Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 1 of 38 THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH A. BONDY JOSEPH A. BONDY 1776 BROADWAY SUITE 2000 STEPHANIE SCHUMAN NEW YORK NY 10019 (OF COUNSEL) TEL 212.219.3572 FAX 212.219.8456 January 20, 2020 (By Fax: [2012) and Mail) William P. Barr Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 Re: Request for Reeusal, Lev l?arnas Dear Attorney General Barr, We are counsel to Lev Parnas regarding the Federal Election Act charges for which he is under indictment in the Southern District of New York and the investigation of his alleged involvement in the subject matter of the Presidential impeachment. As explained below, due to the conflict of interest of your being involved in these matters as Attorney General, and in an effort to preserve the public trust in the rule of law, we request that you recuse yourself and allow the appointment of a special prosecutor from outside the Department of Justice to handle this case. The public record is replete with requests for your recusal, the reasons for that request, and public outcry that you have not. Federal ethics guidelines bar federal employees from participating in matters in which their impartiality could be questioned, including matters in which they were personally involved or about which they have personal knowledge. 5 GER. 2635.502; Justice Manual 14.020. The July 25, 2019 transcript of President Trump?s call with Ukrainian President Zelensky contains multiple references to you, alone and in conjunction with the President?s attorney, Rudolf Giuliani, as being the point person for the Zelensky administration to work with in commencing an investigation into the President?s chief political rivalJoe Biden. (Exhibit A). In the August 12, 2019, whistleblower complaint, you were personally named as a participant in the President?s abuse of the power of his office to solicit interference with the government of Ukraine in connection with the 2020 election, including pressuring Ukraine to investigate one of the President?s political opponents, Joe Biden. (Exhibit B). Page 1 of 3 Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 2 of 38 On October 23, 2019, the New York City Bar Association called upon you to recuse yourself from all Department of Justice matters relating to the allegations that the President abused the power of his of?ce to solicit political interference on his behalf by the government of Ukraine. (Exhibit C). On October 24, 2019, the United States Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats urged you to recuse yourself from investigation into Trump-Ukrainian matters involving Lev Parnas, his current co- defendant Igor Fruman, and the President?s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. (Exhibit D). OnJanuary 9, 2020, The New York City Bar Association, having received no reply to its earlier call for recusal, asked Congress to investigate you for acting as a ?political partisan. . .willing to use the levers of government to empower certain groups over others.? (Exhibit E). In recent days, evidence has been brought to light linking you further to your long-time colleagues Victoria Toensing andJoseph diGenova, as well as Mr. Guiliani, which undoubtedly creates at least the public appearance of a con?ict of interest. In addition to harmful perceptions, this con?ict of interest appears to have caused actual harm to Mr. Parnas who, given delays in the production of discovery in his federal case, was rendered unable to comply with a duly-issued congressional subpoena in time for congressional investigators to make complete use of his materials or properly assess Mr. Parnas as a potential witness. Furthermore, prosecutors have, thus far, refused to meet with Mr. Parnas and to receive his information regarding the President, Giuliani, Toensing, diGenova and others?all of which would potentially bene?t Mr. Parnas if he were ever to be convicted and sentenced in his criminal case. The criteria informing whether an Attorney General should recuse him or herself from a matter and allow the appointment of a special prosecutor is whether a prosecution or investigation of a ?matter? or of a person may raise a con?ict of interest for the Department of Justice, or whether there exists, ?other extraordinary circumstances,? and when, in light of these con?icts or circumstances, the Attorney General ?nds it is in the "public interest? to appoint such counsel. 28 C.F.R. 600.1-2 (1999).l If the Attorney General is recused from a matter, then the Acting Attorney General will appoint a special prosecutor when deemed warranted. Here, the issues involved concern the apparent con?ict of interest in your being tasked with investigating the President, certain members of his administration, and your long- term colleagues and friends, and the appearance of such conduct as undermining the public?s interest in due administration and trust in the rule of law. The 1999 recusal regulations promulgated by Attorney General Reno also provide that, if appointed, an outside special counsel ?shall be a lawyer with reputation for integrity and impartial decision-making, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by 1 SeeJustice Manual at 3-1.140, United States Attorney Recusals (?When United States Attorneys, or their of?ces, become aware of an issue that could require a recusal in a criminal or civil matter or case as a result of an actual or apparent con?ict of interest, they must contact General Counsel?s Of?ce (GCO). . .They must be recused by the designated Associate Deputy Attorney General. The requirement of recusal does not arise in every instance, but only where a con?ict of interest exists or there is an appearance of a loss of impartiality. A United States Attorney who becomes aware of circumstances that might necessitate his or her recusal or that of the entire of?ce should notify GCO to discuss whether a recusal is required. If recusal is appropriate, GCO will coordinate the recusal action, obtain necessary approvals for the recusal, and arrange for a transfer of responsibility to another of?ce?). Page 2 of 3 Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 3 of 38 an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies.? (28 C.F.R. 600.1-10; 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038?44 (July 9, 1999)). In Mr. Parnas?s case, it is in the public interest to remove this matter entirely from the Department of Justice, both to ensure that the matter is handled properly and that the public had con?dence in the way in which it was handled. Given the totality of the circumstances, we believe it is appropriate for you to recuse yourself from the ongoing investigation and pending prosecution of Mr. Parnas, and to allow the then-Acting Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor from outside the Department of Justice, so as to avoid the appearance of a con?ict of interest and to preserve the public trust in the rule of law. Thank you for your consideration of this request. - 223?! Joseph A. Bondy Stephanie R. Schuman Counsel to Let} Parnas c: Hon]. Paul Oetken AUSAS Nicolas Roos, Douglas Zolkind and Rebekah Donaleski All Defense Counsel Page 3 of 3 Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 4 of 38 Exhibit A Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 5 of 38 - memesmen Deolassi?ed by order of the President [PngumberShort] September 24, 2019 MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION SUBJECT: '?t?'IElephone Conversation with President of Ukraine PARTICIPANTS: President of_Ukraine Notetakers: The White House Situation Room DATE, TIME July 25, 2019, 9:03 9:33 a.m. EDT AND PLACE: Residence The President: Congratulations on a great victory. We all watched from the United States and you did a terrific_job. The way you came from behind, somebody who wasn't given much of a chanCe, and you ended up winning easily. It's a fantastic achievement. Congratulations. You are absolutely right Mr. Presidentworked hard for this. We worked a lot but I would like to COnfess to you that I had an opportunity to learn from you. We used quite a few of ydur skills and knowledge and Were able to Use it as an example for our elections and yes it is true that these were unique elections. We were in a unique situation that we were able to CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty Officers and-NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in abcent and/or interpretation. The word "inaudible? is used to indicate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear. Classi?ed By: 2354726 Derived rom-: NSC SCG Declassify On: 20441231 HWCLASSHMED Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 6 of 38 2 achieve a unique suCCess. I'm able to tell you the following; the first time? you called m? to congratulate me when I won my presidential election, and the second time you are now calling me when my party won the parliamentary election. I think I should run more often so you can call me more often and we can talk over the phone more often. 'TSf?fw-The President: [laughter] That's a very good idea. I think your country is very happy about that. 'TSTN?T-President Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying to Work hard because we wanted to drain the Swamp hEre in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, beCause we want to have a new format and a new type of government. You are a great teacher for us and in that. The President: Well it's very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it's something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn?t do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same Way so I think it's something you want to look at but the United States has been very-very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell you the following; I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her. I also met and talked with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as much as they Should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European Union and I'm very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Unibn especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes. UNCLK. If" Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 7 of 38 ?11. 3- UN was 1 The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been thrOugh a lot and Ukraine knows a' lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say I guess you have one of your wealthy peoplem The server, they say Ukraine has.it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you?re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it; As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they Say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible. W5%HF%'President Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that One of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hOping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people._I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the - investigations will be done openly and candidly..That I can assure you. PreSident: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some Very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He Was the mayor Of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to ww'H-qiq {Cg ?53le 'i ii; Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page8of 38 4 call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney' General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States,'the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into itm It sounds horrible to me. President I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. Since we haVe won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty So we will take care of that and will Work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would, be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was IvanoVich. It was great that you were the first one Who told me that She was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough. +sf?F9 The President: going to go through Some things. I will have Mr? Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so gOOd luck with everything. Your economy is going; to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets.? It's a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their incredible people. I wOuld like to tell you that I also have quite a few Ukrainian friends that live in the United States. Actually last time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the Trump met . 1 I Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 9 of 38 5 Tower. I will talk to them and I hope to see them again in the future. I alSo wanted to_thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC. On the other hand, I also want to ensure you that we will be very serioUs about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the ecOnomy, there is much potential for our two Countries and one of the issues that is very important for Ukraine is energy independence. I believe we can be very successful and cooperating on energy independence with United States. We are already working on cooperation. We are buying American oil but I am very hopeful for a future meeting. We will have more time and more opportunities to discuss these oppOrtunities and get to know each other better. I would like to thank you very much for your support +6??E?1Ihe President: Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. Thank you. Whenever you wOuld like to come to the White House, feel free to call. Give us a date and we'll work that out. I look forward to Seeing you. President Thank you very much. I would be very happy to come and would be happy to meet with you personally and get to know you better. I am looking forward to our meeting and I also would like to invite you to visit Ukraine and come to the city Of Kyiv which is a beautiful city; We have a beautiful country Which would welcome you. On the other hand, I believe that on September 1 we will be in Poland and we can meet in Poland hopefully. After that, it might be a very good idea for you to travel to Ukraine. We can either take my plane and go to Ukraine or we can take yOur plane, which is probably much better than mine. Tsf?f??The President: Okay, we can work that out. I look forward to seeing you in Washington and maybe in Poland because I think we are going to be there at that time. ?sf??+?President Thank you very much Mr. President. President: Congratulations on a fantastic job you've done. The whole world was watching. I'm not sure it was so much of an upset but congratulations. President Thank you Mr. President bye?bye. Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 10 of 38 Exhibit Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 11 of 38 UNCLASSIFIED August 12, 2019 The Honorable Richard Burr Chairman SeleCt Committee on Intelligence United States Senate The Honorable Adam Schiff Chairman Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence United States House of Representatives Dear Chairman Burr and Chairman Schiff: I am reporting an ?urgent concern? in ascordance with the procedures outlined in 50 U.S.C. This letter is UNCLASSIFIED when separated from the attachment. In the course of my of?cial duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government of?cials that the President of the United States is using the power of his of?ce to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 US. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President?s main domestic political rivals. The President?s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central ?gure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well. 0 Over the past four months, more than half a dozen US officials have informed me of various facts related to this effort. The information provided herein was relayed to me in the course of of?cial interagency business. It is routine for US. of?cials with responsibility for a particular regional or functional portfolio to share such information with one another in order to inform policymaking and analysis. was not a direct witness to most of the events described. However, I found my colleagues" accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple of?cials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another. In addition, a variety of information consistent with these private accounts has been reported publicly. I am deeply concerned that the actions described below constitute ?a serious or ?agrant problem, abuse, or violation of law or Executive Order? that ?does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters," consistent with the de?nition of an ?urgent concern? in 50 U.S.C. I am therefore ful?lling my duty to report this information, through proper legal channels, to the relevant authorities. - I am also concerned that these actions pose risks to US. national security and undermine the U.S. Government?s efforts to deter and counter foreign interference in US. elections. I UNCLASSIFIED Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 12 of 38 UNCLASSIFIED To the best of my knowledge, the entirety of this statement is unclassi?ed when separated from the classi?ed enclosure. I have endeavored to apply the classi?cation standards outlined in Executive Order (E0) 13526 and to separate out information that I know or have reason to believe is classi?ed for national security purposes.I - If a classi?cation marking is applied retroactively, I believe it is incumbent upon the classifying authority to explain why such a marking was applied, and to which speci?c information it pertains. I. The 25 July Presidential phone call Early in the morning of 25 July, the President spoke by telephone with Ukrainian President I do not know which side initiated the call. This was the ?rst publicly acknowledged call between the two leaders since a brief congratulatory call after Mr. won the presidency on 21 April. Multiple White House of?cials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President?s 2020 reelection bid. According to the White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. to, inter alia: 1' initiate or Continue an investigation2 into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden; I assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 US. presidential election originated in Ukraine, with a speci?c request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the US. cyber security lirm which initially reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the networks in 2016; and meet or speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem. Apart from the information in the Enclosure, it is my beliefthat none of the information contained herein meets the de?nition of?classi?ed information? outlined in E0 13526, Part 1, Section 1.1. There is ample open-source information about the efforts I describe below, including statements by the President and Mr. Giuliani. In addition, based on my personal observations, there is discretion With respect to the classification of private comments by or instructions from the President, including his communications with foreign leaders; information that is not related to US. foreign policy or national security?such as the information contained in this document, when separated from the Enclosure?is generally treated as unclassi?ed. I also believe that applying a classification marking to this information would violate EO 13526, Part 1, Section 1.7, which states: ?In no case shall information be classi?ed, continue to be maintained as classi?ed, or Fall to be declassi?ed in order to: conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; [or] (2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency." 1 It is unclear whether such a Ukrainian investigation exists. See Footnote #7 for additional information. 3' I do not know why the President associates these servers with Ukraine. (See, for example, his comments to Fox News on 20 July: ?And Ukraine. Take a look at Ukraine. How come the FBI didn't take this server? Podesta told them to get out. He said, get out. So, how come the FBI didn?t take the server from the 2 UNCLASSIFIED Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 13 of 38 UNCLASSIFIED The President also praised Ukraine's Prosecutor General, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, and suggested that Mr. Zelensi-tyy might want to keep him in his position. (Note: Starting in March 2019, Mr. made a series of public allegations?many of which he later walked back?about the Biden family?s activities in Ukraine, Ukrainian of?cials? purported involvement in the 2016 U.S. election, and the activities ofthe U.S. Embassy in Kyiv. See Part IV for additional context.) The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed by what had tranSpired in the phone call. They told me that there was already a ?discussion ongoing? with White House lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood, in the of?cials? retelling, that they had witnessed the President abuse his of?ce for personal gain. The Ukrainian side was the ?rst to publicly acknowledge the phone call. On the evening of 25 July, a readout was posted on the website ot'tlie Ukrainian President that contained the following line (translation from original Russian?language readout): - ?Donald Trump expressed his conviction that the new Ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve Ukraine?s image and complete the investigation oi'corruption eggs that have held back Cooperation between Ukraine and the United States.? Aside from the above-mentioned ?cases? purportedly dealing with the Bitlen family and the 2016 U.S. election, I was told by White House of?cials that no other ?cases" Were discussed. Based on my understanding, there were approximately a dozen White House of?cials who listened to the call?a mixture of policy of?cials and duty of?cers in the White House Situation Room, as is customary. The of?cials I spoke with told me that participation in the call had not been restricted in advance because everyone expected it: would be a ?routine? call with a foreign leader. I do not know whether anyone was physically present with the President during the call. I In addition to White House personnel, I was told that a State Department of?cial, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call. In I was not the only non-White House of?cial to receive a readout of the call. Based on my understanding, multiple State Department and Intelligence Community of?cials were also briefed on the contents of the call as outlined above. II. Efforts to restrict access to records related to the call In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. of?cials that senior White House of?cials had intervened to ?lock down? all records of the phone call, especially the of?cial word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced?as is customary?by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call. 0 White House of?cials told me that they were ?directed? by Whitel?iouse lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, ?nalization. and distribution to Cabinet-level of?cials. 3 UNCLASSIFIED Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 14 of 38 UNCLASSIFIED I Instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classi?ed information of an especially sensitive nature. One White House of?cial described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective. I do not know whether similar measures were taken to restrict access to other records of the call, such as contemporaneous handwritten notes taken by those who listened in. Ongoing concerns On 26 July, a day after the call, US. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker visited Kyiv and met with President and a variety of Ukrainian political ?gures. Ambassador Volker was accompanied in his meetings by US, Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. Based on multiple readouts ofthese meetings recounted to me by various US. of?cials, Ambassadors Volkcr and Sondland reportedly provided advice to the Ukrainian leadership about how to ?navigate? the demands that the President had made of Mr. I also learned from multiple US. of?cials that, on or about 2 August, Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Madrid to meet with one of President advisers, Andriy Yermak. The US. of?cials characterized this meeting, which was not reported publicly at the time, as a ?direct follow-up" to the President?s call with Mr. about the ?cases? they had discussed. - Separately, multiple US. of?cials told me that Mr. Giuliani had reportedly privately reached out to a variety of other advisers, including Chief ofStaffAndriy Bohdan and Acting Chairman ofthe Security Service okaraine Ivan Bakanov.4 - I do not know whether those of?cials met or spoke with Mr. Giuliani, but I was told separately by multiple US. of?cials that Mr. Yermak and Mr. Bakanov intended to travel to Washington in mid?August. On 9 August, the President told reporters: think [President is going to make a deal with President Putin, and he will be invited to the White House. And we look forward to seeing him. He?s already been invited to the White House, and he wants to come. And Ithink he will. He?s a very reasonable guy. He wants to see peace in Ukraine, and Ithink he will be coming very soon, actually." IV. Circumstances leading up to the 25 July Presidential phone call Beginning in late March 2019, a series of articles appeared in an online publication called The Hill. In these articles, several Ukrainian of?cials?most notably, Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko?made a series of allegations against other Ukrainian of?cials and current and former US. of?cials. Mr. Lutsenko and his colleagues alleged, inter alia: '1 In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on 22 July, two associates of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019 and met with Mr. Bakanov and another close adviser, Mr. Serhiy She?r. rl UNCLASS Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 15 of 38 UNCLA SSIFIED . that they possessed evidence that Ukrainian of?cials?namely, Head ofthe National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine Artetn and Member of Parliament Serhiy Lesheheoko?had ?interfered? in the 2016 US. presidential election, allegedly in collaboration with the DNC and the US. Embassy in Kyiv;5 that the U.S. Embassy in U.S. Ambassador Marie 11"o'vanovitch, who had criticized Mr. Lutsenko?s organization for its poor record on fighting corruption? had allegedly obstructed Ukrainian law enl'tn'cement agencies? pursuit cases, including by providing a ?do not prosecute? list, and had blocked Ukrainian prosecutors from traveling to the United States expressly to prevent them from delivering their ?evidence? about the 2016 US. election;6 and I that former Vice President Biden had pressured former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in 2016 to ?re then Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin in order to quash a purported criminal probe into Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company on whose board the former Vice President?s son, Hunter, sat.7 In several public comments,8 Mr. Lutsenko also stated that he wished to communicate directly with Attorney General Barr on these tnatters.9 The allegations by Mr. Lutsenko came on the eve oFthe ?rst round ol? Ukraine?s presidential election on 3] March. By that time, Mr. Lntsenko?s political patron, President Poroshenko, was trailing Mr. in the polls and appeared likely to be defeated. Mr. had made known his desire to replace Mr. Lutsenko as Prosecutor General. On 21 April, Mr. Poroshenko lost the runoff to Mr. by a landslide. See Enclosure for additional information. 5 Mr. and Mr. Leshchenko are two of Mr. main domestic rivals. l'vtr- has no legal training and has been widely criticized in Ukraine For politicizing criminai probes and using his tenure as Prosecutor General to protect corrupt Ukrainian of?cials. He has publicly fended with Mr. who heads Ukraine?s only competent anticorruption body, and with Mr. a former investigative journalist who has repeatedly criticized Mr. Lutsenko?s record. in December 2018, a Ukrainian court upheld a complaint by a Member of Parliament, Mr. Boryslav Rozenbial. who alleged that Mr. and Mr. LESilEh?ltko had "interfered" in the US. election by publicizing a document detailing con-upt payments made by former Ukrainian President Vikt'or Yanukuvych before his ouster in 20M. Mr. Rczenblat had originally filed the motion in late 201?? after attempting to flee Ukraine amid an investigation into his taking ci'tt large bribe. On 16 July 2019, Mr. Leshchenlto publicly stated that a Ukrainian court had overtumcd the lower court's decision. ?5 Mr. Lutsenko later told Uloainian news outlet the Lines! on 17 April that Ambassador Yovanovitch had never provided such a Hat, and that he was, in fact, the one wito requested such a list. Lutsenko later told Hiecnrherg on 16 May that former Vim: President Biden and his son were not subject to any current Ukrainian investigations, and that he had no evidence against them. Other senior Ukrainian of?cials also contested his original allegations; one former senior Ukrainian prosecutor told Bloombergon 7 May that Mr. Shokin in fact was not investigating Burisrna at the time of his removal in 2016. a See, for example, Mr. Lutsenlto?s comments to The Hilton 1 and 7 April and his interview with The Echelon l7 April, in which he stated that he had spoken with Mr. Giuliani about arranging contact with Attorney General Barr. ?7 in May. Attorney General Burr announced that he was initiating a probe into the ?origins" ofthe Russia investigation. According to the aboveuret?erenccd report [22 July}. two associates of Mr. Giuliani claimed to be working with Ukrainian of?cials to uncover information that Would become part of'this inquiry. In an interview with For News on 3 August, Mr. Giuliani claimed that Mr. John Durham, whom Attorney General Barr designated to lead this probe, was ?spending a lot oftime in Europe? because he was ?investigating Ukraine." Ido not know the extent to which, it?s! all, Mr. Giuliani is directly coordinating his Efibt'is on Ukraine with Attorney General Barr or Mr. Durham. 5 UNCLASSIFIED Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 16 of 38 UNCLASSIFIED I It was also publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani had met on at least two occasions with Mr. [.utsenko: once in New York in late January and again in Warsaw in mid?February. In addition, it was publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani had spoken in late 2018 to former Prosecutor General Shokin, in a Skype call arranged by two associates oer. Giuliani.IO 0 On 25 April in an interview with Fox News, the President called Mr. Lutsenko?s claims ?big? and ?incredible? and stated that the Attorney General ?would want to see this.? On or about 29 April, .I learned from US. of?cials with direct knowledge ofthe situation that Ambassador Yovanovitch had been suddenly recalled to Washington by senior State Department of?cials for ?consultations? and would most likely be removed from her position. 0 Around the same time, I also learned from a U.S. of?cial that ?associates" of Mr. Giuliani were trying to make contact with the incoming I On 6 May, the State Department announced that Ambassador Yovanov?itch would be ending her assignment in Kyiv ?as planned.? 0 However, several U.S. of?cials told me that, in fact, her tour was curtailed because of pressure stemming from Mr. Lutsenko?s allegations. Mr. Giuliani subsequently stated in an interview with a Ukrainian journalist published on 14 May that Ambassador Yovanovitch was she was part ofthe efforts against the President.? 0n 9 May, The New York Times reported that Mr. Giuliani planned to travel to Ukraine to press the Ukrainian government to pursue investigations that would help the President in his 2020 reelection bid. I In his multitude ofpublic statements leading up to and in the wake ofthe publication of this article, Mr. Giuliani con?rmed that he was focused on encouraging Ukrainian authorities to pursue investigations into alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and alleged wrongdoing by the Biden family.? - On the afternoon of 10 May, the President stated in an interview with Politico that he planned to speak with Mr. Giuliani about the trip. . A few hours later, Mr. Giuliani publicly canceled his trip, claiming that Mr. was ?surrounded by enemies ofthe President. . .and ofthe United States.? On 11 May, Mr. met for two hours with Presidenbelect according to a public account given several days later by Mr. Lutsenko. Mr. Lutsenko publicly stated that he had told Mr. that he wished to remain as Prosecutor General. '0 See, for example, the above-referenced articles in Bloomberg (16 May) and OCCRP (22 July). I do not know whether these associates of Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in the 22 July report by OCCRP, referenced above. '2 See, for example, Mr. Giuliani's appearance en For News on {3 April and his tweets on 23 April and 10 May. In his interview with The New Yon?t Timer. Mr. Giuliani stated that the President ?basically knows what I?m doing, sure, as his Iawyer." Mr. also stated: "We're not meddling in an election, we're meddling in an investigation, which we have a right in There's nothing illegal about Somebody could say it's improper. And this isn?t foreign policy I?m asking them to do an investigatimt that they're doing already and that other pcuple are telling them to stop. And I?m going to give them reasons why they shouldn't step it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government." 6 UNCLASSIFIED Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 17 of 38 UNCLASSIFIED Starting in mid-May, I heard from multiple U.S. of?cials that they were deeply concerned by what they viewed as Mr. Giuliani?s circumvention of national security decisionmaking processes to engage with Ukrainian of?cials and relay messages back and forth between Kyiv and the President. These of?cials also told me: - that State Department of?cials, ineluding Ambassadors Volker and Sondland, had spoken with Mr. Giuliani in an attempt to ?contain the damage" to U.S. national security; and 0 that Ambassadors Volker and Sondland during this time period met with members of the new Ukrainian administration and, in addition to discussing policy matters, sought to help Ukrainian leaders understand and respond to the differing messages they were receiving from of?cial USIEh?annels on?the one hand, and?from?Mr. Giuliani on the other. During this same timeframe, multiple U.S. of?cials told me that the Ukrainian leadership was led to believe that a meeting or phone call between the President and President would depend on whether showed willingness to ?play ball? on the issues that had been publicly aired by Mr. Lutsenko and Mr. Giuliani. (Note: This was the general understanding of the state of affairs as conveyed to me by U.S. of?cials from late May into early July. I do not know who delivered this message to the Ukrainian leadership, or when.) See Enclosure for additional information. Shortly after President inauguration, it was publicly reported that "Mr. Giuliani met with two other Ukrainian of?cials: Ukraine's Special Anticorruption Prosecutor, Mr. Nazar Kholodnyt?skyy, and a former Ukrainian diplomat named Andriy Telizhenko. Both Mr. and Mr. Tclizhenko are allies of Mr. Lutsenko and made similar allegations in the above-mentioned series of articles in The Hill. On 13 June, the President told George Stephanopoulos that he would accept damaging information on his political rivals from a foreign government. On 21 June, Mr. Giuliani tweeted: ?New Pres of Ukraine still silent on investigation of Ukrainian interference in 2016 and alleged Biden bribery ofPoroshenko. Time for leadership and investigate both if you want to purge how Ukraine was abused by Hillary and Clinton people.? In mid-July, I learned of a sudden change of policy with respect to .S. assistance for Ukraine. See Enclosure for additional information. ENCLOSURE: Classi?ed appendix 7 UNCLASSIFIED Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 18 of 38 sweetener/? August 12, 2019 (U) CLASSIFIED APPENDDC (U) Supplementary classi?ed information is provided as follows: (U) Additional information related to Section II ?Si- According to multiple White House of?cials I spoke with, the transcript of the President?s call with President was placed into a computer system managed directly by the National Security Council (NSC) Directorate for Intelligence Programs. This is'a standalone computer system reserved for codeword-level intelligence information, such as covert action. According to information I receiVed from White House of?cials, some officials voiced concerns internally that this would be an abusc of the system and was not consistent with the responsibilities of the Directorate for Intelligence Programs. Acc?ording to White House of?cials I spoke with, this was "not the ?rst time? under this Administration that a Presidential transcript was placed into this codeword-level system solely for the purpose of protecting politically sensitive?rather than national security sensitive~infonnatiom . (U) Additional information related to Section IV l-iirirnlutirnl In I would like to expand upon two issues mentioned in Section IV that might have a connection with the overall effort to pressure the Ukrainian leadership. As I do not know de?nitively whether the below?mentioned decisions are connected to the broader efforts I describe, I have chosen to include them in the classi?ed annex. If they indeed represent genuine policy deliberations and decisions fennulated to advance US. foreign policy and national security, one might be able to make a reasonable case that the facts are classi?ed. I (Sr-l I learned from U.S. of?cials that, on or around 14 May, the President instructed Vice President Pence to cancel his planned travel to Ukraine to attend President Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 19 of 38 inauguration on 20 May; Secretary of Energy Rick Perry led the delegation instead. According to these of?cials, it was also "made clear? to them that the President did not want to meet with Mr. until he saw how ?chose to act? in of?ce. i do not know how this guidance was communicated, or by whom. I also do not know whether this action was connected with the broader understanding, described in the unclassified letter, that a meeting or phone call between the President and President would depend on whether showed willingness to ?play ball?.1 on the issues that had been publicly aired by Mr. Lutsenko and Mr. Giuliani. - On 18 July, an Of?ce of Management and Budget (OMB) official informed Departments and Agencies that the President ?earlier that month? had issued instructions to suspend all US, security assistance to Ukraine. Neither OMB nor the NSC staff knew why this instruction had been issued. During interagency meetings on 23 July and 26 July, OMB. of?cials again stated explicitly that the instruction to suspend this assistance had come directly from the President, but they still were unaware of a policy rationale. As of early August, I heard from US. of?cials that some Ukrainian of?cials were aware that US. aid might be injeopardy, but I do not know how or when they learned of it. Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 20 of 38 Exhibit Attorney Genera' 33" l133=ilEd @69?207?2?0 ?99.3% 21 Of 38 1/20/20: 1:47 PM MEDIA CONTACTS Attorney General Barr Should Eric Friedman Director of Recuse Himself from Department of Justice Review Ema? of Ukraine Matter Eli Cohen October 23, 2019 Communications Associate 212-382-6656 Ema? Statement of the New York City Bar Association October 23, 2019 Subscribe Attorney General Barr Should Recuse Himself from Department ofjustice Review of Ukraine Matter Summary The United States Department ofJustice (DOJ) has a unique role in safeguarding the rule of law under the Constitution. By failing to recuse himself from review of the Ukraine Matter, Attorney General William P. Barr has undermined that role. To help remedy that failure, the New York City Bar Association urges that Mr. Barr recuse himself from any ongoing or future review by of Ukraine-related issues in which Mr. Barr is allegedly involved. If he fails to do so, he should resign or, failing that, be subject to sanctions, including possible removal, by Congress. The Office of the Attorney General Since our democracy?s inception in 1789, its foundation has been the rule of law. Our leaders are selected and exercise their powers under law, beginning with our Constitution. Although our courts have primary responsibility for interpreting and applying our laws, both the Congress and the Executive - including the President - are subject toPage 1 of 7 ?may Genera" 33" lFf?iIEdl ?i?20f2? Page 22 Of 38 1/20/20- 1:47 PM accountable under, the consutuuon ano tne laWS enaCIeo thereunder. Because respect for law is central to our nation?s governance, the Attorney General of the United States bears a special responsibility to see that our laws are justly administered for the benefit of the American people. The Attorney General is, and must be seen as, the representative of the nation in advising the President and other federal officers and must demonstrate an unquestioned commitment to compliance with law by all who exercise the powers of government. The modern was established by Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1870. Even before that, however, the office of the Attorney General was seen as having a uniquely important role in our federal system. As Attorney General Cushing observed in an 1854 opinion, the Attorney General is not simply ?a counsel giving advice to the Government as his client, but a public officer, actingjudicially, under all the solemn responsibilities of conscience and of legal For the same reason that the Attorney General?s obligations are not owed solely to "the Government as his client," they are not owed to the President in his individual capacity. As noted by William Barr at the time of his nomination as Attorney General in 1991, the Attorney General "holds in trust the fair and impartial administration ofjustice. It is the attorney general?s responsibility to enforce the law evenhandedly and with integrity. The attorney general must ensure that the administration ofjustice, the enforcement of the law is above and away from politics. Nothing could be more destructive of our system of government, of the rule of law or the Department ofjustice as an institution than any toleration of political interference with the enforcement of the Mr. Barr repeated these words at the time of his 2019 nomination for his current position as Attorney General and added that "the American people have to know that there awn nl?r-rxr- in + nn \nll?nrn +lo-sn willn AF I ni- Page 2 of 7 Attorney General Barr Shomee?eserioomszaeoor Wed nae/20m I weave 23 of 38 PM OIC IJIGLCD Ill LIIC VVIICIC LIIC IUIC UI ICIVV, IIUL politics, holds sway and where they will be treated fairly based solely on the facts and the evenhanded application of the law. The Department ofJustice must be that Mr. Barr's Performance Despite this commitment to the role of the Attorney General, Mr. Barr?s actions in office have failed in precisely the role that he described with eloquence when nominated. That failure has jeopardized the confidence that the public can reasonably have in the as the place "where the rule of law, not politics, holds sway." His actions during his brief tenure in office have demonstrated to us that, contrary to the responsibilities of his office, he appears to view his primary obligation as loyalty to the President individually rather than to the nation. In serving the President, he has been willing to take or countenance actions that are contrary to the professional standards of the his oath of office and his own obligations as an attorney. Our concern has been brought to a head by Mr. Barr?s failure to recuse himself from the DOJ's review?itself of uncertain propriety?of the ongoing "whistleblower" complaint with respect to the President?s efforts during his July 25, 2019 telephone call to request the Republic of Ukraine to investigate lVlr. Trump's allegations of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections and former Vice-President Biden and his son (the ?Ukraine Matter?). As White House records made clear[4], the President told his Ukrainian counterpart, Zelensky, that Mr. Barr ?would be in touch with him" to follow up on the President?s requests. The whistleblower found this telephone call to be of ?urgent concern? because of the President's apparent intermingling of U.S. foreign policy interests with his personal political interests in apparent violation of U.S. aw. f5] Our focus here is not on the legality of the President?s actions or even on the merits of the whistleblower?s which the Intelligence Insnertnr Page 8 of 7 Attorney General Ba" WWEHPMIQHE Failed 8%?ng Page 24 of 38 1/20/20: 1?47 PM General found to be "credible." Nor do we take a position at this time on whether review of this action was justified. We do, however, believe it was, and is, incumbent on the Attorney General to recuse himself from any participation, direct or indirect, in review of the whistleblower complaint. Regardless of whether Mr. Barr was in fact aware of or part of the President's plans, either before, at the time of, or after the July 25, 2019 telephone call, it is clear that Mr. Barr was obligated to recuse himself from any involvement in DOJ's review of either the whistleblower complaint or the substance of the President?s actions once the President offered Mr. Barr's services to President Zelensky. Federal regulations (28 CFR 45.2) for DO) prosecutors require recusal whenever a lawyer ?has a personal or political relationship with any person . . . substantially included in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation." The Manual for U.S. Attorneys requires (section 3-2.170, 2.220) recusal of U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S. Attorneys where "a conflict of interest exists or there is an appearance of a conflict of interest or loss of impartiality." Executive Branch ethics rules also provide (5 C.F.R. 2635.502) that recusal is appropriate if ?a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would be likely to question the employee?s impartiality in the matter." Mr. Barr also was specifically mentioned by the President as a participant in the activity under investigation. Moreover, he appears to have participated in the DOJ review of the whistleblower?s complaint and its decision not to forward that complaint to Congress. That he failed to recuse himself from that review, and still has not yet (to our knowledge) recused himself from any ongoing DO) review of other aspects of the Ukraine Matter, is a serious violation of his obligation to protect the DO) from reasonable questions as to its impartiality in the investigation of the Ukraine Matter. Page 4 of 7 Attorney General Barr Shoemeumosarioorzexaeoor mmenwanane Failed aid/20m I page 25 of 38 1/20/20, PM Recusal by the Attorney General is by no means rare. There have been at least 16 such recusals since 1989, including two previous recusals by Mr. Barr himself (one in 1993 during his first term as Attorney General and one in 2019 in connection with the Jeffrey Epstein review) and the 2017 recusal by Attorney General Sessions because of his potential role as a witness to Russian interference in the 2016 election. In addition, six other Attorneys General recused themselves during this period.[7] The whistleblower complaint against the President and others (potentially involving Mr. Barr either as a witness or, conceivably, an accomplice) clearly rose to the levels that required recusal in these earlier investigations and should have led Mr. Barr to similar action in this instance. Conclusion A nation founded on a commitment to the rule of law cannot have an Attorney General who by his actions appears to undermine the bedrock principle on which our nation relies ?that all federal officials, including the President, are subject to the rule of law. Mr. Barr?s failure to recuse himself from any involvement in the review of the whistleblower complaint and its disclosure to Congress undermined that principle. In order to limit the impact of his earlier failure to recuse, we call upon Mr. Barr to immediately recuse himself from all further investigations of Ukraine-related issues in which he is or was allegedly involved, including any continuing or future investigations into alleged Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election, allegations relating to Mr. Biden or his family members or the President's efforts to pursue those allegations in connection with US. assistance to Ukraine or to other nations. We hope that Mr. Barr will act to remedy, at least in part, his prior failure to recuse himself from the Ukraine Matter. If, however, he chooses not to do so, we believe he must resign his position as Attorney General. If he fails Page 5 of 7 Attorney General Barr momento?l?r?lne IFailed 0&d20f20 I Page 26 of 38 PM either to recuse himself or to resign, Mr. Barr should be subject to appropriate Congressional sanctions, including possible removal from office, in order to restore the Office of the Attorney General and the to their historic roles as defender of the law on behalf of the American people. October 23, 2019 RogerJuan Maldonado President New York City Bar Association Stephen L. Kass Chair, Task Force on the Rule of Law New York City Bar Association Department ofJustice as an Independent Establishment, The, 29 Rec. Ass?n B. City N.Y. 486, 490 (1974). Confirmation Hearing of William P. Barr, 15. Hrg. 102- 505, Pt. 2 (Nov. 12 13, 1991), available at (All websites last visited October 21, 2019.) Reproduced in The Washington Post,January 14, 2019. The White House summary of the July 25 phone call is available here: 6c- 3b2643f3fbe0/. The whistleblower's complaint included the following at page 1: ?In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President?s main political rivals. The President's personal Page 6 of 7 Attorney General Barr Sho@a@euie DoioumntoVIBFaine Failed omelet; I Page 27 of 38 1/20/20l1=47 PM lawyer, wrr. Ruompn Glunanl, IS a central figure In errort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well." The whistleblower complaint is available here: By identifying this one issue relating to his recusal, we do not mean to endorse Mr. Barr?s decisions on other matters. These examples of prior recusal by the Attorney General include the following: Richard Thornburgh (drug use by public officials); Janet Reno (tax evasion by a former subordinate and FBI conduct at Waco); John Ashcroft (campaign finance by Ashcroft political opponent, Enron misconduct, and disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity); Alberto Gonzales (Valerie Plame investigation, simultaneous termination of nine U.S. Attorneys); Michael Mukasey (Madoff investigation); Eric Holder (UBS investigation, Roger Clemens investigation, ATT and T?Mobile merger, and FBI press leak). Congressional Research Service, A Brieinstory of Attorney General Recusal (Mar. 8, 2017), lssue(s): GovernmentalAffairs lnternationalAffairs Committee(s): Rule of Law, Task Force on the Subject Area(s): Rule of Law Recusal Page 7 of 7 Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 28 of 38 Exhibit Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 29 of 38 itlnittd $13th WASHINGTON, DC 20510 October 24, 2019 The Honorable William P. Barr Attorney General of the United States US. Department of Justice 950 Ave. NW Washington, DC. 20530 Dear Attorney General Barr: We urge you to recuse yourself from investigations into the Trump Ukraine matters, including any investigations involving Rudy Giuliani, Lev Parnas, or Igor Fruman, as well as investigations into the origins of the Russia investigation. Federal ethics guidelines prohibit federal employees from participating in any matter in which their impartiality could be questioned, including matters in which they were personally involved or about which they have personal knowledge. [5 C.F.R. 2635.502; Justice Manual Previous Attorneys General have sought the counsel of the relevant senior career Department officials to determine whether they should recuse themselves from matters where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The White House?s memorandum of President Trump?s July 25 phone call with Ukraine President Zelensky suggests that you may have personal knowledge or involvement in President Trump?s requests that Ukraine pursue investigations to serve the President?s personal political interests. During that phone call, President Trump referenced you by name or title at least ?ve times, including mentioning you in tandem with Rudy Giuliani three times. [Call Summary at This raises legitimate questions about your knowledge of the activities of Mr. Giuliani and others, as well as the actions that you have taken and your discussions with the President and White House about these investigations. For example, after receiving the preliminary Justice Department Inspector General report on the Russia investigation?s origins last month, you reportedly traveled to Italy to conduct your own fact-?nding along with US. Attorney John Durham. [Washington Post, Oct. 10, 2019]. You did so after President Trump told President Zelensky that he would ?like to have the Attorney General call? to discuss an Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 30 of 38 investigation meant to discredit Special Counsel Mueller?s ?ndings regarding Russian election interference. Impartial enforcement ofthe law is essential to give the American public con?dence in the Justice Department?s work. Your personal connection to these matters creates the appearance ofa conflict of interest and gives rise to questions about whether the Department is being used to advance the President?s personal Interests. Accordingly, we request that you recuse yourself and identify the appropriate official who will be responsible for these matters. We also request that you confirm whether you consulted Department ethics of?cials regarding recusal and provide copies of any ethics guidance that Justice Department officials have provided in connection with these matters. Sincerely, If? Ff,? ?3.15% FEINSTEIN PATRICK Ranking Member United States Senator 3? a. RICHARD J. DURBIN SHELDON WHITEHOUSE United States Senator United States Senator lL\ r/ AMY CHRISTOPHER A. COONS United States Senator United States Senator RICHARD BLUMENTHAL K. HIRONO United States Senator United States Senator Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 31 of 38 DRY A. BOOKER MALA D. HARRIS United States Senator United States Senator cc: The Honorable Lindsey 0. Graham Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 32 of 38 Exhibit Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 33 of 38 NEW YORK CITY BAR ROGER JUAN MALDONADO PRESIDENT Phone: (212) 382-6700 STEPHEN L. KASS CHAIR TASK FORCE ON THE RULE OF LAW Sent via Facsimile Regular Mail January 8, 2020 Hon. Nancy Pelosi Hon. Kevin McCarthy Speaker Minority Leader US. House of Representatives US. House of Representatives H-232, The Capitol H-204, The Capitol Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515 Hon. Mitch McConnell Hon. Charles Schumer Majority Leader Minority Leader US. Senate US. Senate 8-230, The Capitol The Capitol Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515 Dear Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader McCarthy, Majority Leader McConnell, and Minority Leader Schumer: We write on behalf of the New York City Bar Association (the ?City Bar?) to urge Congress to commence formal inquiries into a pattern of conduct by Attorney General William P. Barr that threatens public con?dence in the fair and impartial administration of justice. We make this request based upon our belief, as similarly recognized by Mr. Barr during his Senate con?rmation hearings, that the Attorney General occupies a unique position with special obligations as the nation?s top law enforcement of?cer. We also make this request in keeping with the City Bar?s mission to embrace advancement of the rule of law and the fair administration of justice, especially by those who are entrusted with important public responsibilities.1 1 In October 2019, the City Bar called on Mr. Barr to recuse himself from all Department of Justice matters relating to allegations that President Donald J. Trump abused the power of his of?ce to solicit political interference on his behalf by the government of Ukraine. Mr. Barr was personally named in the whistleblower complaint first raising those allegations and is reported to have been involved personally in some of the matters subject to review. To date, Mr. Barr has failed to recuse himself. See New York City Bar Association, Attorney General Barr Should Recuse Himself?om Department ofJustice Review of Ukraine Matter, Oct. 23, 2019, THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 42 West 44th Street, New York, NY 10036-6689 Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 34 of 38 As further described below, Mr. Barr?s recent actions and statements position the Attorney General and, by extension, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) as political partisans willing to use the levers of government to empower certain groups over others. These statements are the latest examples of a broader pattern of conduct that is inconsistent with the role of the Attorney General in our legal and constitutional system and with the norms and standards that govern the fair administration of justice. We urge Congress to exercise its constitutional authority to investigate this troubling pattern of conduct, in order to assess Mr. Barr?s actions as Attorney General and to consider any legislative and oversight responses and remedies that may be necessary. The duties to act impartially, to avoid even the appearance of partiality and impropriety, and to avoid manifesting bias, prejudice, or partisanship in the exercise of of?cial responsibilities are bedrock obligations for government lawyers. In the context of pending investigations, government lawyers also are obliged to be circumspect in their public statements and to avoid prejudging the outcomes of those investigations. Mr. Barr has disregarded these fundamental obligations in several extended public statements during the past few months: - On OctOber 11, 2019, in an invitation-only speech at the University of Notre Dame, Mr. Barr launched a partisan attack against ?so called ?progressives?? for supposedly waging a ?campaign to destroy the traditional moral order.? He charged that ?secularists? and ?their allies among progressives? were ?marshal[ing] all the force of mass communication, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values,? with the ultimate goal of achieving the ?organized destruction? of religion. In his speech, which is now published on the DOJ website, Mr. Barr stated that ?the Founding generation . . . believed that the Judeo-Christian moral system correSponds to the true nature of man? and that ?Judeo-Christian moral standards are the ultimate utilitarian rules for human conduct.? According to the Attorney General, ?they are like God?s instruction manual for the best running of man and society.? Expressing his view that ?Judeo-Christian values . . . have made this country simultaneously rejecting the moral basis of secularism and, by implication, other religions (and atheism) as ?an inversion of Christian morality,? Mr. Barr vowed to place the Department of Justice ?at the forefront? of efforts to resist ?forces of secularization.?2 3131119}; (hereinafter New York City Bar Association, Barr Should Recuse Himself, Oct. 23, 2019). (All links Cited in this letter were last checked on January 7, 2020). 2 William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States, Remarks to de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture, University ofNolre Dame School ofLaw, Oct. 11, 20 I9, (as prepared for delivery); see Michael Sean Winters, Notre Dame Had a Right to Host Barr?Bur His Talk Was Ridiczilously Stupid, Oct. 18. 2019, Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 35 of 38 On November 15, 2019, in a speech at the Federalist Society?s National Lawyers Convention, Mr. Barr again vili?ed ?progressives? and ?the Left? (characterizing as ?the other side? those who ?oppose this President?) in highly partisan terms. Attacking ?so-called progressives? for supposedly ?treating politics as their religion,? and for allegedly attempting, by ?any means necessary,? to ?use the coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their image,? Mr. Barr charged that opponents of the Trump presidency?s policies have been ?engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law.? By contrast, Mr. Barr proclaimed, conservatives ?tend to have more scruple over their political tactics? and are more genuinely committed to the rule of law.3 The Attorney General referred to something he called a ?progressive holy war,? characterized, he says, by the use of ?any means necessary to gain momentary advantage.? On December 3, 2019 drawing from earlier remarks at a Fraternal Order of Police gathering in New Orleans in which he lambasted District Attorneys from ?large cities? who ?style themselves as ?social justice? reformers, who spend their time undercutting the police, letting criminals off the hook, and refusing to enforce the law,? and ?an increasingly vocal minority? that ?regularly attacks the police and advances a narrative that it is the police that are the bad guys? and ?automatically start[s] screaming for the officers? scalps, regardless of the facts? following ?a confrontation involving the use of force by police? 4 Mr. Barr warned at a DOJ awards ceremony that ?the American people have to . . . start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves,? and ?if communities don?t give that support and reSpect, they might ?nd themselves without the police protection they need.?5 Although Mr. Barr did not specify which District Attorneys he had in mind, he did say that ?[t]hese anti- law enforcement DAs have tended to emerge in jurisdictions where the election is largely determined by the primary? and cited to ?large cities? as the culprit jurisdictions which, in his view, were headed towards ore crime; more victims? as a result.6 In similar fashion, Mr. Barr did not specify which ?communities? were at risk of seeing 3 William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States, 19th Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture, National Lawyers Convention, Federalist Society, Nov. 15, 2019, (as prepared for delivery); see Ruth Marcus, The Most Alarming Part of Barr ?5 Speech Was Its Angrily Partisan Tone, WASH. POST, Nov. 18, 2019, in .cnmtopinions/w i inm-Imrrs- 4 William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States, Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Remarks at the Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police?s 64th National Biennial Conference, August 12, 2019, inst ImluU-lil'ulcl'llill pol ices-(til lh (as prepared for delivery) (hereinafter Speech?). 5 William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States, Third Annual Attorney General ?s Award for Distinguished Service in Policing, Dec. 3, 2019, 6 In response to the FOP Speech, 67 prosecutors issued a statement calling Barr's speech ?deeply concerning? and cautioning ?It is not the time for a return to fear-driven narratives that ?nd no foundation in fact.? Statement in Response to Attorney General Barr?s Remarks to The Fraternal Order of Police, August 16, 2019, "uplnutlss'?ll Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 36 of 38 decreased police protection because they lack respect for law enforcement, but his comment was understood by some observers, not unreasonably, as being directed toward members of communities of color protesting excessive use of force by police.7 I On December 10, 2019, in a television interview soon after Inspector General released a report ?nding no improper political motivation in the commencement of a counterintelligence investigation into alleged ties between the Trump-Pence campaign and Russian of?cials in 2016, Mr. Barr publicly rejected the Inspector General?s ?ndings, asserting instead that a separate ongoing investigation into the actions that he personally had directed would likely reach a different conclusion. Although that second investigation (which is being supervised by a different DOJ of?cial) is not yet complete, Mr. Barr nevertheless openly discussed his opinions about the likely outcome of that investigation. In a separate statement the previous day, Mr. Barr asserted that the factual predicate was ?insuf?cient to justify? its investigation and that the FBI may have acted in ?bad faith? in commencing that investigation.8 These comments follow and are reminiscent of Mr. Barr?s earlier mischaracterizations of the Mueller Report, prior to his release of a redacted version of it, in which Mr. Barr claimed the special counsel had found insuf?cient evidence of any obstruction of ustice by President Trump? 7 In a television interview with Pete Williams of NBC News on December 10, 2019, Mr. Barr denied that he had suggested that people should not criticize police of?cers and said he was referring to the high rates of job vacancies in police agencies throughout the country. See Full Interview: Barr Criticizes Inspector General Report on the Russia Investigation, NBC NEWS, Dec. 10, 2019, . There has been extensive reporting over many years on police shortages and the innovative recruitment efforts being made by police departments, but the causes of the hiring challenges are myriad and complex. According to experts in the ?eld, contributing factors include relatively low starting pay; a changing workforce with expectations and objectives that differ from past generations; a weakening pipeline from family members and the military; continuing challenges associated with recruitment of non-traditional candidates, including women and people of color; disqualifying past behaviors by applicants; the stress of increasingly being called upon to deal with the social ills of homelessness, substance abuse and mental illness; news stories highlighting the challenges of serving as a police of?cer; and misaligned job expectations. See, e. Laurie Mack, Shortage OfO?cers Fuels Police Recruiting Crisis, Dec. NPR NEWS, Dec. 11, 2018, Timothy Roufa, Why Police Departments Are Facing Recruitment Problems, THE BALANCE CAREERS, Nov. 5, 2018, 1; Sid Smith, MPA, Chief of Police (former), A Crisis Facing Law Enforcement: Recruiting in the 21st Century, POLICE CHIEF MAGAZINE, June 2016, Ilic-Z i sl-cenluryt; Ben Langham, Lieutenant, Kenai, Alaska, Police Department, Millennials and Improving Recruitment in Law Enforcement, POLICE CHIEF MAGAZINE, May 24, 2017, Lt. Ryan Harmon, A New Approach In Recruiting Retaining Qualified O?icers At The Bella Vista [Arkansas] Police Department, March 2011, POLICE EXECUTIVE RESEARCH FORUM, The Workforce Crisis, And What Police Agencies Are Doing About It, September 2019, 8 Full Interview: Barr Criticizes Inspector General Report, supra note 7; Mikhaila Fogel, Notable Statements on Inspector General 's Report, LAWFARE, Dec. 9, 2019, William Webster, The Rule ofLaw Still Matters, NY Times, Dec. 17, 2019, at A27, ?J?i ??nniniunil??l I. Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 37 of 38 a material mischaracterization of the Mueller Report and a proposition rejected by more than 1,000 former federal prosecutors based on the facts set forth in the Mueller Report.9 These public statements by Mr. Barr also contravene the norms applicable to his of?ce and warrant further investigation by Congress as part of an inquiry into Mr. Barr?s conduct as Attorney General more generally. They may even implicate ethical considerations, insofar as prosecutors must generally avoid public comments on ongoing investigations and must not manifest any bias or prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation or partisan political considerations in exercising their prosecutorial discretion.10 Although we do not in this letter take any position on whether or not Mr. Barr has violated any Rules of Professional Conduct, at least one leading legal ethics authority has suggested that government lawyers have special obligations to be factually accurate in their public statements, and should be bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct, even if they do not represent clients in the traditional sense.11 Indeed, Mr. Barr?s conduct appears to run afoul of the ?very special obligations? that he himself professed to recognize during his 1991 and 2019 Senate confirmation hearings. 12 During the 1991 hearing, Mr. Barr recognized that the Attorney General ?holds in trust the fair and impartial administration of justice? and bears responsibility ?to enforce the law evenhandedly and with integrity.? He also noted that the Attorney General ?must ensure that the administration of justice . . . is above and away from politics,? and that ?[n]othing could be more destructive of our system of government, of the rule of law, or the Department of Justice as an institution, than any toleration of political interference with the enforcement of the law.? In 2019, Mr. Barr further explained that the Department of Justice must be a ?place[] in the government where the rule of law?not politics?holds sway, and where they [the American people] will be treated fairly based solely on the facts and an even? handed application of the law.?13 Mr. Barr?s recent actions and statements are in sharp and diametric contrast to the principles he cited in his con?rmation hearings. In addition, they reinforce a broader pattern of conduct during his tenure in which he has created, at a minimum, an appearance of partiality in 9 Statement by Former Federal Prosecutors, May 6, 2019, Iui'iluizil umn Mr. Mueller expressed a similar point of view in a letter to the Attorney General, in which he stated that ?The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Of?ce?s work and conclusions.? Letter ?om Special Counsel Robert S. Muller, to The Honorable William P. Barr, March 27, 2019, 1mm$1114 501 :4 im 3 mi? 1251.1."- ?0 CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS FOR THE PROSECUTION FUNCTION 3-1.3, 3-1.4, 3?1.6 3-1 . 10 (Am. Bar Ass?n, 4th ed. 2017), ?1 See Ellen Yaroshefsky, Regulation of Lawyers in Government Beyond the Client Representation Role, 33 NOTRE DAME .L. ETHICS PUB. 151 (2019), 31 1? '2 New York City Bar Association, Barr Should Recuse Himsel? Oct. 23, 2019, supra note 1; see also in?a note 13. 13 Con?rmation Hearing of William P. Barr, 15. Hrg. 102-505, Pt. 2 (Nov. 12 13, 1991), at 16, ?19 I lutn'inu- I?aiilxct'inuitll'. Written Testimony of William P. Barr, Hearing on the Nomination of the Hon. William Pelham Barr to Be Attorney General of the United States, Committee on the Judiciary, US. Senate, Jan. 15, 2019, at 1, . Case Document 73-1 Filed 01/20/20 Page 38 of 38 how he understands and carries out his role as Attorney General. In a troubling number of instances, Mr. Barr has spoken and acted in a manner communicating an impression that he views himself as serving as the Attorney General not for the entire nation, but more narrowly for certain segments of society?whether de?ned in terms of religion, ideology (his own ?side,? to borrow the language of Mr. Barr?s Federalist Society speech) or party af?liation. For the reasons stated above, we have signi?cant concerns about the propriety of Mr. Barr?s recent actions and statements. We urge Congress to exercise its constitutional obligations by expeditiously commencing formal inquiries into Mr. Barr?s conduct. Respectfully, h? Roger Juan Maldonado President New York City Bar Association i . \(cvtb Stephen L. Kass Chair, Task Force on the Rule of Law New York City Bar Association cc: Hon. William P. Barr Attorney General of the United States US. Department of Justice (Sent via Express and Regular Mail) Hon. Jerrold Nadler Chair, Committee on the Judiciary US. House of Representatives Hon. Doug Collins Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary US. House of Representatives Hon. Lindsey Graham Chair, Committee on the Judiciary US. Senate Hon. Dianne Feinstein Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary US. Senate