Case Document 75 Filed 05/16/19 Page 1 of 7 ATTACHMENT 1 Case Document 75 Filed 05/16/19 Page 2 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Crim. No. 17-232 (EGS) MICHAEL T. Sentencing: December 18, 2018 Defendant. ADDENDUM TO GOVERNMENTS MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING This Addendum to the Government?s Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing describes the signi?cance and usefulness of defendant Michael T. assistance to the government, and the timeliness of that assistance. As described herein, the defendant?s assistance to the government was substantial and merits consideration at sentencing. 1. Signi?cance and Usefulness of the Defendant?s Assistance The defendant has assisted with several ongoing investigations: a criminal investigation in the Eastern District of Virginia. that is likely to result in criminal charges, the Special Counsel?s Office?s investigation concerning any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald J. Trump, As part of his assistance with these investigations, the defendant participated in 19 interviews with the ECG or attorneys from other Department of Justice of?ces, provided documents and communications? While this addendum seeks to provide a comprehensive description of the benefit the Case Document 75 Filed 05/16/19 Page 3 of 7 govermnent has thus. far obtained from the defendant?s; substantial assistance: some of that bene?t may not be fully realized at this time because the investigations in which he has provided assistance are ongoing. The defendant and the goverinnent agree that sentencing at this time is nonetheless appropriate because suf?cient infonnation is available to allow the Court to detennine the import of the defendant?s assistance to his sentence. A. Eastern District of Virginia Criminal Investigation The defendant has provided substantial assistance in a criminal investigation of Bijan Ra?ekian, Ekim Alptekin_ being conducted by the US. Attorney?s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. and the National Security Division for violating the Foreign. Agents Registration Act acting as agents of a foreign government. without notifying the Attorney General (18 [15.0 951), and making materially false statements to the federal government (18 U.S.C. 1001). Part of the investigation concerned work that the defendant, Ra?ekian, and their company performed with Alptekin for the principal bene?t. of the Republic of Turkey (?Turkey project?). On December 3., 2.017, as part. of his Statement of Offense, the defendant stipulated and agreed that he violated. PARA by tnaking materially false statements in the documents that Ra?ekian and he ?led with about that work for the Republic of Turkey. See Statement of Offense, Untied States v. Flinn-1, No. l7?cr?232 (D.D.C. Dec. 1., 2017) (Doc. 4) at 1! 5. The SCO subsequently referred that investigation to EDVA and. NSD. According to prosecutors in EDVA and NSD, the defendant?s cooperation and assistance have been critical to their investigation. The EDVA and prosecutors have interviewed the defendant -2- Case Document 75 Filed 05/16/19 Page 4 of 7 B. The Speciai Counsel?s Office?s Investigation The defendant has also assisted with the SCO investigation concerning links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. See Of?ce of the Deputy Att?y Gen, Order No. 3915-20 1. 7, Appointment of Special Counsel to Investigate Russian. Interference with the 2016 Presidentiai Election and Related Matters, May 17, 2017 Order?). The defendant assisted the investigation on a range of issues, including interactions between individuals in the Presidential Transition Team and Russia, discussions within the campaign about WikiLeaks? release of emaiishand potential efforts to interfere with the investigation. A non-exhaustive summary of the relevant information the defendant provided is described beiow to aid the Court?s assessment of. the defendant?s assistance. I i. Interactions Between. the Transition and Russia The defendant provided firsthand information about the content and context of interactions between the transition team and Russian government of?cials. For example, after the election, the defendant communicated with the Russian ambassador to the United States as a -3- Case Document 75 Filed 05/16/19 Page 5 of 7 representative of the transition team on two sensitive matters: a United Nations Security Council vote on a resolution calling for Israel to cease settlement activities in Palestinian territory and the Obama Administration?s imposition of sanctions and other measures on Russia for interfering in the 20l6 election. Several senior members of the transition team publicly repeated false information conveyed to them by the defendant about communications between him and the Russian ambassador regarding the sanctions. The defendant provided details on which transition team officials he conferred with before communicating with the Russian ambassador, who on the transition team was aware the communications were occurring, and who on the transition team was informed about what he and the Russian ambassador discussed. ii. WikiLeaks Release of Emails During the Presidential Campaign The defendant also provided useful information concerning discussions within the campaign about WikiLeaks? release of emails. WikiLeaks is an important subject of the investigation because a Russian intelligence service used WikiLeaks to release emails the intelligence service stole during the 2016 presidential campaign. On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks released emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee. Beginning on October 2016, WikiLeaks released emails stolen from John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton?s 2016 presidential campaign. The defendant relayed to the government statements made in 2016 by senior campaign of?cials about WikiLeaks to which only a select few people were privy. For example, the defendant recalled conversations with senior campaign officials after the release of the Podesta emails, during which the prospect of reaching out to WikiLeaks was discussed. Potential E?orts to Inteiy?ere with the Special Counsel ?3 O?ice ?3 Investigation The defendant assisted the investigation into potential efforts to interfere with or -4- Case 'Document 75 Filed 05/16/19 Page 6 of 7 otherwise obstruct its investigation. See ODAG Order (authorizing the Special Counsel to investigate ?any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. The defendant informed the government of multiple instances, both before and after his guilty plea, where either he or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the Administration or Congress that could have affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation. The defendant even provided a voicemail recording of one such communication. In some of those instances, the SCO was unaware of the outreach until being alerted to it by the defendant. II. Timeliness of the Defendant?s Assistance The usefulness of the defendant?s assistance is connected to its timeliness. The defendant began providing information to the government not long after the government ?rst sought his cooperation. His early cooperation was particularly valuable because he was one of the few peeple with long-term and firsthand insight regarding events and issues under investigation by the SCO. Additionally, the defendant?s decision to plead guilty and cooperate likely affected the decisions of related ?rsthand witnesses to be forthcoming with the SCO and cooperate. In some instances, individuals whom the SCO interviewed before the defendant?s guilty plea provided -5- Case Document 75 Filed 05/16/19 Page 7 of 7 additional, relevant details about their knowledge of key events after his cooperation became public. By: Respectfully submitted, ROBERT S. MUELLER, 111 Special Counsel Brandon L. Van Grack Zainab N. Ahmad Senior Assistant Special Counsels Special Counsel?s Of?ce US. Department of Justice 950 Avenue NW Washington, DC. 20530 (202) 616-0800 Case Document 76 Filed 05/16/19 Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT 2 Case Document 76 Filed 05/16/19 Page 2 of 2 January 24, 2017 What follows are notes I typed shortly after my conversation with LTG Michael While I have quoted directly in a few places, this represents the substance of our conversation. On Tuesday, 01/24/2017, as 1235, LTG Michael called via secure phone from- to my office number-. After talking briefly about the security briefing Mike Steinbach and Bill Priestap provided to White House staff on Sunday, I told LTG that I had a sensitive matter to discuss. I explained that in light of the significant media coverage and public discussion about his recent contacts with Russian representatives, that Director Comey and i felt that we needed to have two of our agents sit down with the General and hear from him the details of those conversations. LTG asked if I was referring to his contacts with the Russian Ambassador to the United States, and I indicated that I was. LTG then explained that he had been trying to ?build relationships" with the Russians, and that he had calls in which he ?exchanged condolences.? He then stated that I probably knew what was said- reiterated that in light of everything that has been said about these contacts, the important thing now was for us to hear directly from him what he said and how he felt about the conversations. LTG questioned how so much information had been made public and asked if we thought it had been leaked. I replied that we were quite concerned about what we perceived as significant leaks I explained to LTG that my desire was to have two of my agents interview him as quickly, quietly and discretely as possible. He agreed and offered to meet with the agents today. We had some discussion about timing and ultimately agreed to conduct the interview at his office in the White House at 1430 this afternoon. I explained that I thought the quickest way to get this done was to have a conversation between him and the agents only. I further stated that if LTG wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the White House Counsel for instance, that I would need to involve the Department ofJustice. He stated that this would not be necessary and agreed to meet with the agents without any additional participants. Classified By: Derived From: FBI FGI CG dated 20130620 Declassify On: 20421231 DOJSCO-700021215 Case Document 77 Filed 05/16/19 Page 1 of 6 ATTACHMENT 3 Case Document 77 Filed 05/16/19 Page 2 of 6 "(346515; mm -., FEDERAL BUREAIE 0F INVESTIGATION Dale {33 {fit/'2 (i '3 DOCUMENT RESTRICTED TO CASE $hie decume?t contains information that 13 restricted ta Gage participants. Deputy Aseigtant ?irectmr (BED) 9eter F, was intexviewed in hie effice in the Special Cauneel'm Office-in Waehington D. Qan?icipating.in the interview were Senier Assistant Special Ceunsel ans? Swen-?xer? apecial Agent Th9 purpase 0f the interview wee to celiecg certain regar?ing Strzak?s invelvement in.varieu3 aspects 0f what has became the Speciai Couneel's investigation. ?trzok pxovide? the follewing informatiem: - Ms F83. ?aunterintelligence 33:52:?, 5:121:20}: had invelvement in eevera; FEE inveatigatiena which were subsequently taken over by the Special Counsel. ?pacifically, F8: imvestigatiena xegaxding theanatienal Seearity Adviser, Genexal Michael kt varieus times, Strzak'and the cu Deputy Atterney GeneraliActing Attorney General Sally Yate? and other BGJ representativee an the entire span 0f the Russian electimn intexferencefceilusion inveetigatimns. LJJ (mgg?e0e3 a with up t0 Acting 143?. n? Mi 3?3 - as: ?ssistant Atterhey Genexal Mary McCerd. a bistrict 6f yolumbia, United States {2526311} mu: - Dmdm?ed by - This docmnm! contain? Milli-v: um minim: nf 1h:- FBI. I: is that property of the FBI and its imn?td u: ymn? age-My; it and its; come-ms mt an: to he dism?bmed outside mt: agmmy. Case Document 77 Filed 05/16/19 Page 3 of 6 mum (Rev. era-03? m) - r: -- t: whimsx?iy? .Pngn e3? Cfanumwim: of of 5) 3?03: 53?) 33' . 2&17, Mc?ebe tcib? 1. interview and Fiynn agreed to be ?red the On January 24, Fiynn. Mc?abe talked at i2:30 p.m. intexviewed that day at 2:33 p?m. Ma?ahe may have documec conversation. Comey wag g?ing to tell EeKe? right before the interview, but mhe calie? him iiret ?ex anether :eazon ha? a whance t5 DOJSCOJUOOETZOZ Case Document 77 Filed 05/16/19 Page 4 of 6 (Raw. 1 r; lemmimufm?mg?f Peter P. Streak interview B?Hl?u?ml'? .Pa'gc '5 of. .1: mall. When he told her the FBI was interviewi?g she wee net 1355131123; . $115720}: and FBI his. interview panthex, get accegs to the White with the aegietance Qf an EB: White Reuse detailee. met them at abaut 2:15, which was earlier than agreed. was alone and "relaxed and jocular." He wante? to give them a little tour of the area around his effice. During-their waik through the ?eet Wing, Preeident Txump and same mavers were discuseing whexe tats palace ?ame art work walked between Strzo}: and but nobody paid attentimn to the agente. did not intxaduee them t0 anyane. Befmze the interview. McCabe, FBI General Cmunsel Jamee Baker others deci?ed the agents weuld not warn that it wag a cxima t6 lie during an FBI interview because they wanted to be reiaxe?, and -they were cancerned that giving the waxnings might adversely affect the xappert. was unguarded and cleaxly saw the FBI agents a3 allies. Be talked about vazieus subjects, including hotela whexe they etayed duxing the campaign and the Ereeident?e knack for interior deeign. He talked about the leng houre ef the job and complained abaut the pelitice aurrounding it, but always seemed to woxk hi3 way to the subject'ef terroriem. was so talkative, and had so much time for them, that Streak wmn?exed if the Natianal ?ecurity A?viaex did not have more impertant things to $3 than have such a relaxed; n?nhpertinent diecuseion with them. it wag decided befexe the interview the agente - av-?J z. ?a??lia?i LES-the exact wizarcis Lia-zed, such as tie try terefresh his recallection. If atill weuld u. an 5 . dat he Said they would net amnfant him my talk him threugh 53:25:29}: conducted the: interview and - wars: primarily respensihle fox taking natea and writing the (UXEFOGC) Throughmut the interview, had a very ?sure" demeaner and did net give any indicatore 9f deception. did mat paxse his wards er heeitate in any ef his anewexs. only hedged once, which they DOJSCO-700021203 Case Document 77 Filed 05/16/19 Page 5 of 6 50-30231 (Rm. 05.03-20; $533330} EM) Peter 3mm}: interview .931?. 3} of f5 Cumumalinn 0f 5; bath had the impraesien at the struck documented in the 302. Streak and time that wag net lying ox di? not think he wag lying. ?trzok 33 ?bright, but not prafeundiy sophisticated.? The agente left in a collegial, positive way. There was hm of fellewwup. Straw: and ?L*et11riaed to Headquaxters and briefee? McCabe and Baker an the interview. McCabe briefed Camey. Streak was aware that Baker and ?rincipal Asscciate Deputy attorney General Matt $xelrod later axgued about the decision to interview (UXJFOUG) Shortly after the interview, Yates and McCoxd briefed White 'Houee staff an the calls. Case Document 77 Filed 05/16/19 Page 6 of 6 FED-3025 (RH, {15-63-10} 13M Pete-r P. imerview .On may ?3 {:13 5