Case Document 160-23 Filed 01/29/20 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL T. 

Defendant.

Criminal Action No. 17-232-EGS

 

 

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL T. 

1, Michael T. declare:

. I am a citizen of the United States and more than 18 years old.

. I served over thirty-three years in the United States Army. Five of those years I spent
deployed in active combat in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere around the world in support
of United States foreign policy objectives.

. I was a life?long Democrat and President Barack Obama twice appointed me to positions
that required Senate con?rmation. In my ?nal military assignment, I served as head of the
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) until September 2014.

. On December 1, 2017 (reiterated on December 18, 2018), I pled guilty to lying to agents
of the FBI.

. I am innocent of this crime, and I request to withdraw my plea.

. In December 2016, while I was working on then President?Elect Trump?s transition team,
I received a letter from the FARA unit at the Department of Justice. In that letter I learned

that the FARA unit sought information about work that my former business, the Intel

10.

Case Document 160-23 Filed 01/29/20 Page 2 of 12

Group, did for a company called Inovo BV that related to Turkey. I responded by seeking
out respected counsel who were known and respected FARA lawyers; I chose Rob Kelner
and his colleagues at Covington Burling. I met with Covington lawyers on several
occasions about FARA issues. I gave them the information they requested and
answered their questions truthfully. The most important instruction I gave them was to ?be
precise.?

On January 20, 2017, I entered of?ce as the President?s National Security Advisor. Four
days later, FBI Deputy Director McCabe called me and asked if I would meet with a couple
of FBI agents at the White House. I agreed.

While I was willing to oblige Deputy Director McCabe by meeting with a couple of agents
on the fourth day of the new administration, I was extremely busy and only had a limited
amount of time to give them. I tried to answer their questions as best I could during that
brief meeting before again moving on to a schedule packed with new presidential and
national security requirements.

I was an intelligence of?cer for over 33 years. Since 1981 and throughout my military and
government career, I have held the highest-level security clearances our government
provides. When FBI agents came to the White House on January 24, 2017, I did not lie to
them. I believed I was honest with them to the best of my recollection at the time.

I still don?t remember if I discussed sanctions on a phone call with Ambassador Kislyak
nor do I remember if we discussed the details of a UN vote on Israel. In regards to the
sanctions issue, I told the agents that tit-for-tat is a phrase I use, which suggests that the

topic of sanctions could have been raised. The phone calls with Kislyak are still events of

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Case Document 160-23 Filed 01/29/20 Page 3 of 12

which I do not have a clear memory and it related to a general category of information
(phone calls about foreign policy) that are both sensitive and classi?ed.

My baseline reaction to questions posed by people outside of my superiors, immediate
command, or of?ce of responsibility is to protect sensitive or classi?ed information, except
upon ?need to know? and the proper level of security clearance. That type of ?lter is
ingrained in me and virtually automatic after a lifetime of honoring my duty to protect the
most important national and military secrets.

I am and was fully aware that federal of?cials routinely monitor, record, and transcribe
such conversations with foreign of?cials.

Of course, I was embarrassed and angered by the furor that erupted in the press over the
felonious leak of highly sensitive and classi?ed information that was my phone call with
Ambassador Kislyak. It was distracting to my work to be the center of such a commotion
and it was upsetting to be the cause of disruption to the busy and important work in support
of the new President of the United States.

I resigned as National Security Advisor on February 13, 2017.

I believe my resignation letter to President Trump stated quite accurately what happened
and both he and the Vice President graciously accepted my apology. The transition period
was an incredibly intense time. I was communicating with representatives of multiple
foreign countries on countless and varied issues every day. Frankly, of the national security
dangers and concerns that weighed on our minds at that time, ?sanctions? on Russia were
far from the most pressing threat or concern. We were dealing with many more serious
crises around the world. The calls with Ambassador Kislyak were brief and few; they were

no more exceptional than my numerous calls and personal interactions with senior

16.

I7.

18.

19.

Case Document 160-23 Filed 01/29/20 Page 4 of 12

representatives of governments from around the world during an exceedingly demanding
work schedule.

After I left the White House, I agreed to engage Kelner, his colleague Stephen Anthony,
and other Covington lawyers to represent me in any FBI investigations and, eventually, the
Special Counsel?s Of?ce investigation. They also continued to represent me and FIG in
regards to FARA related issues. At one of my ?rst meetings with Mr. Kelner and Mr.
Anthony they asked me if I ?had anything? on President Trump, as it would provide much
more leverage with the government. I told them from the beginning that I was unaware of
President Trump doing anything wrong.

With respect to the FARA ?ling, my Covington counsel did not explain to me that there
were any problems with the FARA ?ling that required Covington to re-examine any of the
issues in August 2017. I would have hired independent counsel to reevaluate the FARA
?ling and amend it if necessary, had I known the severity of the con?ict.

To the best of my recollection, and from my re-examination of the emails from August
2017, the vast majority of email traf?c between me and Covington during that time was
focused on the creation of my Legal Defense Fund to pay my skyrocketing legal defense
fees (by that time approaching $3 million). To that end, we put our Alexandria, Virginia
home on the market in late November or early December 2017 timeframe to help pay the
rising legal bills that we were incurring. We then moved to our family home in Rhode
Island.

In late August 2017, my wife and I were in Rhode Island. Kelner and Anthony emailed us
to arrange a telephone call. The call then occurred while we were driving to have dinner

with some friends. It was an approximately 15?minute phone call, where we had pulled off

20.

21.

22.

Case Document 160-23 Filed 01/29/20 Page 5 of 12

to the side of a highway. They informed us that there was a development regarding a
con?ict of interest. They also mentioned the possibility of Bijan being indicted. Speaking
to the con?ict of interest, they stated that they were prepared to defend us vigorously, if
the con?ict became an issue. We told them we trusted them.

In November 2017, the Special Counsel?s Of?ce (SCO) created sudden and intense time-
pressure on me to plead guilty. On November 4, 2017, I believe, my Covington attorneys
told my wife and me that the Special Counsel?s Of?ce (SCO) wanted to conduct a proffer
session with me. They told me the SCO ?had yet to make a decision about how to proceed
with me? and doing a proffer session would be a good way to let the SCO prosecutors ?get
to know the real Mike During this same meeting, my previous lawyers, Mr. Kelner
and Mr. Anthony proceeded to walk us through a series of items?essentially describing
the risks of doing the proffer. From this meeting, I believe the following day, I agreed to
do the proffer, primarily based on my understanding that they said if the proffer went well,
being indicted would be less likely; otherwise my indictment would be soon. They did not
raise FARA issues with me that day or anything about a con?ict of interest.

November 16, 2017, was the ?rst day of the proffer with the SCO. That same evening, after
concluding the ?rst proffer, we returned to the Covington of?ces where my attorneys told
me that the ?rst day?s proffer did not go well and then proceeded to walk me through a
litany of conceivable charges I was facing and told me that I was looking at the possibility
of ??fteen years in prison.?

They reiterated the threat of charges against me, my son, as well as the potential of a long

term prison sentence. That evening, we discussed and they encouraged me to use words

23.

24.

25.

Case Document 160-23 Filed 01/29/20 Page 6 of 12

and phrases they believed would help me ?get through? the next day?s proffer and satisfy
the special counsel, phrases that are not part of my normal vocabulary.

During the second day of the proffer, I used words and phrases that were not really my own
voice, and I regret that?just as I regret pleading guilty. People think that a three-star
general must know everything, but I was a ?sh-out?of?water in a terrifying and completely
foreign situation, with none of the legal skills necessary to deal with the many things being
thrown at me. I hired the team of the best lawyers I had been told I could ?nd, and I relied
on them completely. One of the ways a person becomes a 3-star general is by being a good
soldier, taking orders, being part of a team, and trusting the people who provide information
and support. Lori and I trusted Mr. Kelner and Mr. Anthony to guide us through the most
stressful experience of our lives, in a completely incomprehensible situation. I have never
felt more powerless. I should have stood my ground ?rmly for what I knew to be the
truth?that I did not lie to the agents, and I should have told this Court on December 18,
2018, that I needed to consult new counsel. My relationship with Covington disintegrated
soon thereafter.

This effort to ?say-what?they-want? approach during the proffer was noted by one of the
interviewing agents, who stopped me at some point to ask whether what I was saying was
something that really happened, or whether I was just speculating?analyzing the past with
the bene?t of hindsight. I agreed with the agent I was mostly speculating.

I recall Mr. Kelner?s mention of a con?ict of interest in late August in a brief phone call,
but I did not attach any serious signi?cance to it. Likewise, I did not understand the

legalistic email I received on November 19, 2017, the eve of my third day of proffers?

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

Case Document 160-23 Filed 01/29/20 Page 7 of 12

almost three months later. We trusted my attorneys and expected them to put my interests
?rst?as they said they would do.
To have devoted my life to my country, only to be accused of crimes, slandered in the
media with false and outrageous claims, and have my family threatened was an
unimaginable nightmare?one that those who have not walked in these shoes will ?nd
dif?cult to comprehend.
Following the four-day proffer, on November 22, 2017, Kelner and Anthony called my
wife and me as we were driving home to Rhode Island to spend Thanksgiving with family
to tell me the SCO planned to bring charges and that I should consider a plea.
The week leading up to November 30, 2017, Kelner and Anthony advised that if I did not
plead, I would be indicted on multiple counts and that my son, Michael G. could or
would face indictment. They repeated that I would be looking at the potential of ?fteen
years in prison, and said that I would be subjected to ?the Manafort treatment.?
On November 30, 2017, as plea negotiations with the SCO were coming to a head, I
reiterated to my former lawyers, speci?cally Robert Kelner and Stephen Anthony, that I
did not believe that I had lied in my White House interview with the FBI agents. I reminded
them that I had spoken to representatives of well over thirty countries, many in a single 24-
hour period, during that very busy holiday season and presidential transition period. In fact,
some of these calls occurred while I was supposedly on ?vacation? out of the country.
Although I may have had an incomplete memory of the many details of certain
conversations when speaking to the agents, I did not consciously or intentionally lie.
During this same day, later in the afternoon, Kelner and Anthony explained their view of

how the government would go about proving its case and urged me to accept the plea deal

31.

32.

33.

34.

Case Document 160-23 Filed 01/29/20 Page 8 of 12

that was on the table. They walked me through the ?Final 302? in detail. They explained
ifI did not accept the plea deal, that I should ?expect to be indicted the next day.?

Still struggling with the decision whether to plead guilty, I asked my former attorneys to
make further inquiry with the SCO prosecutors about whether the FBI agents believed that
I had lied to them. In the preceding months leading up to this moment, I had read articles
and heard rumors that the agents did not believe that I lied, something I also ?rmly
believed.

Mr. Kelner and Mr. Anthony left the room to call the SCO prosecutors. When they
returned, they informed my wife and me that they had been told that the ?agents stand by
their statements.? Because I was then unaware that the agents had made the statements
described in this Declaration, and because I was unaware of what had passed between my
former lawyers and the SCO outside of the room, I then understood them to be telling me
that the FBI agents believed that I had lied.

My Covington attorneys counseled me to sign the Statement of Offense.

I agreed to plead guilty that next day, December 1, 2017, because of the intense pressure
from the Special Counsel?s Of?ce, which included a threat to indict my son Michael, and
the lack of crucial information from my counsel. The SCO had already made Michael the
subject of their investigation and taken all his ?les and communications devices (computer,
phone, ?les, and thumb drive). At the time, Michael and his wife had a four-month old
baby. Nonetheless, I would not have pled guilty if my former lawyers had informed me
that both agents who interviewed me at the White House on January 24, 2017, had advised

that a) I displayed a ?sure demeanor;? b) I ?did not give any indications of deception?; and

35.

36.

37.

38.

Case Document 160-23 Filed 01/29/20 Page 9 of 12

c) both agents believed there was ?no indication that I was lying, or that I believed I was
lying.?

At no time before my plea did my former lawyers explain or disclose this to me. Had I
been informed of these disclosures, I never would have pled guilty. Moreover, I would
have expected my Covington counsel to refuse to allow me to plead guilty with that
information.

I have spent my entire adult life accepting great responsibility. I accepted the plea
agreement to stop the pain and threats to my family and to accept responsibility for what
the government I have defended and served for more than thirty-three years said I did
wrong. However, if my counsel had informed me both agents said I showed ?sure
demeanor,? ?did not give any indications of deception,? and that I showed ?no indication
that I was lying, or that I believed I was lying,? I would not have signed the plea agreement,
or entered a guilty plea.

My former lawyers from Covington also assured me on November 30, 2017, that if I
accepted the plea, my son Michael would be left in peace. After I signed the plea, the
attorneys returned to the room and con?rmed that the SCO would no longer be pursuing
my son.

It was well after I pled guilty on December 1, 2017, that I heard or read that the agents had
stated that they did not believe that I had lied during the January 24, 2017, White House
interview (and the other information described in this Declaration). Still later, I heard it

reported that former FBI Director Comey and FBI Deputy Director McCabe testi?ed to

Congress that the agents did not believe I lied. After learning this information, I reiterated

39.

40.

41.

42.

Case Document 160-23 Filed 01/29/20 Page 10 of 12

to my former attorneys numerous times that I did not lie to the agents and questioned if I
might be able to withdraw my plea.

Each time I raised this issue with my former attorneys, they urged me to stick with my plea
deal, ?it was a good deal,? or the government would indict me for multiple other offenses
and also drag my son back into the crosshairs. Their constant refrain was to ?stay on the
path? with the deal they had negotiated.

In the days leading up to the December 18, 2018, sentencing hearing, Robert Kelner and

39

Steven Anthony continued to urge me to ?stay on the pa . They predicted (correctly)
that the government would recommend a term of probation and that my son would not be
further targeted.

However, during the December 2018 hearing, Judge Sullivan?s decision to proceed With
an extended plea colloquy took both me and my former counsel completely by surprise.
They had not prepared me for what occurred. The Court?s comments that day stunned me.
The entire experience was surreal, and that day was one of the worst days of my life.

My Covington attorneys had only prepared me for a simple hearing in which I would be
sentenced to probation, as the government had agreed. I was not prepared for this Court?s
plea colloquy, much less to decide, on the spot, whether I should withdraw my plea, consult
with independent counsel, or continue to follow my existing lawyers? advice. Prior to the
sentencing hearing, they counseled me that if the Court were to ask me if I wanted to
withdraw my plea, that I should say because ?the Court would be giving you the rope

to hang yourself.? Regretfully, I followed my lawyers? strong advice to con?rm my plea

even though it was all I could do to not cry out ?no? when this Court asked me if I was

guilty.

10

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

Case Document 160-23 Filed 01/29/20 Page 11 of 12

During the break in the hearing offered by the Court, my former attorneys were as shocked
as I was at the colloquy and the way in which the hearing had proceeded. My wife Lori
counseled me (and my attorneys) that we should accept the Court?s offer to postpone
sentencing.

In late spring 2019, when Covington actually insisted I seek ?independent counsel,? I did.
New counsel immediately identi?ed the con?ict of interest and I then terminated
Covington.

I realize my statement and determination to assert my innocence means the prosecutors,
who already seek to imprison me, may retaliate further by seeking additional charges
against me and dramatically increasing the penalty 1 face.

I express my profound apology to this Court, my family, the President, our country, and all
who have supported and had faith in me throughout this incomprehensible ordeal. I tried
to "accept responsibility" by admitting to offenses I understood the government I love and
trusted said I committed. In truth, I never lied. My guilty plea has rankled me throughout
this process, and while I allowed myself to succumb to the threats from the government to
save my family, I believe that I was grossly misled about what really happened.

I will not confirm a plea of guilty I should never have entered. I have served my country
honorably all my life, and accepted responsibility for myself and others from a young age
(as my sister Clare wrote to you in her beautiful letter on behalf of my siblings). As God
is my witness, the truth is I am innocent of these charges and any other alleged "criminal
conduct," and I request to withdraw my plea of guilty, and I will ?ght to restore my good

name .

11

Case Document 160-23 Filed 01/29/20 Page 12 of 12

48. To the best of my recollection, the foregoing is true and correct.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

foregoing is true and correct. Executed on day of January, 2020.

Mellgg?gaueh
ae . 

Mich

12