State Dept Officials Were Skeptical about
Christopher Steele Reports
We have now received 48
pages of emails among top Obama State Department officials and a U.S.
Ambassador expressing skepticism about Steele reports by Steele’s
London-based private intelligence firm Orbis Business Intelligence.
Steele was the author of the Clinton-funded, anti-Trump dossier. One
assistant secretary of state says some of Steele’s reports sound
“extreme” and others “do not ring true,” while the U.S. Ambassador
to Ukraine calls some Steele reports “flaky.”
We obtained the heavily-redacted emails in our FOIA lawsuit
filed on April 25, 2018, on behalf of the Daily Caller News Foundation
against State after it failed to respond to three separate FOIA requests
(Judicial
Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:18-cv- 00968)). The
lawsuit seeks:
- All records of communications between State Department officials,
including former Secretary of State John Kerry, former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, on the
one hand, and British National Christopher Steele and/or employees or
contractors of Steele’s company, Orbis Business Intelligence, on the
other hand.
- All records and/or memoranda provided by Christopher Steele and/or his
firm Orbis Business Intelligence or by others acting on
Steele’s/Orbis’s behalf to State Department officials.
- Any and all records in the custody of the State Department related to
the provision of documents to British national Christopher Steele and/or
his firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, or the receipt of documents from
Steele or his firm. Time period is January 20, 2009 through the
present.
- All records created in 2016 by Jonathan M. Winer relating to research
compiled by Christopher Steele.
In a mostly redacted, July 1, 2014,
email exchange between then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria
Nuland and Winer concerning “Two Pieces from Orbis on Russia-Ukraine,”
Winer tells Nuland at one point, “Chris is a good friend and I do trust
him. I find them fascinating snapshots too. [Redacted] I told him we
don’t leak, that would be other parts of the USG and not to worry.”
In a July 22, 2014, email,
Winer tells Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for European Affairs Paul
Jones and Nuland, “I’ve told Chris Steele at Orbis I think the material
is great, and I will continue to retransmit as he sends them to me.”
In a September 4, 2014, email,
Jones tells Winer and Nuland of Steele’s reports, “Credible, useful –
tx as always!”
In a December 29, 2014, email
to Ambassador Pyatt, under the subject line “O [Orbis] Report: Coal
Scandal and Ukrainian Politics,” Nuland says, “This is one of those
industry intel reports. Rings a bit extreme to me. You guys?
Winer sends an almost completely redacted email
on February 12, 2015 to his assistant Miller instructing her to forward
“high side to three usual persons” (Nuland, Jones and himself) an
“O” [Orbis] report “concerning company said to be secretly owned by
Putin, Putin’s Mistress and Friends.”
In a declassified but heavily redacted, March 23, 2015, email
from Nuland to Jones, Winer and his special assistant Nina Miller, under
the subject line: “RE: O Report, March 13 – Growing Political
Instability In Kiev and Yulia’s Return to Power?” Nuland remarks,
“Some of this rings true, some not. [Redacted]”
In an otherwise redacted November 9, 2015, email to Nuland, under the
subject line “Three Recent O [Orbis] Reports on Ukraine Security and
Politics,” United States Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt says,
“So I would put this in the same category as their other flaky
reports.”
In a February 2018 op-ed
in The Washington Post Winer admitted to working with Steele on
the dossier. Winer told the Senate Intelligence Committee that he “destroyed
all the correspondence” he had with Steele, apparently at Steele’s
request.
“The sad truth is due to the over-redactions by a government intent on
hiding the truth from its own people, it's not really easy to make out
what’s fully going on from this newest batch of documents. It is becoming
clearer that there were unprecedented levels of collusion between Obama
administration officials and outside partisans in an effort to harm Trump,
even though some government officials recognized that Christopher Steele's
intel was questionable at best,” said Daily Caller News Foundation
President Neil Patel. “Our lawsuit with Judicial Watch will keep going
until we get all the truth out to the American people.”
Christopher Steele had a willing partner with the Obama State Department
– despite top officials having little confidence in his work. These
documents demonstrate that the Obama administration had multiple warning
signs that Steele was unreliable—yet they used his garbage Dossier to
target and spy on President Trump.
Here’s some background.
In September 2019, we released 146
pages of documents revealing that Steele had an extensive and close
working relationship dating back to May of 2014 with high-ranking Obama
State Department officials including Winer and Nuland. Judicial Watch also
uncovered documents
showing that less than a month before the presidential inauguration Winer
had a 10-minute phone call with Alexey Vladimirovich Skosyrev, the
“political chief” at the Russian Embassy in Washington, DC.
In July 2019, we released 84
pages of documents revealing an email exchange between Nuland and
Winer, discussing a “face-to-face” meeting on a “Russian matter” in
New York in September 2016.
In June 2019 we released 41
pages of documents from the State Department revealing that Winer
played a key role in facilitating Steele’s access to other top government
officials and prominent international business executives. Winer was even
approached by a movie producer about making a movie about the Russiagate
targeting of President Trump.
Well, it does read like a spy novel.
The Left’s Plan for Election Violence
Don’t think the Leftist violence in our streets is random. With the
weakest presidential candidate in history, the Democrats are relying on a
backup plan. We’ve looked into this extensively, as Micah Morrison, our
chief investigative reporter,
describes in his Investigative Bulletin.
With Donald Trump out of the hospital, the presidential race takes a final
turn into the home stretch. Judicial Watch has been highlighting one
largely overlooked aspect of the race: the Left’s plan to violently
challenge election results. The plan was detailed in a document from a
magically appearing new group, the Transition Integrity Project. They
released an ostensibly
bi-partisan report, “Preventing a Disrupted Presidential
Election.”
The main takeaway from the Judicial Watch special report? This is not
simply the thinking of a group of nutty left-wing academics and activists,
but a document straight from the center of the Democratic Party.
The figure at the heart of the Transition Integrity Project is John
Podesta, the senior strategist for the Democratic Party. Podesta was a top
aide to presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, founder of the
influential liberal think tank, the Center for American Progress, and
chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. For the electoral
“war games” mapped out in the TIP report, Podesta played Joe
Biden.
TIP “is a collection of professional Democratic operatives and Republican
‘Never Trumpers,’” the Judicial Watch report notes. “Organizers and
leaders include Georgetown law professor Rosa Brooks, Nils Gilman of the
‘independent’ Berggruen Institute in California,” and Podesta.
Anti-Trump Republicans in the group include Michael Steele, David Frum, and
Bill Kristol.
Judicial Watch’s disturbing conclusion? The publication of the TIP report
“is an information warfare strategy employed for revolutionary political
purposes.” It’s a sophisticated action plan that includes cultivating
an anti-Trump electoral consensus in the media; planning for “a street
fight, not a legal battle;” leveling a vast array of criminal accusations
against the president and his team; co-opting an already sympathetic
federal bureaucracy into the anti-Trump effort; and pressuring the
military, law enforcement, and state-level civil servants.
The TIP call to violence is subtle at times but the smell of gunpowder is
unmistakable. The Judicial Watch report cites numerous outrageous scenarios
advanced by TIP: the president will commit elections crimes; he will rob
the federal till; encourage chaos and violence; use the military to advance
his electoral aims; initiate a crisis for his own benefit; refuse to leave
the White House. Trump is “ruthless,” but Biden is
“constrained.”
The media is already getting the message. To halt Trump corruption, one New
York Times columnist wrote,
people “may have to put their bodies on the line in a way that few living
Americans have experienced.”
Read the full Judicial Watch special report here.
After Chinese Steal Billions in Research, We Finally Ban
Them
China has for years sought to steal U.S. research, and the cost has been
staggering. The Trump Administration has now taken action against this
wholesale espionage, as our Corruption Chronicles blog reports.
The U.S. government has finally issued an official policy on the
inadmissibility of foreigners affiliated with Communist or totalitarian
parties. The critical new rule appears to be the Trump administration’s
response to an epidemic of Communists, mainly from China, that have stolen
billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded scientific research while working in
the United States with Uncle Sam’s permission. This month U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Homeland Security agency
that administers the nation’s lawful immigration system, published
details of the Communist ban in an updated USCIS
Policy Manual. Many Americans may wonder why it took so long.
“Membership in or affiliation with the Communist Party or any other
totalitarian party is inconsistent and incompatible with the Naturalization
Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America, which includes pledging
to support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States,”
according to a USCIS statement
announcing the new measure. The agency continues to explain that, “in
general, unless otherwise exempt,” immigrants with domestic or foreign
Communist or totalitarian affiliations are inadmissible to the U.S. Indeed,
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 authorizes the exclusion
of immigrants on the basis of membership in or affiliation with the
Communist or any other totalitarian party. The problem is that the
government has failed to enforce the policy for decades. A rule in the
books will help officers adjudicate the “inadmissibility ground
consistent with federal law,” according to USCIS, which adds that it will
also provide “guidance” in the “context of adjustment of status
applications.”
The new
chapter of the USCIS manual says the admissibility ground applies to
past or present membership or affiliations with Communist parties. Officers
are directed to determine whether the organization is Communist or
totalitarian. Next, they are to determine whether the alien’s connection
to the organization rises to the level of membership in or affiliation with
such organization. After that, federal officers must decide if the
membership or affiliation was “meaningful.” Regulations define the
Communist party as: The Communist Party of the United States; the Communist
Political Association and the Communist Party of any foreign state or
political or geographical subdivision as well as other branches, affiliates
and subdivisions. Totalitarian parties are defined as organizations that
advocate the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian
dictatorship or totalitarianism. This refers to systems of government
characterized by a single political party and organized on a dictatorial
basis. When considering whether an alien is a threat to the security of the
United States, USCIS says it considers factors such as espionage,
terrorism, subversion, and risks to intellectual property.
The latter appears to be the force behind this new policy. The U.S.
government has long permitted Communists working in the U.S. to steal
billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded research. Many of them work at
public universities throughout the country or at government agencies such
as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation
(NSF) or national laboratories affiliated with the Department of Energy
(DOE). For decades many of the institutions have been deeply impacted by
Chinese infiltrators stealing highly valuable intellectual property. A U.S.
Senate investigation
determined that, not only has American-funded research long been stolen
by China, the work is helping the Communist nation meet its goal of
becoming a world leader in science and technology. China uses hundreds of
government-funded talent recruitment plans to incentivize individuals
engaged in research and development in the U.S, transmit information in
exchange for salaries, research funding, lab space and other perks. The
Communists then use the American research for their own economic and
military gain.
Thankfully, the Trump administration appears to be addressing the problem.
Earlier this year, the NIH
fired dozens of scientists over their secret financial ties to
Communist China. It is not clear how long they went undetected or how much
taxpayer-funded research they stole, but at the time some 54 scientists got
booted for failing to disclose a troubling financial arrangement with a
foreign government. In the overwhelming majority of cases—93%—the cash
came from China, according to an ongoing NIH
investigation that started two years ago. Also, in most of the probes
the targets were Asian men in their 50s. The bulk of the ousted researchers
received generous grants from the NIH, which has an eye-popping
$41.7 billion annual budget. Every year the NIH invests tens
of billions of dollars in medical research by giving around 50,000
grants to more than 300,000 researchers at more than 2,500 universities,
medical schools and other institutions throughout the country. Only 10% of
the agency’s budget supports projects conducted by scientists in its own
lab in Bethesda Maryland.
Chinese infiltrators have been stealing valuable research from the U.S.
government for decades. In fact, more than 20 years ago Judicial Watch
helped expose a Chinese Communist scientist (Wen Ho Lee), who stole nuclear
secrets from the Los
Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, among the world’s largest
science institutions and the nation’s key nuclear weapons research
facility. The Bill Clinton Justice Department refused to prosecute Lee
because then Attorney General Janet Reno claimed the accusations against
him were racist. Judicial Watch represented
the whistleblower, Notra Trulock, responsible for launching an
investigation into Lee’s actions. Trulock was the DOE’s intelligence
operations chief and Clinton administration officials defamed him by
accusing him of being a racist to cover up Lee’s repeated and
embarrassing security violations.
Judicial Watch is Suing to Colorado to Clean Up Its Voter
Rolls
Too many jurisdictions are lax and sloppy with their voter rolls – and in
violation of federal law. This week we’ve filed suit in Colorado.
We sued on behalf of Judicial Watch and three residents of Colorado against
Jena Griswold, Colorado Secretary of State, and the State of Colorado for
failing to clean the state’s voter rolls as required by the National
Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA)
(Judicial
Watch et al. v. Jena Griswold, Colorado Secretary of State and State of
Colorado (No. 1:20-cv-02992)).
In the suit we argue:
- A 2019 study showed that 40 of Colorado’s 64 counties had voter
registration rates exceeding 100% of the eligible citizen voting-age
population. The share of Colorado counties with registration rates
exceeding 100% was the highest in the nation.
- A study from last month confirmed that as many as 39 Colorado counties
had registration rates exceeding 100% at any one time during the relevant
reporting period.
- Data Colorado itself provided to the federal Election Assistance
Commission (EAC) showed that Colorado was lagging in the processing and
removal of certain classes of ineligible registrations belonging to those
who had moved out of state.
- In eight Colorado counties, more than one in six registrations
belonged to an inactive voter.
We note that registration rates over 100%, poor processing of out-of-date
registrations, and high levels of inactive registrations “indicate an
ongoing, systemic problem with Colorado’s voter list maintenance
efforts.” Colorado’s “failure to comply with their … voter list
maintenance obligations” injures lawfully registered voters by
“undermining their confidence in the integrity of the electoral process,
discouraging their participation in the democratic process, and instilling
in them the fear that their legitimate votes will be nullified or
diluted.”
We have asked the court to declare that Colorado and its Secretary of State
are violating the NVRA and to order them to “develop and implement a
general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the registrations
of ineligible registrants from the voter rolls in Colorado …”
It is a direct threat to free and fair elections that with record numbers
of mail-in ballots this cycle, over half of Colorado counties have more
people registered to vote than are eligible to register. With its inaction,
Colorado has failed its citizens and opened itself up to potentially be the
victim of massive voter fraud.
Earlier this year, we sued
Pennsylvania and North
Carolina for failing to make reasonable efforts to remove ineligible
voters from their rolls as required by federal law. The lawsuits allege
that the two states have nearly 2 million extra names on voter registration
rolls.
In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld a voter-roll cleanup program that
resulted from a Judicial Watch settlement of a federal lawsuit with Ohio.
California settled
a NVRA lawsuit with Judicial Watch and last year began the process of
removing up to 1.6 million inactive names from Los Angeles County’s voter
rolls. Kentucky
also began a cleanup of hundreds of thousands of old registrations last
year after it entered into a consent decree to end another Judicial Watch
lawsuit.
In September 2020, we sue Illinois
for refusing to disclose voter roll data in violation of Federal law.
Our 2019 study found 378 counties nationwide that had more voter
registrations than citizens old enough to vote, i.e., counties where
registration rates exceed 100%. These 378 counties combined had about 2.5
million registrations over the 100%-registered mark.
Stopping California’s Diversity Quotas for Corporate
Boards
We have filed a lawsuit
in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles on
behalf of three California taxpayers to prevent California from enforcing
Assembly Bill 979 (AB 979), which Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law on
September 30, 2020.
The bill requires that boards of directors of California-based, publicly
held domestic or foreign corporations to satisfy racial, ethnicity, sexual
preference and transgender status quotas by the end of the 2021 calendar
year. A Senate Floor Analysis says the bill draws distinctions based on
race and ethnicity, and therefore, it is “suspect,” and that “the
existence of general societal discrimination will not ordinarily satisfy
courts.” We sued a few hours after Governor Newsom signed the new quota
law.
AB 979 requires publicly held corporations to have a minimum of one
director from an “underrepresented community” on its board by the end
of the 2021 calendar year and up to three “underrepresented-community”
board members by the end of the 2022 calendar year, depending on the size
of the board. The bill defines
“director from an underrepresented community” to mean “an individual
who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian,
Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or
who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”
We filed the lawsuit (Robin
Crest, et al. v. Alex Padilla, in his official capacity as Secretary of
State of the State of California (No.20ST-CV-37513)) the same day
Governor Newsom signed the bill in order to prevent the Secretary of
State’s office from expending taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed
resources to implement the law and/or ensure compliance with AB 979’s
racial, ethnic, sexual preference and transgender-based quotas. According
to the Assembly Appropriations Committee AB 979 “will result in ongoing
costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to gather demographic
information and compile a report on this data on its internet
website.”
In our complaint we argue:
- Any expenditure of taxpayer funds or taxpayer-financed resources on AB
979 is illegal under the California Constitution. The
legislation’s requirement that certain corporations appoint a specific
number of directors based upon race, ethnicity, sexual preference, and
transgender status is immediately suspect and presumptively invalid and
triggers strict scrutiny review by the court.
- Because it classifies directors by virtue of their race, ethnicity,
sexual preference, or transgender status, AB 979 can only be justified by a
compelling governmental interest, and its use of race and ethnicity must be
narrowly tailored to serve that compelling interest.
- As California cannot make these difficult showings, AB 979 is
unconstitutional and any expenditure of taxpayer funds or taxpayer-financed
resources in furtherance of, ensuring compliance with, or otherwise
effectuating the racial, ethnicity, sexual preference, and transgender
quotas required by AB 979 is illegal.
The Floor Analysis produced by the California Senate during deliberation on
the bill identified
“potential constitutional issues posed by” AB 979. It described AB 979
as “requiring certain corporations to appoint a certain number of
directors who self-identify as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino,
Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian or Alaskan
Native” and noted that, under the California Constitution, “a statute
that draws a distinction based upon race or ethnicity in this fashion –
whether remedial or punitive in intent – is suspect and only passes
constitutional muster if it can meet the strict scrutiny test: that the
statute is narrowly drawn to meet a compelling government
interest.” The analysis also stated, “the existence of
general societal discrimination will not ordinarily satisfy the
courts.”
Judicial Watch asks
the court to halt the quota law:
A judgment declaring any and all expenditures of taxpayer funds and
taxpayer-financed resources in furtherance of, ensuring compliance with, or
otherwise effectuating the racial, ethnicity, sexual preference, and
transgender quotas required by AB 979 to be illegal; and
An injunction permanently prohibiting Defendant from expending or causing
the expenditure of taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources in
furtherance of, ensuring compliance with, or otherwise effectuating the
racial, ethnicity, sexual preference, and transgender quotas required by AB
979.
In a related case, we are prosecuting a taxpayer lawsuit
that challenges California’s gender quotas (Crest et al. v. Padilla,
(No.19ST-CV-27561)). In June, in a major development, the court held that
our clients have standing to sue under state law and our attorneys are now
in discovery, which could involve deposition testimony of various
California officials.
California’s government has a penchant for quotas that are brazenly
unconstitutional. Gender quotas and now new quotas for numerous other
groups for corporate boards are slaps in the face to the core American
value of equal protection under the law. While California skirts bankruptcy
and burns up due to fiscal abandon, its leftist political leadership would
waste tax dollars to implement illegal and divisive quotas.
Judicial Watch Contested Virginia Officials’ Secret Meeting on
BLM Riot
We were in the Prince William Circuit Court in Manassas, VA, this week
regarding the state’s open meetings law, which was violated by a meeting
held by the Democrat members of the Prince William County Board of
Supervisors in May. The meeting discussed the police response to BLM
riots.
In July 2020, we asked
the court to mandate the Prince William County Board of supervisors to
comply with Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act/ open meeting law (Gloss
et al. v Wheeler et al. (No. 20-7521)). The lawsuit is being
brought together with three Prince William County residents and their
Virginia counsel, McSweeny, Cynkar and Kachouroff, PLLC.
The Prince William Circuit Court is considering whether the Democrat
members of the board violated law by holding a meeting in secret, without
notice to any Republican supervisor or advance notice to the public as
required by law.
On Saturday night May 30, various protests and rioting occurred in Prince
William County, resulting in numerous injuries to police officers and
extensive property damage. Police officers reportedly used tear gas, pepper
spray and rubber bullets to disperse the crowd. The next day, a meeting of
the police department’s Citizen Advisory Board was held. All five
Democrat supervisors attended the meeting, but the board’s three
Republican members were not notified of the meeting and did not attend. The
individual who chairs the Citizen’s Advisory Board is the husband of one
of the Democrat supervisors.
As explained in the lawsuit,
the Democrat supervisors violated Virginia’s Freedom of Information
Act/open meeting law by holding a meeting in secret, without notice to any
Republican supervisor nor advance notice to the public as required by law.
Virginia law prohibits any gathering of two or more members of the same
public body if public business is transacted or discussed. While no votes
were cast during the meeting, the Democrat members posed questions and
provided directives to the police leadership to curtail the use of crowd
control measures in future disturbances. As set forth in the lawsuit, this
constituted a discussion of public business in violation of Virginia Code
section 2.2.-3707(A).
Always at the center of the American story, Virginia has become part of the
testing ground for the key principles of our Republic. And Judicial Watch
is taking action.
Until next week …
|