Story Analyzer Dashboard



  Story Analyzer - House Impeachment Report - Section 2 Part 3 (pp. 216-228)

      see https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/the_trump-ukraine_impeachment_inquiry_report.pdf
Narrative

Narrative

3. The President 's Refusal to Produce Any and All Subpoenaed Documents

Pursuant to the President 's orders, the White House, federal departments and agencies, and key witnesses refused to produce any documents in response to duly authorized subpoenas issued pursuant to the House 's impeachment inquiry.


Overview


Following President Trump 's categorical order, not a single document has been produced by the White House, the Office of the Vice President, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, or the Department of Energy in response to 71 specific, individualized requests or demands for records in their possession, custody, or control.
The subpoenas to federal departments and agencies remain in full force and effect. These agencies and offices also blocked many current and former officials from producing records directly to the Committees.

Certain witnesses defied the President 's sweeping, categorical, and baseless order and identified the substance of key documents.
Other witnesses identified numerous additional documents that the President and various agencies are withholding that are directly relevant to the impeachment inquiry.

The President 's personal attorney, Mr. Giuliani, although a private citizen, also sought to rely on the President 's order, as communicated in Mr. Cipollone 's letter on October 8, to justify his decision to disobey a lawful subpoena for documents.


The White House


On September 9, the Committees sent a letter to White House Counsel Pat Cipollone seeking six categories of documents in response to reports indicating that," for nearly two years, the President and his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, appear to have acted outside legitimate law enforcement and diplomatic channels to coerce the Ukrainian government into pursuing two politically-motivated investigations under the guise of anti-corruption activity.''
The Committees asked the White House to voluntarily produce responsive documents by September 16. The White House did not provide any response by that date.

On September 24, the Committees sent a follow-up letter requesting that the White House produce the documents by September 26.
Again, the White House did not provide any documents or respond by that date.

Having received no response from the White House, then-Chairman Elijah E. Cummings sent a memorandum to Members of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, which has jurisdiction over the Executive Office of the President, explaining that he was preparing to issue a subpoena in light of the White House 's non-compliance and non-responsiveness.
He wrote:

Over the past several weeks, the Committees tried several times to obtain voluntary compliance with our requests for documents, but the White House has refused to engage with-- or even respond to-- the Committees.


On October 4, the Committees sent a letter to Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney transmitting a subpoena issued by Chairman Cummings compelling the White House to produce documents by October 18.


As discussed above, on October 8, the White House Counsel sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi and the Committees stating that" President Trump can not permit his Administration to participate in this partisan inquiry under these circumstances.''
The White House Counsel also sent a letter on October 18, confirming that" the White House can not comply with the October 4 subpoena to Acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney.''

To date, the White House has not produced a single document in response to the subpoena.
Instead, the White House has released to the public only two documents-- call records from the President 's phone calls with President Zelensky on April 21 and July 25.

Witnesses who testified before the Committees have identified multiple additional documents that the President is withholding that are directly relevant to the impeachment inquiry, including but not limited to:


briefing materials for President Trump 's call with President Zelensky on July 25 prepared by Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, Director for Ukraine at the National Security Council;


notes relating to the July 25 call taken by Lt. Col. Vindman and Tim Morrison, the former Senior Director for Europe and Russia on the National Security Council;


• an August 15" Presidential decision memo'' prepared by Lt. Col. Vindman and approved by Mr. Morrison conveying" the consensus views from the entire deputies small group'' that" the security assistance be released'';


National Security Council staff summaries of conclusions from meetings at the principal, deputy, or sub-deputy level relating to Ukraine, including military assistance;


call records between President Trump and Ambassador Gordon Sondland, United States Ambassador to the European Union;


National Security Council Legal Advisor John Eisenberg 's notes and correspondence relating to discussions with Lt. Col. Vindman regarding the July 10 meetings in which Ambassador Sondland requested investigations in exchange for a White House meeting;


• the memorandum of conversation from President Trump 's meeting in New York with President Zelensky on September 25; and


• as explained below, emails and other messages between Ambassador Sondland and senior White House officials, including Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Senior Advisor to the Chief of Staff Rob Blair, and then-National Security Advisor John Bolton, among other high-level Trump Administration officials.


The Committees also have good-faith reason to believe that the White House is in possession of and continues to withhold significantly more documents and records responsive to the subpoena and of direct relevance to the impeachment inquiry.


The Committees have closely tracked public reports that the White House is in possession of other correspondence and records of direct relevance to the impeachment inquiry.
On November 24, for instance, a news report revealed that the White House had conducted a confidential, internal records review of the hold on military assistance in response to the Committees ' inquiry. The review reportedly" turned up hundreds of documents that reveal extensive efforts to generate an after-the-fact justification for the decision and a debate over whether the delay was legal.'' Office of the Vice President

On October 4, the Committees sent a letter to Vice President Mike Pence seeking 13 categories of documents in response to reports that he and his staff were directly involved in the matters under investigation.
The Committees wrote:

Recently, public reports have raised questions about any role you may have played in conveying or reinforcing the President 's stark message to the Ukrainian President.
The reports include specific references to a member of your staff who may have participated directly in the July 25, 2019, call, documents you may have obtained or reviewed, including the record of the call, and your September 1, 2019, meeting with the Ukrainian President in Warsaw, during which you reportedly discussed the Administration 's hold on U.S. security assistance to Ukraine.

The Committees asked the Vice President to produce responsive documents by October 15.
On that date, Matthew E. Morgan, Counsel to the Vice President, responded to the Committees by refusing to cooperate and reciting many of the same baseless arguments as the White House Counsel. He wrote:

[ T] he purported" impeachment inquiry'' has been designed and implemented in a manner that calls into question your commitment to fundamental fairness and due process rights.
... Never before in history has the Speaker of the House attempted to launch an" impeachment inquiry'' against a President without a majority of the House of Representatives voting to authorize a constitutionally acceptable process.

To date, the Vice President has not produced a single document sought by the Committees and has not indicated any intent to do so going forward.


Witnesses who testified before the Committees have identified multiple additional documents that the Vice President is withholding that are directly relevant to the impeachment inquiry, including but not limited to:


notes taken by Jennifer Williams, Special Advisor to the Vice President for Europe and Russia, during the call between President Trump and President Zelensky on July 25;


notes taken by Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, National Security Advisor to the Vice President, during the call between President Trump and President Zelensky on July 25;


materials regarding the July 25 call that were placed in the Vice President 's briefing book that same day;


• the memorandum of conversation from Vice President Pence 's call with President Zelensky on September 18; and


briefing materials prepared for Vice President Pence 's meeting with President Zelensky September 1 in Warsaw, Poland.


The Committees also have good-faith reason to believe that the Office of the Vice President is in possession of and continues to withhold significantly more documents and records responsive to their request and of direct relevance to the impeachment inquiry.
Office of Management and Budget

On October 7, the Committees sent a letter to Russell Vought, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget( OMB), conveying a subpoena issued by the Intelligence Committee for nine categories of documents in response to public reports that the President directed OMB to freeze hundreds of millions of dollars in military assistance appropriated by Congress to help Ukraine counter Russian aggression.
The Committees wrote:

According to multiple press reports, at some point in July 2019, President Trump ordered Acting Chief of Staff and Office of Management and Budget( OMB) Director Mick Mulvaney to freeze the military aid to Ukraine, and Mr. Mulvaney reportedly conveyed the President 's order" through the budget office to the Pentagon and the State Department, which were told only that the administration was looking at whether the spending was necessary.''


The subpoena compelled Acting Director Vought to produce responsive documents by October 15.
On that day, OMB Associate Director for Legislative Affairs Jason Yaworske responded by refusing to produce any documents and reciting many of the same baseless arguments as the White House Counsel:

[ T] he President has advised that"[ g] iven that your inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, or even the most elementary due process protections, the Executive Branch can not be expected to participate in it.''
... President Trump can not permit his Administration to participate in this partisan inquiry under these circumstances.

To date, Acting Director Vought has not produced a single document sought by the Committees and has not indicated any intent to do so going forward.


Witnesses who testified before the Committees have identified multiple additional documents that Acting Director Vought is withholding that are directly relevant to the impeachment inquiry, including but not limited to:


a June 19 email from OMB Associate Director of National Security Programs Michael Duffey to DOD Deputy Comptroller Elaine McCusker regarding the fact that" the President had seen a media report and he had questions about the assistance'' and expressing" interest in getting more information from the Department of Defense,'' specifically a" description of the program'';


a July 12 email from White House Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to the Chief of Staff Robert Blair to Associate Director Duffey explaining that the" President is directing a hold on military support for Ukraine'' and not mentioning any other country or security assistance package; and


• an August 7 memorandum drafted in preparation for Acting Director Vought 's attendance at a Principals Committee meeting on Ukrainian security assistance, which included a recommendation to lift the military assistance hold.


The Committees also have good-faith reason to believe that the Office of Management and Budget is in possession of and continues to withhold significantly more documents and records responsive to the subpoena and of direct relevance to the impeachment inquiry.
Department of State

On September 9, the Committees sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo requesting six categories of documents in response to reports that" President Trump and his personal attorney appear to have increased pressure on the Ukrainian government and its justice system in service of President Trump 's reelection campaign'' and" the State Department may be abetting this scheme.''
The Committees requested that Secretary Pompeo produce responsive documents by September 16. The Secretary did not provide any documents or response by that date.

On September 23, the Committees sent a follow-up letter asking Secretary Pompeo to" inform the Committees by close of business on Thursday, September 26, 2019, whether you intend to fully comply with these requests or whether subpoenas will be necessary.''
The Secretary did not provide any documents or respond by that date.

On September 27, the Committees sent a letter to Secretary Pompeo conveying a subpoena for documents issued by Rep. Eliot Engel, the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, compelling the production of documents by October 4.


Since Secretary Pompeo had failed to respond, the Committees also sent separate letters to six individual State Department employees seeking documents in their possession and requesting that they participate in depositions with the Committees.


On October 1, Secretary Pompeo responded to the Committees for the first time.
He objected to the Committees seeking documents directly from State Department employees after he failed to produce them, claiming inaccurately that such a request was" an act of intimidation and an invitation to violate federal records laws.'' He also claimed that the Committees ' inquiry was" an attempt to intimidate, bully, and treat improperly the distinguished professionals of the Department of State.''

To the contrary, Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent, one of the State Department professionals from whom the Committees sought documents and testimony, testified that he" had not felt bullied, threatened, and intimidated.''
Rather, Mr. Kent said that the language in Secretary Pompeo 's letter, which had been drafted by a State Department attorney without consulting Mr. Kent," was inaccurate.'' Mr. Kent explained that, when he raised this concern, the State Department attorney" spent the next 5 minutes glaring at me'' and then" got very angry.'' According to Mr. Kent, the official" started pointing at me with a clenched jaw and saying, What you did in there, if Congress knew what you were doing, they could say that you were trying to sort of control, or change the process of collecting documents.''

With respect to his own compliance with the subpoena for documents, Secretary Pompeo wrote that he" intends to respond to that subpoena by the noticed return date of October 4, 2019.''


Later on October 1, the Committees sent a letter to Deputy Secretary of State John J. Sullivan in light of new evidence that Secretary Pompeo participated on President Trump 's call with President Zelensky on July 25.
The Committees wrote:

We are writing to you because Secretary Pompeo now appears to have an obvious conflict of interest.
He reportedly participated personally in the July 25, 2019 call, in which President Donald Trump pressed President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to investigate the son of former Vice President Joseph Biden immediately after the Ukrainian President raised his desire for United States military assistance to counter Russian aggression.

If true, Secretary Pompeo is now a fact witness in the impeachment inquiry.
He should not be making any decisions regarding witness testimony or document production in order to protect himself or the President. Any effort by the Secretary or the Department to intimidate or prevent witnesses from testifying or withhold documents from the Committees shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the impeachment inquiry.

The following day, at a press conference in Italy, Secretary Pompeo publicly acknowledged that he had been on the July 25 call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky.


On October 7, Committee staff met with State Department officials who acknowledged that they had taken no steps to collect documents in response to the September 9 letter, but instead had waited for the September 27 subpoena before beginning to search for responsive records.
During that conversation, the Committees made a good-faith attempt to engage the Department in the constitutionally-mandated accommodations process. The Committees requested, on a priority basis," any and all documents that it received directly from Ambassador Sondland,'' as well as" documents-- especially those documents identified by the witnesses as responsive-- related to Ambassador Yovanovitch and DAS[ Deputy Assistant Secretary] Kent.'' The depositions of these witnesses-- Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador Yovanovitch, and Mr. Kent-- were scheduled for the days shortly after that October 7 meeting. The Department 's representatives stated that they would take the request back to senior State Department officials, but never provided any further response.

To date, Secretary Pompeo has not produced a single document sought by the Committees and has not indicated any intent to do so going forward.
In addition, the Department has ordered its employees not to produce documents in their personal possession. For example, on October 14, the Department sent a letter to Mr. Kent 's personal attorney warning that" your client is not authorized to disclose to Congress any records relating to official duties.''

Moreover, the Department appears to have actively discouraged its employees from identifying documents responsive to the Committees ' subpoena.
Mr. Kent testified in his deposition that he informed a Department attorney about additional responsive records that the Department had not collected, including an email from Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs David Risch, who" had spoken to Rudy Giuliani several times in January about trying to get a visa for the corrupt former prosecutor general of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin.'' The Department attorney" objected to[ Mr. Kent] raising of the additional information'' and" made clear that he did not think it was appropriate for[ Mr. Kent] to make the suggestion.'' Mr. Kent responded that what he was" trying to do was make sure that the Department was being fully responsive.''

Certain witnesses defied the President 's directive and produced the substance of key documents.
For example, Ambassador Sondland attached ten exhibits to his written hearing statement. These exhibits contained replicas of emails and WhatsApp messages between Ambassador Sondland and high-level Trump Administration officials, including Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Perry, Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and former National Security Advisor John Bolton. The exhibits also contained a replica of a WhatsApp message between Ambassador Sondland and Mr. Yermak.

Earlier in the investigation, Ambassador Kurt Volker had produced key text messages with Ambassador Taylor, Ambassador Sondland, President Zelensky 's senior aide, Andriy Yermak, Mr. Giuliani, and others very soon after the Committees requested them and prior to Mr. Cipollone 's letter on October 8 conveying the President 's directive not to comply.


The Department also prevented Ambassador Sondland-- a current State Department employee-- from accessing records to prepare for his testimony.
As described above, federal law imposes fines and up to five years in prison for anyone who corruptly or by threats" impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede'' the" due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House.'' Ambassador Sondland explained that the Department 's actions directly impeded his testimony:

I have not had access to all of my phone records, State Department emails, and other State Department documents.
And I was told I could not work with my EU Staff to pull together the relevant files. Having access to the State Department materials would have been very helpful to me in trying to reconstruct with whom I spoke and met, when, and what was said....

My lawyers and I have made multiple requests to the State Department and the White House for these materials.
Yet, these materials were not provided to me. They have also refused to share these materials with this Committee. These documents are not classified and, in fairness, should have been made available.

He testified," I have been hampered to provide completely accurate testimony without the benefit of those documents.''
Ambassador Sondland also stated:

Despite repeated requests to the White House and the State Department, I have not been granted access to all of the phone records, and I would like to review those phone records, along with any notes and other documents that may exist, to determine if I can provide more complete testimony to assist Congress.


On November 22, the Department produced 99 pages of emails, letters, notes, timelines, and news articles to a non-partisan, nonprofit ethics watchdog organization pursuant to a court order in a lawsuit filed under the Freedom of Information Act( FOIA).
This handful of documents was limited to a narrow window of time and specific people, but it clearly indicates that the Department is withholding documents that are responsive to the Committees ' requests.

For example, the Department 's FOIA production contains an email from the Office Manager to the Secretary of State to" S_All'' sent on March 26 which states that" S is speaking with Rudy Giuliani.''
It also contains a March 27 email in which Madeleine Westerhout, the Personal Secretary to President Trump, facilitates another phone call between Rudy Giuliani and Secretary Pompeo. These documents are directly responsive to the September 27 subpoena for" all documents and communications, from January 20, 2017 to the present, relating or referring to: Communications between any current or former State Department officials or employees and Rudolph W. Giuliani, including any text messages using personal or work-related devices.''

Witnesses who testified before the Committees have identified multiple additional documents that Secretary Pompeo is withholding that are directly relevant to the impeachment inquiry, including but not limited to:


a cable on August 29 from Bill Taylor, the Chargé d'Affaires for U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, at the recommendation of National Security Advisor John Bolton, sent directly to Secretary Pompeo" describing the folly I saw in withholding military aid to Ukraine at a time when hostilities were still active in the east and when Russia was watching closely to gauge the level of American support for the Ukrainian Government'' and telling Secretary Pompeo" that I could not and would not defend such a policy'';


WhatsApp messages and emails that Ambassador Sondland replicated and provided as exhibits to the Intelligence Committee showing key communications between Ambassador Sondland and high-level Trump Administration officials, including Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Perry, Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and National Security Advisor John Bolton, as well as President Zelensky 's senior aide, Andriy Yermak;


notes and memoranda to file from Mr. Kent, Ambassador Taylor, and others, including Ambassador Taylor 's" little notebook'' in which he would" take notes on conversations, in particular when I 'm not in the office,'' such as meetings with Ukrainians or when out and receiving a phone call,'' as well as his" small, little spiral notebook'' of calls that took place in the office;


emails among Philip Reeker, Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs; David Hale, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; Mr. Kent; and others regarding the unsuccessful effort to issue a public statement in support of Ambassador Yovanovitch, including the" large number of emails related to the press guidance and the allegations about the Ambassador'' from the" late March timeframe.''


The Committees also have good-faith reason to believe that the Department of State is in possession of and continues to withhold significantly more documents and records responsive to the subpoena and of direct relevance to the impeachment inquiry.
Department of Defense

On October 7, the Committees sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Mark Esper conveying a subpoena issued by the Intelligence Committee for 14 categories of documents in response to reports that the President directed a freeze of hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid appropriated by Congress to help Ukraine counter Russian aggression.
The Committees wrote:

Officials at the Departments of State and Defense reportedly were" puzzled and alarmed'' after learning about the White House 's directive.
Defense Department officials reportedly" tried to make a case to the White House that the Ukraine aid was effective and should not be looked at in the same manner as other aid,'' but" those arguments were ignored.''

The subpoena required Secretary Esper to produce responsive documents by October 15.
On October 13, Secretary Esper stated in a public interview that the Department would comply with the Intelligence Committee 's subpoena:

Q: Very quickly, are you going to comply with the subpoena that the House provided you and provide documents to them regarding to the halt to military aid to Ukraine?


A: Yeah we will do everything we can to cooperate with the Congress.
Just in the last week or two, my general counsel sent out a note as we typically do in these situations to ensure documents are retained.

Q: Is that a yes?


A: That 's a yes.


Q: You will comply with the subpoena?


A: We will do everything we can to comply.


On October 15, however, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs Robert R. Hood responded by refusing to produce any documents and reciting many of the same legally unsupportable arguments as the White House Counsel:


In light of these concerns, and in view of the President 's position as expressed in the White House Counsel 's October 8 letter, and without waiving any other objections to the subpoena that the Department may have, the Department is unable to comply with your request for documents at this time.


To date, Secretary Esper has not produced a single document sought by the Committees and has not indicated any intent to do so going forward, notwithstanding his public promise to" do everything we can to comply.''


Witnesses who testified before the Committees have identified multiple additional documents that Secretary Esper is withholding that are directly relevant to the impeachment inquiry, including but not limited to:


DOD staff readouts from National Security Council meetings at the principal, deputy, or sub-deputy level relating to Ukraine, including military assistance;


• an email from Secretary Esper 's Chief of Staff, to Laura K. Cooper, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, in late July" asking for follow-up on a meeting with the President,'' including information on whether" U.S. industry[ is] providing any of this equipment,''" international contributions'' to Ukraine, and" who gave this funding'';


fact sheets and other information provided by Ms. Cooper in response to the email request;


• an email sent to Ms. Cooper 's staff on July 25 at 2:31 p.m.-- the same day as President 's Trump 's call with Ukrainian President Zelensky-- stating that the Ukrainian Embassywas inquiring about the status of military aid, suggesting that Ukrainian officials were concerned about the status of the military aid much earlier than ever previously acknowledged by the Executive Branch;


• an email sent to Ms. Cooper 's staff on July 25 at 4:25 p.m. stating that the Ukrainian Embassy and The Hill newspaper had become aware of the situation with the military assistance funding; and


• an email received by Ms. Cooper 's staff on July 3 at 4:23 p.m. from the Department of State explaining that the Department of State" had heard the CN[ Congressional Notification] is currently being blocked by OMB.''


The Committees also have good-faith reason to believe that the Department of Defense is in possession of and continues to withhold significantly more documents and records responsive to the subpoena and of direct relevance to the impeachment inquiry.
Department of Energy

On October 10, the Committees sent a letter to Secretary of Energy Rick Perry conveying a subpoena issued by the Intelligence Committee for ten categories of documents in response to reports about his involvement with matters under investigation.
The Committees wrote:

Recently, public reports have raised questions about any role you may have played in conveying or reinforcing the President 's stark message to the Ukrainian President.
These reports have also raised significant questions about your efforts to press Ukrainian officials to change the management structure at a Ukrainian state-owned energy company to benefit individuals involved with Rudy Giuliani 's push to get Ukrainian officials to interfere in our 2020 election.

The subpoena required Secretary Perry to produce responsive documents by October 18.
On that day, Melissa F. Burnison, the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, responded by refusing to produce any documents and reciting many of the same flawed arguments as the White House Counsel:

Pursuant to these concerns, the Department restates the President 's position:" Given that your inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, or even the most elementary due process protections, the Executive Branch can not be expected to participate in it.''


To date, Secretary Perry has not produced a single document sought by the Committees and has not indicated any intent to do so going forward.


Witnesses who testified before the Committees have identified multiple documents that Secretary Perry is withholding that are directly relevant to the impeachment inquiry, including but not limited to:


a document passed directly from Secretary Perry to President Zelensky in a May 2019 meeting with a list of" people he trusts'' that President Zelensky could seek advice from on issues of relating to" key Ukrainian energy-sector contacts,'' according to David Holmes, the Political Counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv;


a June 5 email from Philip Reeker, Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, to Secretary Perry and others, regarding" Zelenskyy 's visit to Brussels, and the critical-- perhaps historic-- role of the dinner and engagement Gordon[ Ambassador Sondland] coordinated''; and


a July 19 email from Secretary Perry in which he states" Mick[ Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney] just confirmed the call being set up for tomorrow by NSC'' in reference to a call between President Trump and President Zelensky.


The Committees also have good-faith reason to believe that the Department of Energy is in possession of and continues to withhold significantly more documents and records responsive to the subpoena and of direct relevance to the impeachment inquiry.


Rudy Giuliani and His Associates


On September 30, the Committees sent a letter conveying a subpoena issued by the Intelligence Committee to the President 's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, compelling the production of 23 categories of documents relating to his actions in Ukraine.


On October 15, Mr. Giuliani 's counsel responded to the Committees by stating that Mr. Giuliani" will not participate because this appears to be an unconstitutional, baseless, and illegitimate` impeachment inquiry.
''' He also stated:" Mr. Giuliani adopts all the positions set forth in Mr. Cipollone 's October 8, 2019 letter on behalf of President Donald J. Trump.''

To date, Mr. Giuliani has not produced a single document sought by the Committees and has not indicated any intent to do so going forward.


On September 30, the Committees sent letters to two of Mr. Giuliani 's business associates-- Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas-- requesting testimony and eleven categories of documents from each.
The Committees sought documents from Mr. Fruman and Mr. Parnas related to their efforts to influence U.S. elections.

According to press reports, Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman reportedly were" assisting with Giuliani 's push to get Ukrainian officials to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son as well as Giuliani 's claim that Democrats conspired with Ukrainians in the 2016 campaign.''
Press reports also indicate that Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman were involved with efforts to press Ukrainian officials to change the management structure at a Ukrainian state-owned energy company, Naftogaz, to benefit individuals involved with Mr. Giuliani 's push to get Ukrainian officials to interfere in the 2020 election.

On October 3, counsel to Mr. Fruman and Mr. Parnas responded to Committee staff, explaining his clients ' relationship with Mr. Giuliani and President Trump:


Be advised that Messrs. Parnas and Fruman assisted Mr. Giuliani in connection with his representation of President Trump.
Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman have also been represented by Mr. Giuliani in connection with their personal and business affairs. They also assisted Joseph DiGenova and Victoria Toensing in their law practice.

With respect to preparing Mr. Fruman and Mr. Parnas ' response, their counsel wrote:" The amount of time requires is difficult to determine.
[ sic] but we are happy to keep you advised of our progress and engage in a rolling production of non-privileged documents.''

On October 8, their counsel wrote again to Committee staff, stating:


This is an update.
We continue to meet with Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman to gather the facts and documents related to the many subjects and persons detailed in your September 30 letter and to evaluate all of that information in light of the privileges we raised in our last letter.

On October 9, their counsel wrote to Committee staff, stating," Please be advised that Messrs. Parnas and Fruman agree with and adopt the position of White House Counsel pertaining to Democrat inquiry.''


On October 10, the Committees transmitted subpoenas compelling Mr. Fruman and Mr. Parnas to produce eleven categories of documents .205 That same day, their counsel responded:


As I did in my recent letter of October 8, 2019, please be advised we were in the formative stages of recovering and reviewing records on October 9 when Messrs. Parnas and Fruman were arrested by the FBI and locked up in Virginia pursuant to Four Count Indictment by a Federal Grand Jury in the Southern District of New York unsealed on October 10, 2019.


Further their records and other belongings, including materials sought by your subpoenas, were seized pursuant warrants[ sic] by the FBI in several locations on the 9th or 10th of October.


To date, Mr. Fruman has not produced a single document in response to his subpoena and has not indicated any intent to do so going forward.


With respect to Mr. Parnas, he obtained new counsel during the course of the impeachment inquiry.
His new attorney has asserted that Mr. Parnas will cooperate with the House 's inquiry, stating:" We will honor and not avoid the committee 's requests to the extent they are legally proper, while scrupulously protecting Mr. Parnas ' privileges including that of the Fifth Amendment.''

In contrast to Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Fruman, Mr. Parnas has begun rolling production of certain records in his possession, custody, or control in response to the subpoena, which the Committees are evaluating.
The Committees expect Mr. Parnas ' full compliance with the subpoena.
Highlighted Information
People
Groups
Interactions
Narrative Web
Timeline
Times Cloud
Map
Places Cloud
Subjects Cloud
Actions Cloud
Objects Cloud
Verbs
Nouns
Contexts Cloud