USA TODAY International Edition

Vindman weighs ‘ what ifs’

Key staffer in Trump’s first impeachmen­t tells his side

- Susan Page Washington Bureau Chief USA TODAY

Alexander Vindman was preparing to testify at President Donald Trump’s first impeachmen­t hearing – in an inquiry that arose from Vindman’s report of a troubling White House phone conversati­on – when the National Security Council staffer faced heated pushback from a certain Trump ally.

His father.

“Support the president!” Semyon Vindman demanded during a long drive, fraught with conflict, to a family wedding in Rhode Island in September 2019. “Do whatever the president wants!”

“It was a source of tension,” the younger Vindman acknowledg­ed dryly in an interview with USA TODAY at his home in a Washington suburb. “He wanted me to kind of reconcile with President Trump. He had this image of me, you know, marching into the Oval Office, saluting sharply and saying, ‘ OK, President Trump, how do we fix this?’ ”

While his conservati­ve father sat next to him in the front seat, declaring his support for Trump and warning about the risks of testifying, his pragmatic wife was in the back seat. Rachel Vindman quietly used her smartphone to search for a lawyer to represent her husband through the firestorm that was about to upend their lives – and the president’s.

One month later, Alexander Vindman did testify before a closed session of the House Intelligen­ce Committee, detailing a quid pro quo he said he had heard Trump offer Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. During a phone conversati­on Vindman monitored in the Situation Room, Trump asked for “a favor,” he said: for Kiev to announce a corruption investigat­ion into political rival Joe Biden in exchange for the release of U. S. military aid.

Vindman details his side of the story – and his own “American story,” as a 3- year- old émigré from the Soviet Union who made it to an office in the White House – in a book to be published Tuesday by Harper Books. “Here, Right Matters” depicts a narcissist­ic, mercurial president who seemed to have little interest in the substance of national security policy, sur

“The president was not held accountabl­e for his actions.” Alexander Vindman

rounded by aides whose priorities were currying favor and protecting his back.

The book’s title comes from Vindman’s testimony to Congress during an exchange with Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, D- N. Y.

At the hearing, Vindman didn’t reveal his father’s support for Trump. He did tell the panel he had reassured his dad about what might happen if he spoke out. He thanked him for his “brave act of hope” in emigrating from the Soviet Union 40 years earlier as a widowed father with three small children. In the USA, Vindman assured his dad, “I will be fine for telling the truth.”

Why was he confident about that, Maloney asked?

Vindman replied, “Congressma­n, because this is America. ... And here, right matters.”

More nerd than mastermind

More than two years have passed since the president’s phone call. Sunday marked the one- year anniversar­y of Vindman’s return to civilian life after he realized that his once- bright future in the military had been extinguish­ed by blowback from his decision to report the call, as he believed his duty required.

Sitting at his kitchen table, he came across less as political mastermind and more as earnest nerd – the word he used to describe himself – who still seemed surprised by the historic spotlight. Before that, he had been sufficiently apolitical that he couldn’t remember whether he cast a ballot for president in 2016, although if he did, he’s certain it wasn’t for Trump. (“It’s not something I take pride in now,” he said sheepishly about having been an unreliable voter. “Actually, it’s like ‘ shame on me.’ ”)

When the furor erupted and a friend phoned to say his name was exploding on cable news, Vindman and his wife struggled to find the channels because they hadn’t watched them before. “They were like, ‘ Turn it on!’ ” Rachel recalled with a laugh. “And I’m like, ‘ I don’t even know how to turn it on!’ ”

Rachel, who had moved 11 times during her first 10 years as a military spouse, following her husband’s deployment­s, co- hosts a politicall­y minded podcast called “The Suburban Women Problem” and is a more irreverent voice on social media than her husband.

Their daughter, 10, has developed similar instincts. Whenever Eleanor spotted a house with a Trump sign in the yard – not an uncommon sight in their neighborho­od during the 2020 campaign – she suggested that they ring the doorbell and offer to talk about it. “Maybe she takes after her mom a little bit,” Rachel said.

Vindman’s father’s warnings about potential repercussi­ons – reprisals, character assassinat­ion, the end of his career – weren’t unfounded. Vindman said his disenchant­ed father voted for Democrat Joe Biden in 2020.

Two days after Trump was acquitted in that first Senate impeachmen­t trial, Vindman was fired from his job at the NSC as director for European affairs. His identical twin brother, Yevgeny, the top ethics official at the NSC, also was fired.

Alexander said an NSC official arrived unannounce­d in his office, accompanie­d by a security officer who would escort him off the premises. “Please step away from your computer,” she told him. “Leadership has determined your services are no longer required.”

Vindman had already packed up and carted home his personal items. More surprising, and more dismaying to him, was the apparent conclusion of Pentagon brass that he had become too politicall­y toxic – that he had “flown too close to the sun” – to resume his military career. After 21 years of service, including a Purple Heart for injuries he suffered in Iraq, he reluctantl­y retired.

“I loved my military service,” he said. But when he was under attack, he said, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley were “weak- kneed” in their response, perhaps because they themselves felt under fire from Trump. “I ultimately came to the conclusion that there was no point in sticking around.”

Vindman, 46, has landed on his feet, albeit onto a landscape quite different. He writes for the Lawfare blog, is a visiting fellow at the University of Pennsylvan­ia’s Perry World House, signed a consulting contract with a multinatio­nal corporatio­n and delivers speeches about principled decision- making. He is working on his doctoral dissertati­on at the School of Advanced Internatio­nal Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

“The next time there’s an impeachmen­t,” he said half- jokingly, “I’ll be back up there like John Dean,” the White House counsel who was a crucial witness in President Richard Nixon’s impeachmen­t and emerged as a regular commentato­r during Trump’s impeachmen­ts.

Weighing the ‘ what ifs’

The moment the call between Trump and Zelenskyy was over, Vindman knew he would have to report it up the chain of command, whatever the consequenc­es. He walked from the Situation Room to his brother’s office at the NSC and closed the door.

“If what I just heard becomes public,” he told him, “the president will be impeached.”

Even after the impeachmen­t and official reports that followed, the public transcript of the call is incomplete, he said.

For whatever reason, Vindman said, his efforts to correct that record didn’t make it into the final version of the call. “It’s possible somebody screened out my edits because they are significant, but I don’t know that for certain,” he said. The omissions also might be the result of “bureaucrat­ic incompeten­ce,” he said.

For himself, what if he hadn’t reported that phone call?

“I’d be a colonel,” he said. He had been recommende­d for a promotion to full colonel and chosen for an elite program at the U. S. War College.

For the country, what if he hadn’t reported the call?

Under “the most rosy scenario,” he said, the House committees beginning to investigat­e why the Trump administra­tion held up military aid to Ukraine approved by Congress might have uncovered the president’s pitch to Zelenskyy.

“But that’s the most rosy outcome,” he said. “I think the more likely outcome would be that none of this potentiall­y would have unfolded.”

Vindman raised another “what- if ” question: What if Trump had been convicted by the Senate in his first impeachmen­t trial and removed from office?

“The president was not held accountabl­e for his actions,” bolstering his belief that he was basically above the law, Vindman said.

“There’s a direct kind of narrative that feeds through being emboldened and acting with impunity through the early days of COVID ... the riots in the

summer that the president inflamed, the insurrecti­on,” Vindman said. “I think there’s a continuous line because the Senate and the political actors chose not to live up to their rules” in demanding accountabi­lity.

“At the same time, the American public weighed all that,” he said, “and voted him out of office.”

 ??  ??
 ??  ??
 ?? HANNAH GABER/ USA TODAY ?? Alexander Vindman, a witness in Donald Trump’s impeachmen­t, says his father was adamant he should support the president.
HANNAH GABER/ USA TODAY Alexander Vindman, a witness in Donald Trump’s impeachmen­t, says his father was adamant he should support the president.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States