The Whistleblower Complaint
This is the "declassified" #whistleblowercomplaint. It's significantly redacted from page 8 on. We'll know his full identity within the next 18-24 hours but for now we do know he's a career CIA officer attached to the White House and has some expertise in Ukrainian politics.
UNCLASSIFIED
August 12, 2019
I am reporting an "urgent concern” in accordance with the procedures outlined in 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)(A). This letter is UNCLASSIFIED when separated from the attachment.
In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President's main domestic political rivals. The President's personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
August 12, 2019
- The Honorable Richard Burr
- Chairman
- Select Committee on Intelligence
- United States Senate
- The Honorable Adam Schiff
- Chairman
- Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
- United States House of Representatives
I am reporting an "urgent concern” in accordance with the procedures outlined in 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)(A). This letter is UNCLASSIFIED when separated from the attachment.
In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President's main domestic political rivals. The President's personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.
- Over the past four months, more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me of various facts related to this effort. The information provided herein was relayed to me in the course of official interagency business. It is routine for U.S. officials with responsibility for a particular regional or functional portfolio to share such information with one another in order to inform policymaking and analysis.
- I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. However, I found my colleagues' accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another. In addition, a variety of information consistent with these private accounts has been reported publicly.
- I am also concerned that these actions pose risks to U.S. national security and undermine the U.S. Government's efforts to deter and counter foreign interference in U.S. elections.
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
To the best of my knowledge, the entirety of this statement is unclassified when separated from the classified enclosure. I have endeavored to apply the classification standards outlined in Executive Order (EO) 13526 and to separate out information that I know or have reason to believe is classified for national security purposes.
Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid. According to the White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy to, inter alia:
To the best of my knowledge, the entirety of this statement is unclassified when separated from the classified enclosure. I have endeavored to apply the classification standards outlined in Executive Order (EO) 13526 and to separate out information that I know or have reason to believe is classified for national security purposes.
- If a classification marking is applied retroactively, I believe it is incumbent upon the classifying authority to explain why such a marking was applied, and to which specific information it pertains.
I. The 25 July Presidential phone call
Early in the morning of 25 July, the President spoke by telephone with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. I do not know which side initiated the call. This was the first publicly acknowledged call between the two leaders since a brief congratulatory call after Mr. Zelenskyy won the presidency on 21 April.Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid. According to the White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy to, inter alia:
- initiate or continue an investigation
- which initially reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the DNC's networks in 2016; and
- meet or speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem.
Apart from the information in the Enclosure, it is my belief that none
of the information contained herein meets the definition of "classified
information" outlined in EO 13526, Part 1, Section 1.1. There is ample
open-source information about the efforts I describe below, including
statements by the President and Mr. Giuliani. In addition, based on my
personal observations, there is discretion with respect to the
classification of private comments by or instructions from the
President, including his communications with foreign leaders;
information that is not related to U.S. foreign policy or national
security—such as the information contained in this document, when
separated from the Enclosure-is generally treated as unclassified. I
also believe that applying a classification marking to this information
would violate EO 13526, Part 1, Section 1.7, which states: "In no case
shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as
classified, or fail to be declassified in order to: (1) conceal
violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; [or] (2)
prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency."
It is unclear whether such a Ukrainian investigation exists. See Footnote #7 for additional information.
I do not know why the President associates these servers with Ukraine. (See, for example, his comments to Fox News
on 20 July: "And Ukraine. Take a look at Ukraine. How come the FBI
didn't take this server? Podesta told them to get out. He said, get out.
So, how come the FBI didn't take the server from the DNC?")
2UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
The President also praised Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, and suggested that Mr. Zelenskyy might want to keep him in his position. (Note: Starting in March 2019, Mr. Lutsenko made a series of public allegations—many of which he later walked back-about the Biden family's activities in Ukraine, Ukrainian officials’ purported involvement in the 2016 U.S. election, and the activities of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv. See Part IV for additional context.)
The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed by what had transpired in the phone call. They told me that there was already a “discussion ongoing” with White House lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood, in the officials' retelling, that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain.
The Ukrainian side was the first to publicly acknowledge the phone call. On the evening of 25 July, a readout was posted on the website of the Ukrainian President that contained the following line (translation from original Russian-language readout):
Based on my understanding, there were approximately a dozen White House officials who listened to the call -a mixture of policy officials and duty officers in the White House Situation Room, as is customary. The officials I spoke with told me that participation in the call had not been restricted in advance because everyone expected it would be a “routine" call with a foreign leader. I do not know whether anyone was physically present with the President during the call.
UNCLASSIFIED
The President also praised Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, and suggested that Mr. Zelenskyy might want to keep him in his position. (Note: Starting in March 2019, Mr. Lutsenko made a series of public allegations—many of which he later walked back-about the Biden family's activities in Ukraine, Ukrainian officials’ purported involvement in the 2016 U.S. election, and the activities of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv. See Part IV for additional context.)
The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed by what had transpired in the phone call. They told me that there was already a “discussion ongoing” with White House lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood, in the officials' retelling, that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain.
The Ukrainian side was the first to publicly acknowledge the phone call. On the evening of 25 July, a readout was posted on the website of the Ukrainian President that contained the following line (translation from original Russian-language readout):
- “Donald Trump expressed his conviction that the new Ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve Ukraine's image and complete the investigation of corruption cases that have held back cooperation between Ukraine and the United States.”
Based on my understanding, there were approximately a dozen White House officials who listened to the call -a mixture of policy officials and duty officers in the White House Situation Room, as is customary. The officials I spoke with told me that participation in the call had not been restricted in advance because everyone expected it would be a “routine" call with a foreign leader. I do not know whether anyone was physically present with the President during the call.
- In addition to White House personnel, I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call.
- I was not the only non-White House official to receive a readout of the call. Based on my understanding, multiple State Department and Intelligence Community officials were also briefed on the contents of the call as outlined above.
II. Efforts to restrict access to records related to the call
In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to “lock down” all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced—as is customary-by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.- White House officials told me that they were “directed” by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level officials.
UNCLASSIFIED
- I do not know whether those officials met or spoke with Mr. Giuliani, but I was told separately by multiple U.S. officials that Mr. Yermak and Mr. Bakanov intended to travel to Washington in mid-August.
IV. Circumstances leading up to the 25 July Presidential phone call
Beginning in late March 2019, a series of articles appeared in an online publication called The Hill. In these articles, several Ukrainian officials-most notably, Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko—made a series of allegations against other Ukrainian officials and current and former U.S. officials. Mr. Lutsenko and his colleagues alleged, inter alia:
Mr. Sytnyk and Mr. Leshchenko are two of Mr. Lutsenko's main domestic
rivals. Mr. Lutsenko has no legal training and has been widely
criticized in Ukraine for politicizing criminal probes and using his
tenure as Prosecutor General to protect corrupt Ukrainian officials. He
has publicly feuded with Mr. Sytnyk, who heads Ukraine's only competent
anticorruption body, and with Mr. Leshchenko, a former investigative
journalist who has repeatedly criticized Mr. Lutsenko's record. In
December 2018, a Ukrainian court upheld a complaint by a Member of
Parliament, Mr. Boryslav Rozenblat, who alleged that Mr. Sytnyk and Mr.
Leshchenko had "interfered” in the 2016 U.S. election by publicizing a
document detailing corrupt payments made by former Ukrainian President
Viktor Yanukovych before his ouster in 2014. Mr. Rozenblat had
originally filed the motion in late 2017 after attempting to flee
Ukraine amid an investigation into his taking of a large bribe. On 16
July 2019, Mr. Leshchenko publicly stated that a Ukrainian court had
overturned the lower court's decision.
Mr. Lutsenko later told Ukrainian news outlet The Babel on 17 April
that Ambassador Yovanovitch had never provided such a list, and that he
was, in fact, the one who requested such a list.
Mr. Lutsenko later told Bloomberg on 16 May that former Vice President
Biden and his son were not subject to any current Ukrainian
investigations, and that he had no evidence against them. Other senior
Ukrainian officials also contested his original allegations; one former
senior Ukrainian prosecutor told Bloomberg on 7 May that Mr. Shokin in
fact was not investigating Burisma at the time of his removal in 2016.
See, for example, Mr. Lutsenko's comments to The Hill on 1 and 7 April
and his interview with The Babel on 17 April, in which he stated that he
had spoken with Mr. Giuliani about arranging contact with Attorney
General Barr.
- On 25 April in an interview with Fox News, the President called Mr. Lutsenko's claims "big" and "incredible” and stated that the Attorney General “would want to see this."
- Around the same time, I also learned from a U.S. official that “associates” of Mr. Giuliani were trying to make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team.
- On 6 May, the State Department announced that Ambassador Yovanovitch would be ending her assignment in Kyiv “as planned.”
- However, several U.S. officials told me that, in fact, her tour was curtailed because of pressure stemming from Mr. Lutsenko's allegations. Mr. Giuliani subsequently stated in an interview with a Ukrainian journalist published on 14 May that Ambassador Yovanovitch was "removed...because she was part of the efforts against the President.”
- In his multitude of public statements leading up to and in the wake of the publication of this article, Mr. Giuliani confirmed that he was focused on encouraging Ukrainian authorities to pursue investigations into alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and alleged wrongdoing by the Biden family.
- On the afternoon of 10 May, the President stated in an interview with Politico that he planned to speak with Mr. Giuliani about the trip.
- A few hours later, Mr. Giuliani publicly canceled his trip, claiming that Mr. Zelenskyy was “surrounded by enemies of the [U.S.] President...and of the United States."
See, for example, the above-referenced articles in Bloomberg (16 May) and OCCRP (22 July).
I do not know whether these associates of Mr. Giuliani were the same
individuals named in the 22 July report by OCCRP, referenced above.
(U) As you know, the ICIG is authorized to, among other things, “receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.”
In connection with that authority, “[a]n employee of an element of the intelligence community, an employee assigned or detailed to an element of the intelligence community, or an employee of a contractor to the intelligence community who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern may report such complaint or information” to the ICIG.Classified By: ■■■■■■■■■
Derived From: ■■■■■■■■■
Declassify On: ■■■■■■■■■
(U) Id. at § 3033(k)(5)(B).
(U) Id. at § 3033(g)(3).
(U//FOUO) As part of the Complainant's report to the ICIG of information with respect to the urgent concern, the Complainant included a letter addressed to The Honorable Richard Burr, Chairman, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and The Honorable Adam Schiff, Chairman, U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (hereinafter, the “Complainant's Letter"). The Complainant's Letter referenced a separate, Classified Appendix containing information pertaining to the urgent concern (hereinafter, the “Classified Appendix”), which the Complainant also provided to the ICIG and which the Complainant intends to provide to Chairmen Burr and Schiff. The ICIG attaches hereto the Complainant's Letter, addressed to Chairmen Burr and Schiff, and the Classified Appendix. The ICIG has informed the Complainant that the transmittal of information by the Director of National Intelligence related to the Complainant's report to the congressional intelligence committees, as required by 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)(C), may not be limited to Chairmen Burr and Schiff.
(U) The Complainant's Letter and Classified Appendix delineate the Complainant's information pertaining to the urgent concern. According to the Complainant's Letter, the actions described in the Complainant's Letter and Classified Appendix] constitute 'a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, or violation of law or Executive Order,”” consistent with the definition of an "urgent concern”in 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)(G).
(U//FOUO) Upon receiving the information reported by the Complainant, the ICIG conducted a preliminary review to determine whether the report constituted "an urgent concern” under 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5). As part of the preliminary review, the ICIG confirmed that the Complainant is "[a]n employee of an element of the intelligence community, an employee
(U) Id. at § 3033(k)(5)(G)(i).
(U) In addition, the Director of National Intelligence has responsibility and authority pursuant to federal law and Executive Orders to administer and operate programs and activities related to potential foreign interference in a United States election.
Among other
(U) Id. at § 3033(k)(5)(A).
(U) Id.
(U) The Complainant's Classified Appendix appears to contain classified
information involving an alleged "serious or flagrant problem, abuse,
violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the
funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within
the responsibility and authority of the Director of National
Intelligence,” as required by 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)(G)(i).
(U) See, e.g., 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(1)(A); 11 C.F.R. § 110.2006).
(U) See, e.g., 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(2); 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(g).
I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the ability of persons located, in whole or in part, outside the United States to interfere in or undermine public confidence in United States elections, including through the unauthorized accessing of election and campaign infrastructure or the covert distribution of propaganda and disinformation, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.
(TS/■■■■■■■■■)
Exec. Order No. 12333 at § 1.3. In the Complainant's Classified
Appendix, the Complainant reported that officials from the Office of
Management and Budget, in the days before and on the day after the
President's call on July 25, 2019, allegedly informed the "interagency”
that the President had issued instructions to suspend all security
assistance to Ukraine. The Complainant further alleges in the Classified
Appendix that there might be a connection between the allegations
concerning the substance of the President's telephone call with the
Ukrainian President on July 25, 2019, and the alleged action to suspend
(or continue the suspension of all security assistance to Ukraine. If
the allegedly improper motives were substantiated as part of a future
investigation, the alleged suspension (or continued suspension) of all
security assistance to Ukraine might implicate the Director of National
Intelligence's responsibility and authority with regard to implementing
the National Intelligence Program and/or executing the National
Intelligence Program budget.
(U) Exec. Order No. 12333 at § 1.4.
(TS/■■■■■■■■■) Based on the information reported by the Complainant to the ICIG and the ICIG's preliminary review, I have determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the complaint relating to the urgent concern appears credible.” The ICIG's preliminary review indicated that the Complainant has official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant's Letter and Classified Appendix, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant's Letter and Classified Appendix. The Complainant's Letter acknowledges that the Complainant was not a direct witness to the President's telephone call with the Ukrainian President on July 25, 2019. Other information obtained during the ICIG's preliminary review, however, supports the Complainant's allegation that, among other things, during the call the President “sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid.” Further, although the ICIG's preliminary review identified some indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of the Complainant in favor of a rival political candidate, such evidence did not change my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern “appears credible,” particularly given the other information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review.
(TS/■■■■■■■■■) As part of its preliminary review, the ICIG did not request access to records of the President's July 25, 2019, call with the Ukrainian President. Based on the sensitivity of the alleged urgent concern, I directed ICIG personnel to conduct a preliminary review of the Complainant's information. Based on the information obtained from the ICIG's preliminary review, I decided that access to records of the telephone call was not necessary to make my
(U) ODNI News Release, Director of National Intelligence Daniel R. Coats Establishes Intelligence Community Election Threats Executive (July 19, 2019).
(U) 50 U.S.C. § 3033(g)(2)(C). The ICIG's statutory right of access to
those records is consistent with the statutory right of access to such
records provided to the Director of National Intelligence. See 50 U.S.C.
§ 3024(b) (“Unless otherwise directed by the President, the Director of
National Intelligence shall have access to all national intelligence
and intelligence related to the national security which is collected by
any Federal department, agency, or other entity, except as otherwise
provided by law or, as appropriate, under guidelines agreed upon by the
Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.").
(U) If you have any questions or require additional information concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
(signature)
- Michael K. Atkinson
- Inspector General
- of the Intelligence Community
This Letter is TOP SECRET / ■■■■■■■■■ when detached from the Enclosures
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home