UK Passport Payment Form

[webfact]

White House adviser tells lawmakers Trump Ukraine call raised national security concerns

By Patricia Zengerle, Richard Cowan and Karen Freifeld

 

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, director for European Affairs at the National Security Council, arrives to testify as part of the U.S. House of Representatives impeachment inquiry into U.S. President Trump led by the House Intelligence, House Foreign Affairs and House Oversight and Reform Committees on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., October 29, 2019. REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior White House official testified on Tuesday he was so alarmed by hearing U.S. President Donald Trump ask Ukraine's president to investigate a political rival, Democrat Joe Biden, that he reported the matter to a White House lawyer.

 

Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman became the first current White House staff member to testify in the Democratic-led House of Representatives inquiry into whether to impeach the Republican president.

 

The Ukraine specialist gave a closed-door deposition for more than 10 hours as Democrats unveiled legislation calling for public hearings and a public report in the impeachment inquiry to blunt Republican criticism the probe has been conducted with too much secrecy.

 

While the Democrats met Republican demands for a full House vote on impeachment inquiry procedures, holding public hearings and releasing transcripts taken in secret, senior Republicans rejected the legislation before it was even introduced.

 

Appearing on Capitol Hill in his military dress uniform, Vindman, a Ukraine-born U.S. citizen and decorated Iraq war combat veteran, became the first person to testify who listened in on the July 25 call at the heart of the Ukraine scandal.

 

The inquiry has focused on Trump's request of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on the call that he investigate Biden, a former vice president, and his son Hunter Biden, who had served on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company.

 

Trump also asked Zelenskiy to investigate a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 U.S. election.

 

Trump made his request after withholding $391 million in security aid approved by Congress to help Ukraine fight Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. Zelenskiy agreed to Trump's requests. The aid was later provided.

 

"I was concerned by the call," Vindman said in his prepared opening statement to the three House committees conducting the inquiry. "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."

 

"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. This would all undermine U.S. national security," Vindman added.

 

Trump has denied any wrongdoing in his dealings with Ukraine and has called the impeachment probe politically motivated.

 

A U.S. Army officer assigned to the White House testified at a closed door Congressional hearing Tuesday that he feared a political effort to solicit dirt on Democrat Joe Biden risked bipartisan support for Ukraine, which could undermine U.S. national security. Zachary Goelman reports.

 

Vindman's testimony was some of the most damaging to date for Trump, who faces the possibility of impeachment as he prepares to run for re-election. Biden is a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination to face him.

 

Federal law prohibits candidates from accepting foreign help in an election.

 

Vindman, appearing after receiving a subpoena from lawmakers despite the Trump administration policy of not cooperating with the impeachment inquiry, recounted listening in on the call in the White House Situation Room with colleagues from the National Security Council and Vice President Mike Pence's office.

 

After the call, Vindman said he reported his concerns to the National Security Council's lead counsel.

 

Vindman said earlier in July he had also reported concerns about previous pressure by the administration on Ukraine to carry out politically motivated investigations to the lawyer.

 

A PIVOTAL MEETING

Vindman called into question the truthfulness of earlier testimony by another administration official, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland.

 

At a July 10 meeting in Washington, Vindman said Sondland, a former Trump donor, told visiting Ukrainian officials they needed to "deliver specific investigations in order to secure a meeting with the president." At that point, Vindman said, then-national security adviser John Bolton cut the meeting short.

 

According to Vindman's opening statement, Sondland told other U.S. officials in a debriefing after the meeting that it was important that the Ukrainian investigations center on the 2016 election, the Bidens and Burisma.

 

"I stated to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security," Vindman said.

 

Sondland gave a different account of the July 10 events in his own testimony, saying that "if Ambassador Bolton, Dr. Hill or others harbored any misgivings about the propriety of what we were doing, they never shared those misgivings with me, then or later."

 

Before his testimony, some Trump allies, including Fox News host Laura Ingraham, sought to attack Vindman's integrity and questioned his loyalty to the United States.

 

Biden, however, described Vindman as a hero, calling attacks on the Army officer's character and loyalty "despicable."

 

"He's a hell of a patriot," Biden told MSNBC.

 

After Vindman's testimony, the Democratic Intelligence Committee chairman, Representative Adam Schiff, said he was "appalled" by the critical comments. "He deserves better than that scandalous attack," Schiff told reporters.

 

'A SHAM'

Seeking to blunt Republican criticism that the inquiry does not give Trump due process, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi laid out legislation that could be voted on this week setting up a two-stage process for the inquiry.

 

In the first, the House Intelligence Committee would continue its probe, including via public hearings, with the right to make public transcripts of depositions taken in private.

 

The intelligence panel would then send a public report on its findings to the House Judiciary Committee, which would conduct its own proceedings and report on "such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper."

 

A lawyer for Trump would be allowed to participate in proceedings in the Judiciary Committee, which eventually could vote on formal charges against the Republican president. House passage of articles of impeachment would trigger a trial in the Republican-led Senate on whether to remove Trump from office.

 

At a news conference before the measure was unveiled, House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy said the entire process remained a "sham."

 

Referring to closed meetings and depositions held by the House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs panels over the past few weeks, McCarthy said: "You can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Due process starts at the beginning."

 

The White House adopted a similar stance.

 

"The resolution put forward by Speaker Pelosi confirms that House Democrats’ impeachment has been an illegitimate sham from the start as it lacked any proper authorization by a House vote," White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said.

 

Impeachment is much different from a judicial process, however, and is not governed by the same rules. The U.S. Constitution gives the House broad authority to set ground rules for an impeachment inquiry and Democrats say they are following House rules on investigations.

 

(Reporting by Karen Freifeld, Patricia Zengerle, Susan Cornwell, Mark Hosenball, Jonathan Landay, Makini Brice, Mohammad Zargham and Richard Cowan; Writing by Will Dunham and Arshad Mohammed; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-10-30

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[bendejo]

If you did nothing wrong just sit back and shut up and let the evidence speak for itself.  Rabid denouncements of witnesses, spewing conspiracy nonsense, insulting anyone who doesn't support you, and coming up with distractions makes you look guilty.  As usual, the stance is "it didn't happen" and then "it happened, but there's nothing wrong with it" and then back again etc.  Doesn't look good.  Anyone with a brain would be able to figure that out and keep their mouth shut.

The way they have defamed this guy in advance of the testimony is an infamy, and the choir at Fox will have a lot of apologizing to do when this is all over.  How much more can this WH alienate the military and intelligence agencies until something cracks? 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Lt. Col. Vindman has also given testimony that the WH sanitized the notes on the phone call before release to the public.

 

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

[Saint Nick]

The right is already s***ting all over him!

"Yes is a member of our glorious military and he has a Purple Heart...but he was born in the USSR and was contact by Ukranian officials as an advisor on foreign policy and therefore...screw him!"

But anyways: do we REALLY need more witnesses?

The WH and the president in his infinite wisdom issued the (shortened) transcript of the call in question!

IMHO there is not much more you need! 

[bristolboy]

Bombshell anyone?

White House Ukraine Expert Sought to Correct Transcript of Trump Call

Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the White House transcript of a July call between President Trump and Ukraine’s president omitted crucial words and phrases, and that his attempts to include them failed, according to three people familiar with the testimony.

The omissions, Colonel Vindman said, included Mr. Trump’s assertion that there were recordings of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. discussing Ukraine corruption, and an explicit mention by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, of Burisma Holdings, the energy company whose board employed Mr. Biden’s son Hunter.

Colonel Vindman, who appeared on Capitol Hill wearing his dark blue Army dress uniform and military medals, told House impeachment investigators that he tried to change the reconstructed transcript made by the White House staff to reflect the omissions.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/us/politics/alexander-vindman-trump-ukraine.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

[Tug]

Over on Fox they are in conspiracy overdrive lol and of course Donald is slandering the guy I guess when you got nothing it’s all you can do just pathetic the republicans response 

[Becker]

Report: Vindman testified Ukraine call transcript omitted Trump referencing Biden

 

"Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the transcript released by the White House of President Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky did not include critical words and phrases, three people familiar with his testimony told The New York Times.

Vindman is the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, and listened to the call. During their conversation, Trump asked Zelensky to launch an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.'"

 

Lock the orange abomination up! Him, together with his disgusting band of sycophants who conspired to keep the truth of Trump's treachery from the public.

[AlexRich]

Trump scarcely hides his corruption ... will 2020 be the year the USA goes full banana republic?

[neeray]

2 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

Trump scarcely hides his corruption ... will 2020 be the year the USA goes full banana republic?

No !

 

Changes are in the wind.

[pmarlin]

Hope he feels that it was worth it because he just ended his military career. What he is claiming ,if true, was not his call since he doesn't decide what is national security as that is way above his pay grade and no one decides over the president in this matter. Washington is full of these people who think they can decide and act over the Commander in Chief and that is the problem Trump is trying to fix. By the way that officer took an oath to obey the president. So now he is a looked at as disloyal by many who served or have served in the US Military. He can't be trusted.  Can't believe how many people don't understand the function of the President and the authority he has.

Edited October 30, 2019 by pmarlin

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, pmarlin said:

Hope he feels that it was worth it because he just ended his military career. What he is claiming ,if true, was not his call since he doesn't decide what is national security as that is way above his pay grade and no one decides over the president in this matter. Washington is full of these people who think they can decide and act over the Commander in Chief and that is the problem Trump is trying to fix. By the way that officer took an oath to obey the president. So now he is a looked at as disloyal by many who served or have served in the US Military. He can't be trusted.  Can't believe how many people don't understand the function of the President and the authority he has.

So you're saying, Trump can do whatever he likes.

[pmarlin]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So you're saying, Trump can do whatever he likes.

no didn't say that.

[bristolboy]

24 minutes ago, pmarlin said:

Hope he feels that it was worth it because he just ended his military career. What he is claiming ,if true, was not his call since he doesn't decide what is national security as that is way above his pay grade and no one decides over the president in this matter. Washington is full of these people who think they can decide and act over the Commander in Chief and that is the problem Trump is trying to fix. By the way that officer took an oath to obey the president. So now he is a looked at as disloyal by many who served or have served in the US Military. He can't be trusted.  Can't believe how many people don't understand the function of the President and the authority he has.

Utter nonsense. He reported it lawfully as is his right and duty. And exactly how did he disobey the President? What lawful order did he disobey? I haven't even seen the right wing news sites contending he acted unlawfully. And how do you know how he is looked on in the military? Projecting much?

[animalmagic]

41 minutes ago, pmarlin said:

Hope he feels that it was worth it because he just ended his military career. What he is claiming ,if true, was not his call since he doesn't decide what is national security as that is way above his pay grade and no one decides over the president in this matter. Washington is full of these people who think they can decide and act over the Commander in Chief and that is the problem Trump is trying to fix. By the way that officer took an oath to obey the president. So now he is a looked at as disloyal by many who served or have served in the US Military. He can't be trusted.  Can't believe how many people don't understand the function of the President and the authority he has.

Including the President?

[Saint Nick]

56 minutes ago, pmarlin said:

Hope he feels that it was worth it because he just ended his military career. What he is claiming ,if true, was not his call since he doesn't decide what is national security as that is way above his pay grade and no one decides over the president in this matter. Washington is full of these people who think they can decide and act over the Commander in Chief and that is the problem Trump is trying to fix. By the way that officer took an oath to obey the president. So now he is a looked at as disloyal by many who served or have served in the US Military. He can't be trusted.  Can't believe how many people don't understand the function of the President and the authority he has.

He raised concerns over, what he felt, were unlawful proceedings!

How is that in any way "not his call"?

At what military grade are you "allowed" to raise these concerns?

"Can't believe how many people don't understand the function of the President and the authority he has."

That includes you, as it seems!

[Boon Mee]

Of all the lame witch hunt material that the Democrats and Deep State denizens keep coming up with to reverse the 2016 election, this one takes the cake ???? 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, pmarlin said:

Hope he feels that it was worth it because he just ended his military career. What he is claiming ,if true, was not his call since he doesn't decide what is national security as that is way above his pay grade and no one decides over the president in this matter. Washington is full of these people who think they can decide and act over the Commander in Chief and that is the problem Trump is trying to fix. By the way that officer took an oath to obey the president. So now he is a looked at as disloyal by many who served or have served in the US Military. He can't be trusted.  Can't believe how many people don't understand the function of the President and the authority he has.

You do know that there is no oath or order that overrides the requirement to obey the law?

 

’Just following orders’ is not an acceptable defense.

[animalmagic]

22 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

By the way that officer took an oath to obey the president.

From Wikipedia - 

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office

[jvs]

1 hour ago, pmarlin said:

Can't believe how many people don't understand the function of the President and the authority he has.

You nailed it!!!!

[AlexRich]

1 hour ago, pmarlin said:

no didn't say that.

Yes you did.

 

 

[Emdog]

"Federal law prohibits candidates from accepting foreign help in an election."

Not only accepting, but extorting from foreign state. Abuse of power for personal gain.

What part of this don't you understand, pmarlin?

[animalmagic]

2 hours ago, pmarlin said:

By the way that officer took an oath to obey the president.

From Wikipedia - 

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office

 

Reposted this as my original included a quote contained in a post by pmarlin in a  Chomperhiggott post.  For some reason the original quote was wrongly attributed to Chomperhiggott.

Apologies for any confusion.

Edited October 30, 2019 by animalmagic
Correction

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, pmarlin said:

Hope he feels that it was worth it because he just ended his military career. What he is claiming ,if true, was not his call since he doesn't decide what is national security as that is way above his pay grade and no one decides over the president in this matter. Washington is full of these people who think they can decide and act over the Commander in Chief and that is the problem Trump is trying to fix. By the way that officer took an oath to obey the president. So now he is a looked at as disloyal by many who served or have served in the US Military. He can't be trusted.  Can't believe how many people don't understand the function of the President and the authority he has.

Before the part of the oath to obey the President are the words to " solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ".  When there is a conflict between defending the Constitution and obeying the President, the Constitution takes priority.

 

Also, this officer did not disobey the President, he reported concerns to his superior, which is what he is required to do.  Then he obeyed a Congressional subpoena to testify, which he is also required to do.  He has done his duty, unlike the President.

 

"Can't believe how many people don't understand the function of the President and the authority he has."

 

You are clearly one of those people.

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Of all the lame witch hunt material that the Democrats and Deep State denizens keep coming up with to reverse the 2016 election, this one takes the cake ???? 

Credible testimony that the President has abused power and sought illegal foreign assistance against a political opponent is not a witch hunt, it is an impeachable offense.

[jchfriis]

6 hours ago, pmarlin said:

Hope he feels that it was worth it because he just ended his military career. What he is claiming ,if true, was not his call since he doesn't decide what is national security as that is way above his pay grade and no one decides over the president in this matter. Washington is full of these people who think they can decide and act over the Commander in Chief and that is the problem Trump is trying to fix. By the way that officer took an oath to obey the president. So now he is a looked at as disloyal by many who served or have served in the US Military. He can't be trusted.  Can't believe how many people don't understand the function of the President and the authority he has.

"By the way that officer took an oath to obey the president."

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the oath was to defend the Constitution, not obey the president.

[Waterloo]

In the past my American friends have explained to me the high regard military personal are held in American society and the respect they are shown.

So can someone explain to me how it is American to slander Col Vindman without quoting specifics based solely on his place of birth? 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Waterloo said:

In the past my American friends have explained to me the high regard military personal are held in American society and the respect they are shown.

So can someone explain to me how it is American to slander Col Vindman without quoting specifics based solely on his place of birth? 

I think it's kind of unfortunate that the military is now held in such high regard. I don't think that was the case when the draft was in effect. Certainly not for those veterans who served in WW2 and got exposed to military life and the wide variety in the quality of the officers. That would also apply in a lesser way to veterans of the Korean and Vietnam war, although be they time the latter occurred, middle class and wealthier American men could avoid service thanks to a wide variety of deferments on offer.

 

Still, the hypocrisy of these Trump defenders is clear.

[joecoolfrog]

7 hours ago, pmarlin said:

Hope he feels that it was worth it because he just ended his military career. What he is claiming ,if true, was not his call since he doesn't decide what is national security as that is way above his pay grade and no one decides over the president in this matter. Washington is full of these people who think they can decide and act over the Commander in Chief and that is the problem Trump is trying to fix. By the way that officer took an oath to obey the president. So now he is a looked at as disloyal by many who served or have served in the US Military. He can't be trusted.  Can't believe how many people don't understand the function of the President and the authority he has.

Disgusting comments.

Trump certainly behaves like a wanabe dictator but you seem to want him to be a fully fledged one.

You would trash the constitution to blindly support such a vile person , shame on you and all those of a similar ilk.

I am not being over dramatic in saying if the US electorate hold their noses and re-elect Trump , they will have turned the swamp into a cess pit and utterly trashed the reputation of the nation.

MAGA will go down in history as a sick joke, the Russians and Chinese must be wetting themselves with laughter.

Edited October 30, 2019 by joecoolfrog

[joecoolfrog]

6 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Of all the lame witch hunt material that the Democrats and Deep State denizens keep coming up with to reverse the 2016 election, this one takes the cake ???? 

Troll !

[Redline]

Trump is a national security issue