Did Obama-Appointed Ukraine
Ambassador Intervene to Help Anti-Trump Ukraine
Group?
As the coup abuse against President Trump accelerates, Judicial Watch
focuses on the real Ukraine collusion scandal. We just sued the State
Department for documents related to a reported “untouchables list”
given by former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch to Ukraine
Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko in late 2016 ( Judicial
Watch vs. U.S. Department of State) (No. 1:19-cv-03563).
Lutsenko recently told
The New York Times that Yovanovitch “pressed him not to
prosecute anti-corruption activists.” Lutsenko previously
reportedly said the
do-not-prosecute list included a founder of the Ukraine group Anti-Corruption
Action Centre (AntAC), which was funded by George Soros
foundations and the U.S. federal government, and two members of the
Ukrainian Parliament who vocally supported the Soros group’s
agenda:
The implied message to Ukraine’s prosecutors was clear: Don’t
target AntAC in the middle of an American presidential election in which
Soros was backing
Hillary Clinton to succeed another Soros favorite, Barack Obama,
Ukrainian officials said.
Recently, Rudy Giuliani stated that
AntAC “was co-funded by the Obama administration and far-left
billionaire financier George Soros,” and “was ironically under
investigation for alleged corruption, namely a ‘misplaced’ $4.4 million
in U.S. funds designated to ‘fight corruption inside the former Soviet
republic,’ during the 2016 presidential election in America.”
Amb. Yovanovitch, who was recalled from her Ukraine post in May of this
year by President Donald Trump, was a key witness for Democrats last month
in their public impeachment hearings. Yovanovitch denied providing
any do-not-prosecute “list.”
We filed our FOIA lawsuit here in DC after the State Department failed to
respond to our September 24, 2019, FOIA request for:
- All records of communication between the Department of State and any
representative of the Ukrainian government regarding any actual or proposed
investigation or prosecution of the AntAC; the International Renaissance
Foundation [Open Society Foundations’ office in Ukraine]; and/or
Transparency International.
- All records concerning any meeting or telephonic conversation between
former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and former Ukrainian Prosecutor General
Yuriy Lutsenko.
- All records related to the list of individuals and entities provided
to Lutsenko by Yovanovitch in late 2016.
Amb. Yovanovitch is on our radar for a number of issues. On October 9,
2019, we filed a
FOIA request for State Department records related to the possibly
illegal collection of information by Yovanovitch on prominent conservative
figures, journalists and persons with ties to President Donald Trump.
Reports suggest that the Ukrainian Embassy was a hotbed of anti-Trump, Deep
State activism and tried to promote and protect leftist allies in Ukraine
and the United States. As the coup attack on President Trump continues,
this new federal lawsuit is designed to get to the real truth of the Deep
State’s games in Ukraine.
Judicial Watch Sues for Key Docs Of Deep State Official At Center
of Latest Coup Attack on Trump
It’s all too easy for our intelligence agencies, acting behind their
curtains of secrecy, to abuse their power. Fortunately, Judicial Watch
takes them to court to get to the truth. One Deep State player in
particular was likely up to no good, and we’re going to find out.
We have filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the
Justice Department for communications records of Michael
K. Atkinson – former Assistant Attorney General in DOJ’s National
Security Division (NSD) from 2016 to 2018 and currently Inspector
General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG).
The records we are seeking are regarding Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton,
Anthony Weiner, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment and/or presidential impeachment.
We’re also seeking all emails and text messages of Representative Adam
Schiff (D-CA) and members of Schiff’s staff.
We sued after the Justice Department failed to respond to our October 1,
2019, FOIA request ( Judicial
Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-03566)). We
asked for:
- All emails (whether on .gov or non-.gov email accounts) and text
messages sent to or from former Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney
General Michael K. Atkinson regarding Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton,
Anthony Weiner, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, and/or presidential
impeachment.
- All emails and text messages between former Senior Counsel Atkinson
and Representative Adam Schiff or any member of Mr. Schiff’s staff.
- All travel requests, travel authorizations and expense reports of
former Senior Counsel Atkinson
- All calendar entries of former Senior Counsel Atkinson.
- All SF50s and SF52s of former Senior Counsel Atkinson.
The NSD falls under the direct supervision
of the assistant attorney general.
During Atkinson’s tenure at NSD,
he was senior legal
counsel, first to NSD head John
Carlin (Robert Mueller's former chief of staff when Mueller directed
the FBI) and later to acting NSD head Mary
McCord. McCord accompanied
then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates to see White House Counsel Don
McGahn regarding Michael Flynn.
During the period Atkinson was legal advisor to Carlin and later McCord,
the FISA
court found there was “significant non-compliance with the NSA’s
minimization procedures involving queries of data,” otherwise known as
spying, under the Obama Administration. Additionally, during this period,
DOJ-NSD was working in coordination with the FBI Counterintelligence Unit
on Operation Crossfire
Hurricane, which included former FBI officials Bill Priestap, Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page. Page was the intermediary between FBI
Counterintelligence and DOJ-NSD.
Since becoming Inspector General, Atkinson also has come under scrutiny for
his handling of the so-called “whistleblower” complaint raising
concerns about President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, which became the
basis for the ongoing impeachment proceedings against Trump:
- Atkinson changed
the standing practice of requiring whistleblowers to present firsthand
information in order to have their complaint considered both “credible”
and “of urgent concern” for submission under the Intelligence Community
Whistleblower Protection Act.
- After receiving the complaint and a recommendation from Atkinson that
it be referred to Congress, the DNI
refused to forward the complaint because, based on
an opinion of the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel,
“The complaint submitted to the ICIG does not involve an ‘urgent
concern.’” In testimony before Congress, Acting Director of National
Intelligence Joseph
Maguire, said the complaint was essentially “hearsay” and not
“corroborated by other folks.”
- After the existence of the whistleblower was leaked to the press,
Atkinson told Congress he was unaware the
whistleblower had first gone around him to House Intelligence
Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and his staff with his complaint before
submitting it to the IG’s office.
After listening to Atkinson testify about the whistleblower behind
closed doors before the House Intelligence Committee on October 4, ranking
Republican committee member Republican Devin Nunes (R-CA) said
of him:
[The ICIG is] either totally incompetent or part of the deep state,
and he’s got a lot of questions he needs to answer because he knowingly
changed the form and the requirements in order to make sure that this
whistleblower complaint got out publicly. So, he’s either incompetent or
in on it … he’s either a quack or he’s lying … and he’s going to
have more to answer for, I can promise you, because we are not going to let
him go; he is going to tell the truth about what happened.
Rep. Adam Schiff has yet to release Atkinson’s testimony.
Atkinson has been a key Deep State official involved with questionable and
abusive investigations of President Trump. As Adam Schiff keeps
Atkinson’s testimony on the impeachment attack on President Trump secret,
we’re going to court for transparency under the law.
Court Tells FBI It Can’t Hide Records about FBI-Clinton Lawyer
Meeting on Russia
The Justice Department wanted to pretend that a meeting between an FBI
official and a Clinton lawyer didn’t happen, telling Judicial Watch that
they would “neither confirm nor deny” it. And the DOJ wanted a U.S.
District Court to go along. U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg wasn’t
having any of it.
The judge denied
the effort to block the release of communications between former FBI
General Counsel James Baker and Michael Sussmann, a Perkins Coie law
partner and former DOJ attorney, who reportedly met with Baker to share
information targeting Donald J. Trump during the presidential campaign.
While at Perkins Coie, Sussmann represented the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the time Perkins
Coie secretly paid
for the development of the anti-Trump dossier the DOJ used to obtain
FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. The court specifically rejected
the FBI’s argument that it needed to protect the “privacy” of Hillary
Clinton’s lawyer.
Baker testified
before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees that he received
documents as well as computer storage devices on Russian hacking from
Sussmann. The Mueller
report, however, concluded that there was no evidence that the Trump
campaign improperly colluded with Russia.
In March 2019, Judicial Watch filed suit
after the FBI failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request dated October 5, 2018 ( Judicial
Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-00573)). The
lawsuit seeks:
- Any and all records of communication between former FBI General
Counsel James Baker and former Department of Justice attorney and current
Perkins Coie Partner Michael Sussmann.
- Any and all records created in preparation for, during, and/or
pursuant to any meeting between Mr. Baker and Mr. Sussmann.
- Any and all calendars, agendas, or similar records, either in paper or
electronic format, documenting the schedule and activities of Mr.
Baker.
The FBI would neither confirm nor deny the existence of records.
Judicial Watch successfully
argued that:
[T]he sworn testimony of Baker, the former FBI general counsel,
confirms that Sussmann was sharing the same documents with the media.…
Rather than privacy, this confirms that Sussmann was seeking to obtain
attention for his activities. Hence, this is far from a typical case …
Sussmann had no expectation of ‘personal privacy,’ as he was actively
seeking publicity for himself and the information he wanted to
share.
In any event, the public interest in disclosure of the existence of
records is manifest.
“[A]ny risk of invasion [of privacy] evaporated once Baker publicly
testified that he had received documents from Sussmann, as well as met with
and spoken to him on multiple occasions in 2016.”
In October, Baker testified before the U.S. House Judiciary and
Oversight committees in October 2018, where he stated:
“It was like — my recollection was it was a stack of material I don’t
know maybe a quarter inch half inch thick something like that clipped
together, and then I believe there was some type of electronic media, as
well, a disk or something.”
In his testimony Baker acknowledged that Sussmann’s information related
to the FBI’s Trump–Russia investigation. He also testified that
Sussmann had shared the same information with the media, stating that
Sussmann had told him “some elements of the press had this information as
well and were going to publish something about it.”
In August, another federal court judge rejected FBI efforts to protect of
the privacy of Clinton spy Christopher Steele and ordered
the FBI to conduct a search for certain records about Steele’s work with
the FBI during the Mueller investigation.
The FBI is corruptly trying to keep secret documents to protect those
behind the Russiagate smears of President Trump. Two federal courts have
now rejected the FBI’s desperate attempts to hide the details of its
anti-Trump conspiracy with Hillary Clinton’s Fusion GPS-FBI spy
operation. Why is Director Wray allowing the corrupt cover up the FBI’s
Russiagate collusions with the Clinton gang?
Judicial Watch previously obtained heavily redacted copies of FISA warrants
used by the Obama-era DOJ to spy on the Trump campaign, which seem to confirm
the FBI and DOJ misled the courts in withholding the material information
that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC were behind the
“intelligence” used to persuade the courts to approve the FISA warrants
that targeted the Trump team. One of the FISA warrant
renewals was granted in June 2017 and did not expire until September
2017, some eight months after President Trump assumed office.
I’ll be sure to let you know about any major revelations as more
documents come in.
Until next week …
|