Page:20191203 - full report hpsci impeachment inquiry - 20191203.pdf/105



Prior to President Trump’s July 25 call with President Zelensky, Lt. Col. Vindman had preparedwith Mr. Morrison’s review and approvala call briefing package, including talking points for President Trump’s use. This was consistent with the NSC’s regular process of preparing for the President’s phone calls with foreign leaders.625 The NSC-drafted talking points did not include any reference to Biden, Burisma, CrowdStrike, or alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.626

Lt. Col. Vindman testified during his deposition that, prior to the July 25 call, he was aware of concerns from former National Security Advisor John Bolton and other U.S. officials that President Trump might raise these discredited issues with President Zelensky.627 Indeed, Ambassador Bolton had resisted scheduling the call because he believed it might be a “disaster.”628

As he sat in the White House Situation Room listening to the leaders, Lt. Col. Vindman quickly recognized that the President’s conversation was diverging from the talking points he helped prepare based on the interagency policy process, and “straying” into an “unproductive narrative” promoted by Mr. Giuliani and other “external and nongovernmental influencers”629topics that Lt. Col. Vindman dubbed “stray voltage.”630

Lt. Col. Vindman knew immediately that he had a duty to report the contents of the call to the White House lawyers. He explained, “I had concerns, and it was my duty to report my concerns to the proper—proper people in the chain of command.”631 Lt. Col. Vindman testified that President Trump’s request that a foreign leader dependent on the United States open an investigation into his U.S. political opponent constituted a “demand” that President Zelensky had to meet in order to secure a White House meeting:


 * So, Congressman, the power disparity between the President of the United States and the President of Ukraine is vast, and, you know, in the President asking for something, it becamethere wasin return for a White House meeting, because that’s what this was about. This was about getting a White House meeting. It was a demand for him to fulfill hisfulfill this particular prerequisite in order to get the meeting.632

Lt. Col. Vindman further testified that President Trump’s demand of the Ukrainian leader was “inappropriate” and “improper,” and that it would undermine U.S. national security:


 * Chairman, as I said in my statement, it was inappropriate. It was improper for the President to request—to demand an investigation into a political opponent, especially a foreign power where there’s, at best, dubious belief that this would be a completely impartial investigation, and that this would have significant implications if it became public knowledge, and it would be perceived as a partisan play. It would undermine our Ukraine policy, and it would undermine our national security.633

Within an hour of the call ending, Lt. Col. Vindman reported his concerns to John A. Eisenberg, the Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs and the Legal