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]