This week’s impeachment hearings will feature a lineup of firsthand witnesses, including Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council’s director for European Affairs, who reportedly confronted the White House’s “irregular” channel about its attempts to pressure Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden.
Vindman’s first closed-door testimony warranted a good amount of criticism from conservatives concerned about the “unmistakable disdain” Vindman and his lawyer reportedly expressed toward Republican members of Congress. This friction will likely be on display once again during Vindman’s testimony on Tuesday. But Republicans shouldn’t let Vindman’s alleged antagonism (key word: “alleged”) get in the way of the facts.
Testifying under oath, Vindman said he was part of a July 10 White House meeting in which Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland specifically said Ukraine would need to publicly commit to an investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter Bidens’s dealings with Burisma if they wanted a White House visit. Vindman is also the first Democratic-called witness to have actually been on the July 25 call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
This testimony is important because, unlike last week’s testimony, it contributes to the Democrats’ main charge against Trump: He engaged in quid pro quo corruption. As such, Republicans must take Vindman seriously.
Those who took the trouble to read the 340-page document of Vindman’s closed-door testimony know that several Republicans did not take Vindman seriously when he first testified. Indeed, Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas spent most of his time discrediting Vindman’s service to his country and attacking his character rather than asking fact-based questions. Others sought to force Vindman to name the anonymous whistleblower and divulge privileged discussions with other National Security Council officials.
None of this helped the Republicans’ case. This time around, Republicans should focus less on Vindman and more on the facts he presents:
- Vindman has said he was “troubled” by the president’s conversation with Zelensky. Republicans should point out that the transcript of the phone call is available, and the public should read it for themselves.
- Vindman admitted that his testimony relied heavily on his interpretation of Trump’s intentions. Republicans should note that implicit wrongdoing (if it does, in fact, exist) is not enough to convict a sitting president.
With that said, Vindman’s bureaucratic career should give us, the jury, pause. We already know the established agencies have, at times, had it out for Trump. And although Vindman’s word is more valuable than, say, Rudy Giuliani’s (given the fact that Giuliani has little diplomatic experience and knows next to nothing about Ukraine), it must be considered along with the context in which it’s given.
This week’s testimonies won’t be easy for the Republicans to discredit and dismiss. Firsthand knowledge has the potential to tilt the scales in the Democrats’ favor, and Vindman’s testimony is just the beginning.
