Trump impeachment inquiry: key moments and revelations from day three of hearings

It was inappropriate, it was improper
for the president to demand an investigation into a political opponent. It would undermine our Ukraine policy
and it would undermine our national security. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony
that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God? – I do.
– I do. I believe what I found unusual or different
about this call was the president’s reference to specific investigations. I was concerned by the call. What I heard was inappropriate and I reported
my concerns to Mr Eisenberg. I thought that the references to specific
individuals and investigations such as former vice-president Biden and his son
struck me as political in nature given that the former vice-president
is a political opponent of the president. It is improper that the president of the
United States demand a foreign government investigate a US citizen and a political opponent. It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued
an investigation into the 2016 elections, the Bidens and Burisma, it would be
interpreted as a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine
losing bipartisan support undermining US national security and advancing Russia’s
strategic objectives and their reasoning. There was no objectivity in the media’s
rush of stories, just as a fevered rush to tarnish and remove a president who refuses to pretend
that the media are something different from what they really are: puppets of the
Democratic party. What was the full extent of Ukraine’s election
meddling against the Trump campaign? Why did Burisma hire Hunter Biden? What did he do for them and did his position
affect any US government actions under the Obama administration? What are the whistleblower’s political biases
and connections to Democratic politicians? What agency was this individual from? If I could interject here, we don’t want to
use these proceedings … – It’s our time Mr Chairman.
– I know, but we need to protect the whistleblower. The whistleblower has the statutory right
to anonymity. These proceedings will not be used to out
the whistleblower. Mr Vindman, you testified at your deposition
that you did not know the whistleblower. Ranked member, it’s lieutenant colonel please. Lieutenant colonel Vindman, you testified
in the deposition that you did not know who the whistleblower was. I do not know who the whistleblower is,
that is correct. In retrospect, for the Ukrainians,
it would clearly have been confusing. In hindsight, I now understand that others
saw the idea of investigating possible corruption involving the Ukrainian company Burisma
as equivalent to investigating former vice-president Biden. I saw them as very different; the former
being appropriate and unremarkable, the latter being unacceptable. In retrospect, I should have seen that connection
differently and had I done so, I would have raised my own objections. It is not credible to me that former vice-president
Biden would have been influenced in any way by financial or personal motives in carrying
out his duties as vice president. I have known vice-president Biden for 24 years. He is an honourable man and I hold him
in the highest regard. You realise when you came forward
out of sense of duty, that you were putting yourself in direct opposition
to the most powerful person in the world. Do you realise that sir? I knew I was assuming a lot of risk. Why do you have confidence that you can
do that and to tell your dad not to worry? Congressman, because this is America. This is the country I have served and defended,
that all of my brothers have served. And here, right matters. Thank you, sir. [applause]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *