UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CASE NO.: 1:16-cr-188-RJL

JAMES E. CARTWRIGHT

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF
JAMES E. CARTWRIGHT

Gregory B. Craig
Clifford M. Sloan
Brendan B. Gants
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
1440 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS .......................................................................................................... i
I.

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT ..................................................................................1

II.

THE OFFENSE ..................................................................................................................4

III.

RELATED CONDUCT .....................................................................................................6

IV.

THE SENTENCE.............................................................................................................11

V.

GENERAL CARTWRIGHT'S PERSONAL BACKGROUND AND
MILITARY RECORD ....................................................................................................16

VI.

LETTERS OF SUPPORT ...............................................................................................18

VII.

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................20

APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS
Submission of Leonard Downie Jr., Professor of Journalism and
Former Executive Editor of the Washington Post

Exhibit 1

Submission of James L. Jones, Former National Security Advisor,
Former Commander of European Central Command and Supreme
Allied Commander Europe, 32nd Commandant of the Marine Corps

Exhibit 2

Letter from David Sanger, National Security Correspondent for the
New York Times

Exhibit 3

Letter from Daniel Klaidman, Former Special Correspondent for
Newsweek (filed under seal)

Exhibit 4

Joint Letter from Current and Former Senior Government Officials
o Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken
o Former Deputy Secretary of State William Burns
o Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Rudy DeLeon
o Former Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy
o Former Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre
o Former National Security Advisor James Jones
o Former Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn
o Former Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg

Exhibit 5

Letters from Congressional Leaders
o Senator Dianne Feinstein of California
o Former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia
o Former Representative Jane Harman from California
o Former Representative and Under Secretary of State Ellen
Tauscher

Exhibit 6

Letters from Current and Former Government Officials
o Chief Master Sergeant Fred Allen
o Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Graham Allison,
founding Dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government
o Former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown
o Former J6 Staff Member Angela F. Bruce
o Lieutenant General Charlie E. Croom, Former Director of
Defense Information Systems Agency and Commander of
Joint Task Force Global Network Operations
o Rear Admiral Jane G. Dalton, Former Counsel to Joint Chiefs
of Staff
o Mary Clark Forbes, Former Deputy Division Chief for
Command, Control, Communications, Computers and

Exhibit 7

i

o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Intelligence
Former Marine Corps Captain Frederick Graefe
Former National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley
Former Air Force Officer David Max Korzen
Former Under Secretary of the Treasury Stuart A. Levey
Former Director of National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
Letitia A. Long
Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus
Brigadier General Richard Scott Stapp, Former Director of
Department of Defense Special Access Program Central
Office
Former Senior Counselor to the Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security Scott Lewis Weber

Letters from Interested Individuals
o Robert E. Beauchamp, Chairman and CEO of BMC Software,
director of Raytheon
o Susan Eisenhower, Chairman and CEO of Eisenhower Group
o Mary L. Howell, CEO of Howell Strategy Group, director of
Atlantic Council
o Thomas A. Kennedy, Chairman and CEO of Raytheon
o David McAllister-Wilson, President of Wesley Theological
Seminary
o Ronald L. Skates, former director of Raytheon
o William R. Spivey, director of Raytheon

Exhibit 8

Official White House Photograph of May 2013 Meeting with
President Obama, Vice President Biden, General Cartwright, and
Others

Exhibit 9

ii

I.

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
On Friday, November 2, 2012, General James E. Cartwright made false statements to

federal investigators during the course of an interview. Confronted with evidence of that
misconduct, he acknowledged his mistake. When the interview resumed the following business
day (Monday, November 5, 2012), he corrected the record. General Cartwright understands the
magnitude of his offense and deeply regrets the decision that he made on November 2, 2012. He
has accepted responsibility and acknowledged his guilt. On October 17, 2016, General
Cartwright entered a plea of guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. ? 1001.
With deepest respect for the rule of law -- and without minimizing his misconduct -General Cartwright submits this Sentencing Memorandum in support of his request for a noncustodial sentence. In fashioning a sentence sufficient to achieve the purposes of punishment,
General Cartwright urges the Court to consider the following facts:
(1) General Cartwright's entire life has been dedicated to serving his country. That life
of service has been distinguished by exceptional public achievement. It is not enough to say that
General Cartwright's service has been exemplary. As a result of his leadership in the military
and his work for two Presidents, wars have been avoided and lives have been saved. That
history emerges from the 20-page Presentence Report that details General Cartwright's personal
history and military record. It can also be seen in the letters that have been submitted to this
Court from leaders of the nation's security establishment and from co-workers, colleagues and
citizens who know him and have worked with him. They are unanimous in their support for a
probationary sentence not only because of his past public service but also because of his
potential to contribute in the future.

1

(2) In his contacts and communications with American journalists, General Cartwright
was motivated by a desire to save secrets, not to disclose them. It is true that General Cartwright
discussed classified information with individuals not authorized to receive such information.
General Cartwright acknowledges that he engaged in such communications with David Sanger of
the New York Times and with Daniel Klaidman then of Newsweek magazine. Those
communications, however, took place as part of -- and in the context of -- General Cartwright's
good-faith effort to eliminate details in the reporting of these journalists that, if published, could
put U.S. lives in jeopardy and endanger national security interests.
Letters from Messrs. Sanger and Klaidman provide important context:
o

First, both journalists contacted General Cartwright -- he did not initiate contact
with them. See Ex. 3 (Sanger letter), p. 1; Ex. 4 (Klaidman letter) (under seal), p.
2.

o

Second, both journalists conducted almost all of their pertinent research before
they contacted General Cartwright in the communications at issue. As Mr. Sanger
explains, "I had spoken to many sources in the United States, Israel, Europe, and
elsewhere prior to speaking to Gen. Cartwright, and I already had a detailed
understanding of the chain of events." Ex. 3, p. 1; see also Ex. 4, pp. 1-2.

o

Third, General Cartwright understood that both journalists had engaged in
discussions with the White House in advance of their discussions with him. In his
letter, Mr. Sanger relates that the White House "advised [him] to reach out to
Gen. Cartwright for an interview." Ex. 3, p. 1. Mr. Sanger related the same to
General Cartwright directly, and Mr. Klaidman in his emails with General

2

Cartwright also explicitly invoked previous communications with the White
House.
o

Fourth, and perhaps most significantly for the current context, in General
Cartwright's communications with both journalists, he successfully persuaded
them not to report information that would be harmful to the United States. As Mr.
Sanger summarizes, General Cartwright "expressed concerns that certain
classified information not be revealed. His cautions weighed heavily in decisions
that I made, in consultation with editors, about what information to withhold from
publication." Ex. 3, p. 2; see also Ex. 4, p. 2 (based on General Cartwright's
request and reasoning, Mr. Klaidman did not include certain content in his public
reporting). As Mr. Sanger emphasizes, "Throughout the interview, [General
Cartwright] consistently showed his concern that information damaging to U.S.
interests not be made public. . . . I have no doubt he was trying to act in the best
interests of the United States." Ex. 3, p. 2.

In sum, in his contacts with Messrs. Sanger and Klaidman, General Cartwright was
engaged in a "save-the-secrets" exercise, a practice that is well-established and well-understood
in Washington, D.C. It provides senior officials in the national security establishment an
opportunity to persuade journalists to modify their reporting on the most sensitive topics of
national security interest to avoid harm to the nation -- exactly what General Cartwright did here.
(3) A sentence of incarceration in this case is not needed to achieve the purposes of
punishment or to serve the interests of justice. See 18 U.S.C. ? 3553(a). Such a sentence is not
justified either by the circumstances of the offense or by the history and character of the
defendant. General Cartwright has already paid a high price for his mistake and been damaged

3

almost beyond measure. To sentence General Cartwright to jail -- to add incarceration to the
injury and humiliation that he has already suffered -- would result in gross sentencing disparities
when compared with comparable cases. The applicable Sentencing Guidelines range includes a
probationary sentence without incarceration, and thus such a sentence would be fully consistent
with the applicable Guidelines range. A sentence of probation with community service is
appropriate and available in this case. We urge the Court to follow that path.
II.

THE OFFENSE
General Cartwright's offense is described in the one-count Information and Statement of

Offense filed with the Court on October 17, 2016. General Cartwright does not dispute the
factual basis for the offense as set forth in those documents.
On Friday, November 2, 2012, two agents from the FBI and an Assistant U.S. Attorney
for the District of Maryland interviewed General Cartwright. General Cartwright knew that this
interview was part of a highly publicized investigation of certain leaks of classified information
to reporters. The investigation had been prompted by, among other things, speeches from
lawmakers on the floor of the Senate and the House accusing the Obama White House of
impropriety, i.e., of having engaged in the selective leaking of classified information for political
advantage during the ongoing presidential campaign. See, e.g., Rep. King: Obama Using Leaks
to Build Image, Trying to be Like 'John Wayne,' FoxNews.com (June 10, 2012),
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/10/rep-king-leaks-came-from-white-house-obamatrying-to-be-like-john-wayne.html. Rather than appoint an independent prosecutor, Attorney
General Eric Holder assigned Maryland U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein as one of two prosecutors
to investigate the alleged leaks. See Josh Gerstein, Holder Names Leak Probe Prosecutors,
Politico (June 8, 2012, 7:39 PM), http://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/holder-names-leak-

4

probe-prosecutors-077228.
When the FBI asked to talk to General Cartwright, he agreed to meet with the agents. He
did not consult a lawyer and was not represented by counsel when the interview began on Friday,
November 2, 2016. He knew that he had not been a source for any of these news reports, he was
confident that he had engaged in no wrongdoing, and he believed that he faced no legal jeopardy.
During the interview on November 2, General Cartwright acknowledged meeting with
David Sanger of the New York Times but stated that he did not discuss classified information
with him. That statement was false. The agents handed General Cartwright a typewritten list of
quotes taken from Mr. Sanger's book. Some of the quotes contained classified information.
Others did not. General Cartwright denied making any of the statements on that list to Sanger.
General Cartwright acknowledges that this statement was also untrue.
The agents asked General Cartwright if he had ever discussed a certain country in the
Middle East in discussions with Daniel Klaidman of Newsweek magazine. General Cartwright
denied ever discussing that country with Mr. Klaidman. General Cartwright acknowledges that
this statement was also untrue.
On Sunday, November 4, 2012, General Cartwright communicated with the agents and
agreed to resume the interview on the following day, Monday, November 5, 2012. At no time
during the time period Friday, November 2 -- when the interview began -- through Monday
November 5, 2012 -- when the interview resumed and was concluded -- was General Cartwright
represented by counsel. Nor did he consult counsel. During his meeting with federal officials on
Monday, November 5, 2012, General Cartwright corrected the record and corrected his
misstatements from the previous day. The charge against General Cartwright does not include
any statement he made on November 5, 2012.

5

III.

RELATED CONDUCT

Saving-the-Secrets
General Cartwright's decision to meet with journalists David Sanger and Daniel
Klaidman was consistent with a process that is well-known, well-established, and well-respected
among senior members of the national security and journalistic communities. When a news
organization or publishing house is preparing to publish a story containing sensitive national
security information, it is frequently the case that one or more high-ranking government officials
will meet with the journalist responsible for the story, with the editor, or with both. The purpose
of the meeting is to give government officials the opportunity to point out ways that disclosing
classified information in the story can jeopardize American lives or do damage to national
security. The officials' purpose in participating in such a process is, if warranted, to persuade the
journalist to modify the reporting. This "save-the-secrets" process is neither unusual nor
infrequent. The willingness of journalists to participate in the process is a crucial safeguard for
the national security interests of the United States.
The former Executive Editor of the Washington Post, Leonard Downie Jr., has submitted
a document to the Court describing this process. See Ex. 1. He explains that, for decades, it has
been "common practice" for reporters and editors at the Washington Post and other publications
to participate in these discussions with senior officials. Id. at 1. The off-the-record
conversations necessarily involve discussions of classified information -- and in some cases
classified documents -- that the journalists have obtained from other sources. The process may
be extensive. It sometimes involves agency heads. On some occasions, it has involved the
President of the United States. Mr. Downie describes numerous instances when news
organizations delayed stories or deleted certain information after being convinced -- in save-thesecrets exercises -- that publication would risk serious harm to national security. Id. at 2-3.
6

Without this process, journalists would be less able to identify such risks, and U.S. national
security could be gravely harmed.
The joint letter from current and former senior government officials also makes reference
to this process. See Ex. 5. The officials note that, from their perspective, the process poses a
difficult and complex challenge of trying to shape journalists' stories to avoid materially harmful
disclosures and to minimize damage that their stories might do to U.S. security interests. In
Sanger's book, Confront and Conceal, which he discusses in his letter to the Court with regard to
the events in this case, Sanger makes explicit reference to the fact that he engaged in this process
with senior administration officials.1
General Cartwright's Past Involvement
In the course of General Cartwright's military career and in service to two different
Presidents, he had previously engaged in these save-the-secrets exercises. He believes that, by
doing so, he has been able to persuade journalists to delay or withhold publication of damaging
classified information. He has engaged in this process at the request of senior officials in the
George W. Bush administration as well as in the Barack Obama administration.
As General James Jones explains, General Cartwright was personally involved in the
save-the-secrets process during his service as a senior government official. For example, when
the Washington Post intended to publish an article by reporter Bob Woodward based on a
classified report prepared by General Stanley McChrystal, General Cartwright met with
Woodward and Washington Post editor Marcus Brauchli to persuade them to change the

1

Mr. Sanger wrote: "Following the practice of the Times in reporting on national security, I discussed with senior
government officials the potential risks of publication of sensitive information that touches ongoing intelligence
operations. At the government's request, and in consultation with editors, I withheld a limited number of details
that senior government officials said could jeopardize current or planned operations." David E. Sanger,
Confront and Conceal 436 (2012).

7

reporting to protect national security interests. See Ex. 2 (Jones Submission). General
Cartwright was successful in doing so: the Post withheld from publication certain details that
could have compromised future operations. See Ex. 1; see also Bob Woodward, McChrystal:
More Forces or 'Mission Failure,' Wash. Post, Sept. 21, 2009.
When General Cartwright left government service in 2012, President Obama made clear
to him that the White House wanted to continue to have General Cartwright work with them in
his retirement. General Cartwright told the President that he was willing to assist the President
in any way he could. President Obama said, "That's what we want." The President explained
that he was not sure what form this assistance would take in the future, but that he and his staff
would continue to be involved in many programs General Cartwright had worked on and wanted
to be able to call on General Cartwright's services even from his position in the private sector.
The President told General Cartwright that he wanted "you to be able to call me and me to be
able to call you."
General Cartwright left the meeting with the clear expectation that the White House staff
would reach out to him for help in various activities. And they have done so. Since General
Cartwright's retirement, the White House has asked for General Cartwright's assistance in a
number of projects involving the national security interests of the United States. In May 2013,
for example, General Cartwright was invited -- with former Senator Sam Nunn and former
National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft -- to brief the President and Vice President on how to
reduce the global threat posed by nuclear weapons.2
General Cartwright's Contacts with David Sanger and Daniel Klaidman
2

Attached as Exhibit 9 is a photograph taken by the official White House photographer during that meeting. A
handwritten note from President Obama appears on the photo thanking General Cartwright for his "continuing
contribution to the nation's security."

8

When journalists David Sanger and Daniel Klaidman contacted General Cartwright to
discuss the subjects they were about to report on, both reporters referred to senior members of
the White House staff with whom they had spoken.3 General Cartwright believed that White
House staff had referred the journalists to him as part of the well-established save-the-secrets
process. David Sanger made explicit reference to the fact that senior White House officials had
encouraged him to consult with General Cartwright, and Daniel Klaidman also made clear in his
communications with General Cartwright that he was in touch with the White House. That fact
is reflected in the emails that Cartwright exchanged with the two journalists.
When the journalists communicated with General Cartwright, it was clear to General
Cartwright that the journalists had already interviewed widely among senior U.S. government
officials -- and had consulted many other sources. At the time the journalists met with
Cartwright, they were already in possession of significant information -- both classified and
unclassified. It is also clear that, with respect to both journalists, much of their writing had been
finalized long before they spoke with General Cartwright. See Ex. 3 (Sanger letter) ("I had
spoken to many sources in the United States, Israel, Europe, and elsewhere prior to speaking to
Gen. Cartwright, and I already had a detailed understanding of the chain of events. I was nearing
the end of my research and had written much of the book when I approached the White House
for final interviews. There, I was advised to reach out to Gen. Cartwright for an interview."); Ex.
4 (Klaidman letter) (Klaidman notes he had a draft prepared when he contacted General
Cartwright and that, in his response to Klaidman, "General Cartwright did not provide any new

3

Both journalists have submitted letters describing to the Court their interactions with General Cartwright. See Ex.
3; Ex. 4.

9

facts and did not provide any documents.").4
General Cartwright expressed concern about Sanger's plan to write about certain subjects
the disclosure of which would put lives in jeopardy and do serious harm to U.S. national security
interests in the region. General Cartwright was successful in persuading Sanger to modify his
reporting to protect American secrets. The same "save-the-secrets" dynamic occurred in General
Cartwright's communications with Klaidman. See Ex. 3 (Sanger letter) (General Cartwright
"ma[de] it clear he had sharp limits on what he could discuss" with Sanger and, during their
conversation, "expressed concern that certain classified information not be revealed," which
"cautions weighed heavily in decisions that [Sanger] made, in consultation with editors, about
what information to withhold from publication"); Ex. 4 (Klaidman letter) (Klaidman contacted
General Cartwright "in the event there were any government concerns General Cartwright could
anticipate").
In sum, General Cartwright did not initiate contact with either journalist, nor did he ever

4

In Confront and Conceal, David Sanger expresses his gratitude to officials in the White House, in the State
Department and at the Central Intelligence Agency for the access that they gave to him during his news
gathering. Sanger stated that the officials with whom he spoke "are too numerous to name and several would be
horrified or fired if I named them here." Sanger, supra, at 432.
Sanger expressly thanked Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes for "setting up interviews at all levels of
the White House Staff" and noted that: "Almost every senior member of the president's national security team
was generous enough to sit down and talk through their experiences, some more than once." Id.
According to documents obtained pursuant to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, Sanger also carried on
an extensive email correspondence with Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Mike Hammer that
reflects the degree to which senior officials in that Department cooperated with Mr. Sanger's journalistic
efforts. Sanger interviewed Secretary of State Clinton, Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns, Legal Advisor
Harold Koh, Secretary Clinton's top policy advisor and Director of Policy Planning, Jake Sullivan, and many
other senior officials including Assistant Secretaries Kurt Campbell and Robert Einhorn. See Freedom Watch,
http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/pdf/130805-Hillary.pdf.
Mr. Sanger had similar access at the CIA and expressly thanked a senior public affairs official for assistance in
arranging meetings at all levels of the Agency, see id., which included an extensive correspondence with the
Deputy Director, see J.K. Trotter, Emails: CIA Official Reviewed Parts of Times Reporter's Book Before
Publication, Gizmodo (Nov. 22, 2016, 12:50 PM), http://gizmodo.com/emails-cia-official-reviewed-parts-oftimes-reporter-s-1788697631.

10

offer to obtain information for them. Both Sanger and Klaidman invoked senior members of the
White House staff in their communications with General Cartwright. In agreeing to meet,
General Cartwright's primary motivation was to dissuade the journalists from publishing highly
sensitive national secrets. His conduct was consistent with that understanding, and he believes
that his efforts were, at least in part, successful.
IV.

THE SENTENCE
The Court is asked to impose a sentence that is "sufficient, but not greater than

necessary" to comply with the purposes of punishment as set forth in 18 U.S.C. ? 3553(a)(2). In
imposing sentence, the Court is to consider the kinds of sentences available, the nature and
circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, and the need to
avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. See id. ? 3553(a).
The Sentencing Guidelines
The parties here agree, and the Probation Office concurs, that the applicable range under
the sentencing guidelines is zero months to six months' imprisonment, based on a total offense
level of 6 and a criminal history category of I. Plea Agreement at 3; PSR ?? 85-86. The parties
also agree that the applicable guideline fine range is $500 to $5,000. Plea Agreement at 3; PSR
? 89. By statute, a term of probation not less than one year and not greater than five years must
be imposed. PSR ? 95; 18 U.S.C. ? 3561(c)(1).
In this case, the Probation Office has identified no factors warranting a variance from the
applicable Guidelines range based on the factors specified in 18 U.S.C. ? 3553(a). PSR ? 105.
Probation
A sentence of probation with a condition of community service, consistent with the
relevant statute and applicable Guidelines, is appropriate and adequate to serve the purposes of

11

18 U.S.C. ? 3553(a). A probationary sentence, while less severe than a custodial sentence,
nevertheless represents a serious reprimand and imposes substantial restrictions on liberty. See
Gall v. United States, 552 US 38, 48 (2007). A sentence of probation is perfectly consistent with
the applicable Guidelines range and would satisfy the ? 3553(a)(2) purposes of punishment while
also justly and fairly recognizing General Cartwright's lifetime of extraordinary service and good
character. We respectfully submit that it is unnecessary and would be unjust to sentence General
Cartwright to prison, and request that the Court instead impose a probation-and-communityservice sentence.
Punishment and Deterrence
General Cartwright already has faced significant personal and financial repercussions as a
result of his guilty plea. For the rest of his life, he will carry the personal shame and reputational
stain of a federal felony conviction. The emotional and financial costs of his public humiliation,
heightened substantially by the case's high profile, have had a profound effect on him. These
burdens also have been increased significantly by the time that it took for the government's
investigation to conclude. It has been more than four years since the FBI interviewed General
Cartwright, and this case has already cast a long shadow over his life and career. In many
respects, General Cartwright has -- even without a conviction -- been seriously burdened by the
existence of this investigation.5

5

It is notable that the lengthy investigation has included extensive publicity about General Cartwright, and
(ironically in a matter concerning a claim of unauthorized disclosure of information) leaks from unnamed
government officials about his status. See, e.g., Greg Miller & Sari Horwitz, Justice Dept. Targets General in
Leak Probe, Wash. Post, June 27, 2013, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-depttargets-general-in-leak-probe/2013/06/27/9ad8bc4e-df7c-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html; Ellen
Nakashima & Adam Goldman, Leak Investigation Stalls Amid Fears of Confirming U.S.-Israel Operation,
Wash. Post, Mar. 10, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/leak-investigation-stallsamid-fears-of-confirming-joint-us-israel-operation/2015/03/10/2a348b1e-c36c-11e4-9ec2b418f57a4a99_story.html.

12

The adverse consequences were of course magnified after his guilty plea. He lost his
security clearance and, as detailed in the PSR, General Cartwright has had to withdraw from
numerous professional activities. He has been forced to give up substantial income. He also has
delayed or abandoned other fulfilling personal and professional activities as he awaits the
resolution of his case.
Incarcerating General Cartwright is not needed to promote respect for the law. Nor is it
needed to afford adequate deterrence. The enormous consequences to General Cartwright of this
prosecution and his very public fall from grace already have been more than sufficient to warn
others to be truthful in speaking with federal investigators.
The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense and the History and Character of the Defendant
As noted elsewhere in this Sentencing Memorandum, without minimizing General
Cartwright's misconduct on November 2, 2012, it bears emphasis that General Cartwright
returned to continue his interview on the next business day and corrected the record, see supra
Part III, and that in his discussions with journalists that were the subject of the interview, General
Cartwright made efforts to save secrets, not to disclose them, see supra Part IV. Furthermore,
the history and character of General Cartwright, a patriot with forty years of distinguished
military service, clearly weighs in favor of a non-custodial sentence. See infra Parts V, VI. A
sentence of probation with community service is just and appropriate under the circumstances of
this case.
The Need to Avoid Unwarranted Sentencing Disparities
In the two cases most analogous to this one, the defendants were not sentenced to
incarceration. Moreover, in each case, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to a
misdemeanor -- and received a non-custodial sentence -- despite having acted with greater

13

culpability than General Cartwright's culpability in this case.
General David Petraeus pled guilty in June 2015 to one count of violating 18 U.S.C.
? 1924. It was undisputed at sentencing that General Petraeus had knowingly and deliberately
made false statements to federal investigators. See Factual Basis ?? 28, 32-33, United States v.
Petraeus, No. 3:15-cr-47 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 3, 2015). Unlike General Cartwright, General
Petraeus disclosed classified information intentionally and for no public purpose. General
Petraeus gave his biographer eight black notebooks filled with classified documents and
information, telling her "there's code word stuff in there." Id. ? 22. Despite these facts, General
Petraeus was permitted to plead to a misdemeanor and was not sentenced to prison, receiving
instead two years' probation (with no element of community service) and a fine.
The prosecution of National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is also instructive. He pled
guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. ? 1924 by unlawfully removing classified documents and
handwritten notes -- some of which he destroyed -- from the National Archives on two
occasions. Factual Basis for Plea ?? 3-4, United States v. Berger, No. 1:05-mj-175 (D.D.C. Apr.
1, 2005). When contacted by the National Archives and Records Administration about the
missing documents, Mr. Berger did not disclose that he had removed the documents and later
made false statements about them. Id. ? 6. Like General Cartwright, however, Mr. Berger later
corrected his false statement to the government and accepted responsibility. See id.; Sentencing
Memorandum, Berger, at 17. He was sentenced to two years' probation, 100 hours of
community service, a fine, and a three-year prohibition on access to classified material.
The sentences in these two cases support the conclusion suggested by the applicable
Guidelines range, the nature of the offense, and the characteristics and history of the defendant:
that the purposes of punishment do not require, nor are they served by, imprisoning General

14

Cartwright. Incarcerating General Cartwright would create a discrepancy in treatment that is
hard to explain and impossible to justify. While any of these three defendants could have been
charged with violating ? 1001, only General Cartwright could not be charged with violating
? 1924 because he did not remove or retain any classified documents. General Cartwright should
not be made to suffer harsher punishment than the other defendants because he did less than they
did. The discrepancy in treatment between these defendants would not serve the interests of
justice.
Community Service
General Cartwright proposes that, as a condition of his probation, he should be required
to complete 600 hours of community service. While he is, of course, willing to participate in any
community service program that the Court or the Probation Office finds appropriate, he suggests
that his expertise in technology and cyber issues could be useful to the District of Columbia
Public Schools and their efforts to prepare students for technology-related careers. In light of
General Cartwright's service to the country, such a sentence -- involving a community service
component that is, to counsel's knowledge, far more extensive than any previously imposed in
any analogous case -- would be just and appropriate.
General Cartwright is eager to continue serving the country he loves and will accept any
term of community service the Court decides to impose. He suggests in particular that, if the
Court deems it appropriate and if the D.C. Public Schools administration agrees, he could
support local schools by offering his expertise and advice regarding information technology.
Unsurprisingly, in today's day and age, technology is an important focus of instruction and
career training. The District has established a Career Academy Network, a public-private
collaboration that focuses on creating a pipeline of college- and career-ready students able to

15

compete for skilled jobs, which requires the help of knowledgeable professionals. See, e.g., DC
Career Academy Network (DC Can), http://osse.dc.gov/dccan. General Cartwright, formerly the
military's leading expert on cybersecurity and technology, would have much to offer to the
District's programming in these respects and is eager to contribute. With a significant
commitment of hours, he could use his considerable skills to help bring technology to D.C. high
school students and prepare them for a work force increasingly dependent on it, while also
advising them on how to pursue careers in related fields. The defense submits that a sentence
which facilitates these efforts would be, in this case, more just and more appropriate than
imprisoning this distinguished and accomplished public servant.
V.

GENERAL CARTWRIGHT'S PERSONAL BACKGROUND AND MILITARY
RECORD
General Cartwright's exceptional record of distinguished public service, his good

character, and his sterling reputation as a citizen are of relevance to this proceeding. See, e.g.,
Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476, 487-88 (2011) ("[T]he punishment should fit the offender
and not merely the crime."); Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 113 (1996) ("uniform and
constant" tradition in federal criminal proceedings "for the sentencing judge to consider every
convicted person as an individual"). The 20-page Presentence Report describes General
Cartwright's military record, governmental service, and personal background in detail.
Personal Background
General Cartwright was born and raised in Rockford, Illinois. He and his five younger
sisters were raised by their father, a salesman, and their mother, a homemaker. General
Cartwright was a responsible and hardworking student-athlete. He earned a swimming
scholarship that enabled him to put himself through college at the University of Iowa. He
enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps as a reservist shortly after graduating, and was commissioned a
16

second lieutenant in 1971.
General Cartwright entered active Marine Corps service in 1974 and proceeded to serve
as a general officer for 13 years and a pilot for 23 years. He was assigned to command Marine
aviation logistics squadrons, fighter attack squadrons, and aircraft groups. In 2000, he became
Commanding General of the First Marine Aircraft Wing in Okinawa, Japan. Subsequently, he
served as Director for Force Structure, Resources and Assessment (J-8) for the Joint Chiefs of
Staff from 2002 until 2004, when he was promoted to the rank of four-star General and became
the first Marine Corps officer to lead U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM). He became the
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2007 and served in that role until 2011, when he
retired with an honorable discharge.
Record of Military Service
During his forty years of military service, culminating in his service as a four-star
General in the United States Marine Corps and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
General Cartwright was stationed in posts all over the country and around the world. As set out
in paragraph 53 of the Presentence Report, General Cartwright served in 21 different locations in
11 states, Washington, D.C. and abroad. Like many service members, General Cartwright was
steadfast and diligent in his service to the United States regardless of the strain it placed on
himself and his family.
After many years as an officer and a pilot, General Cartwright was promoted to top
military positions at a pivotal and challenging time in American history. He more than rose to
the occasion. His leadership has been credited with "the integration of technologies that enabled,
as an example, the destruction of a failing satellite by a missile for the first time, and the
successful and historic raid against Osama bin Laden." Honoring Vice Chairman of the Joint

17

Chiefs of Staff, 112th Cong. E1481 (2011) (statement of Hon. Adam Smith). General Cartwright
led the development of the Pentagon's cyber capabilities and expedited the delivery of new
technologies to troops in the field, including Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles
which resulted in a fifty percent decrease in deaths from IED attacks. Id. Mary Clark Forbes, a
former colleague of General Cartwright who witnessed up close how he made crucial protections
available to the everyday soldier, writes that her son, an army officer who served in Iraq, "came
home partly due to General James Cartwright." Ex. 7.
In recognition of these immense accomplishments, General Cartwright has received
numerous decorations and awards, as set out in paragraph 68 of the PSR. For example, he is a
multiple-time recipient of both the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, for exceptionally
distinguished performance of duty contributing to the national security or defense of the United
States -- the highest non-combat-related U.S. military award -- and the Legion of Merit, for
exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements.
VI.

LETTERS OF SUPPORT
It is particularly noteworthy -- in a case such as this one with unusual national security

dimensions to it -- that so many of the letters of support for General Cartwright come from
individuals with deep leadership experience in national security affairs: a former Secretary of
Defense; two former Deputy Secretaries of State; three former Deputy Secretaries of Defense;
two former National Security Advisors to two different Presidents; former senior officials at the
Departments of State, Defense, Treasury and Homeland Security; the current Secretary of the
Navy Ray Mabus. It is inconceivable that such individuals would support anyone whose loyalty
or service to the United States of America was in any way questionable. They have no doubt
about the quality and character of James Cartwright.

18

It is of equal significance that congressional leaders with substantial experience in
national security affairs have also written letters in support of General Cartwright: former Chair
of the Senate Intelligence Committee Senator Dianne Feinstein; former Chair of the Armed
Services Committee Senator Sam Nunn; former ranking member of the Intelligence Committee
Representative Jane Harman; and former Representative and Under Secretary of State for Arms
Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher.
Experienced and knowledgeable leaders from the private sector and the academic world
have also come forward to express their support for General Cartwright: Professor Graham
Allison (Founding Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard; current Director of
the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs); Susan Eisenhower (CEO and Chairman
of the Eisenhower Group); David McAllister-Wilson (President of Wesley Theological
Seminary); Thomas Kennedy (Chairman and CEO of Raytheon); Mary Howell (CEO of Howell
Strategy Group and director of Atlantic Council); Robert Beauchamp (Chairman and CEO of
BMC Software and director of Raytheon); Ronald Skates (former director of Raytheon); and
William Spivey (director of Raytheon). Former military officers Frederick Graefe and David
Max Korzen, who know General Cartwright well, have also written letters in support of him.
Perhaps most impressive is the testimony of current and former military officials who
served with General Cartwright: Fred Allen, Angela Bruce, Charlie Croom, Jane Dalton, Mary
Clark Forbes, Letitia Long, and Richard Scott Stapp.
We commend these letters to the Court in the belief that, along with General Cartwright's
service record, they are compelling evidence showing that General Cartwright -- as a man, a
citizen and a public servant -- is worthy of a non-custodial sentence.

19

VII.

CONCLUSION
General Cartwright does not minimize the gravity of his conduct. He has already faced

serious consequences as a result of his mistake that day, and he will surely face more. But there
is no sound reason to send James Cartwright to jail. With greatest respect, we urge this Court to
impose a sentence of probation and that General Cartwright be required to perform extensive
community service. That would be the right result.

DATED: January 10, 2017

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP

By:
Gregory B. Craig
Clifford M. Sloan
Brendan B. Gants
Attorneys for Defendant
JAMES E. CARTWRIGHT

20

Leonard Downie Jr.
Declaration

August 16, 2016

I am Leonard Downie Jr., the Weil Family Professor of Journalism at Arizona State University’s
Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and retired executive editor of The Washington Post. I worked in
The Washington Post newsroom for 44 years as an investigative reporter, foreign correspondent and
editor, ultimately serving as managing editor from 1984 to 1991 and executive editor from 1991 until
2008. During my 17 years as executive editor, The Washington Post won 25 Pulitzer Prizes, several of
which recognized journalism that touched on national security. I am a founder and former member of
the board of directors of Investigative Reporters and Editors, the source of training and assistance for
more than 5,000 member journalists worldwide. I am the chair of the advisory boards of Kaiser Health
News, a leading non-profit source of health policy reporting for American news media, and of the
Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting, founded and directed by one of my former Cronkite School
students. I have written or co-authored six books, three of which have been about the news media, plus
a 2013 Special Report for the Committee to Protect Journalists about The Obama Administration and the
Press: Leak investigations and surveillance in post-9/11 America. I have written and spoken often about
the news media and national security, most recently on a C-SPAN-televised panel discussion with former
New York Times editor Jill Abramson, former CIA and NSA director Mike Hayden and former CIA Director
and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at a July, 2016, Pulitzer Prize centenary event at the George W.
Bush Presidential Library in Dallas, Texas.
During my quarter century as executive editor and managing editor of The Washington Post, I
was often involved in examining and considering national security issues in deciding whether to publish
news stories containing or based on reporting about classified information. I made the final decisions
about publishing such stories while I was executive editor, weighing the newspaper’s responsibility to
inform citizens about what their government was doing against the possibility of harm to human life or
national security.
As with many other news media, it was common practice, when working on such stories, for
Washington Post reporters and editors, including myself, to communicate and/or meet with senior
government officials to hear any concerns they might have about whether classified information in a
story could endanger national security. These conversations and meetings were usually on an agreed
off-the-record basis so that the officials could make their arguments about classified information we
already had without disclosing anything else.
Most such stories, even those originating with a tip or “leaked” document, involved extensive
reporting with numerous sources and whatever documentation, both public and classified, that could be
found for verification, meaning and context. That reporting usually included contacts with government
officials and information officers, who could raise national security concerns. The reporters were
working with editors, including me, who thoroughly reviewed their reporting for accuracy and fairness –
and any national security issues that were readily apparent or raised by government officials.

 When those officials had concerns about what the reporters told them about their editors’
decision-making on national security issues, they often contacted the editors themselves. In many cases,
those contacts escalated within both the government and the newspaper until an agency head, such as
the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, would contact me. In some cases, they arranged
meetings to state their concerns in detail. Reporters and editors also often sought out other
knowledgeable sources, including current and retired officials, for similar off-the-record conversations
about stories involving classified information.
Frequently, during these conversations and meetings, if they were failing to persuade us not to
publish a story, government officials focused in on specific pieces of classified information that they
wanted to persuade us to delete from the story because, they argued, they would especially damage
national security. Never in these conversations and meetings did officials provide classified information
that we had not already found in our reporting. We always listened carefully and took what we heard
very seriously. Although we always made independent publishing decisions, some stories were delayed
and/or certain information was deleted from them after we were convinced that, on balance, it would
avoid the risk of real harm to national security.
For example, The Washington Post published a story in November, 2005, about secret prisons in
countries outside the United States and its legal system in which the CIA was holding and interrogating
terrorism suspects. After meetings with the CIA director, the Director of National Intelligence and, later,
President Bush and Vice President Cheney at the White House, I decided to publish the story but to
withhold from it the names of some of the countries in which the secret prisons were located because I
was convinced during those extensive conversations that naming the countries could harm national
security by disrupting other counterterrorism operations about which we already had information.
After I retired, Washington Post editors made a similar decision to withhold from a September,
2011, story about secret foreign U. S. bases for drone strikes the specific location of a base in Saudi
Arabia “at the request of the administration, which cited concern that exposing the facility would
undermine operations against an al-Qaeda affiliate regarded as the network’s most potent threat to the
United States, as well as potentially damage counterterrorism collaboration with Saudi Arabia,” as the
newspaper later acknowledged.
Similarly, in September, 2009, Washington Post editors redacted parts of a classified report on
Afghanistan, obtained by reporter Bob Woodward, after consultations with the Department of Defense.
“While we would have much preferred none of this be made public at this time, we appreciate the
paper’s willingness to edit out those passages, which likely would have endangered personnel and troop
operations in Afghanistan,” a Pentagon official said in a statement at the time.
The Washington Post also removed information from its “Top Secret America” website
database, which detailed much of the extent of U. S. intelligence activities after the September 11, 2001
terrorist attack, following consultations with officials in which a government agency “objected to certain
data points on the site and explained why,” according to an editor’s note on the washingtonpost.com
site.
Editors of The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times have publicly described similar
communications with government officials while making decisions about publishing stories containing

 classified information. Some of those stories also included explanations to readers that some
information was withheld after those consultations about national security concerns.
Without this process of consultation between journalists and government officials, it would be
much more difficult for the news media to decide whether publication of certain classified information
might harm American lives or national security. The process should not be viewed as disclosure of
classified information because journalists already possess the information being discussed with the
officials. Prosecuting officials for engaging in these discussions would greatly increase the risk of harm to
national security by leaving journalists less knowledgeable about the potential risk in publishing the
information they possess.
Participation in the process distinguishes responsible news media from actors like WikiLeaks,
which publish classified information without consultation with government officials about what might
harm national security. In July, 2010, for example, WikiLeaks posted 92,000 government and military
documents related to the war in Afghanistan in their raw form, while The Washington Post, New York
Times and other news media redacted names of informants and other information that they decided
could risk significant harm after discussions with government officials.
To prosecute either officials or journalists for engaging in this process would also be inconsistent
with the spirit of statements and Justice Department guidelines promulgated by Attorney General Eric
Holder and Justice Department officials after discussions and negotiations with journalists and news
media attorneys, in which I was a participant. In another such meeting with news media representatives,
Attorney General Loretta Lynch agreed with those statements and guidelines.

 James L. Jones
Declaration

January 9, 2017

(1) I am a retired Marine Corps general. I served in the Marine Corps for forty years. From
1999 to 2003, I served as Commandant of the Marine Corps. From 2003 to 2006, I served as
Commander, United States-European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe
(SACEUR).
(2) From January 2009 to November 2010, I served as National Security Advisor to President
Barack Obama.
(3) I have known General James Cartwright and worked with him for almost twenty years. I
served with him in both the Bush and Obama Administrations.
(4) The purpose of this affidavit is to confirm that General Cartwright was personally involved
in and had experience with a process in which senior government officials meet with journalists
who intend to report on sensitive national security topics and whose reporting, if published,
could jeopardize military operations and/or intelligence sources and methods.
(5) When a journalist intends to publish information that could jeopardize American lives or
endanger national security interests, senior government officials frequently meet with that
journalist or the journalist’s editors. Such a meeting may come at the request of the journalists or
at the request of the government if it has been made aware of the planned publication. The
government officials’ purpose in these meetings is to explain the damage that publication could
do to national security interests and to attempt to persuade the journalist to change his reporting
in such a fashion as to protect those interests.
(6) I know from first-hand experience that General Cartwright was asked to engage in such
exercises during his service as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. To cite just one
specific example, I myself – in my capacity as President Obama’s National Security Advisor –
asked General Cartwright to meet with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and
Washington Post editor Marcus Brauchli in the Fall of 2009 when the Post sought to publish an
article by Mr. Woodward based on a classified report prepared by General Stanley McChrystal.

 @112 New ?ak aims
WASHINGTON BUREAU
1627 ISTREET. N.W.

WASHINGTON. DC. 20006
(202) 862-0300

December 16, 2016

Hon. Richard J. Leon

U.S. District Court

333 Constitutional Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20001

Dear Judge Leon:

I write concerning the upcoming sentencing of Gen. James E. Cartwright (Ret). In the Statement
of Offense in his case, Gen. Cartwright acknowledges that he spoke to me while I was
completing the writing of my book "Confront and Conceal" and the excerpts from it that
appeared in The New York Times. He also acknowledges that some classi?ed information was
discussed.

But that tells only part of the story. I want to provide a fuller context for my interview with Gen.
Cartwright, which is more complex than it may at ?rst appear. My reporting in the book and The
Times was intended to help the public better understand how the United States government, in
cooperation with Israel and European allies, was responding to the threat of nuclear?armed

Iran. The fact that Iran?s nuclear faciltities had been attacked by a powerful cyberweapon was no
secret by the time I began work on the book. The source code for that attack, later called Stuxnet,
leaked out in the summer of 201 0 because of an error or accident by the authors of the code. At
that point, the code and its obvious target were publicly available and the existence of the
cyberweapon was widely reported on, by me and many others. My research was focused on
telling the story of how this powerful cyberweapon was developed and how it spread around the
world, and the important decisions and policy implications surrounding its creation.

I had spoken to many sources in the United States, Israel, Europe, and elsewhere prior to
speaking to Gen. Cartwright, and I already had a detailed understanding of the chain of events. I
was nearing the end of my research and had written much of the book when I approached the
White House for ?nal interviews. There, I was advised to reach out to Gen. Cartwright for an
interview. I contacted the General, and he agreed to meet with me, while making it clear he had
sharp limits on what he could discuss.

During the ccurSe of our conversationl described the ?ndings of 14 months of reporting. He
expressed concern that certain classi?ed information not be revealed. His cautions weighed
heavily in decisions that I made, in consultation with editors, about what information to withhold
?om publication.

Case Document 14-3 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 2

@112 New ?ak aims
WASHINGTON BUREAU
1627 ISTREET. N.W.

WASHINGTON. DC. 20006
(202) 862-0300

December 16, 2016

Hon. Richard J. Leon

U.S. District Court

333 Constitutional Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20001

Dear Judge Leon:

I write concerning the upcoming sentencing of Gen. James E. Cartwright (Ret). In the Statement
of Offense in his case, Gen. Cartwright acknowledges that he spoke to me while I was
completing the writing of my book "Confront and Conceal" and the excerpts from it that
appeared in The New York Times. He also acknowledges that some classi?ed information was
discussed.

But that tells only part of the story. I want to provide a fuller context for my interview with Gen.
Cartwright, which is more complex than it may at ?rst appear. My reporting in the book and The
Times was intended to help the public better understand how the United States government, in
cooperation with Israel and European allies, was responding to the threat of nuclear?armed

Iran. The fact that Iran?s nuclear faciltities had been attacked by a powerful cyberweapon was no
secret by the time I began work on the book. The source code for that attack, later called Stuxnet,
leaked out in the summer of 201 0 because of an error or accident by the authors of the code. At
that point, the code and its obvious target were publicly available and the existence of the
cyberweapon was widely reported on, by me and many others. My research was focused on
telling the story of how this powerful cyberweapon was developed and how it spread around the
world, and the important decisions and policy implications surrounding its creation.

I had spoken to many sources in the United States, Israel, Europe, and elsewhere prior to
speaking to Gen. Cartwright, and I already had a detailed understanding of the chain of events. I
was nearing the end of my research and had written much of the book when I approached the
White House for ?nal interviews. There, I was advised to reach out to Gen. Cartwright for an
interview. I contacted the General, and he agreed to meet with me, while making it clear he had
sharp limits on what he could discuss.

During the courSe of our conversationl described the ?ndings of 14 months of reporting. He
expressed concern that certain classi?ed information not be revealed. His cautions weighed
heavily in decisions that I made, in consultation with editors, about what information to withhold
?om publication.

Case Document 14-3 Filed 01/10/17 Page 2 of 2

My interview with Gen. Cartwright was not extraordinary. In response to a FOIA request
submitted by a reporter, the CIA recently released documents about my contacts with the agency
while doing my reporting. The documents show that at the same time I was arranging the
Cartwright interview the White House had authorized the deputy director of the CIA to meet
with me and discuss my ?ndings and the possible risks of disclosure. This is a standard, if
little?understood, practice in the course ofreporting on sensitive national security affairs. Such
conversations are crucial so that news organizations like The Times can responsibly ful?ll their
First Amendment obligations. The irresponsible thing would be not to hear out the government
about potential harm.

Gen. Cartwright understood the importance of that give-and?take. Throughout the interview, he
consistently showed his concern that information damaging to U.S. interests not be made public.
Far ?om harming U.S. interests, his interview contributed to my efforts to provide the public
with a comprehensive account of a critical new element of the American use of force,'while
trying to avoid harming ?lture operations. I have no doubt he was trying to act in the best
interests of the United States.

Sincere 



David E. Sanger
National Security Correspondent
The New York Times

A JOINT LETTER BY SENIOR AND FORMER SENIOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
Administratively coordinated by John Hamre
1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036

The Honorable Richard J. Leon
Judge of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia
Washington, DC
Your Honor:
We are writing to ask for your clemency in considering the sentence to impose on
We all
all have
have known
known General
General Cartwright in varying capacities
General (Ret.) James Cartwright. We
As General
General Cartwright
Cartwright rose
rose in
in rank,
rank, he
he worked
worked in widening circles that involved all
for decades. As
General Cartwright has singularly brought to every
of us on important national security matters.
matters. General
engagement a keen intellect and an abiding commitment to the security of the United States.
There is no question about his loyalty to
to the
the United
United States
States or
or his
his commitment
commitment to
to its
its security.
security. He
has been a pioneer without peer in cyber
cyber security
security for
for America.
America. He has thought deeply and
systematically about
He has
has always
always placed
placed America's
America’s enduring
enduring security as his
systematically
about security
security issues.
issues. He
highest value.
All who serve in senior positions must confront the dilemma about how to protect
America in situations
situations where
where important
important facts
factsare
arebeing
beingdisclosed
disclosedby
byother
otherpersons.
persons. The most
difficult situations are when journalists make inquiries involving stories involving classified
There is
is an
an obligation
obligation to protect that information from
information. There
from disclosure.
disclosure. But in some
instances, there is a need to steer journalists from even more sensitive information or to avoid
mischaracterizations that might further
further damage
damage national
national security.
security. Each of us has faced this
challenge to help shape these stories in a way that both avoids disclosures of classified
In other
other instances,
instances, we were asked
information and minimizes
minimizes the
the harm
harm to
toour
ournational
nationalsecurity.
security. In
to explain
explain why
why aa public
security.
to
public disclosure
disclosure would
would materially
materially harm
harm America’s
America's security.
General Cartwright did not initiate calls to the media, but the record shows he did talk
with journalists in an effort to help mitigate the damage that might occur from disclosure of
important information.
His actions
actions were
were intended
intended exclusively
exclusively to
security.
important
information. His
to protect
protect America’s
America's security.
His true intention was to protect this country.
He has
has taken
taken full
full
We do not minimize the
the gravity
gravity of
of General
General Cartwright’s
Cartwright's actions.
actions. He
As you
you decide upon a sentence we urge you
responsibility and awaits the judgment
judgment of
of the
the Court.
Court. As
to take
take into
conduct and
and service
service throughout
throughout his
to
into account
account the
the entirety
entirety of
of General
General Cartwright’s
Cartwright's conduct
his
We understand
understand that
that General
General Cartwright
Cartwright corrected
corrected the record before the interview was
career. We
completed and
completed
and responded
responded truthfully
truthfully to
to further
furtherquestioning.
questioning. General
General Cartwright’s
Cartwright's life-long
life-long
service to the nation and his extraordinary contributions to the security of the American people
He has much yet to give. We
We urge
urge that you
should not be
be ignored.
ignored. He served honorably.
honorably. He
consider his full career so that he may continue to positive service to the United States.

 Sincerely,

Mr. Antony Blinken, Deputy Secretary of State

Dr. William Burns, former Deputy Secretary of State

Mr. Rudy DeLeon, former Deputy Secretary of Defense

_ittt-taat
Ms. Michele Flournoy, former Under Secretary for Policy, Department of Defense

Dr. John Hamre, former Deputy Secretary of Defense

Former National
National Security
Security Adviser, former Commandant,
General James Jones, USMC-Ret. Former
USMC

Mr. William Lynn, former Deputy Secretary of Defense

Mr. James Steinberg, former Deputy Secretary of State, former Deputy National Security
Adviser

 DIANNE FEINSTEIN f? . SELECT ow INTELLIGENCE - VICE CHAIRMAN

.. COMMITTEEON APPROPRIATIONS
CALIFORNIA  $.45 .  COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIAFIY
   COMMITTEE ow RULES AND ADMINISTRATION
 1; 
 ?3 I. a 

.ha




:34

gamma (States gamete

WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0504

http?feinstelnsenatagov

January 6, 2017

Judge Richard J. Leon

United States District Judge

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 29991

Dear Judge Leon:

I submit this declaration with deepest respect for you and in the hopes of telling
you about my experience with, and admiration for, General Cartwright. The purpose of
this letter is to urge you to be lenient in the sentence you impose upon General
Cartwright.

I do not know what happened when Gen. Cartwright was interviewed by the FBI
in 2012. He has acknowledged making mistakes and I take him at his word. I do
understand, however, that the circumstances were unusual. When he tells me he did not
compromise the national secrets of the United States, I believe him.

I have known Gen. Cartwright and worked with him for over a decade. I have
asked him to testify before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on many
occasions over the years and he has done so. He has briefed the members of the
Committee and our staff on many occasions as well. He is extremely intelligent,
articulate and careful in his choice of words, clear in his thinking and knowledgeable
beyond measure. He is an honorable and trustworthy citizen. Most importantly he is a
patriot, devoted to this country and to the well-being of our people. There is no one I
would trust more to explain the most technically sophisticated aSpects of warfare from
old fashioned nuclear weapons to state of the art cyber capacities than Gen. Cartwright.

I would trust this man with our nation?s most important secrets. I do not believe
there is anything more important to Gen. James Cartwright than the safety and security of
the American people. I cannot imagine him doing anything at least knowingly to
damage this country in any way.

General Cartwright has a long history of service. He began in the marines and
rose to the top. He has served two presidents with great distinction. He has much more

to give. A lenient sentence will make it possible for him, now from the private sector, to
continue his work.

If in the scales of justice you weigh the quality of his character and his service, the
leadership and sacri?ce he has shown throughout his life versus the mistake that he made
in his ?rst interview with the FBI, the scale tips heavily in favor of clemency.

Thank you for the chance to make my views heard.

Sincerely,

 

  

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

The Honorable Richard J. Leon
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Dear Judge Leon:
I am writing to express my high regard for General James C. Cartwright, whom I believe has
served our nation honorably and effectively.
With the security challenges facing our nation over the last several decades, we were fortunate to
have someone with the character, experience and leadership that General Cartwright has
displayed so clearly for so many years. General Cartwright is a critical thinker and honestly
evaluates the facts and the challenges, and he has demonstrated his commitment to keeping our
nation and our citizens secure throughout his nearly 40 years of military service.
During his assignment as the head of the United States Strategic Command and later as Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I had the opportunity to meet with and exchange views
with General Cartwright on a number of occasions. I was struck by his humility, his keen
insights and judgment, his professionalism, and his total commitment to protecting the United
States and our allies from the very real threats that we faced every day. During his entire career,
including many dangerous and defining moments in our history, General Cartwright was
standing guard for all of us – and I slept better at night knowing that he was.
Since his retirement from the United States military in 2011, I have worked closely with General
Cartwright. His intellect, his innovation and his wisdom have been an invaluable foundation for
our work together to reduce the threat of a nuclear weapon ever being used against the United
States and to improve relations in the Euro-Atlantic region. These are difficult and continuing
challenges, but we are fortunate that General Cartwright continues to devote his time and energy
to this crucial work, which remains vital to the security of all Americans.
As you examine the facts in General Cartwright’s case, I hope that you will consider his
exemplary and continuing record of service to our nation.
Sincerely,

Sam Nunn

 December 14, 2016

Judge Richard Leon
US District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue
Washington, DC 20001
Dear Judge Leon,
I have known General Cartwright for over a decade - and consider him a patriot, strategic
thinker, and previously the Pentagon's foremost expert on cyber threats.
While I stepped down as Ranking Member on the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence in 2006, and resigned from the House to assume the leadership role at the Wilson
Center in 2011, I was aware that General Cartwright played a key role in helping the Obama
Administration navigate the cyber landscape, which has become even more treacherous since he
left his government position.
He and I serve on the Aspen Strategy Group, where his insights are highly valued, as is his
friendship. While I have no inside knowledge of the allegations against him - and would never
condone leaking classified information - I believe the long duration of this matter and his guilty
plea should serve as a sufficient penalty for any infractions. I would urge the court to be lenient
as it considers further actions against a man who has served his country so ably and well.
These views express my personal opinion and not that of the Wilson Center.

Sincerely,

The Honorable Jane Harman

 January 9, 2017
The Honorable Richard J. Leon
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Dear Judge Leon:
General James Cartwright is an exceptional United States Marine officer and a true patriot. I
first came to know him as a trusted advisor on significant national security issues throughout my
tenure in Congress from 1997 to 2009 and while I was Under Secretary of State for Arms
Control and International Security from 2009 to 2012. As you might expect, when I served in
these positions I met many exceptional members of America’s military and intelligence services.
Even among that distinguished crowd, however, General Cartwright stood out for his honest and
straightforward approach. There was no one I trusted more, and outside my personal staff there
was no one I relied on more.
General Cartwright has made tremendous contributions to American security. His integrity is
renowned and, to my knowledge, has never seriously been called into question before now.
While I am not privy to all the facts that led to his guilty plea, I can say that it is inconceivable to
me that General Cartwright would ever knowingly do anything that would damage our national
security. My understanding is that he made a mistake and has accepted responsibility. I have no
doubt the mistake pains him greatly.
Since my retirement from government service I have served with General Cartwright on two
advisory boards. I have been honored to maintain a friendship with him and pleased to continue
working with him. In his endeavors since leaving military service, General Cartwright’s purpose
has remained constant: to protect and enhance America’s security. He has continued to provide
useful guidance and direction on security issues in any position he occupies, and I hope he can
continue to do so for the sake of the nation.
I humbly request that James Cartwright’s entire distinguished record and unselfish service to his
country and fellow Americans be considered when deciding on an appropriate sentence.
Sincerely,

The Honorable Ellen O. Tauscher

 December 12,- 2016

Chief Master Sergeant (Retired) Fred Allen (Fermerdoint Staff EmplOyee)
4800 Mark Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 223.50e2000

To Whom it May concern:
ReferencezzPersonal Reference USMC (Retired) General-James Cartwright

have known General Cartwright when i worked on the Joint-Staff and had, the pleasure
of briefing him' on? theimport'anoe of Logistics Data'to the warfighter; He is a Person- of
integrity and I would. go into combat With hi'mltomor'row and Would not'give ita second
thought

Clearly, General Cartwright?s Iong'ute'rin deeds for the Departmentand the Country
speak for themselves. He isa highly intelligent hard worker who never-loses sight of his.
goals. The General is also a ?ne person with a. great deal of integrity-who lajm proud. to
calla leader within the Department. I therefore have no hesitation whatsoever in
ofthe Generate support-for the Nation and his dedication to

1d uty. Also, from my perspective'Gene'ral James Cartwright character is above reproach
and View him as a?trustwrort'hy person who can always be counted on, regardless of
the sitUation, to do the right thing tor the Country. 

'If you have questions? .or need additional information about-my knowledge of General
Cartwright, please free to call-me at (703) 474-7622.

Very respectfully,

 

 

 

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
JOHN F. KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT
Robert and Renée Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

Graham Allison
Director

79 John F. Kennedy Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
tel: 617-496-6099 • fax: 617-495-1905

District Judge Richard J. Leon
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20001

December 23, 2016
Dear Judge Leon:
With respect, I submit a letter of support for General James Cartwright to provide several
points of evidence that I hope may be relevant as you consider your judgment. I do this
in my personal capacity. For the purposes of identification, I have taught at Harvard for
five decades, was “founding Dean” of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of
Government, and now serve as Director of its Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs. I have devoted most of my professional life to writing about issues of American
national security and teaching and training students for public service, with several
students in government, in the Reagan Administration as Special Advisor to Secretary of
Defense Weinberger and in the Clinton Administration as Assistant Secretary of Defense.
I have known James Cartwright professionally for at least a decade, initially when he was
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and more intensely since he become a Senior
Fellow (non-resident) at the Belfer Center. In the process of selecting him for an
appointment at Harvard, my colleagues and I made an attempt to do appropriate due
diligence in reviewing his record and potential contributions. To summarize that review
in a single line, he is widely regarded as among the most imaginative military leaders of
his generation. I know of no Commander of equivalent rank who has been more willing
to think unconventional thoughts and ask uncomfortable questions about the entire
enterprise of our defense establishment. Since he became a Senior Fellow (non-resident)
here at Belfer, I have worked with him directly. Our purpose in having Senior Fellows
(non-resident) from recent public service is to link them to faculty, fellows, and students
in exploring central national security challenges—and, when we succeed, advancing
policy-relevant knowledge about them. General Cartwright has been a model of what we
aspired to in establishing this category of appointments. In a series of projects, one of
which I participated in directly identifying inconvenient questions about the US defense
budget and the military services’ favorite weapons platforms, he has brought his

1

 experience and imagination to bear on the issues, engaged with faculty, research leaders,
fellows, and students comfortably, and not only enlightened, but inspired.
My most vivid window into General Cartwright’s contributions to American security
came in doing in a study for then National Security Advisor Tom Donilon on lessons to
be learned from the operation that found and killed Osama Bin Laden. The innermost
circle responsible for this success consisted of six individuals of whom Cartwright was
one. Indeed, he was personally selected by President Obama to be the sole military
member of this “small group” that started with a clue to Bin Laden’s whereabouts and
filled out the picture over the next 9 months—all the while keeping this secret in a town
that is known better for its leaks. From the use of previously highly-secret capabilities
developed in “black programs” at the Pentagon, to the review of the Navy Seals’ plans
for penetrating Pakistan’s sovereignty without being discovered in order to conduct the
raid at Abbottabad, Cartwright made invaluable contributions.
I have not spoken with him directly about the particulars of the charges against him. But
since I do teach a course entitled “Central Challenges of American National Security,
Strategy, and the Press,” and my co-teacher for the last seven years has been New York
Times correspondent David Sanger, I have some perspective on what may have
happened. And from reflections on issues raised in my course, I have strong views about
the principles involved. The contrast between David Sanger’s views about essentially
publishing every secret he can find, on the one hand, and mine, serve as one of the
subthemes of the course. I am very old fashioned and believe that the rules of
engagement between the press and the national security establishment that were observed
prior to Vietnam and Watergate served the nation better. My first book was a study of
the Cuban Missile Crisis. In that instance, John Kennedy had six days of secrecy in
which to reflect on the challenge, debate his initial instincts, and change his mind. If he
had believed that the secret would leak out in the first 48 hours—as it would likely do
given the current rules of the game—he would have chosen an airstrike to destroy Soviet
nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba that would likely have triggered their use against the
United States and that could have produced a major nuclear war.
So to simplify, my view is that secrets should be secrets; that leakers should be
prosecuted to the full extent of the law; and that in publishing secret documents the press
is profiting from stolen property. At the same time, I recognize and respect the press’s
rights under the First Amendment and its responsibilities to try to inform a citizenry that
can play its essential role in a democracy. And I understand that the Founding Fathers
designed a process that left the question of “who decides” to a competition.
I am familiar with many instances in which reporters have received stolen secrets and
been poised to publish information that would be deeply damaging to Americans’
security where at the direction of the President (or his subordinates), individuals who
understood the classified facts were asked to try to talk reporters out of the most
damaging revelations. In my course, one of the liveliest classes involves two guests, one
a former senior national security official, and the other a reporter, where they play out
this dynamic in a hypothetical case we have constructed to illuminate this dilemma. If,

2

 for example, a national security official in the know tells the reporter that if he publishes
X, specific American intelligence agents will die, or an ongoing military or intelligence
operation will be blown, has he thereby confirmed that other information on the same
page is thus somehow acceptable?
So my belief is that in this case General Cartwright must have gotten caught in just such a
catch-22 squeeze. But, as I say, that is my inference—not based on any specific
information from him or anyone else who is fully apprised of the facts.
If I can be permitted one more consideration. As evidence of General Cartwright’s
values and his commitment to this nation’s security and wellbeing, it is worth considering
what he has chosen to do after his military career. Many people likely situated have
joined the ranks of the lobbyists or defense contractors seeking to sell goods and services
to the Department of Defense. Instead, Cartwright has stayed actively involved in the
national security debate both at a Washington think tank and at Harvard, and continued
the commitment of his career to attempting to inspire future generations to ask what they
can do.
In sum, having worked with many individuals who have led our troops, and served our
nation with great distinction, in my personal experience, General James Cartwright is one
of the most impressive leaders our nation’s military has produced. In every interaction
with faculty, fellows, students, and others at Harvard that I have observed or heard about,
his conduct has been exemplary. Indeed, others look up to him as a model of the highest
professional standards.
I am not a lawyer, nor am I familiar with the process or considerations that inform
sentencing. But as a citizen, if I am judging him (as I do) I think about his life of service
and professional commitment and track record of honorable, distinguished performance,
as well as the offense for which he is accused. So I hope I am not being presumptuous in
urging a measure of mercy as you fulfill your solemn responsibilities. If I can provide
any further information that would be helpful in your considerations, do not hesitate to
email me or call me at (617) 496-6099.
Sincerely,

Graham Allison

3

  

 

Districtiudge Richard J. Leon. 
/77

United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington DC. 2001

DearJudge Leon:

General James-Cartwrigth life has been one of service to the securityof the United States. Forty years ofit was
on active duty, culminating as vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the second highest ranking officer in the
armed forces of the United States. His subsequent five years in the private sector have shown a continued
balanced and sensible dedication to the national security interests of our country. During my own sixty?five
year invoivament in national security matters, including my years as Secretary of Defense, I have not met a more
competent, effective or honorable senior officer. For those reasons, i have been pleased that the Center for
Strategic and-international Studies-named. him-to the Harold-BrownChair. He hasoccupied the office there next
to my own, giving me the chance to interact with him and to appreciate the value he has continued to provide to
the national dialogue about issues of U.S. security.

His own sense of honor has caused him to resign that chair. Moreover, recognize that his plea acknowledges

guilt of a significant act, albeit in a complicated and ambiguous situation. My hope is that this wiil be seen in the
and-effective service penalty will-becorrespondingiy
minimai, and that General Cartwright can resume his contribution to national security, including his role at 

For all those reasons, it is my hope that you will conclude that the appropriate sentence in General Cartwright?s
case is to impose a non-custodial sentence of probation.

Thank- you for- this chance to-give youmy views.
i
Sincere y,

Harold Brown

January 4, 2017

Mr. Gregory B. Craig, Esq.
1440 New York Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 2005

Dear Mr. Craig,

lam writing on behalf of General James Cartwright with a request that this letter be presented to Judge
Leon on his behalf.

I knew General Cartwright when he was the J8 for Acquisition on the Joint Staff, my dealings with him as
a member of the J6 Command, Control, Computers and Intelligence were for the purpose of presenting
various DOD systems which were under review. In this capacity he was always forthright, considerate
and conscientious of the various programs we were reviewing. I never found him to be side step an
issue or to be avoid an unpleasant situation. He was always true to his country, respected his staff and
helpful to those who sought him for guidance.

In my opinion, I believe you should consider leniency and can only believe that this was either a case of
bad judgment or a misunderstanding ofthe situation as I believe him to be honorable.

Digltally signed by Angela F.

Angela F.  .
I cn=Angeia F. Bruce, a, nu,
emell=angelabruce1947?verizon

ru ce .nei.c=us

Date: 2017.01.04 15:47:55 

Angela F. Bruce
Retired 
6722 Mink Hollow Road

Highland, MD.

The Honorable Richard J. Leon January 3, 2017
United States District Court for the District of Colombia

333 Constitution Avenue NW

Washington, D.C. 20001

Sir,

My name is Charlie Croom. I am a retired Air Force Lieutenant General who has known General
Cartwright since 2005. As the Director of the Defense Information Systems Agency and the
Commander of the Joint Task Force Global Network Operations, directly reported to General
Carwright from 2005 until my retirement in 2008. After retirement I worked for Lockheed
Martin for almost eight years as a Vice President, Cyber Strategy. I?m currently employed by
Leidos Corporation as Senior Vice President, Director of Senior Account Executives.

General Cartwright was a strict and demanding boss. He was always two steps ahead urging his
direct reports to run faster, push harder, and think outside the box. He led from the front with
innovation and an incredible work ethic. Working long hours daily and through the weekends
he expected no less from us. He knew that many of us led large bureaucratic organizations
that required demanding leadership?and that?s what he provided.

I?m aware that General Cartwright has pleaded guilty to providing false information to a Federal
Of?cial. I am not aware of the circumstances or reason. I know that goes against the core
values that we as military of?cers swore to live and lead by. have not Spoken to General
Cartwright, but I am con?dent he fully regrets that indiscretion. I am confident because I fully
believe General Cartwright has throughout his long career lived up to the highest expectations
of integrity ?rst, excellence in all he does and duty to his nation before self. He is a Marine, he
is an incredible leader that I would follow into battle, and he loves our nation and the values he
has taken an oath to defend. We all make mistakes?it is only those who don?t learn from their
mistakes that disrespect.

There is no doubt in my mind that General Cartwright has agonized over his mistake and
learned from it. I would respectfully request that any judgement of General Cartwright take
into account his many years of faithful and dedicated service and his mentoring of the many
senior of?cers like myself?demanding integrity and excellence in our service to the nation. I
greatly admire and respect General Cartwright for his accomplishments, for his leadership and
for the core values of integrity and excellence I know he lives by today.

Very Respectfully,

Madam?)

Charles E. Croom, Lt Gen (R), USAF
521 Palmer Way, Box 427
Sunset SC 29685

5 January 2017

The Honorable Richard J. Leon

Federal District Court, District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC. 20001

Dear Judge Leon:

I am writing on behalf of General James E. Cartwright, USMC (Retired) for the
sentencing portion of the trial in which he entered a plea of guilty to one count of
Title 18, US. Code, Section 1001 (making a false statement to a federal official).

I had the honor and privilege of working with General Cartwright during two duty
assignments. First, when he was assigned to the Directorate for Force Structure,
Resources and Assessment, J-8, the Joint Staff (1996-1999) and I was serving as
Deputy Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1996-1998).
Second, when General Cartwright served as the Director of -8 (2002-2004) and I
was the Legal Counsel to the Chairman (2000-2003). So in all, our tours of duty
on the Joint Staff overlapped by a total of about 3 years.

The Joint Staff is a demanding, challenging, stressful and fast-paced environment,
in which each of?cer who works there is driven to his or her limits in terms of
patience, resourcefulness, teamwork, stamina and commitment. Many ?ne of?cers
excel in the Joint Staff environment; few excel in that environment while retaining
a sense of grace, humility, common sense and camaraderie. General Cartwright
was one of those few.

It was always my pleasure to work issues with General Cartwright. It was my job
to provide legal advice on the issues General Cartwright was presenting to the
Chairman for decision. For that reason, we often needed to discuss the issues and
their rami?cations so that I understood his goals, approach and desired outcome.
Clearly, General Cartwright is a brilliant thinker who has mastered the most
complex technical issues in today?s security environmentgracious, engaging, and thoughtful co?worker who helped walk me through issues I
did not immediately grasp and who always ensured I fully understood the
background and repercussions of the issues we were dealing with. General

Cartwright was generous with his time, gracious in his demeanor, and a gentleman
of honor and integrity.

In the sometimes?fractious, brittle, and frustrating environment of the Joint Staff,
General Cartwright was consistently polite, calm, self-assured but never over-
bearing, and maintained a sense of humor and kindness that belied his stern USMC
exterior. Furthermore, General Cartwright demonstrated a deep sense of integrity,
patriotism and love of country. The pride and honor he felt in serving his country
were evident in his every action and expression.

I am generally aware of the facts to which he plead guilty. I am not aware of the
motivations that led him to commit the act of making a false statement to a federal
of?cial. I certainly do not condone or excuse his doing so. Nevertheless, it is my
belief that he acted out of motives that were not sel?sh or self-serving, but rather
that he had the best interests of this country at heart. General Cartwright?s entire
career, as well as my personal knowledge of him, convince me that he is a patriot
who only intended and desired to serve the United States of America.

Judge Leon, as both a former prosecutor and a former defense counsel, I do not
believe that leniency is always appropriate in sentencing. In this case, however, I
am asking that you consider the entire career and character of General Cartwright
in making your sentencing decision. Surely con?nement in a federal prison would
not serve the interests of justice, retribution, example or rehabilitation. The public
plea itself and the fact that he will forever be marked as a federal felon have
stained his career and marred his life forever. The guilty plea avoiding a long and
costly contested trial clearly demonstrates his remorse and rehabilitation. Leniency
would be a fair and ?tting recognition of General Cartwright?s overall solid
character and his years of service to this country, while giving the State and the
community the justice and retribution they deserve.

Sincerely,

J6. Datum

G. Dalton
Rear Admiral, US. Navy
Judge Advocate General?s Corps (Retired)

Date: December 9, 2016
To: Mr. Gregory Craig
From: Ms. Mary Clark Forbes
Subject: General James Cartwright
Dear Mr. Craig,
I am writing this letter to be used in the sentencing hearing of General James Cartwright. I am asking
for leniency to be shown by Judge Richard Leon toward General James Cartwright.
I worked with General James Cartwright and his staff while he was the Director for Force Structure,
Resources and Assessment (J-8), The Joint Staff. I was a Senior Program Manager and the Deputy
Division Chief for the Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (J6); Integrated
Programs (J6V). I had daily contact with General James Cartwright and his staff concerning the oversight
of highly classified National Security Programs. These programs span every aspect of fighting and
sustaining a war (to include nuclear attacks). All of the programs are under the scrutiny of the
President; the Secretary of Defense; the Chairman of the Joint Staff; and Congress.
While closely working with General James Cartwright, I was very impressed with him. He always
adhered to security practices (Top Secret and above) in the review and management of classified
programs. He also directed his staff to make sure all security practices were adhered to in every
meeting, and budget submission. He was well aware that any breach of security could damage our
National Security posture. He was one of the most impressive Generals I ever met in my over 30 years
in the Government, as well as my 15 years with the Joint Staff. He paid close attention to detail; he gave
clear guidance; and he expressed concerns he may have with a program (to include security practices).
He always considered the good of his Nation and the well being of the troops which would depend on
these programs to go to war and sustain a war. He never let any of us forget our mission under his
guidance was to make sure we gave our best attempts to assure these programs would save lives and
make our Nation safe. His tenure for overseeing these National Security Programs was at a critical point
in our Nation. We had just gone through 9/11 (the Pentagon sustained a direct attack) and then we
went right into a fighting posture in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was a stressful time for the Joint Staff and
the Department of Defense, but General James Cartwright always led the way to assure we kept our
Nation and our troops in our hearts and minds. I never saw General James Cartwright back away from a
hard issue. He was totally professional every day and every hour. And again I never saw him or heard
him breach any security practices.
My son is an officer in the Army and served in Iraq. He used the National Security Programs in the war.
They were part of his planning and his survival. They were installed in all Humvees to engage the enemy.
They were critical for his troops to receive needed supplies at Forward Operating Bases. My son led over
1000 convoys in very hostile environments. He used the National Security Programs that General James
Cartwright made possible for the use of every soldier. My son came home partly due to General James
Cartwright. He was awarded a Bronze Star for leading over 1000 successful convoys. The programs my
son used in war were critical for his survival and still are critical for every soldier.

 General James Cartwright is one of the greatest generals this country has ever had serve. I have
worked for many and he was and is one I always remember as having integrity; professionalism;
honesty; goodness; and his country at the center of his heart.
I am asking to consider what this man has meant to our Nation and the “every day” soldier. I am asking
for Judge Richard Leon to show leniency in sentencing.
Sincerely,
Mary Clark Forbes (signed)
Deputy Division Chief of J6(V), Retired GS-15

 Jan 09 17 03:51p Frederick H. Graefe 301.229.5676 p.1

January 9, 2017

The Honorable Richard J. Leon
United States District Court
United States Court House

333 Constitution Avenue NW

Washington, DC. 20

Dear I Leon:

I understand that you will soon may be imposing a sentence on former Erie Ct 

 

General James Cartwright in connection with his plea of guilty to a federal offe . I have
known Hoss Cartwright for over 40 years. I believe him to he one of the ?nest 'vidur?s ever

to have served our Nation in the armed forces. [write to urge you to be lenient in your treatment
of him.

As you know, I myself trained for the Marine Corps after high school in Des Moises,
Iowa in the early Sixties. I went on to basic training in 1967, served in Vietnam and was on
active duty unti] 1970 when I was released with the rank of Captain.

I have gotten to know Hess Cartwright over many years of involvement with the Marine

 

Corps.
I do not know any of the details about the conduct that brings General Cartwright efore you, but
I want you to know that I believe he is a man of impeccable character, that his tation in the
community is stellar, and that my own dealings with him con?rm that extraordi repu'l ation.

Simply put, Hoss Cartwright is well respected if not revered in the Marine Corps, widely
known to be one of the most honorable and success?rl leaders in Marine Corps history. Elased
on my own personal knowledge and experience with Hess, I can testify that he is 1 true ?ot,
that he would never do anything to jeopardize the national security of the United States, that
he has given more to our nation than we can ever know or understand.

 

I hope it will be possible for you to impose no sentence on my friend, Hose, who has
su??ered enough already.



 

Fre erick H. Graefe

 

 

Stephen J. Hadley
2246 Cathedral Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008

 
  
 
  
The 
  Honorable 
  Richard 
  J. 
  Leon 
  
United 
  States 
  District 
  Judge 
  
U.S. 
  District 
  Court 
  for 
  the 
  District 
  of 
  Columbia 
  
E. 
  Barrett 
  Prettyman 
  U.S. 
  Courthouse 
  
333 
  Constitution 
  Avenue, 
  N.W. 
  
Washington, 
  D.C. 
  20001-­‐2866 
  
 
  
Dear 
  Judge 
  Leon: 
  
 
  
With 
  your 
  permission, 
  I 
  would 
  like 
  to 
  offer 
  a 
  few 
  words 
  on 
  behalf 
  of 
  James 
  E. 
  
Cartwright 
  in 
  connection 
  with 
  his 
  sentencing 
  hearing. 
  
 
  
From 
  2001 
  to 
  2009, 
  I 
  served 
  then-­‐President 
  George 
  W. 
  Bush 
  first 
  as 
  his 
  Deputy 
  
National 
  Security 
  Advisor 
  and 
  then 
  as 
  his 
  National 
  Security 
  Advisor. 
   
  In 
  those 
  
positions 
  I 
  worked 
  closely 
  with 
  General 
  Cartwright 
  while 
  he 
  was 
  head 
  of 
  the 
  U.S 
  
Strategic 
  Command 
  and 
  then 
  as 
  Vice 
  Chairman 
  of 
  the 
  Joint 
  Chiefs 
  of 
  Staff. 
  
 
  
As 
  you 
  probably 
  know, 
  the 
  head 
  of 
  Strategic 
  Command 
  is 
  responsible 
  for 
  the 
  
nation’s 
  strategic 
  nuclear 
  forces 
  – 
  those 
  nuclear-­‐armed 
  land-­‐based 
  ballistic 
  missiles, 
  
nuclear 
  ballistic 
  missile 
  submarines, 
  and 
  strategic 
  bombers 
  that 
  form 
  the 
  ultimate 
  
deterrent 
  to 
  keep 
  this 
  nation 
  safe. 
   
   
  There 
  is 
  no 
  more 
  solemn 
  responsibility 
  for 
  a 
  
military 
  commander 
  than 
  this 
  one. 
   
  Only 
  those 
  military 
  officers 
  who 
  have 
  displayed 
  
the 
  highest 
  integrity 
  of 
  character 
  and 
  soundness 
  of 
  judgment 
  ascend 
  to 
  this 
  
command. 
   
  In 
  my 
  experience, 
  no 
  one 
  was 
  more 
  worthy 
  of 
  that 
  position 
  than 
  Jim 
  
Cartwright. 
   
  
 
  
As 
  Vice 
  Chairman 
  of 
  the 
  Joint 
  Chiefs, 
  General 
  Cartwright 
  was 
  intimately 
  involved 
  in 
  
developing 
  those 
  defense 
  systems 
  required 
  to 
  meet 
  the 
  national 
  security 
  challenges 
  
facing 
  the 
  nation 
  – 
  from 
  the 
  challenge 
  of 
  an 
  emerging 
  China 
  to 
  the 
  terrorist 
  threat 
  
posed 
  by 
  Al 
  Qaeda 
  and 
  the 
  Islamic 
  State. 
   
  No 
  one 
  was 
  more 
  committed 
  to 
  defending 
  
the 
  American 
  people 
  from 
  these 
  threats 
  than 
  Jim. 
  
 
  
On 
  many 
  occasions, 
  I 
  watched 
  General 
  Cartwright 
  brief 
  the 
  President 
  about 
  complex 
  
military 
  operations 
  or 
  the 
  security 
  challenges 
  presented 
  by 
  the 
  latest 
  technology 
  
breakthrough 
  by 
  our 
  adversaries. 
   
  Jim 
  was 
  always 
  completely 
  on 
  top 
  of 
  his 
  brief, 
  
factual 
  in 
  his 
  presentation, 
  and 
  scrupulous 
  in 
  not 
  misleading 
  the 
  President 
  – 
  not 
  
being 
  either 
  too 
  dire 
  or 
  too 
  optimistic 
  in 
  his 
  presentation 
  or 
  projections. 
   
  He 
  
inspired 
  great 
  confidence. 
   
  There 
  was 
  no 
  one 
  that 
  I 
  trusted 
  more 
  to 
  give 
  the 
  
President 
  the 
  honest 
  and 
  straightforward 
  truth. 
   
   
  
 
  

  
  

2 
  

General 
  Cartwright’s 
  reputation 
  for 
  integrity 
  and 
  honesty 
  was 
  coupled 
  with 
  a 
  sense 
  
of 
  duty 
  and 
  modesty 
  that 
  made 
  him 
  stand 
  out 
  among 
  his 
  peers. 
   
  Never 
  wanting 
  
anything 
  for 
  himself, 
  eschewing 
  both 
  credit 
  and 
  the 
  limelight, 
  Jim 
  was 
  all 
  about 
  duty, 
  
honor, 
  country. 
   
  He 
  was 
  a 
  remarkable 
  Marine 
  and 
  a 
  remarkable 
  public 
  servant. 
  
 
  
I 
  maintained 
  occasional 
  professional 
  contact 
  with 
  General 
  Cartwright 
  after 
  he 
  left 
  
government 
  service 
  in 
  2009. 
   
  From 
  2012 
  into 
  2016, 
  I 
  served 
  with 
  General 
  
Cartwright 
  on 
  the 
  Board 
  of 
  Directors 
  of 
  the 
  Raytheon 
  Company 
  (a 
  major 
  defense 
  
contractor). 
   
  In 
  this 
  new 
  role 
  he 
  continued 
  to 
  display 
  the 
  highest 
  level 
  of 
  
professional 
  competence, 
  ethical 
  standards, 
  and 
  personal 
  integrity. 
   
   
  
 
  
Jim 
  has 
  admitted 
  to 
  making 
  a 
  serious 
  mistake 
  in 
  his 
  interactions 
  with 
  the 
  FBI, 
  
violating 
  the 
  high 
  standards 
  of 
  truthfulness 
  and 
  honesty 
  that 
  he 
  has 
  set 
  for 
  himself 
  
and 
  that 
  have 
  characterized 
  his 
  entire 
  professional 
  career. 
   
  I 
  know 
  that 
  he 
  sorely 
  
regrets 
  his 
  mistake. 
   
  It 
  will 
  rightly 
  burden 
  him 
  for 
  the 
  rest 
  of 
  his 
  life. 
   
  I 
  believe, 
  
however, 
  based 
  on 
  the 
  sum 
  total 
  of 
  a 
  career 
  dedicated 
  to 
  public 
  service 
  and 
  the 
  
defense 
  of 
  the 
  nation, 
  that 
  General 
  Cartwright 
  deserves 
  to 
  be 
  treated 
  with 
  leniency. 
  
 
  
Sincerely 
  yours, 
  
 
  

 
  
Stephen 
  J. 
  Hadley 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  

 
  

 David Max Korzen
48 Maple Ave #3
Cambridge, MA 02139
December 7, 2016
Judge Richard Leon
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001

Dear Judge Leon,
I am writing to ask for leniency for General James A. Cartwright.
I worked as General Cartwright’s research assistant while a graduate student at Harvard
University from 2014-2015. During this time, we dedicated our efforts to the study of important
matters of national security. These subjects included modeling strategic threats and decreasing
the risk of nuclear conflict. Although I was aware of the legal circumstances surrounding
General Cartwright, at no time did we speak about the matter.
While my interaction with General Cartwright was limited to a professional capacity, I certainly
did witness a man who cared deeply about the best interests of our nation. In particular, his work
with Global Zero, an international campaign to reduce nuclear weapon stocks, demonstrated a
passion for the security and well-being of the United States.
General Cartwright was also dedicated to providing opportunities for the next generation of
American leaders. He provided opportunities for his team of students to learn and excel, as well
as giving valuable mentorship and guidance along the way.
I earnestly hope that you will show leniency in this matter. General Cartwright’s poor choice in
lying to federal officials was not reflective of any greater maleficence or corruption on his part.
Moreover, his actions stand in stark contrast to General David Petraeus who, in addition to lying
to the FBI, turned over classified documents to his mistress. Despite this, Petraeus received the
light rebuke of probation and a fine, while his reputation was largely left intact.
General Cartwright served his country for over four decades and his loyalty to our nation is
above reproach. If General Cartwright says he did not compromise national secrets I would trust
this as fact. I believe that his lapse of judgement when speaking with the FBI, while lamentable,
is not an act worthy of severe admonishment.
I humbly ask for you to be lenient in the sentence you impose.

Sincerely,
David Max Korzen

 Dear Judge Leon:
I am writing this letter on behalf of General James Cartwright in connection with his sentencing.
I came to know General Cartwright during my government service from 2001 through 2011. I was
on the staff of Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson from 2001 until 2003. Subsequently, I was
the Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence at the Department of the Treasury from
2004 to 2011. It was in this latter role that I worked closely with General Cartwright.
I can only imagine that the Court will get the number of testimonials about General Cartwright's
service to the country during his illustrious military career as well as from people who know him
personally far better than I do. Nevertheless, I was motivated to write to you because I was so
impressed with the type of leader that General Cartwright is.
As part of my job at Treasury, I routinely attended meetings in the White House with senior officials
from other departments as part of the so-called "Deputies Committee". General Cartwright usually
represented the Joint Chiefs of Staff at these meetings. I came to respect General Cartwright for his
expertise and dedication during the course of several years of these regular meetings. He was the
model colleague in every way. I often sat next to him in these meetings and would sometimes see
his daily calendar on a card on the table in front of him. I was always impressed that his days began
very early (around 6:30 AM) and then stretched late into the evening.
One story stands out in my mind most. In 2010, there was a tragic terrorist attack in Afghanistan in
which five of our soldiers were killed. General Cartwright invited the group of us who served with
him on the Deputies Committee to accompany him to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to greet the
coffins returning from Afghanistan and to meet the families of the fallen soldiers. That evening, we
left our offices at around 5 PM to travel to Andrews Air Force Base and then we took a flight to
Delaware. Led by General Cartwright, we spent the evening in conversation with the families who
had just lost their sons. General Cartwright explained to these grief-stricken parents, siblings and
wives (with very young children in arms in some cases) how much their loved one's service had
meant to the country, and how the United States and the military would never forget their
sacrifice. After spending hours in conversation with each of the extended families, he then led an
honor guard onto the tarmac to salute the returning coffins as they were unloaded from the
airplane.
I found this single evening one of the most emotionally moving and draining experiences of my
government service. I was inspired by how warm General Cartwright was to all of the family
members he met and how much personal effort he put into that evening. We finally returned to
Washington after midnight. I remember asking General Cartwright on the flight home how often he
made that trip up to Dover and back. He told me he tried to make the trip approximately once every
week when he was in Washington. He said it in his characteristically understated and modest way,
adding, ‘it is the least I can do.’ The comment made a huge impression on me, and I am sure he
would never have told me how often he did this if I had not asked him.
I already admired General Cartwright before that evening in Delaware, but I had new-found
admiration for him afterwards. General Cartwright received a great many medals and for his military
service, but there is no medal or recognition for the type of leadership and devotion he brought to
the job.

 I hope you will bear this, and the many stories like it, in mind when you impose a sentence on
General Cartwright.

Respectfully yours,

Stuart A. Levey

 The Honorable Richard J. Leon

United States District Judge

US. District Court for the District of Columbia.
E. Barrett Prettyman US. Courthouse

333 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington DC 20001-2866

Subject: General James Cartwright, Retired

Your Honor:

I had the honor of working with General James Cartwright for twenty years of my career in the
United States Intelligence Community and the Department of Defense. He is one of the
greatest patriots I have known.

I first met Jim Cartwright in 1997. While we worked together from 1997 until his retirement in
2011, there were two periods of time where we worked closely together. Both times we
worked on highly classified programs and Jim always took his responsibility to safeguard
classified material seriously. He would never do anything to harm his country.

I remember having to present options and a recommendation to the Secretary of Defense on a
particular classified program. As we worked on the options, it became obvious which one was
in the best interest of the Department of Defense and therefore our Nation. It was not the
option of choice for the United States Air Force. General Cartwright did the right thing and
briefed the best option.

General Cartwright always did the right thing. He spoke truth to power and he did what his
country asked of him, regardless of the personal consequences. I would trust Jim with my life.

Sincerely,

ch??iou (2  ?3 Dr L: in 9-65 267/4

Letitia A. Long
Former Director
National GeospatiaI-Intelligence Agency

 

 

THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
December 22, 2016

Judge Richard Leon
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington D.C. 20001
Dear Judge Leon,
I have known General James Cartwright for many years. As
Secretary of the Navy, I dealt with him on a routine basis
while he was Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and,
as a Marine, he reported to me administratively.
I always found General Cartwright to be very forthright
and to have an excellent character. He always took
responsibility for his actions and never sought any excuses.
Several times, I saw him make the right moral choice even
though there were easier paths that he could have taken.
Having known him while he served in a job of great
responsibility and in times of tremendous stress, I never saw
him cut corners or do anything that he did not believe to be
right. I have the highest regard for him and respect him
greatly.
I hope that , given his long and distinguished service to
our country and his great character, leniency can be shown to
him in sentencing.

 District Judge Richard J. Leon

US. District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington DC. 20001

Richard "Scott" Stapp, Brig Gen (ret.)

Vice President, Applied Research and Technology Development
Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems

2980 Fairview Park Dr, Falls Church VA 22042

Dearludge Leon,

I am told that you are willing to receive letters from friends and family of General Cartwright in
connection with the sentence you will be imposing on January 17. The purpose of my letter is to urge
Your Honor to be lenient.

My name is Scott Stapp and We known Gen Cartwright since 2003. I'm a career Air Force of?cer
with over 30-years of service, culminating in my retirement as a Brigadier General. I spent a good
portion of my last 12-years of military service working for, or around, Gen Cartwright, to include serving
as his Executive Assistant and Chief of Staff while he was the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

As a military of?cer, I can honestly say that almost everything I?ve learned about honor, integrity
and selfless-service have come from the example set by Gen Cartwright. I've worked with many senior
of?cials in the Department of Defense ranging from Colonels to the Secretary of Defense and can
honestly say, with no exceptions, Gen Cartwright is the ?nest and most selfless individual I?ve had the
pleasure to serve with. He has spent his entire adult life serving our nation and has been a tireless
advocate for our service members, veterans and our nation?s security. He has an unparalleled strategic
mind and has helped two Presidents navigate their way through numerous complex national security
issues. There is little doubt that his contributions to national security are directly responsible for making
our nation a more safe and secure place.

In closing, I truly appreciate your time and consideration to my request and hope that you will

fully consider Gen Cartwright?s 40+ years of dedicated, honorable and selfless service to our military and
nation before deciding on his sentence.

Very ReSpectfully,

ELM 6.

Richard S. Stapp

Scott Louis Weber
37 Quail Run, Warren, NJ 07059
Phone: 201-960-4867
scottlweber77@gmail.com

December 27, 2016
Via Regular Mail
Hon. Richard J. Leon
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse
333 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001

Judge Leon:
I respectfully submit this letter in connection with the January 17, 2017 sentencing hearing for Gen. James
Cartwright.
I practiced law for twenty-one years and was a litigation partner at two international law firms. I also served as
Senior Counselor to the Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security and am currently an
executive at a risk management and cyber security firm. I have been fortunate to work with many accomplished
professionals in the public and private sectors throughout my career and can say, without reservation, that Gen.
Cartwright is one of the most impressive individuals with whom I have had the honor and privilege to work.
There are countless others who can better comment on Gen. Cartwright’s decades of honorable and steadfast
public service and I sincerely hope that they write the Court and provide firsthand insight. I had the honor and
privilege to get to know Gen. Cartwright shortly after he retired as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Gen. Cartwright was kind enough to join the advisory board of Opera Solutions Government Services LLC,
where I served as an executive, and he quickly became a trusted friend and mentor –- he remains so to this day
and, hopefully, for many years to come.
When I first met Gen. Cartwright, I was immediately impressed by his even-tempered and soft-spoken approach - his ability to make everyone feel comfortable, the way he introduced himself as “Jim.” Despite a very busy
schedule, including serving two government civilian positions that required frequent international travel, Gen.
Cartwright has always been easy to reach and available to offer assistance and advice. He genuinely cares about
his colleagues and is loyal to the core. He didn’t hesitate to help me professionally and personally. Gen.
Cartwright embodies all that our leaders should aspire to be -- service first and “me” second, loyal, thoughtful,
compassionate, approachable, dedicated, honest and trustworthy.

 Despite many requests to call him “Jim,” I cannot, because his sacrifices for and devotion to our country, in my
view, require steadfast acknowledgement of his rank and accomplishments. I have and always will refer to my
friend and mentor as “Gen. Cartwright.” I sincerely hope that the Court will similarly acknowledge and place
great weight on Gen. Cartwright’s decades of service, loyalty to our country and his profound positive influence on
countless individuals in the military, public and private sectors. I urge the Court to impose the minimum fine and
no time in prison.
Respectfully submitted,

Scott Louis Weber

2

  Robert E. Beauchamp
Chairman of the Board, President and CEO
November 22, 2016

The Honorable Richard Leon

United States District Judge

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse

333 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington DC 20001?2866

Dear Judge Leon:

My experience with General James Cartwright has been exclusively related to my
service with the general on the Raytheon Company board of directors.

In all my interactions with him, the general has demonstrated those qualities
that I, as a patriotic American citizen, would pray that our top military leaders
would possess.

He is a true officer and gentleman. In my experience with General Cartwright, he
has always been helpful, honest, calm, humble and gentle.

General Cartwright?s love for our country and respect for our civilian leadership
is clear to all who know him. He is thoughtful, wise, kind, and generous.

When I was first appointed to Raytheon?s board, General Cartwright went out of
his way to welcome me as a new board member and was available to help me
with wise advice whenever I asked for his assistance.

I do not know all the circumstances regarding General Cartwright? 5 present
situation. What I do know is this - I would trust him with my life and my
children?s freedom.

I humbly request that you consider his decades of service, leadership, and
extraordinary character as you consider any sentencing you might impose on
General Cartwright.

Resp 

Robert Beauchamp

Chairman and CEO

BMC Software

BMC Software Inc.

2103 CityWest Blvd., Houston, Texas 77042-2827, USA
Hum-J +1713 918-4104 Facsimile +1713 918-2345

THE EISENHOWER GROUP, INC.

2801 New Mexico Ave NW I Suite 1-305 1 ?hshington, DC 20007

District Judge

Richard Leon

US. District Court for District of
Columbia

333 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington DC 20001
December 21, 2016

Dear Judge Leon:

1 am told that you are willing to receive letters from friends, colleagues and
family of General Cartwright in connection with the sentence you will be imposing
on January 17. The purpose of my letter is to urge Your Honor to be lenient.

Nearly ?ve years ago I met Jim Cartwright at an advisory board meeting of a
so?ware company we are both associated with. was impressed by General Cartwright
immediately, for his focus, his capacity to think about complicated issues strategically
and by his humility and modesty. Over the years I have had considerable interaction with
him and I deeply appreciate his commitment to our nation?s national security and his
outstanding personal attributes.

General Cartwright is a military man ?rst and foremost, and has been trained,
above all, to protect our country?s national security and the people working to assure it. I
know many individuals who have served our nation and led our troops. In my opinion,
General James Cartwright is one of the most impressive leaders of his generation of
military of?cers. He stands out as a man of sel?essness and integrity. In fact a colleague
of his described him to me recently as ?a national  I agree. Cartwright has been
a trusted advisor of two Presidents and he has sel?essly served our country when our
nation has been in peril.

General Cartwright is a line, decent man. I hope you will be lenient in your

sentencing of him. He still has many years ahead of him to serve his community and our
country.

Sincerely,  

usan Eisenhower

MARY L. HOWELL
4605 Rock Spring Road
Arlington, VA 22207

December 6, 2016

The Honorable Richard J. Leon

United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, NW.

Washington, D.C. 20001

Dear Judge Leon,

1 have spent over three decades working with the United States Marine Corps, and
have had the great honor of getting to know many individuals who are extraordinarily
talented. General Jim Cartwright is at the top of that list.

I ?rst met Jim Cartwright during my tenure as a senior executive in industry, and I
have also had the honor of working with him as an advisor and Board member of the
Atlantic Council. It is well known that General Cartwright's selfless service and brilliant
capabilities have helped our country in very dif?cult times.

For over forty years, General Cartwright's hard work, exceptional vision and
dedicated leadership have strengthened our national security around the globe. The
numerous sacri?ces that he and his family have made on countless occasions, without
complaint, was done time and time again for love of country. In recent months, General
Cartwright has further demonstrated his integrity by accepting responsibility for his
mistakes in misleading the FBI.

Your Honor, 1 hope you will take these decades of extraordinary service and
accomplishments into account, and grant leniency for this dedicated man, who still has so
much to give. It is my sincere hope that your decision will help restore the balance that
should reflect the entirety of Jim Cartwright's life and service.

Most respectfully,

75M

Mary L. owell

 Thomas A- Raytheon Company

Chairman and CEO Winter Street
i81.522.6400 business Wallham, Massachusetts
731.522.6401 fax 02451 USA

tkennedyi @raytheon com

December 12, 2016

The Honorable Richard J. Leon

United States District Judge

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse

333 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington DC 20001-2866

Dear Judge Leon:

I write in strong support of General (Ret.) James E. Cartwright as he appears before your Court for
sentencing next month. I have had the distinct honor of knowing General Cartwright from the time he
joined the Raytheon Board of Directors in January 2012 and of working closely alongside him on the
Board from the time I became a director in January 2014.

As the Chairman and CEO of the Raytheon Company, I owe duties to many stakeholders: our employees,
our customers, our shareholders and the communities in which we Operate, among others. But I consider
one duty in particular to be paramount: the duty Raytheon owes to the men and women who wear our
nation?s uniform and put their lives at risk to protect our country and its allies. As a legal matter, more
weight may be carried by the contractual duties we owe to customers such as the agencies of the U.S.
Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community, or the ?duciary duties we owe to our
shareholders. But as a moral matter, nothing matters more than our duty to do everything within our
power to provide technologies and services that keep the U. S. and allied warfighter as safe as possible.

In his time at Raytheon, General Cartwright was unparalleled in holding up this moral obligation foremost
before our eyes. He viewed every decision, every question and every debate through this prism, requiring
us always to ask of ourselves, ?What is the right thing, the best thing, to do for our soldiers, sailors, airmen
and marines?? As a Raytheon director, he was unceasing in his efforts to promote and protect the
uniformed personnel among whom he had so honorably served, and whom he had led so well, for decades.

It was this personal conviction, along with many other superb qualities, that led the Board to elect Genera]
Cartwright as Chairman of its Governance and Nominating Committee, a responsibility that he performed
admirably. To a person, the directors of the Raytheon Company felt con?dent in entrusting him with
leadership over our corporate governance and our efforts to ensure the continued maintenance of a strong
board of supremely quali?ed directors. And to a person, the directors valued highly General Cartwright?s
contributions to the Board and to Raytheon, as well as his friendship, collegiality, trustworthiness and
invaluable perspectives and experience. His loss from our Board is felt deeply.

I thank you for your own service to the nation as a respected federal judge. I know you take extremely
seriously the weighty obligation to consider multiple factors in a decision such as this, one that affects so
greatly an individual?s freedom, fortune and name. It is not an enviable task. In carrying it out, I
respectfully request that you take into account these perspectives from General Cartwright?s service to the
nation and to Raytheon, and afford him the maximum leniency in your decision.

Sincerely,

fj?yw 4W

Thomas A. Kennedy

December 23, 2016
The Honorable Richard J. Leon
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
Dear Judge Leon,
I write to encourage great leniency be granted to General James Cartwright in the case pending before you.
Frankly, I am appalled and disappointed by the decision to prosecute; the government does not seem to
treat these cases with any proportionality. Nevertheless, my hope is to provide insight into the character
of General Cartwright. His record of service to our country speaks for itself and I’m sure his military
colleagues will elaborate. My testimony is more personal in nature.
I first met Jim about ten years ago through a mutual friend and alumna, a retired female Marine Corps
major, who knew him many years and admired him because of his early support of women in the service.
Mitzi told me “You need to get Hoss Cartwright involved in the seminary, he’s one of the good guys.” We
discovered he was the descendant of a very famous figure in the history of my denomination and, like me,
strongly influenced by his Methodist youth group. He quickly agreed to speak, pro bono, to a group of
military chaplains in our Doctor of Ministry program. Since then, he has been a guest lecturer at the
seminary a number of times. I remember in particular a lecture on courage delivered with five minutes
notice. It was an extraordinary master class in leadership. He is a teacher at heart.
Jim agreed to serve on the Wesley Board of Governors where he soon became a valued and highlyrespected member. Jim doesn’t speak until he has something substantive to say and asks questions
leading to deeper understanding. Last spring, when his case was resurrected, Jim immediately offered to
resign. We rejected the offer but finally, he took it out of our hands. All our trustees hope he can rejoin
whatever may happen. Indeed, Jim Cartwright has so much to offer his community, the next generation of
soldiers, and the world, that certainly the larger public interest is served by granting him the freedom to
serve.
Let me offer another insight. In my position, and because I am a member of the clergy, people have shared
a lot of confidential information. It is human nature. By contrast, though we talk of many things, Jim
Cartwright has never shared the anecdotes and personal gossip that is the stock in trade in Washington.
And, he has told me nothing about his case, except when I asked him about how he could appear so
peaceful about the prospect of prison. He said, “David, I did the right thing. I’ve served in the military for
forty years. I’m sure I can endure this, too.”
I only know what I read in the papers and the character of my friend, Jim Cartwright. I believe that kind of
integrity should not be punished. I trust you will act justly.
Sincerely,

David McAllister-Wilson
President, Wesley Theological Seminary

 Ronald Skates
265 Franklin Street
20?? Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02110

December l2, 2016

The Honorable Richard J. Leon

United States District Judge

US. District Court for the District of Columbia
E. Barrett Prettyman US. Courthouse

333 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001-2866

Dear Judge Leon:

I am writing to express my strong belief that General (Retired) James Cartwright is a man of great character
and honesty. l-le loyally served the United States for many years and contributed greatly to the development of our
country?s technological capabilities in the areas of cyber defense and warfare.

I was the Chief Executive Of?cer of a computer and software company, Data General Corporation, and
served with General Cartwright as directors of Raytheon Company until my retirement earlier this year. He and I
had extensive dealings with each other.

In all of our work together dealing with interactions between Raytheon and the United States defense
agencies, General Cartwright clearly and always put the national interest of our country ?rst. On many occasions
he led his fellow directors to the best decision for our country while melding the company?s interest to that outcome.
He was able to do this both because of his intelligence and his self-effacing manner. He is a thoughtful leader with
whom I enjoyed working. He is a loyal American to the core.

I hope that you will afford General Cartwright leniency when you reach your decision regarding his future.

Respect?illy,

?ew a. ?lm

Ronald L. Skates

J'I?l'l'l 

Telephone Email: RLSkatesjiIIHotmailxom
Facsimile 617-338-541]

William R. Spivey
2100 Cavalier Way, Flower Mound, Texas 75022
972-816-1191 w.spivey@aol.com

 

December 10, 2016

The Honorable Richard I. Leon

United States District Judge

US. District Court for the District of Columbia.
E. Barrett Prettyman US. Courthouse

333 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington DC 20001?2866

Dear The Honorable Richard]. Leon,

1 have known Jim for 5 years as a colleague and a director on the Raytheon board. During
this time, I have known him to be a person of high integrity, honesty, very knowledgeable
and dedicated to the responsibility of duty of "loyal and care? for Raytheon and its
stakeholders. Other four star generals the board had recruited, have been assertive with a
take charge attitude, General Cartwright was surprisingly quiet, thoughtful and
unassuming. He provided invaluable advice on what the company needed to do while I
investing in research, products and services to enhance our main customer?s (the US
Government) ability to defend the US and its allies around the world. General Cartwright?s
deep knowledge and experience was used to advance the competitive edge in the
capabilities of the US against its global adversaries. For example, he provided input and
leadership to the board that accelerated the company?s plan to move faster in order to
provide cyber products to the US government to enhance its capabilities against cyber
threats. As a result, the company increased its investment, purchased a number of cyber
companies and consolidated them into a new separate business unit (Forcepoint, LLC).
General Cartwright was appointed as a director to the Forcepoint?s board as well as
retaining his position as Director on the Raytheon?s Board.

As published in The Washington Post on September 29, 2015 article:

 

?The Department of Homeland Security has awarded a massive cybersecurity contract, worth up to
$1 billion, to Raytheon, which it hopes will shore up the federal government?s defenses against the
increasing onslaught of attacks.

The contract, one of the largest civilian cybersecurity orders in years, would help more than 100
federal civilian agencies protect their networks against malicious hackers, and it comes after the
O?ice of Personnel Management suffered one of the most damaging breaches in history.?

The above is just one example of the many benefits the company and the US government
realized as a result of General Cartwright?s experience and board leadership. Over the 5-
year period of my professional relationship with General Cartwright, he has never breached
his responsibility to hold his top secret classified information confidential. I have the
upmost respect for him as a colleague and admiration for what he has done for the nation

over his 40?year career.

Your Honor, I pray that you take in to account my thoughts and pardon General Cartwright
of wrongdoing he has pleaded to. He is a national treasure.

Sincerely,

5-  

William R. Spivex