The pieces of the puzzle are beginning to come together, and now with names attached.
The Washington Post is reporting after the call between President Trump and his counterpart in Ukraine on July 25, National Security Council analyst Alexander Vindman raised concerns to White House lawyer John Eisenberg:
“Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine adviser at the White House, had been listening to the call and was disturbed by the pressure Trump had applied to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate his political rivals, according to people familiar with Vindman’s testimony to lawmakers this week.“
The newspaper says Vindman testified that after the call he told Eisenberg he thought what Trump did was “wrong.” That’s when the attorney moved the transcript to “a highly classified server.”
Meanwhile new questions are being raised over whether Ambassador Gordon Sondland committed perjury when he testified earlier this month. Sondland reportedly said when dealing with Ukrainian officials he never mentioned “Biden by name and did not then know that Burisma was linked to Biden.” But Vindman apparently told a different story. Here’s the Washington Post’s account of one meeting:
Sondland “emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma,” a reference to a gas company that tapped Biden’s son Hunter to be on its board, according to Vindman’s opening statement to lawmakers.
Vindman objected, telling Sondland that the request was “totally inappropriate…”
White House Russia adviser Fiona Hill “echoed Vindman’s objections that the request was counter to national security goals.” Both Hill and Vindman also reportedly complained about this to Eisenberg.
Impeachment investigators can ask Eisenberg himself about both of these incidents on Monday when he is scheduled to testify.