the u.s. house of representatives. i appear here today only to provide factual information based upon my knowledge on the recollection of events. i will not waste time restating the details of my opening statement from my deposition on october 31, 2019 which has recently been made public. however, i will highlight the following key points. first, as i previously stated, i do not know who the whistle-blower is, nor do i intend to speculate as to who the individual may be. second, i have great respect for my former colleagues from the nsc and the rest of the agency. i am not here today to question their character or integrity. my recollections and judgments are my own. some of my colleagues recollections of conversations and interactions may differ from mine but i do not view those differences as the result of an untoward purpose. third, i continue to believe ukraine is on the front lines of a strategic competition between the west and vladimir putin s russia. russia is a failing power,
from? if i could interject here, we don t want to use these proceedings it s our time. we need to protect the whistle-blower. please stop. i want to make sure that there s no effort to out the whistle-blower through the use of these proceedings. if the witness has a good faith belief that this may reveal the identity of the whistle-blower, that is not the purpose that we are here for and i want to advise the witness accordingly. mr. vindman, you testified in your deposition that you did not know the whistle-blower. ranking member, it s lieutenant colonel vindman, please. lieutenant colonel vindman, you testified in the deposition that you did not know who the whistle-blower was or is? i do not know who the whistle-blower is, that is correct. how is it possible for you to name these people and then out
provide whether we are prepared to accept in the president of the united states a situation where the president for their own personal or political benefit can condition military aid, diplomatic meetings, or any other performance of an official act in order to get help in their reelection. whether we will need to accept this president or any future president the idea that the president of the united states can invite a foreign country to intervene in our affairs. these are the decisions we will have to make when we have to decide whether this president should be impeached. but i want to thank you again. i will conclude by saying, because i can t let it go unanswered, several of my colleagues made the statement repeatedly that i have met with the whistle-blower or that i know with a whistle-blower is. it was false the first time they said it. the second through the 40th time, it will be false the last time they say it. without, this concludes this portion of the hearing.
the evidence that you and others provide whether we re prepared to accept in the presence of the united states, a situation where the president for their own personalei or political benefit can condition military aid, diplomatic meetings or any other performance of an official act in order to get help in their re-election. whether we will need to accept in this president or any future president the idea that the president of the united states could invite a foreign country to intervene in our affairs. these are the decisions we will have to maketh when we have to decide whether this president should be impeached. but i want to thank you, again. justu, conclude by saying becau i can t let it go unanswered, several of my colleagues made this statement repeatedly that i have met with the whistle-blower. that i know who thete whistle-blower is. it was false theow first time ty said it. it was falseid the second throu 40th time they said it. it will be false the last time they say it.
undermine the proceedings. i think it would be an enormous mistake. there could be john dean moments coming out here. i vividly remember in the early 70s, the watergate hearings with my parents and we were driving across the country listening with bated breath. they were so enthralled by the whole thing. and i think this these hearings maybe have that same potential, as we saw during the watergate proceedings. so let me play for you what senator lindsey graham what his position is on the what s going to be playing out this week and beyond. i consider any impeachment in the house that doesn t allow us to know who the whistle-blower is, to be invalid, because without the whistle-blower complaint, we wouldn t be talking about any of this. and i also see the need for hunter biden to be called to adequately defend the president and if you don t do those two things, it s a complete joke. this whole where they are now is objectively beyond the whistle-blower at this point, thou