Posts

Two One-Time Devin Nunes Flunkies Under Investigation for Leaks

/48 Comments/in /by

Michael Ellis, the Devin Nunes flunky who had been installed as NSA General Counsel over more qualified people, resigned from NSA after being placed on leave since Inauguration Day. I hadn’t realized until I read Ellen Nakashima’s report on Ellis’ resignation that he was being investigated for leaking classified information, though Catherine Herridge reported that investigation in real time, the very same day that Ellis’ attorney wrote NSA inquiring about the investigation.

Meanwhile, a long David Ignatius profile of another Nunes flunky, Kash Patel, mentions that he, too, is under investigation for leaking classified information.

Patel repeatedly pressed intelligence agencies to release secrets that, in his view, showed that the president was being persecuted unfairly by critics. Ironically, he is now facing Justice Department investigation for possible improper disclosure of classified information, according to two knowledgeable sources who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the probe. The sources said the investigation resulted from a complaint made this year by an intelligence agency, but wouldn’t provide additional details.

Both of these men (along with a third Nunes flunky, Derek Harvey) have been a real threat to national security and both have a history of writing crappy reports for Nunes (recent reporting reminds that Ellis was the author of an unnecessarily shitty Edward Snowden report, for example). There’s little doubt they have released the kinds of material that have never before been released, but much of that would either be legal and/or protected by Speech and Debate.

But the fact that both are being investigated for leaking classified information raises questions whether leak investigations are just being used as an easy way to take out intelligence community critics, whether they’re both suspected of leaking the same information, or whether there’s more there.

The Ignatius story, in particular, is of interest, not least because he’s the guy who first reported Mike Flynn’s conversation with Sergey Kislyak in a seemingly sanctioned leak, making this report a kind of book-end to the Trump Administration. All the more so given that Ignatius not only notes the sensitivity of the probe into Patel, but then tells a story that likely relies on classified information of how Patel’s incompetence almost blew up a SEAL rescue mission in Niger.

Anger toward Patel within the national security bureaucracy mounted after an Oct. 31, 2020, hostage rescue mission in Nigeria. The incident, never previously reported in detail, was described by four high-level sources.

It was a rescue mission that was nearly aborted partly because of inadequate coordination by Patel. SEAL Team Six had been assigned to rescue 27-year-old Philip Walton, a missionary’s son who had been kidnapped by gunmen in Niger, near the border with Nigeria. Patel, as a senior counterterrorism adviser, had assured colleagues that the mission had a green light, according to several sources. The SEALs were ready to parachute into the rescue site from high altitude (one source estimated 30,000 feet) when there was a last-minute hitch.

But as the SEALs were about to jump, military commanders and State Department officials realized that one necessary item hadn’t been completed: The Nigerian government hadn’t been informed prior to the operation inside their country, as required.

A frantic last-minute effort to obtain the necessary permission ensued. The SEAL team’s aircraft held over the target, flying in a racetrack pattern, for about 45 minutes while the State Department tried to locate a Nigerian national security official who could receive the official notice. Finally, just 15 minutes before the operational window closed, the Nigerians were given word, the SEALs parachuted down, and the hostage was rescued.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were angry that, in their view, Patel had prematurely said the operation was fully cleared, according to knowledgeable officials. One senior Pentagon official said he was “incensed” at Patel. A second senior Pentagon official described Patel’s actions as potentially “dangerous” for the SEALs.

The attack on Patel’s role in the hostage rescue may be a signal about what Patel is suspected of leaking.

While Ignatius provides no indication of what Patel is suspected of leaking, the WaPo columnist does link to an interview Patel did with Aaron Maté. The interview is about what you’d expect from a propagandist interviewing a propagandist.  Patel makes a slew of false claims that Maté encourages: the purpose of FISA, what normally goes in FISA applications, the intelligence against Carter Page, what servers the FBI obtained as part of its investigation into the hack (Maté still ascribes the single server fallacy!), what Crowdstrike actually had access to, what Bruce Ohr’s FBI interviews actually showed. Perhaps the most hysterical part of the interview is where Patel claimed that the way to conduct an investigation is to follow the money, but Maté never asked him why HPSCI didn’t follow the money on a single Trump associate, to say nothing of Trump’s role in money laundering for Russian oligarchs.

Nevertheless, in their discussion about the Russian investigation, Patel was quite careful to avoid revealing non-public information, not even for a report he authored claiming poor tradecraft on the Intelligence Community Assessment of the Russian attack that both SSCI and John Durham have investigated and dismissed.

Maté similarly let Patel dodge really answering questions about his conduct on January 6, even though some of the biggest questions about that day pertain to why DOD delayed for three hours before reinforcing the Capitol, including why it took over 30 minutes for an order to deploy to get from Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller to Guard Commander General William Walker who had been waiting on stand-by. In response to Maté’s question, Patel first repeated his selective breach of Executive Privilege to claim that Trump had already authorized Guard deployments, then answered a totally different question than the one Maté asked — not why DOD let the attack continue for 3 hours, long after it had gotten repeated requests for help, but how quickly DOD deployed the Guard after they had allowed an attack to happen across town while they watched.

We activated, from a start, the fastest augmentation and mobilization of uniformed military troops in the DC area since World War II, and we put 24,000 boots on the ground in less than 48 hours. I don’t know who’s saying we slow-rolled anything, because these are Guardsmen, they’re not active duty military.

While Patel violated Executive Privilege, there’s nothing classified about the belated Guard deployment.

It’s in-between those two conversations, though, where Patel may have succumbed to Maté’s persistent questioning about the very same topic about which Ignatius’ sources attack Patal: hostage rescues. Maté asked about a report that Patel had tried to negotiate the release of Austin Tice. Patel first responded to Maté by saying that he wouldn’t address whether Tice is alive or not. But then Maté followed up, and Patel told a self-serving story about his role in an attempt to free Tice. In it, Patel provided non-public details about his meeting with Assad representatives in Syria and may have confirmed an intercept on Bashar al-Assad.

Maté: Can you tell us anything about your discussions with Syrian officials, what they were asking from you, their level of openness to having talks with the US government?

Patel: Sure, I mean, look, that didn’t happen overnight. You know, one of President Trump’s priorities was, “go get American hostages home,” and I think we got over 50 — 53ish, hostages, detainees back — from 20-some countries maybe. Maybe a little less. But Austin Tice had been missing for, going on eight years, and we had made no headway, really, on it, so we made it a priority. We started working with our counterparts in the region. That trip was almost 18 months in the making. And we finally were able to land a meeting in Damascus because I told them, I said, “I’ll come see you. You send someone who can represent President Assad directly, because I can represent President Trump directly on this matter. And let’s go sit down.” And they said, “okay, come to Damascus.” And I don’t know if they thought we would show up or not. We did. And we were very clear. We said, “look, I understand I’m not getting Austin home on this trip, but I would like a proof of life. What would you like in return for that?” We had very frank conversations. They said, we want X amount of movement for the United States military. Troops stuff, and this and that. And I said, “look, all of that’s on the table. We can discuss all those things. I need a proof of life.” And they said they would take it back to Assad. Which they did. I know they did that. And then, I think shortly thereafter, I switched over to the Department of Defense, and tried to continue that mission, but, um, that one was one I just, unfortunately, didn’t succeed on. [my emphasis]

The most likely way that Patel would come to learn, with certainty, that whatever go-betweens he met with in Damascus actually did report back to Assad would be via an NSA or CIA intercept. If that is how he learned, then confirming that he knew Assad got a report back might have burned the intercept. Doing so with Maté at the Grayzone, which personally and as an outlet produce a lot of Assad apology, might be particularly sensitive. And the ease with which Maté appealed to Patel’s ego to get him to reveal these details would raise real questions about whether Patel played a role in the earlier WSJ story about the meeting, which was published on October 18, days before Patel almost fucked up the October 31 Niger mission.

That is, this Ignatius story seems like an effort to undermine Patel’s self-interested stories of heroism on hostage rescues, after he disclosed non-public details about one of them.

Which would also suggest that, whatever the merit of the investigation into Ellis (and I think GOP concerns about it have some merit), the investigation into Patel may be substantive.

Crowdsourced Timeline: Tick-Tock to Insurrection and Beyond [UPDATE-3]

/105 Comments/in , /by

[NB: Check the byline. Updates or changes to this timeline will be emphasized (note dark blue font). /~Rayne]

You’ll recall Marcy’s January 8 post, “Investigate Tommy Tuberville’s Pre-Speech and Debate Actions” in which she wrote about Rudy Giuliani’s January 6 phone calls intended for Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL).

EDIT: One The first call was received by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), which he handed over to Tuberville even as they were preparing to evacuate the Senate chambers. The caller was Trump.

Giuliani’s The second call, from Rudy Giuliani, was left instead on another unnamed senator’s phone.

Giuliani’s voicemail message asked Tuberville to slow down the election certification process on January 6, buying Team Trump time to get more information from states to contest multiple states’ elections with the aim for states to pull their certifications of their elections altogether.

How this would all come together and result in an overturned election wasn’t clear. What was the mechanism by which the states, which had already certified their elections, would reverse those certifications?

Last evening a missing piece dropped, deep in the Friday night news dump zone. The New York Times reported Trump and a little-known Department of Justice attorney, Jeffrey Clark, attempted a takeover of the DOJ, with the intent to use the department’s powers to persuade the state of Georgia to overturn its election results.

Overturning Georgia’s results and fraudulently awarding the state’s electoral votes to Trump wouldn’t have been enough to give Trump the election. But the same powers might have been used to pressure other states or to provide cover for states with GOP elected officials or legislature which favored Trump. We really need to know if Trump made calls to other states like the one he made to Georgia’s secretary of state to lean on him for 11,780 votes.

~ ~ ~

The following timeline has been pulled together from community members harpie’s and Eureka’s comments over the last several weeks as reports were published about the events leading up to and during the January 6 Capitol Building insurrection.

11/12/2020 — Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Director Chris Krebs said he expected he would be fired for CISA’s website dedicated to debunking election-related disinformation, much of which was spread by Trump and campaign associates.

11/17/2020 — Krebs was fired by Trump tweet after Krebs tweeted, “59 election security experts all agree, ‘in every case of which we are aware, these claims (of fraud) either have been unsubstantiated or are technically incoherent.’”

11/17/2020 — Michigan election officials certified the state’s election.

11/18/2020 — 8:04 AM – Trump tweets that Michigan can’t certify its election because of voter fraud.

11/18/2020 — GOP Michigan election officials attempt unsuccessfully to rescind their certification of the state’s election.

11/25/20 — Sham “hearing” in Gettysburg, PA (Rudy, Jenna, Trump via phone).

11/25/2020 — Michael Flynn pardoned by Trump.

11/30/2020 — Trump nominated Charles Flynn to be the Army’s “deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and training.”  submitted a nomination for elevation of Lt. Gen. Charles Flynn to full general. Flynn began his current and ongoing role as Deputy Chief of Staff G3/5/7 in June 2019; he is retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn’s sibling.

12/01/2020 — Attorney General Bill Barr told Associated Press there was no widespread voter fraud during the November 2020 election, disputing Trump’s claims to the contrary.

12/01/2020 — Michigan’s state senate oversight committee held a 7-hour long hearing listening to testimony about the conduct of the November general election.

12/02/2020 — Rudy Giuliani appeared before Michigan’s state house oversight committee in a hearing about the conduct of the November general election; Giuliani maintained Trump won the election. Neither state senate or house oversight committees “have the power or authority to mandate a recount, audit or review of vote processes anywhere in the state.”

12/08/2020 — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton files suit with U.S. Supreme Court against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in an effort to force elections in these states back to their respective states’ legislatures where they could be invalidated.

12/11/2020 — Texas v. Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin dismissed by SCOTUS for lack of standing; Trump escalates pressure on DOJ leadership officials (*including Barr* and Rosen) to file suit in Supreme Court to overturn relevant states.

12/12/2020 — General Michael Flynn and Family speak at Jericho March in DC.

12/12/2020 — 8:47 AM Trump tweets, WE HAVE JUST BEGUN TO FIGHT!!! [time stamp subject to confirmation]

12/12/2020 — approx. 9:00 AM Proud Boy leader Enrique Tarrio posts a photo (which appears to be taken by someone else) on Parler social media platform. 

12/14/2020 — Jacob Chansley (now recognized as the buffalo-headed shirtless insurrectionist) was reported to Capitol Police for 12/14 for carrying a weapon on Capitol Grounds; “higher ups” okay’d him being there.
[see https://twitter.com/mcbyrne/status/1350137671084089345]

12/14/2020 — Trump announced by tweet AG Bill Barr’s resignation effective 12/23/2020. Barr confirmed his resignation by letter to Trump.

12/15/2020 — Trump summons Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen to the Oval Office and makes requests detailed in NYT article; Rosen refuses; he “reiterated what Mr. Barr had privately told Mr. Trump: The department had investigated voting irregularities and found no evidence of widespread fraud.”

After 12/15/20 — [Date(s) TBD] Trump continues to press Rosen in phone calls and in person.

Mid December  — [Date(s) TBD] Clark had been introduced to Mr. Trump by  Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA); he told the president that he agreed that fraud had affected the election results. Mr. Trump quickly embraced Mr. Clark, who had been appointed with Rosen’s assistance the acting head of DOJ’s civil division in September; Clark was also the head of the department’s environmental and natural resources division, confirmed October 2018.

Mid to Late December — [Date(s) TBD] Trump complains about U.S. Attorney-Northern District of Georgia Byung J. “BJay” Pak. Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue warns Pak.

Mid to Late December — [Date(s) TBD] Clark drafts a letter that he wants Rosen to send to Georgia state legislators. Rosen and Donoghue again reject Mr. Clark’s proposal

12/19/2020 — Trump, Sydney Powell and Mike Flynn meet at WH [NYT].

“During an appearance on the conservative Newsmax channel this week, Mr. Flynn pushed for Mr. Trump to impose martial law and deploy the military to ‘rerun’ the election. At one point in the meeting on Friday, Mr. Trump asked about that idea. […]”

12/19/2020 — Trump tweets about the Solar Winds hack.
[see https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1340666651658899457 ]

12/20/2020 — Charles Flynn‘s elevation to full general from lt. general confirmed by the Senate by voice vote to be Army’s “deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and training.”.

12/21/2020 — Sidney Powell was back at the White House again, for third time in four days [NYT]

12/23/2020 — Bill Barr’s last day as AG.

12/23/2020 — Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Charles Kushner, and 23 other individuals were pardoned by Trump.

12/23/2020 — Trump arrived late evening at Mar-a-Lago for vacation through New Year’s Day.

12/30/2020 — Trump to quit FL vacation early, return to DC on 31st:

“The White House announced the abrupt change in the president’s schedule late Wednesday, hours after Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said he would raise objections next week when Congress meets to affirm President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the November election.”
[see https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-politics-florida-coronavirus-pandemic-mar-a-lago-87a839746b4d1a6dca7441791bbc20bc]

12/31/2020 — Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and 10 other plaintiffs from across the GOP filed suit in Texas federal court against Vice President Mike Pence, asking the court to find Pence has the authority to certify the election, possibly throwing out the results in states previously contested by TX AG Paxton.
[see https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/31/us/politics/justice-department-mike-pence-louie-gohmert.html]

12/31/2020 — DOJ’s Rosen, Donoghue, and Clark meet to discuss Clark’s refusal to hew to the department’s conclusion that the election results were valid. Donoghue is blunt and tells Mr. Clark that what he was doing was wrong.

01/01/2021 — Trump appointee U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Kernodle dismissed Rep. Louie Gohmert’s lawsuit against VP Pence for lack of standing.

01/01/2021 — Clark tells Rosen that he was going to discuss his strategy with the president early the next week. [How and when was this decision made?] [But this meeting ended up happening “over the weekend”: Saturday 1/2/21, Sunday 1/3/21]

01/01/2021 and/or 2 — Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund confers with D.C. Police Chief Robert J. Contee III, who offered to lend a hand if trouble arose.

01/02/2021 — “Roughly a dozen Republican senators are in talks to join Missouri Senator Josh Hawley in objecting to the electoral college results when congress meets Wednesday, according to multiple Republican sources familiar with the ongoing talks.”
[see https://twitter.com/johnkruzel/status/1349198860573421568]

01/02/2021 — Trump along with on the call were WH Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, attorney Cleta Mitchell calls Georgia’s secretary of state Brad Raffensperger and the GA legal counsel Ryan Germany, pressuring him to “find 11,780 votes” in order to change the outcome of Georgia’s election. Raffensperger and Germany refute Trump’s claims he won GA’s election.

01/02/2021 and/or 01/03/2021 — [Date(s) TBD] Clark meets with Trump.

01/03/2021 — 8:57 AM – Trump tweets about the call to GA-SoS Raffensperger. Raffensperger tweets a reply, saying, “Respectfully, President Trump: What you’re saying is not true.”

01/03/2021 — Midday [time TBD] Clark informs Rosen that he had met with Trump and that the president intended to replace him with Clark, who could then try to stop Congress from certifying the Electoral College results. He says that Rosen could stay on as his deputy attorney general. Rosen insisted on talking with Trump.

01/03/2021 — Early afternoon – The Washington Post releases a story along with a roughly one-hour-long audio recording of Trump’s conversation with Raffensperger the previous evening.

01/03/2021 — Afternoon – Rosen works with Cipollone, to convene a meeting with Trump for early that evening.

01/03/2021 — Later afternoon – Donoghue convenes a call with the department’s remaining senior leaders, laying out Clark’s efforts to replace Rosen. Should  Rosen be fired, they all agreed to resign en masse.

01/03/2021 — 6PM – 9PM White House meeting convened with Trump, Rosen, Donoghue, Clark, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, Deputy Counsel Pat Philbin, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Steve Engel, “and other lawyers.”

01/04/2021 — Sund called House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving and Senate Sergeant at Arms Michael Stenger to ask for permission to request that the National Guard be put on emergency standby. Irving didn’t like the idea, Sund said; he said it would look bad because it would communicate that they presumed an emergency. He said he’d have to ask House leaders. [DID HE ASK PELOSI?] [Questionable if that was necessary. See 1:15 PM, 1/6/21]

01/04/2021 — Following Stenger’s advice, Sund calls Maj. Gen. William J. Walker, the head of the 1,000-member D.C. National Guard, to tell him that he might call on him for help. Walker says he thought he could send 125 personnel fairly quickly.

01/05/2021 — Sund [said he] briefed Irving and Stenger, who said that backup seemed sufficient.

01/05/2021 — More than 100 representatives from Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Georgia asked for at least 10 more days, so they could investigate and then vote on the election in their state legislatures. The two-page letter with more than 60 pages of attachments was sent to Pence to purportedly show “the illegalities present in the 2020 election” and provide “evidence of a coordinated and structured multi-state effort to undermine state law protecting election integrity.”
[see https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2021/01/14/these-15-state-legislators-asked-pence-not-to-certify-election-results/]

01/05/2021 — Capitol Building CCTV feeds showed Reps. Louie Gohmert R-TX, Jim Jordan R-OH, Matt Gaetz R-FL, Lauren Boebert R-CO, Marjorie Taylor Greene R-GA, Paul Gosar R-AZ, Andy Biggs R-AZ were involved in giving ‘reconnaissance’ tours to groups 1/5.
[Disclosed on 01/13/2021 via https://twitter.com/FrankSowa1/status/1349574338060685312]  Claim regarding CCTV not verified. Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ) later shared via Facebook live broadcast that she had seen “members of Congress who had groups coming through the Capitol that I saw on January 5th as a reconnaissance for the next day”; she and 33 other House Dems later requested an investigation into these tour(s). 

01/05/2021 — Georgia’s U.S. Attorney Bjay Pak resigned unexpectedly. A “Never-Trumper” U.S. Attorney was mentioned but not named in Trump’s phone call to Georgia’s SoS Raffensperger on January 2; it’s believed Pak was the subject.

01/05/2021 — VP Pence tells Trump he doesn’t have the authority to overturn election results. Trump rejects this. (This needs to be validated as perspectives in multiple outlets are sourced to NYT’s Haberman.)

—————

01/06/2021 — Day of Capitol Building insurrection

TBD — Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) was photographed at the Women for America First event during the rally in front of the White House. [Exact time TBD; unclear how and when she gets to the Capitol Building ahead of the rioters.]

Just before 12 PM — Sund was monitoring Trump’s speech to the crowd on the Ellipse when he was called away by reports of two pipe bombs — near the Capitol grounds.

12:40 PM — The first wave of rioters arrived at the Capitol Building roughly 40 minutes after Trump had begun speaking at the Ellipse.

1:00 PM — Sund called Contee, who sent 100 District of Columbia (DCPD) police officers to the scene

1:09 PM — Sund [said he] called Irving and Stenger, telling them it was time to call in the Guard.

He wanted an emergency declaration. Both men said they would “run it up the chain” and get back to him, he said. [Questionable if that was necessary. See 1:15 PM, 1/6/21] // Sund said he called Irving twice more and Stenger once to check on their progress.

1:10 PM — Some officers arrive from DCPD.

[1:15 PM?] — [Minutes later] aides to the top congressional leaders were called to Stenger’s office for an update on the situation — and were infuriated to learn that the sergeants at arms had not yet called in the National Guard or any other reinforcements, as was their responsibility to do without seeking approval from leaders.

1:50 PM — Sund called Maj. Gen. William J. Walker, the head of the 1,000-member D.C. National Guard to tell him to get ready to bring the Guard.

1:59 PM — The Capitol Building was breached. D.C. police had hundreds of officers on the scene.

2:10 PM — Irving called back with formal approval. By then, plainclothes Capitol Police agents were barricading the door to the Speaker’s Lobby just off the House chamber to keep the marauders from charging in.

2:10 PM (est.) — Rudy Giuliani Trump called Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) around this time, before senators were evacuated, but reached Sen. Mike Lee’s (R-UT) phone. Lee handed his cell phone to Tuberville who spoke with Giuliani Trump briefly.

2:13 PM — Vice President Pence was escorted off the Senate floor. Sen. Charles E. Grassley begins presiding, but almost immediately calls a recess.

2:15 PM — Senate sealed. [WaPo]

2:17 PM — [Boebert tweets] We were locked in the House Chambers

2:18 PM — [Boebert tweets] The Speaker has been removed from the chambers.

2:XX PM — Exact time TBD – Rep. Ayanna Pressley and staff notice the panic button for her office had been removed without any notice. The button had been functional and used previously.

2:20 PM — Capitol was on lockdown. [NOTE: I have to find a cite for this]

2:21 PM — Jim Acosta from CNN tweets (link to tweet needed):

“A source close to the White House who is in touch with some of the rioters at the Capitol said it’s the goal of those involved to stay inside the Capitol through the night.”

2:22 PM — Capitol Police chief Sund requests National Guard support.

2:23 PM — A dense group of protestors rioters* has shattered the windows of the Capitol. We can hear roaring chants of “USA” outside. [VIDEO]

2:24 PM — [TRUMP TWEETS about PENCE / ECHOES CROWD: “USA”]

CROWD: ‘Where is Pence? Find Pence!’ ” and also “Fight for Trump!” [NYT]

2:26 PM — CONFERENCE CALL organized by D.C’s homeland security director, Chris Rodriguez. Among those on the screen were the District’s police chief, [D.C. Police Chief Robert J. Contee III] mayor [Bowser] and Walker. [head of the 1,000-member D.C. National Guard]

3:04 PM — [DOD said] Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller verbally authorized the activation of the entire D.C. Guard

3:45 PM — Stenger told Sund that he would ask his boss, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), for help getting the National Guard authorized more quickly. Sund never learned the result.

More of Contee’s officers had arrived and were helping remove rioters from the grounds. Capitol Police worked with other federal authorities, including the Secret Service, the Park Police and the FBI, to secure lawmakers, eject rioters and sweep the building so lawmakers could return to finish counting the electoral college votes that would allow them to formally recognize Biden’s victory later that night.

5:40PM — First National Guard personnel arrive at the Capitol.

About 7:00 PM — Rudy Giuliani leaves a voicemail message for Sen. Tuberville but on a senator’s phone.

[RUDY:] “We need you, our Republican friends, to try to just slow it down so we can get these legislatures to get more information to you.”
“If you could object to every state and, along with a congressman, get a hearing for every state, I know we would delay you a lot, but it would give us the opportunity to get the legislators who are very, very close to pulling their vote.”

After 8:00 PM — Congress reconvenes and completes certification of the election.

—————

01/13/2021 — Trump tells staff not to pay any more of Giuliani’s legal fees (unclear if this is campaign, Trump org, or White House staff, or all of the above).

01/15/2021 — MyPillow CEO Michael Lindell has a meeting in the afternoon at White House; his notes are caught on camera.

7 NOW as Acting National Security
8 him with getting the evidence of ALL the
9 as the election and all information regarding
10 people he knows who already have security
11 done massive research on these issues
12 Fort Mead. He is an attorney with Cyber-
13 and is up to speed on election issues.
14
15 [insurrection?] Act now as a result of the assault on the
16 marial law if necessary upon the first hint of any
17
18
19 Sidney Powell, Bill Olsen, Kurt Olsen.
20 Move Kash Patel to CIA Acting.
21
22 up Foreign Interference in the election. Trigger
23 powers. Make clear this is China/Iran
24 used domestic actors. Instruct Frank
25 evidence on [—–] the [—-]broad
26 account [————–]-ary
27 the line [—————] evidence
28 caus [——————-] attorney

01/16/2021 — WaPo: Acting Defense Secretary Orders NSA director to immediately install former GOP operative as agency’s top lawyer

01/17/2021 — The NSA is ‘moving forward’ to install Michael Ellis, a former GOP operative, as its top lawyer
[see https://twitter.com/nakashimae/status/1350855207270445059]

01/20/2021 — Ellis placed on leave pending an investigation.

“He will remain on administrative leave while his hiring is investigated by the Pentagon’s inspector general.”

~ ~ ~

What seemed random a week or more ago looks much less so today. If you have any item you believe is relevant to this developing timeline, please feel free to share in comments.

NOTE: Please restrict comments in this thread to content germane to this timeline. Thanks.

~ ~ ~

UPDATE-1 — 11:45 AM 23-JAN-2021 —

  • Corrections made re: first known phone call to Tuberville – call was from Trump, not Giuliani, who made the second call left on a senator’s voicemail.
  • Strike claim about CCTV of Capitol Building tours on January 5, add Rep. Mikie Sherrill’s observation of tours that day along with House Dems’ request for investigation into the tours.
  • Added Trump’s 12/12/2020 tweet and Proud Boy Enrique Tarrio’s visit to White House same day.
  • Added link to Philadelphia Inquirer story about 11/25/2020 hearing.

~ ~ ~

UPDATE-2 — 2:15 PM 23-JAN-2021 —

  • 01/06/2021 2:21 PM tweet by CNN’s Acosta added
  • 01/20/2021 Michael Ellis’s change in status added

~ ~ ~

UPDATE-3 — 5:40 PM 25-JAN-2021 —

* Once they are engaged in destruction they are no longer protesters but rioters.

Added these items, tweaked others:

  • 11/17/2020 Michigan election officials certified the state’s election.
  • 11/18/2020 Trump tweets that Michigan can’t certify its election because of voter fraud.
  • 11/17/2020-11/18/2020Details about Michigan’s election certification and GOP officials attempt unsuccessfully to rescind their certification of the state’s election.
  • 12/08/2020-12/11/2020  Filing and dismissal of Texas lawsuit before SCOTUS.
  • 12/31/2020-01/01/2021 Rep. Gohmert’s Hail Mary lawsuit filed and tossed.
  • 01/06/2021 Rep. Pressley’s panic button discovered missing.
  • 01/02/2021-01/03/2021 More details about Trump’s call to Georgia secretary of state Raffensperger added.
  • 01/13/2021  Trump wants to stiff Rudy.

John Bolton Versus Navy Versus Egan

/35 Comments/in , /by

John Bolton filed a motion opposing the government’s legal actions against him last night (it is both a memorandum in opposition to the Temporary Restraining Order as well as a motion to dismiss). It is particularly interesting because of some things Jack Goldsmith and Marty Lederman laid out in this post. As they note, the judge presiding over today’s hearing has no tolerance for Executive Branch bullshit, even on classified matters; the government’s own description of what happened raises lots of questions about regularity of the claim of classification, particularly as respects to whether there any compartmented information (SCI) remains in Bolton’s book; and the scrutiny of the government will be particularly stringent here, since it wants to censor something before publication.

This, however, might be a case in which a judge rejects or at least refuses to countenance the government’s classification decisions, at least for purposes of the requested injunction. That’s because of a confluence of unusual factors.  They include:

  • Several years ago, Judge Lamberth declared at a conference of federal employees that federal courts are “far too deferential” to the executive branch’s claims that certain information must be classified on national security grounds and shouldn’t be released to the public.  Judges shouldn’t afford government officials “almost blind deference,” said Lamberth.
  • The decision to classify material here appears to be highly irregular.  The career official responsible for prepublication review at the National Security Council determined after a long process that Bolton’s manuscript contained no classified information.  A political appointee who had only recently become a classifying authority, Ellis, then arrived at a different conclusion after only a brief review.  It is even possible that Ellis classified information in Bolton’s manuscript for the first time after Bolton was told by Knight that the manuscript contained no classified information.  At a minimum there were clearly process irregularities in the prepublication consideration of Bolton’s manuscript.
  • The D.C. Circuit in dicta in McGehee stated that the government “would bear a much heavier burden” than the usual rationality review of executive branch classified information determinations in cases where the government seeks “an injunction against publication of censored items”—i.e., in a case like this one.  Although it’s not clear whether that’s right, the First Amendment concerns raised by this case, in this setting, may affect how credulous Judge Lamberth is of the government’s classified information determinations and of the unusual way in which Bolton’s prepublication review was conducted.

Bolton’s motion answers a lot of questions that Goldsmith and Lederman asked in their post. For example, they ask whether Ellen Knight consulted with other top classification authorities before she verbally told Bolton the book had no more classified information in it; Bolton’s motion describes that on the call when Knight told Bolton the book had no more classified information, she, “cryptically replied that her ‘interaction’ with unnamed others in the White House about the book had ‘been very delicate,’ and that there were ‘some internal process considerations to work through.'”

Goldsmith and Lederman lay out a lot of questions contemplating the likelihood that Michael Ellis claimed the manuscript had SCI information after Knight informed Bolton that it had no more classified information, of any kind (remember, Ellis is likely the guy who moved Trump’s Ukraine transcript onto the compartmented server after people started raising concerns about it, so there would be precedent). Bolton’s brief lays out an extended description of why, if this indeed happened, it doesn’t matter with respect to the way his SCI non-disclosure agreement is written, because based on the record even the government presents, Bolton had no reason to believe the manuscript had SCI in it, and plenty of reason to believe it had no classified information of any type, when he instructed Simon & Schuster to move towards publication.

However, in its brief, the Government asserts for the first time that Ambassador Bolton’s book contains SCI and, therefore, that the SCI NDA applied to his manuscript and required that he receive written authorization from the NSC to publish it. See Doc. 3 at 12–14. This surprise assertion that the book contains SCI, even if true, would not alter the conclusion that the SCI NDA is inapplicable to this case.

The Government is not painting on a blank canvas when it asserts that Ambassador Bolton’s book contains SCI. Rather, the Government’s assertion comes after a six-month course of dealing between the parties that informs whether and how the NDAs apply. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 202(4) (1981); see also id. § 223. Ambassador Bolton submitted his manuscript for prepublication review on December 30, 2019. Over the next four months, he (or his counsel) and Ms. Knight exchanged more than a dozen emails and letters, participated in numerous phone calls, and sat through more than a dozen hours of face-to-face meetings, painstakingly reviewing Ambassador Bolton’s manuscript. Yet, in all that time, Ms. Knight never asserted—or even hinted—that the manuscript contained SCI, even as she asserted that earlier drafts contained classified information. 102 After conducting an exhaustive process in which she reviewed the manuscript through least four waves of changes, Ms. Knight concluded that it contains no classified information—let alone SCI—as the Government concedes. Doc. 1 ¶ 46.

Nor did Mr. Eisenberg assert in either his June 8 or June 11 letters that the manuscript contains SCI. Nor did Mr. Ellis assert in his June 16 letter that the manuscript contains SCI. Indeed, not even the Government’s complaint asserted that the manuscript contains SCI, even as it specifically alleges that it contains “Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret” information. Doc. 1 ¶ 58. The first time that anyone in the Government so much as whispered that the manuscript contains SCI to either Ambassador Bolton or the public was yesterday, when the Government filed its motion. For nearly six months, it has been common ground between the NSC and Ambassador Bolton that his manuscript does not contain SCI. Only now, on the eve of the book’s publication and in service of seeking a prior restraint, has the Government brought forth this allegation.

And here is the key point: Ambassador Bolton authorized Simon & Schuster to publish his manuscript weeks ago, not long after receiving Ms. Knight’s confirmation that the book did not contain classified information and long before the Government’s first assertion yesterday that the book contained SCI. 103 Thus, at the time Ambassador Bolton proceeded with publishing his book—a decision that has long-since become irrevocable—he had absolutely no reason to believe that the book contained SCI. Indeed, quite the opposite: the Government had given him every reason to believe that it agreed with him that the book did not contain SCI. And if the book did not contain SCI, the SCI NDA did not apply when Ambassador Bolton authorized the book’s publication.

Yet the Government now argues that the SCI NDA did apply based on its discovery of alleged SCI six months after the prepublication-review process began. If that argument is sustained—if, that is, an author may be held liable under the SCI NDA even though neither the author nor the Government believed that the author’s writing contained SCI through four months of exhaustive prepublication review—it would mean that any federal employee who signs the SCI NDA would have no choice but to submit any writing, and certainly any writing that could even theoretically contain SCI, and then await written authorization before publishing that writing. The risk of liability would simply be too great for any author to proceed with publishing even a writing that both he and the official in charge of prepublication review believe, in good faith, is not subject to the SCI NDA.

What Goldsmith and Lederman don’t address — but Bolton does at length in his brief — is the role of the President in these matters. Bolton lays out (as many litigants against the President have before) abundant evidence that the President was retaliating here, including by redefining as highly classified any conversation with him at a very late stage in this process.

Yet, the evidence is overwhelming that the Government’s assertion that the manuscript contains classified information, like the corrupted prepublication review process that preceded it, is pretextual and in bad faith:

  • On January 29, the President tweeted that Ambassador Bolton’s book is “nasty & untrue,” thus implicitly acknowledging that its contents had been at least partially described to him. He also said that the book was “All Classified National Security.”112
  • On February 3, Vanity Fair reported that the President “has an enemies list,” that “Bolton is at the top of the list,” and that the “campaign against Bolton” included Ms. Knight’s January 23 letter asserting that the manuscript contained classified information.113 It also reported that the President “wants Bolton to be criminally investigated.”114
  • On February 21, the Washington Post reported that “President Trump has directly weighed in on the White House [prepublication] review of a forthcoming book by his former national security adviser, telling his staff that he views John Bolton as ‘a traitor,’ that everything he uttered to the departed aide about national security is classified and that he will seek to block the book’s publication.”115 The President vowed: “[W]e’re going to try and block the publication of [his] book. After I leave office, he can do this.”116
  • As described in detail above, Ambassador Bolton’s book went through a four-month prepublication-review process with the career professionals at NSC, during which he made innumerable revisions to the manuscript in response to Ms. Knight’s concerns. At the end of that exhaustive process, she stated that she had no further edits to the manuscript,117 thereby confirming, as the Government has admitted, that she had concluded that it did not contain any classified information.118
  • At the conclusion of the prepublication-review process on April 27, Ms. Knight thought that Ambassador Bolton was entitled to receive the pro-forma letter clearing the book for publication and suggested that it might be ready that same afternoon.119 She and Ambassador Bolton even discussed how the letter should be transmitted to him.120
  • During that same April 27 conversation, Ms. Knight described her “interaction” with unnamed others in the White House about the book as having “been very delicate,”121 and she had “some internal process considerations to work through.”
  • After April 27, six weeks passed without a word from the White House about Ambassador Bolton’s manuscript, despite his requests for a status update.122
  • When the White House finally had something new to say, it was to assert its current allegations of classified information on June 8, in a letter that—by the White House’s own admission—was prompted by press reports that the book was about to be published.123
  • Even though the manuscript was submitted to NSC on December 30, 2019, and despite the exhaustive four-month review and the six weeks of silence that had passed since Ms. Knight’s approval of the manuscript on April 27, the White House’s June 8 letter gave itself until June 19—only four days before the book was due to be published—to provide Ambassador Bolton’s counsel with a redacted copy of the book identifying the passages the White House purported to believe were classified.
  • On the eve of this lawsuit being filed, in response to a question about this lawsuit, the President stated: “I told that to the attorney general before; I will consider every conversation with me as president highly classified. So that would mean that if he wrote a book, and if the book gets out, he’s broken the law.”124 The President reiterated: “Any conversation with me is classified.”125 The President added that “a lot of people are very angry with [Bolton] for writing a book” and that he “hope[d]” that Ambassador Bolton “would have criminal problems” due to having published the book.126
  • On June 16, the NSC provided to Ambassador Bolton a copy of the manuscript with wholesale redactions removing the portions it now claims are classified. Consistent with President Trump’s claim, statements made by the President have been redacted, as have numerous passages that depict the President in an unfavorable light.127

It is clear from this evidence that the White House has abused the prepublication-review and classification process, and has asserted fictional national security concerns as a pretext to censor, or at least to delay indefinitely, Ambassador Bolton’s right to speak.

While Goldsmith and Lederman focused, with good reason, on Ellis’ role, Bolton is focused on President Trump’s role. Bolton lays out abundant evidence that the reason this prepublication review went off the rails is because the President, knowing how unflattering it was to him, made sure it did.

And that raises entirely new issues because under a SCOTUS precedent called Navy v. Egan, the Executive has long held that the President has unreviewable authority over classification and declassification decisions. That doesn’t change contract law. And–given that the courts have already granted the President a limited authority to protect the kinds of things being called SCI here under Executive Privilege–it raises real questions about whether Trump is relying on the proper legal claim here (which may be a testament to the fact that Executive Privilege holds little sway over former government officials).

Still, courts have sanctioned a bunch of absurdity about classification under the Navy v. Egan precedent, arguably far beyond the scope of what that decision (which pertained to clearances) covered. Yet, I would argue that Bolton has made Navy v. Egan a central question (though he does not mention it once) in this litigation.

Can the President retroactively classify information as SCI solely to retaliate against someone for embarrassing him — including by exposing him to criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act? That’s the stuff of tyranny, and Royce Lamberth is not the judge who’ll play along with it.

Let me very clear however, particularly for the benefit of some frothy leftists who are claiming — in contradiction to all evidence — that liberals are somehow embracing Bolton by criticizing Trump’s actions here: Bolton’s plight is not that different from what whistleblowers claim happens to them when they embarrass the Executive Branch generally. Their books get held up in review and some of them get prosecuted under the Espionage Act.

What makes this more ironic, involving Bolton, is that he has been on the opposite side of this issue. Indeed, the Valerie Plame leak investigation focused closely on whether Dick Cheney’s orders to Scooter Libby to leak classified information — after which he leaked details consistent with knowing Plame’s covert status, as well as details from the National Intelligence Estimate — were properly approved by George Bush. Bolton was a party to that pushback and his deputy Fred Fleitz was suspected of having had a more active role in it. In that case, the President (or Vice President) retaliated for the release of embarrassing information by declassifying information for political purposes. But in that case, the details of what the President had done have remained secret, protected by Libby’s lies to this day.

In this case, Bolton can present a long list of evidence — including the President’s own statements — that suggest these classification decisions were retaliatory, part of a deliberate effort to trap Bolton in a legal morass.

So Bolton isn’t unique for his treatment as a “whistleblower” (setting aside his cowardice in waiting to say all this). He’s typical. What’s not typical is how clearly the President’s own role and abusive intent is laid out. And because of the latter fact — because, as usual, Trump hasn’t hidden his abusive purpose — it may more directly test the limits of the President’s supposedly unreviewable authority to classify information. So, ironically, someone like Bolton may finally be in a position to test whether Navy v. Egan really extends to sanctioning the retroactive classification of information solely to expose someone to criminal liability.

Raw Versus Cooked: Could NSC Monitor FBI’s Investigation?

/16 Comments/in , , , /by

Multiple people,including Bart Gellman and Josh Marshall, are now arguing that the reason Ezra Cohen-Watnick and Michael Ellis found intercepts involving Trump’s people is that they were monitoring FBI’s investigation of the investigation.

I certainly think the Trump people would like to do that — and would be willing to stoop to that. I even believe that the response to the Russian hack last year had some counterintelligence problems, though probably not on the FBI side.

But there are some details that may limit how much the NSC can monitor the investigation.

First, Devin Nunes has always been very clear: the intercepts he was shown have nothing to do with Russia. That’s not, itself, determinative. After all, Cohen-Watnick and Ellis might have found a bunch of Russian intercepts, but only shared the non-Russian ones so Nunes could make a stink without being accused of endangering the investigation. Also, it’s possible that intercepts involving other countries — most notably Turkey, but there are other countries that might be even more interesting, including Ukraine or Syria — would impact any Russian investigation.

Also note that among the many things Nunes appears not to understand about surveillance is that there are two ways an American’s name can be visible outside the circle of analysts doing the initial review of them: their names can be put into finished intelligence reports that get circulated more broadly, with customers asking to have the name unmasked after the fact. Alternately, their names can be found off of subsequent searches of raw data. At the NSA and CIA, searches for US person content are somewhat controlled. At FBI they are not only not controlled, but they are routine even for criminal investigations. So if, say, General Flynn (or Paul Manafort) were under investigation for failing to register as a foreign agent, the FBI would routinely search their database of raw FISA material on his name. (These are the “back door searches” Ron Wyden has been screaming about for years, concerns which people like Devin Nunes have previously dismissed on national security grounds.) And we have every reason to believe that counterintelligence intercepts of Russians in the US are among the raw feeds that the FBI gets. So if Flynn had conversations with Russians (or Turks) in the US, we should assume that FBI saw them as a routine matter if Flynn became the subject of an investigation at all. We should also assume that the FBI did a search on every Sergey Kislyak intercept in their possession, so they will have read everything that got picked up, including all recorded calls with Trump aides.

On March 15, the House Intelligence Committee asked the NSA, CIA, and FBI for information on unmasking. I don’t believe that request asked about access to US person names on subsequent searches or raw material. Furthermore, at least as of last week, the FBI was not rushing to comply with that request. As I noted after the Jim Comey hearing before HPSCI, none of the Republicans concerned about these issues seemed to have any basic clue about FBI’s searches on raw data. If Nunes doesn’t know (and he appears not to), it’s unlikely Ellis knows, who was until this month Nunes’ aide.

But there’s one other thing that may prevent NSC from obtaining information about the investigation: FBI sometimes uses what are called “ad hoc databases” that include raw FISA data (and probably, post EO 12333 sharing rule changes, raw EO 12333 data) tied to particular investigations. It’s unclear what conditions might necessitate the use of an ad hoc database (see page 25ff for a discussion of them), but if security concerns would encourage their use, it would be likely to have one here, an investigation which Comey described as being so sensitive he delayed briefing the Gang of Four. Ad hoc databases are restricted to those working on investigations, and include specific records of those authorized to access the database. So if FBI were using an ad hoc database for this investigation, it would be even harder for the NSC to learn what they were looking at.

If the FBI’s investigation relies on raw intelligence — and it would be unfathomable that it does not, because it would probably receive the raw FISA data tied to such an investigation routinely, and EO 12333 sharing rules specifically envision the sharing of raw data associated with counterintelligence investigations — then the NSC’s access to finished intelligence reports would provide little insight into the investigation (Nunes was a bit unclear on whether that’s what he was looking at, but the entire premise of his complaints is that these were finished reports).

But while we’re worrying about whether and how Trump would monitor an investigation into his aides, remember that in 2002, Jay Bybee wrote a memo authorizing the sharing of grand jury information with the President and his close advisors including for counterintelligence investigations.

In addition, the Patriot Act recently amended 6(e) and Title III specifically to provide that matters involving foreign intelligence or counterintelligence or foreign intelligence information may be disclosed by any attorney for the government (and in the case of Title III, also by an investigative or law enforcement officer) to certain federal officials in order to assist those officials in carrying out their duties. Federal officials who are included within these provisions may include, for example, the President, attorneys within the White House Counsel’s Office, the President’s Chief of Staff, the National Security Advisor, and officials within the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense.

[snip]

Although the new provision in Rule 6(e) permitting disclosure also requires that any disclosures be reported to the district court responsible for supervising the grand jury, we conclude that disclosures made to the President fall outside the scope of the reporting requirement contained in that amendment, as do related subsequent disclosures made to other officials on the President’s behalf.

In other words, Trump could demand that he — or his National Security Advisor! — get information on any grand jury investigations, including those covering counterintelligence cases. And no judge would be given notice of that.

With Jeff Sessions’ recusal, that’s far less likely to happen than it might have been. But understand that the Executive Branch believes that the President can learn about the happenings in grand jury investigations of the sort that might target his aides.

Update: additional details have been added to this post after it was first posted.