Official to testify

NSC official to testify Trump undermined national security with Ukraine pressure

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who oversees Ukraine policy at the White House, is to appear before impeachment investigators Tuesday.

By ANDREW DESIDERIO and KYLE CHENEY

A senior White House official plans to tell House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that he believed President Donald Trump undermined U.S. national security when he appealed to Ukraine’s president to investigate his political rivals, according to a copy of his opening statement obtained by POLITICO.

“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,” Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council official overseeing Ukraine policy, plans to tell investigators, referring to Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to look into Joe Biden and his son.

Vindman, who will become the first White House official to testify as part of the impeachment inquiry, also plans to say that he reported Trump’s July 25 phone call with Zelensky to the NSC’s top lawyer after listening in on the conversation from the White House situation room alongside other U.S. national security officials.

It was the second time Vindman had raised concerns to the NSC’s lead counsel about a campaign by Trump, his associates and some U.S. officials to pressure Ukraine to launch investigations intended to benefit Trump politically.

“I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained,” Vindman plans to say. (Burisma is a Ukrainian energy company of which Biden’s son Hunter was previously a board member.)

“This would all undermine U.S. national security,” Vindman adds. “Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC’s lead counsel.”

Vindman, an Army combat veteran who served in Iraq, will become the first official who listened in on Trump’s phone call with Zelensky to speak with investigators, providing a firsthand account of what House Democrats have said is a blatant abuse of power by the president. His opening statement leans heavily on his military service and a “sense of duty” to his country.

“I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend our country, irrespective of party or politics,” Vindman writes in his opening statement, adding that his family fled the Soviet Union when he was just 3½ years old. Vindman was also wounded in an IED attack while serving in Iraq and later received a Purple Heart.

“As an active duty military officer, the command structure is extremely important to me,” Vindman plans to say, defending his decisions to express his concerns about Trump to his higher-ups. “On many occasions I have been told I should express my views and share my concerns with my chain of command and proper authorities.”

The Trump-Zelensky phone call is at the center of House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry. Investigators have gathered evidence that Trump sought to withhold nearly $400 million of critical military aid to Ukraine and refuse a White House meeting with Zelensky until the Ukrainian leader publicly stated his intention to launch Trump’s desired investigations.

Vindman also says in his opening statement that he would be appearing before investigators under subpoena — an indication that he expects the White House to try to prevent him from testifying. He also says he is not the whistleblower who initially reported concerns about the White House’s handling of Ukraine to the intelligence community’s inspector general — though many of his concerns mirror the complaint that put the House on a path toward impeachment.

Vindman’s appearance before the three committees spearheading the impeachment inquiry will mark the most significant crack yet in the White House’s blockade of witness testimony.

Already, a handful of State Department officials and diplomats have described alarm at Trump’s handling of Ukraine and worried that he had withheld military aid and a White House visit from Zelensky in order to pressure him to launch the Biden probe.

Vindman plans to echo those concerns on Tuesday — in particular, efforts by “outside influencers” to promote “a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency.”

Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani was at the helm of that shadow campaign, which led to the ouster of Marie Yovanovitch as the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Vindman does not name Giuliani in his opening statement, but says he was alarmed that such efforts were inconsistent with American foreign policy and harming U.S.-Ukraine relations.

“This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy,” Vindman writes in his statement. “While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine’s prospects, this alternative narrative undermined U.S. government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.”

Vindman plans to testify that he first reported his Ukraine-related concerns to the NSC’s lead lawyer in early July, after a meeting between Ukraine’s top national security official and cadre of senior Trump administration officials, including Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Ambassadors Kurt Volker and Gordon Sondland.

Vindman says that when the Ukrainians raised the prospect of a Trump-Zelensky meeting — a crucial step for Ukraine as its newly elected leader sought to showcase a united front against Russia — Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, interjected “to speak about Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting.” At that moment, Vindman says, then-national security adviser John Bolton “cut the meeting short.”

At a subsequent debriefing, Vindman says, Sondland “emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma.” Vindman says he confronted Sondland and called his statements “inappropriate” because “the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security.” Those concerns, he says, were echoed by Fiona Hill, who at the time served as the NSC’s top Russia policy official.

“Following the debriefing meeting, I reported my concerns to the NSC’s lead counsel,” Vindman says. “Dr. Hill also reported the incident to the NSC’s lead counsel.”

Sondland, for his part, told lawmakers earlier this month he didn’t remember discussing the Bidens with State Department or White House officials.

“I recall no discussions with any State Department or White House official about Former Vice President Biden or his son, nor do I recall taking part in any effort to encourage an investigation into the Bidens,” he said.

Hill testified earlier this month that she met with NSC lawyer John Eisenberg twice, at Bolton’s urging, to relay similar concerns. Both Vindman and Hill met with NSC lawyers on the same day, July 10, after Bolton abruptly ended the meeting with Ukraine’s top national security official, Oleksandr Danylyuk.

Vindman’s testimony also appears to corroborate aspects of William Taylor’s testimony before impeachment investigators last week. Taylor, the top American diplomat in Ukraine, directly connected Trump to a quid pro quo with Ukraine involving military aid and a White House meeting with Zelensky.

The White House accused Taylor of being part of a “coordinated smear campaign” against the president, calling his testimony “hearsay.”

Vindman’s testimony is significant for not only its content but also its example. A fellow White House official, Tim Morrison, who also serves on the National Security Council, is expected to testify on Thursday, and his lawyer has already indicated that Morrison plans to speak to lawmakers under subpoena, even if the White House objects.

His and Vindman’s posture is a stark contrast with that of Charles Kupperman, a former Bolton aide who was deemed by the White House to be “absolutely immune” from testifying because of his proximity to Trump. Kupperman refused to comply with a House subpoena on Monday and is seeking a court order about whether to defer to the White House or Congress.