After Engaging in Multiple Overt Acts Benefitting a Conspiracy, Bill Barr Had Kerri Kupec Commit the Most Overt Act

Before I get into how gullible DOJ reporters continue to be in this WaPo story relaying how Bill Barr refused to publicly announce that the President broke no law in his July 25 phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky, let me review a series of overt acts that might fairly be deemed part of what DOJ has already charged as a conspiracy.

DOJ fails to do the most basic “connect-the-dots” assessment implemented after 9/11

First, after John Demers went to the White House and discovered that his boss was implicated in a phone call that a whistleblower had complained about, when the Intelligence Community Inspector General sent a more formalized complaint to DOJ, DOJ limited the scope of their review of the complaint to one small part of it, just the TELCON, not the full complaint. This had the effect of preventing anyone from doing what the entire surveillance apparatus of FBI has been designed to do since 9/11, which is to search in their databases for all the people mentioned in a lead to find out if that lead connects to other known criminals. Here’s some of what DOJ knew when on the Ukraine investigation.

Had anyone followed the standard connect-the-dot rules in reviewing the whistleblower complaint, they would have searched on all the names in the references in the complaint, including those in this OCCRP piece, which was mentioned multiple times in the complaint.

That piece is a profile of Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas.

So if any person reviewing the whistleblower complaint had followed the approach put into place to protect the nation after 9/11, that person would have discovered:

  • Fruman and Parnas were making big donations to Republicans tied to certain policy outcomes and paying for those donations through a shell company
  • Parnas was also involved in propaganda sent, on White House stationery, to State in support of the same policy outcomes
  • The money for the shell company came from a lawyer who specializes in laundering money through real estate for foreigners
  • One policy issue Fruman and Parnas were pushing with their donations was one of the policy outcomes described in the Trump-Zelensky call, the withdrawal of Marie Yovanovitch

In short, there is no way a competent investigator would have done a connect-the-dots assessment on the whistleblower complaint and not realized it was closely related to a Full Investigation bearing down on an indictment in SDNY.

Instead of doing that marginally competent assessment, DOJ instead gave the whistleblower complaint the all-clear, in part by severing the transcript (which was damning enough) from the backup (which described OMB withholding funds, which is a separate crime, but also included the reference to the profile on suspects against whom SDNY had a fully predicated investigation into related actions). The decision to consider only the transcript affirmatively prevented DOJ from doing the kind of dot-connecting everything since 9/11 has claimed to support.

Whoever made that decision — whether willfully or unknowingly — prevented DOJ from formally realizing that the President’s call was closely tied to behavior that DOJ would indict less than two months later.

DOJ fails to share the whistleblower complaint with the FEC

At that point in late August, having decided that no crimes were committed, DOJ should have shared the whistleblower complaint — which even DOJ acknowledged raised possible election related crimes — with the Federal Election Commission under the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding they have. As of October 18, according to a letter from Ellen Weintraub responding to questions from Amy Klobuchar, DOJ had not done so.

This is the second time that you, as Ranking Member of the Senate Rules Committee with jurisdiction over federal elections, have written to commissioners of the Federal Election Commission to get a simple Yes or No answer to the question: Did the Department of Justice (DOJ) notify the FEC about or refer to the FEC a campaign finance complaint regarding potential violations of the foreign national political-spending ban by the President? Your October 2 letter specifically referenced a New York Times op-ed referring to a complaint reportedly originating with the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.1 As noted in the Commission’s October 8 response, the FEC does not generally confirm or deny the agency’s receipt of notice or a referral from DOJ.2 However, you have asked me an important question in the exercise of your oversight authority, and commissioners should be responsive if it is legal for us to do so. It is.

For these reasons, I am answering your question: No. The FEC has not received a notification or referral from DOJ regarding the complaint you reference.

While DOJ is empowered to make any decisions about whether the call involved a crime, FEC is empowered to make decisions about whether it merits a civil penalty. And FEC might have connected the dots DOJ failed to. They would have seen that the phone call related to a campaign finance complaint plus follow-up it had already received on Parnas and Fruman, so it would have known almost as much as DOJ, had DOJ tried to connect the dots.

It turns out, it is a crime to prevent the FEC from learning information it needs to do its job. It’s not only the crime DOJ is about to charge the Russian Internet Research Agency trolls with a superseding indictment for, but it’s the crime that SDNY charged Parnas and Fruman with even before Weintraub sent her letter.

DOJ might have decided that they didn’t need to forward the complaint because Republican Matthew Petersen resigned from the FEC on the suspiciously timed August 26 and so ensured FEC couldn’t conduct any official business. But as the timing of the Parnas and Fruman indictment — which Bill Barr knew about — makes clear, DOJ still believes it can charge people for withholding information from FEC.

DOJ delays notifying Congress and hides Bill Barr’s involvement by overclassifying their OLC memo

Then, having prevented FEC from receiving information that would alert them that the President had a dodgy call that related to an existing campaign finance complaint, OLC tried to prevent Congress from learning of this — as required by whistleblower laws — by writing an OLC memo saying that this complaint did not amount to an official action.

OLC head Steve Engel wrote that memo on September 3, by which day DOJ should have alerted the Intelligence Committees of the complaint. That memo was used as an excuse to delay informing Congress. That delay included over a week during which the Administration continued to illegally withhold duly authorized security funding from Ukraine without explaining to Congress why it was doing so, a delay that Bill Taylor said (in his testimony to Congress) did real harm to Ukraine. All told, the OLC memo succeeded in delaying sharing the complaint with Congress for 23 days, something that DOJ’s own Inspector General noted (in a letter written on behalf of 70 Inspectors General) was a clear violation of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act.

As Congress has done in every other whistleblower law passed since 1978, it entrusted IGs to play a central role in the evaluation of the information provided. Specifically, the ICWPA requires an IG to make within 14 days a factual determination as to whether an alleged urgent concern provided to the IG “appears credible.” If the IG determines that the allegation appears credible, which necessarily includes a determination by the IG that it involves an “urgent concern,” the IG is required to forward the allegation to the head of the agency and the agency head “shall” forward it to Congress within 7 days “with any comments.” The ICWPA’s use of the word “shall” makes it clear that the statute does not authorize the agency head, or any other party for that matter, to review or second-guess an IG’s good faith determination that a complaint meets the ICWPA’s statutory language.

Worse still, DOJ tried to delay informing Congress that Bill Barr was personally implicated by this call by overclassifying the OLC memo — in part by treating Barr’s implication in it, which the White House had deemed Secret, as Top Secret — and having done so, sharing a water-downed version of its own OLC memo with Congress on September 24 that hid Barr’s role and other key details.

Bill Barr continues to engage in overt acts in a conspiracy to provide John Durham propaganda to support an investigation into those who investigated Trump

And all this while — in the period while DOJ was scoping its own investigation to avoid connecting the dots and while DOJ was preventing FEC from learning of the whistleblower complaint and while DOJ was preventing Congress from receiving the complaint (the latter two acts in contravention of the law) — Bill Barr continued to engage in overt acts in the broader conspiracy to collect and provide to John Durham corroboration (no matter how sketchy or obviously coerced) that the investigation into Trump’s ties to Russia was ginned up by the Deep State.

Mind you, Barr may have already committed an overt act in the Ukrainian side of this conspiracy. By September 25, according to a DOJ statement, individual Ukrainians had already “volunteered” information to Durham.

A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election,” DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said Wednesday. “While the Attorney General has yet to contact Ukraine in connection with this investigation, certain Ukrainians who are not members of the government have volunteered information to Mr. Durham, which he is evaluating.”

Barr is micromanaging Durham’s investigation, so there’s little chance that these “volunteers” got from Rudy Giuliani to Durham without Barr’s own involvement.

In addition, Barr took a meeting with Victoria Toensing and Joe DiGenova to talk about their client, the mobbed up Dmitry Firtash, which was something valuable the lawyers could offer to the Firtash in exchange for him funding the Parnas and Fruman influence operation. To be sure, the Supreme Court has determined that taking a meeting does not amount to a thing of value amounting to bribery. But their ability to get such a meeting was nevertheless one of the reasons Firtash replaced Lanny Davis with Toensing and DiGenova and, in exchange, helped them feed propaganda to the Durham investigation.

The head of the Criminal Division, Brian Benczkowski, also took a meeting with Rudy in this time period (it’s unclear which client Rudy was pitching), but he claims to be unaware of the investigation into Rudy that was ongoing at SDNY, which may well be true but if so is tantamount to a confession that Benczkowski did not attempt to connect any dots on the whistleblower complaint.

But as to Barr, even as this story was breaking, Barr was in Italy pretending to be a Line FBI Agent, watching movies created by the Russian linked lawyer for Joseph Mifsud, in hopes of getting Italy to tell him and Durham that Mifsud was actually a Western intelligence asset and not the Russian one that Mueller (and abundant public evidence) suggested him to be.

In other words, by September 25, someone had already shared “evidence” with the Barr-micromanaged Durham investigation from the Ukrainian side of this information operation, and Barr was in Italy looking for more propaganda, to say nothing of how his meeting with Dmitry Firtash’s lawyers helped fund the information operation.

Barr did not publicly exonerate Trump personally — he had Kerri Kupec do it for him

I apologize for being long-winded. But all that is the necessary context that DOJ beat reporters should bring to a story on what Barr did in response to a request from Trump to make a public statement exonerating the President. Here’s the news in the WaPo piece, amid a bunch of Barr’s past PR and absent most of the details I’ve laid out above.

President Trump wanted Attorney General William P. Barr to hold a news conference declaring that the commander in chief had broken no laws during a phone call in which he pressed his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate a political rival, though Barr ultimately declined to do so, people familiar with the matter said.

The request from Trump traveled from the president to other White House officials and eventually to the Justice Department. The president has mentioned Barr’s declination to associates in recent weeks, saying he wished Barr would have held the news conference, Trump advisers say.


The request for the news conference came sometime around Sept. 25, when the administration released a rough transcript of the president’s July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.


As the rough transcript was released, a Justice Department spokeswoman said officials had evaluated it and the whistleblower complaint to see whether campaign finance laws had been broken, determined that none had been and decided “no further action was warranted.”

It was not immediately clear why Barr would not go beyond that statement with a televised assertion that the president broke no laws, nor was it clear how forcefully the president’s desire was communicated. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment. A senior administration official said, “The DOJ did in fact release a statement about the call, and the claim that it resulted in tension because it wasn’t a news conference is completely false.”

So, at a time after someone had already shared Ukrainian information with the Barr-micromanaged Durham investigation, after Barr had met with lawyers who were trading that access for propaganda to feed Durham, after Barr’s DOJ had scoped the whistleblower complaint to ensure it would not tie the complaint to the fully predicated criminal investigation in SDNY, after DOJ failed to turn over the complaint to FEC as required by a memorandum of understanding, after DOJ created an excuse to delay sharing the whistleblower complaint with Congress as mandated by law, after DOJ tried to hide Barr’s own involvement from Congress by overclassifying that fact … after all those overt acts that, depending on Barr’s understanding of what he got briefed way back in February and learned in multiple different ways since then, might amount to overt acts in the conspiracy SDNY has already charged Parnas and Fruman in, Barr declined to go out before cameras and comment on an ongoing investigation (which is, remember, what Jim Comey was ostensibly fired for) by publicly exonerating the President.

Instead, he had DOJ’s spox Kerri Kupec do so, in a statement that offered up excuses for why DOJ failed to connect the dots on a complaint that tied to a fully predicated investigation being conducted by SDNY.

Had Barr made that public comment, with his knowledge that the subject of the complaint connected to an ongoing investigation in SDNY into the underlying information operation that led up to the President’s call, his involvement in the Durham investigation that had already been fed by that information operation, and his meeting with lawyers that helped to provide a payoff for some of that information operation, it would have been an overt act that even Barr, with his abundant flair for PR (as witnessed by this WaPo article), could not deny was an overt act in a conspiracy being investigated by his subordinates.

So instead, he had a different subordinate (there is no evidence Kupec had any knowledge of these other acts) do that.

But that is not — as portrayed by the WaPo — evidence of distance between Barr and the White House. Rather, it’s evidence that Barr recognizes his own risk of becoming an active member of the conspiracy his DOJ went to great lengths to avoid investigating.

And all that’s before Barr slinked into a meeting with Rupert Murdoch as Sean Hannity was about to become part of the conspiracy.

60 replies
  1. MattyG says:

    Thanks for this EW. It’s a continuing source of frustration to see reporters predictably and contintually take the bait.

  2. George says:

    And Barr made sure to hire Brady Toensing, son of Victoria, as a signal to Firtash that Victoria can solve his extradition problems.

  3. olsoilfieldhand says:

    Thank you Dr. Wheeler! Not sure how you manage to keep up with all of the slithy toves, just happy that you do and that you share your insight and perception with the rest of us.

  4. Mitch Neher says:

    emptywheel said, “I apologize for being long-winded.”

    We refuse to accept that apology. This is what we’ve all been waiting for. More please. Please, Ma’am. May we have some more?

  5. dc says:

    Fantastic connecting of the dots.
    One typo: “while DOJ was preventing SEC from learning of the”
    Change SEC to FEC

  6. VThunder says:

    Hi Marcy, I just wanted to thank you for sharing your thoughtful analysis. I enjoy reading EW and greatly appreciate your work on all of these criminals.

    small edit: stationery, not stationary

    • Fran of the North says:

      The section headline ‘Barr did not public exonerate…’ should be ‘publicly’, and Kerry Kupic s/b Kerri.

  7. OmAli says:

    I may be inviting scorn, but damn, Marcy. If you and Rachel Maddow put your heads together on this, the public (as well as members of Congress) might be given a master class the machinations of Bill Barr. She could easily spend the entire hour on this. What a malign toad he really is.

  8. dc says:

    I think all the quick edits reflect a sense of how important, unique, and comprehensive we all can appreciate that this analysis is. Thank you for your work, and I hope others with traditional conduits to the masses will begin to connect the dots in their work.

  9. klynn says:

    Thank you so much for this timeline and dot connecting.

    IANAL. Sounds like Durham should charge Barr. Is there any chance some of Barr’s actions could be defined as fraud?

    • John K says:

      A big AMEN! to what dc notes above, “I think all the quick edits reflect a sense of how important, unique, and comprehensive we all can appreciate that this analysis is.”

      Also, who, if anyone, would be in a position to charge Barr with criminal acts, since so many of his actions seem to fit that description?

  10. sand says:

    While much of the oversight activities of Congress are focused on the activities of Donald Trump himself. It is necessary to consider that at any time, his primary role may be to serve as a distraction for the activities of others. The FEC has been neutered, DHS has been distracted and disorganized, and DOJ seems to be actively working to undermine the 2020 elections.

    IANAL, might a state have standing to sue the feds for undermining the election systems that provide that state with representation in the federal government?

    It certainly seems that there are federal employees, acting in their official capacities, that are not following the law, but what would be the claimed injury? Since Parnas and Fruman made contributions to America First, maybe there are Democrats that lost in 2018 to Republican candidates that received some of that money? That may be a stretch, but maybe there’s at least one state out there that can demonstrate some concrete and particularized injury? Perhaps there’s even someone that can draw a line from last week’s elections back to illegal campaign contributions and then back to specific violations that DOJ/FEC failed to identify due to specific failures to follow the law and/or established processes.

    I know I’m reaching, but I’m trying to brainstorm some way for the states to sue for some type of declaratory judgment or injunctive relief to direct the federal government to follow and enforce election laws. Any hope here?

    Can the incumbent administration actively deconstruct federal election systems to allow known risks of foreign influence to proliferate because it would be to their advantage? In a dystopian near future, could the president actively direct DOJ to investigate all candidates of the opposition party under some loose theory that Country X favored that party? Who could stop that?

    • timbo says:

      Defrauding the USG possibly. Certainly failure to comply with oaths of office, etc. There’s plenty of lawbreaking in plain sight here but, yep, which laws is hard to figure out, given the whole operation is to cover up illegal activities in the first place.

    • rip says:

      Totally agree that the dump is just a distraction while the evisceration of the government is going on. His only merit is as a joker, entertaining the masses. Someone else is calling the shots and implanting the parasites/bots that make the US ineffective.

  11. Rita says:


    Reporters need to think twice about why they are getting leaks.

    I suspect a narrative being formed that casts Barr as suddenly non-partisan so that when he spins the Durham/IG Report like he did the Mueller Report, he will be believed by the gullible news media.

  12. Jenny says:

    Excellent post. Thank you Marcy for your in-depth sleuthing. “Being long-winded” works! At times I can’t understand all the law/criminal activity; however you connect the dots helping me to understand. So much more to be unearthed.

  13. dwfreeman says:

    Again, Marcy nails it. From the beginning, DOJ mishandled the whistleblower complaint. And we know this because it had two cracks at dealing with it, burying it in the public record, first hoping it would go away, and secondly, dealing with it not as a priority issue, but secondarily in reference almost as a supporting document in connection with Trump’s call notes summary.

    During his confirmation hearing, Barr was asked by Sen. Amy Klobuchar what he would do if and when conflicting legal issues confronting his office and White House — as alleged in the WB complaint — would be handled. And Barr said he would step away.

    But Barr was named and implicated in the July 25 call, declined or never considered recusing himself from any investigation stemming from it, because he was already engaged in a separate propaganda mission on behalf of Trump. So, the decision not to hold a press conference was pretty much a no-brainer. He would have opened himself up to a series of legal liabilities in connection with any public remarks associated with it regarding the call and WB complaint’s handling.

    There are certain mitigating factors here. First the call record was placed on a secret server almost immediately by the WH after immediate concerns about it were raised by those who listened in and went to NSC lawyers about it.
    Secondly, the whistleblower complaint was brought by the CIA’s general counsel who informed DOJ that it wasn’t a firsthand account of the call.

    Because it wasn’t, the complaint got blocked and was instead looked as a legal nuisance to be buried. When the WB didn’t stop with that effort and then went to Schiff’s office, blocking the report from congressional view was no longer a viable option. Schiff went public with a letter from the CI inspector general’s office about the complaint on or about Sept. 9, which was well after a two-week deadline for IG review, DNI consideration and release to Congress. Of course, Schiff knew this because his office had been contacted by the WB for processing direction.

    This is going to be a big issue for the GOP during Trump’s impeachment defense. They want to implicate the WB with Schiff ‘s office and counter with a narrative that derives from this effort dovetailing into the propaganda story that Barr is building from Durham’s Russian probe origin review. So, for Democrats, the handling of the WB complaint process and all the illegalities involved must be sorted out and made clear. Marcy is absolutely correct in her political assessment of Barr’s various legal liabilities here, which he readily understood, and explains why he didn’t hold that press conference as he did in connection with the Mueller report release.

    Barr never acted on the WB complaint because Justice wasn’t entitled to see it. Every decision about it stems from that understanding. Whether it acted on it parenthetically through the OLC office bears on the call record and understanding that if it acted on the complaint, it would have been subject to a variety of process and legal liability issues regardless of investigative predicate factors. In any case, Barr declined to deal with it and that prompted every other choice that followed.

    Several other things happened along the way. Just like the Ukrainian ambassador being recalled, Dan Coats and his deputy both left their posts as the complaint process began. Joe Maguire was hired to replace Coats and found it on his desk as he started his new job. He took it to the WH, which presumably knew all about it.

    The Democrats need to make that case, that the WB process was illegally mishandled by DOJ and the WH, which also explains why Republicans want to out the whistleblower and discredit him personally and on partisan grounds. If you can challenge the motive for the case, you can deny its implications and legitimacy.

    • Tom says:

      But you can’t deny all the evidence that Yovanovitch, Taylor, Vindman, and even Sondland have laid out, can you?

      • Tom says:

        The whistleblower could be dyed blue with “Democrats Rock!” tattooed on his/her forehead but it wouldn’t have any effect upon the testimony produced so far.

    • Areader2019 says:

      “If you can challenge the motive for the case, you can deny its implications and legitimacy.”

      Why? Mark Felt was a jerk, and angry he was passed over for a promotion. But Watergate was kicked off by deepthroat, and proceeded based on the facts. I know that the GOP believes in some convoluted version of the fruit of the poisoned tree.

      But it just does not apply. I’m not sure the motivation of the person who reports a crime matters. The facts matter.

      If I dial 911, and report a crime, do I need to show I have pure motives? I does not work that way. Drug dealers rat out rivals all the time. What matters is following the facts.

      • P J Evans says:

        I think the only motivation that matters in a courtroom is that of the defendant[s]. (The witnesses’ motivation may matter if their testimony is shown to be false. But here the WB has been shown to be correct by at least three direct witnesses.)

  14. Wm. Boyce says:

    The Times took on this story as well this morning, and the “deputy WH press secretary’s” response to reporter’s questions was pretty amusing:

    “The president has nothing but respect for A.G Barr and greatly appreciates the work he’s done on behalf of the country, and no amount of shady sources with clear intent to divide, smear and slander will change that.”

    What a dignified response! And what a typical case of Trumpian projection.

  15. BobCon says:

    At a minimum Barr knew this was coming out and didn’t try to change it, or more broadly, he pushed it.

    Trump has predictably reacted unhappily, which Barr would have known would happen. What is Barr’s game here?

    Is Barr signalling a break with Trump? Is he sending a message to someone else at risk like Pompeo or Mulvaney that he’s too smart to be trapped, and they’d better think twice about ratting on him? Is he just flexing muscles and showing what he can get away with? Or is he just offering a low cost treat to reporters he wants in his pocket later?

  16. Vicks says:

    The whole thing is silly.
    We are talking about William Barr, for crap’s sake, his role in the campaign I mean administration, is to save Trump’s ass so “the process” to reshape this country can move forward another day.
    Barr has done an outstanding job so far, and he certainly has shown he has the power to access whatever information he wants, and shut down or manipulate anything that could be perceived as troublesome before it goes public.
    Except for this pesky whistleblower.
    God bless him or her. Barr seemed to have tried, but even the guy that shut down what the public could learn from Mueller’s investigation could’t stop this person.
    Whoever you are I hope you are safe, and I hope you have all the emotional and physical support you need to remain steadfast and at peace with the decision you made.
    Americans DO want to know who you are, but for the majority of us, all in due time, we simply want to thank you.

    • MB says:

      Except for this pesky whistleblower. God bless him or her.
      I’ve already seen the purported whistleblower’s name outed in a Washington Examiner article. (I would never read the Examiner but some of their articles show up on Google News feeds). But for current eagerness of Trump and Rand Paul, it’s only a matter of time before the whistleblower’s name becomes common knowledge. Mainstream media has resisted the temptation pretty well so far as I can see…

  17. Molly Pitcher says:

    Terry Gross interviews NYT Magazine writer, Emily Bazelon on this exact subject today. It is worth a listen. I would have included a link to the podcast, but it is not posted on her site just yet.

  18. timbo says:

    My guess? Trump tried to reach Barr directly and possibly did. I mean, it’s hard to imagine that the President cannot reach the AG day or night, any time, particularly when the AG is travelling, etc.

  19. Tom says:

    Highly suspicious that Barr could delegate the response to Trump’s request for ‘total exoneration’ to Kerri Kupec but had to play the role of International Man of Mystery himself in looking into the origins of the Russian probe because–it’s so blindingly obvious–he was only interested in finding the ‘evidence’ he wanted to find, not the evidence that actually existed between the covers of the Mueller Report.

    I’ll be curious to see what John Durham’s contribution to Barr’s findings are, because when this investigation first came to light Durham was widely touted as a fair and objective man who would call them as he saw them and not be drawn into any conspiracy fantasies.

    • bmaz says:

      Durham has never been touted that way here. He is a conservative cover up artist who did a shameful job on both the torture tape investigation and the black site torture review. He is most certainly not “fair and objective”, he is a complete tool.

        • bmaz says:

          Here is but one of the old posts. There is a link in it to a letter we did to the DOJ you might also like.

          Durham did the same thing on his black site torture investigation, i.e. he just could not find any crimes, even though they were patently obvious. He is a bag man for DOJ, and that is why Barr picked him.

        • skua says:

          That post and the linked article in it are disturbing to read.

          Trump’s actions now appear to mainly be high farce under spotlights that makes blatant the consequences of what has already been done in public by recent previous administrations.

        • Tom says:

          Thanks, again, bmaz! Off the top of my head, I remember a couple of news panels where Matt Miller and Chuck Rosenberg vouched for Durham. But I also recall Rosenberg having to admit he was mistaken in his expectations of Barr as AG.

        • bmaz says:

          Yep. And keep in mind that Matt was the successor at OPR to the two people that letter was addressed to. That said, both are people that I respect quite a bit.

  20. mospeck says:

    Who is Josh Dawsey?
    “Talk to Rudy’: Testimony from diplomats highlights Giuliani’s central role in driving Ukraine policy”

    “He was always swirling around somewhere,” Sondland said of Giuliani, adding that he did not believe anyone wanted to deal with the former New York mayor…I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call,” Trump said, according to a rough transcript released by the White House…Meanwhile, the top diplomats were scrambling to figure out how to handle Giuliani, someone they viewed as poisoning the president’s view of Ukraine…Sondland said he believed the State Department should be in charge of foreign policy, but officials were powerless to thwart the former mayor…It’s something we have to deal with,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said of Giuliani, rolling his eyes, according to Sondland…After Zelensky was elected, Sondland, Volker, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) went to the Oval Office to brief Trump on a trip they had taken to Ukraine and to push for a meeting…but Trump was uninterested, Sondland said, “going on and on and on about his dissatisfaction with Ukraine. He didn’t even want to deal with it anymore.”…Volker tried to warn Giuliani…also warned the Ukrainians that Giuliani was shaping the president’s negative views”

    Who is Josh Dawsey?
    wapo, single author byline, with him connected to multiple inside sources, has his page one top left.

  21. Kafreedman says:

    Your account, Dr Wheeler, should be required reading for the entire electorate. They won’t read it, but I bet they’d watch the movie. Absolutely gripping analysis. Thanks.

  22. harpie says:

    A really good resource, by Kate Brannen, at Just Security:

    A Who’s Who of Ukraine Witnesses
    Kate Brannen November 7, 2019

    […] Below is a list of the witnesses who have either testified or have been requested to testify by the congressional committees leading the investigation. Each profile contains relevant background but focuses mostly on what we know so far about their testimony, through transcripts, their opening statements and media reports. The list includes the whistleblower, without whom we might not have learned about any of this.
    Note: This document will be updated with primary source material as it is released. […]

  23. Cicero101 says:

    Superb, thanks again. Barr is crucial to the design and execution of the massive ongoing cover up. Exposing him is vital. At present that’s entirely reliant on your work. We can hope investigators are paying attention to it.

Comments are closed.