admin announces expansion of visa restriction policy in Western Hemisphere

Singer D4vd arrested and held without bail in case tied to teen found dead in Tesla: Police

EXCLUSIVE: NYC officials refuse ICE hold for illegal alien accused in arson that killed 4 and injured 7: DHS

Ex-teacher faces 25 charges, including rape and abuse as investigation widens

Jerome Powell Now Considering Move to Spite Trump: Report

Missing pregnant woman found dead after mysterious Texas disappearance

Franklin Graham defends Trump in letter shared on Truth Social after AI ‘Jesus’ image backlash

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.