Page:20191203 - full report hpsci impeachment inquiry - 20191203.pdf/107

 restricting access with Mr. Eisenberg despite the fact that Mr. Morrison himself had the authority, as an NSC senior director, to recommend restrictions on the relevant files to the NSC’s Executive Secretariat.

Lt. Col. Vindman also discussed restricting access to the July 25 call summary with Mr. Eisenberg and Mr. Ellis. At some point after the call, Lt. Col. Vindman discussed with the NSC lawyers the “sensitivity” of the matters raised on the call and “the fact that … there are constant leaks.”648 Lt. Col. Vindman explained that “[f]rom a foreign policy professional perspective, all of these types of calls would inherently be sensitive.”649 But the July 25 call was particularly sensitive because it could “undermine our relationship with the Ukrainians” given that it “would implicate a partisan play.”650 The NSC lawyers, therefore, believed that it was “appropriate to restrict access for the purpose of the leaks” and “to preserv[e] the integrity” of the transcript.651 Lt. Col. Vindman recalled that Mr. Ellis raised the idea of placing the call summary on the NSC’s server for highly classified information and Mr. Eisenberg “gave the go-ahead.”652

Some weeks after his discussions with the NSC attorneys, Mr. Morrison could not locate the call record. He contacted the staff of the NSC’s Executive Secretariat in search of an explanation and was informed that “John Eisenberg had directed it to be moved to a different server” utilized by the NSC staff for highly classified information.653 This transfer occurred despite Mr. Morrison’s view that the call record did not meet the requirements to be placed on the highly classified system.654

Mr. Eisenberg later told Mr. Morrison that the call record had been placed on the highly classified system by “mistake.”655 Even after Mr. Eisenberg stated that the call record was moved to the highly classified system by “mistake,” it nevertheless remained on that system until at least the third week of September 2019, shortly before its declassification and public release by the White House.656

Vice President Pence’s advisor, Ms. Williams, had listened to nearly a dozen phone calls between President Trump and other heads of state prior to July 25, 2019, as well as Vice President Pence’s April 23 call with President Zelensky.657 As she sat listening to President Trump’s July 25 call, she was struck by his requests relating to Vice President Biden. She stated that she believed that President Trump’s comments were “unusual and inappropriate.”658

Ms. Williams testified that she thought that “references to specific individuals and investigations, such as former Vice President Biden and his son” were “political in nature, given that the former Vice President is a political opponent of the President.”659 The comments struck her as “more specific to the President in nature, to his personal political agenda,” as opposed to “a broader foreign policy objective of the United States.”660 She added, “it was the first time I had heard internally the President reference particular investigations that previously I had only heard about through Mr. Giuliani’s press interviews and press reporting.”661