Here's the Whistleblower Complaint Democrats Think Will End Trump
The House Intelligence Committee on Thursday released to the public a whistleblower complaint made by an unnamed U.S. intelligence official following a July 25 phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
In recent days, Democrats have focused on the phone call, during which they claim Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden.
Previous media accounts have said Biden pressured Ukraine to dismiss a prosecutor who was investigating an energy company that paid Hunter Biden.
The Washington Post linked the call to a July decision to temporarily withhold about $400 million in aid to Ukraine, though the money was paid earlier this month.
On Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the start of an impeachment probe into Trump, citing in part the phone call.
The White House released a transcript of the call on Wednesday, and later that day, a copy of the whistleblower’s full complaint was sent to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
Here is the text of the full complaint, though some parts of the section labeled “classified” have been redacted.
Dear Chairman Burr and Chairman Schiff:
I am reporting an “urgent concern” in accordance with the procedures outlined in 50 U.S.C. §3033(k)(5)(A). This letter is UNCLASSIFIED when separated from the attachment.
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 U.S. 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 ﬁgure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.
- Over the past four months, more than half a dozen U.S. ofﬁcials have informed me of various facts related to this effort. The information provided herein was relayed to me in the course of ofﬁcial interagency business. It is routine for U.S. ofﬁcials with responsibility for a particular regional or functional portfolio to share such information with one another in order to inform policymaking and analysis.
- I 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 ofﬁcials 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 ﬂagrant problem, abuse, or violation of law or Executive Order” that “does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters,” consistent with the deﬁnition of an “urgent concern” in 50 U.S.C. §3033(k)(5)(G). I am therefore fulﬁlling my duty to report this information, through proper legal channels, to the relevant authorities.
- I am also concerned that these actions pose risks to U.S. national security and undermine the U.S. Government’s efforts to deter and counter foreign interference in U.S. elections.
To the best of my knowledge, the entirety of this statement is unclassiﬁed when separated from the classiﬁed enclosure. I have endeavored to apply the classiﬁcation standards outlined in Executive Order (EO) 13526 and to separate out information that I know or have reason to believe is classiﬁed for national security purposes.
- If a classiﬁcation marking is applied retroactively, I believe it is incumbent upon the classifying authority to explain why such a marking was applied, and to which speciﬁc 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 Volodymyr Zelenskyy. I do not know which side initiated the call. This was the ﬁrst publicly acknowledged call between the two leaders since a brief congratulatory call after Mr. Zelenskyy won the presidency on 21 April.
Multiple White House ofﬁcials 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. Zelenskyy to, inter alia:
- initiate or continue an investigation into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden;
- assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election originated in Ukraine, with a speciﬁc request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security ﬁrm Crowdstrike, which initially reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the DNC’S 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.
The President also praised Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, and suggested that Mr. Zelenskyy might want to keep him in his position. (Note: Starting in March 2019, Mr. Lutsenko made a series of public allegations — many of which he later walked back — about the Biden family’s activities in Ukraine, Ukrainian ofﬁcials’ purported involvement in the 2016 U.S. election, and the activities of the 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 ofﬁcials’ retelling, that they had witnessed the President abuse his ofﬁce for personal gain.
The Ukrainian side was the ﬁrst to publicly acknowledge the phone call. On the evening of 25 July, a readout was posted on the website of the 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 of corruption cases that have held back cooperation between Ukraine and the United States.”
Aside from the above-mentioned “cases” purportedly dealing with the Biden family and the 2016 U.S. election, I was told by White House ofﬁcials that no other “cases” were discussed.
Based on my understanding, there were approximately a dozen White House ofﬁcials who listened to the call — a mixture of policy ofﬁcials and duty ofﬁcers in the White House Situation Room, as is customary. The ofﬁcials 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.
- In addition to White House personnel, I was told that a State Department ofﬁcial, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call.
- I was not the only non-White House ofﬁcial to receive a readout of the call. Based on my understanding, multiple State Department and Intelligence Community ofﬁcials 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. ofﬁcials that senior White House ofﬁcials had intervened to “lock down” all records of the phone call, especially the ofﬁcial 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.
- White House ofﬁcials told me that they were “directed” by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, ﬁnalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level ofﬁcials.
- Instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classiﬁed information of an especially sensitive nature. One White House ofﬁcial 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.
III. Ongoing concerns
On 26 July, a day after the call, U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker visited Kyiv and met with President Zelenskyy and a variety of Ukrainian political ﬁgures. Ambassador Volker was accompanied in his meetings by U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me by various U.S. ofﬁcials, Ambassadors Volker and Sondland reportedly provided advice to the Ukrainian leadership about how to “navigate” the demands that the President had made of Mr, Zelenskyy. I also learned from multiple U.S. ofﬁcials that, on or about 2 August, Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Madrid to meet with one of President Zelenskyy’s advisers, Andriy Yerrnak. The U.S. ofﬁcials characterized this meeting, which was not reported publicly at the time, as a “direct follow-up” to the President’s call with Mr. Zelenskyy about the “cases” they had discussed.
- Separately, multiple U.S. ofﬁcials told me that Mr. Giuliani had reportedly privately reached out to a variety of other Zelenskyy advisers, including Chief of Staff Andriy
Bohdan and Acting Chairman of the Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov.
- I do not know whether those ofﬁcials met or spoke with Mr. Giuliani, but I was told separately-by multiple U.S. ofﬁcials that Mr. Yerrnak and Mr. Bakanov intended to travel to Washington in mid-August.
On 9 August, the President told reporters: “I think [President Zelenskyy] 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 I think he will. He’s a very reasonable guy. He wants to see peace in Ukraine, and I think 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 ofﬁcials — most notably, Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko — made a series of allegations against other Ukrainian ofﬁcials and current and former U.S. ofﬁcials. Mr. Lutsenko and his colleagues alleged, inter alia:
- that they possessed evidence that Ukrainian ofﬁcials — namely, Head of the National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine Artem Sytnyk and Member of Parliament Serhiy
Leshchenko — had “interfered” in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, allegedly in collaboration with the DNC and the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv;
- that the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv — speciﬁcally, U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who had criticized Mr. Lutsenko’s organization for its poor record on ﬁghting corruption — had allegedly obstructed Ukrainian law enforcement agencies’ pursuit of corruption 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 U.S. election; and
- that former Vice President Biden had pressured former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in 2016 to ﬁre 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.
In several public comments, Mr. Lutsenko also stated that he wished to communicate directly with Attorney General Barr on these matters.
The allegations by Mr. Lutsenko came on the eve of the ﬁrst round of Ukraine’s presidential election on 31 March. By that time, Mr. Lutsenko’s political patron, President Poroshenko, was trailing Mr. Zelenskyy in the polls and appeared likely to be defeated. Mr. Zelenskyy had made known his desire to replace Mr. Lutsenko as Prosecutor General. On 21 April, Mr. Poroshenko lost the runoff to Mr. Zelenskyy by a landslide. See Enclosure for additional information.
- It was also publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani had met on at least two occasions with Mr. Lutsenko: 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 of Mr. Giuliani.
- 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 U.S. ofﬁcials with direct knowledge of the situation that Ambassador Yovanovitch had been suddenly recalled to Washington by senior State Department ofﬁcials for “consultations” and would most likely be removed from her position.
- Around the same time, I also learned from a U.S. ofﬁcial that “associates” of Mr. Giuliani were trying to make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team.
- On 6 May, the State Department announced that Ambassador Yovanovitch would be ending her assignment in Kyiv “as planned.”
- However, several U.S. ofﬁcials 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 “removed…because she was part of the efforts against the President.”
On 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.
- In his multitude of public statements leading up to and in the wake of the publication of this article, Mr. Giuliani conﬁrmed 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. Zelenskyy was “surrounded by enemies of the [U.S.] President…and of the United States.”
On 11 May, Mr. Lutsenko met for two hours with President-elect Zelenskyy, according to a public account given several days later by Mr. Lutsenko. Mr. Lutsenko publicly stated that he had told Mr. Zelenskyy that he wished to remain as Prosecutor General.
Starting in mid-May, I heard from multiple U.S. ofﬁcials that they were deeply concerned by what they viewed as Mr. Giuliani’s circumvention of national security decisionmaking processes to engage with Ukrainian ofﬁcials and relay messages back and forth between Kyiv and the President. These ofﬁcials also told me:
- that State Department ofﬁcials, including Ambassadors Volker and Sondland, had spoken with Mr. Giuliani in an attempt to “contain the damage” to U.S. national security; and
- 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 official US channels on the one hand, and from Mr. Giuliani on the other.
During this same timeframe, multiple U.S. ofﬁcials told me that the Ukrainian leadership was led to believe that a meeting or phone call between the President and President Zelenskyy would depend on whether Zelenskyy 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. ofﬁcials 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 Zelenskyy’s inauguration, it was publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani met with two other Ukrainian ofﬁcials: Ukraine’s Special Anticorruption Prosecutor, Mr. Nazar Kholodnytskyy, and a former Ukrainian diplomat named Andriy Telizhenko. Both Mr. Kholodnytskyy and Mr. Telizhenko 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 ABC’s 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 of Poroshenko. 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 U.S. assistance for Ukraine. See Enclosure for additional information.
ENCLOSURE: Classiﬁed appendix
(U) Supplementary classiﬁed information is provided as follows:
(U) Additional information related to Section II
According to multiple White House ofﬁcials I spoke with, the transcript of the President’s call with President Zelenskyy 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 ofﬁcials, some ofﬁcials voiced concerns internally that this would be an abuse of the system and was not consistent With the responsibilities of the Directorate for Intelligence Programs. According to White House ofﬁcials I spoke with, this was “not the ﬁrst 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 — information.
(U) Additional information related to Section IV
- Section Redacted
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
deﬁnitively whether the below-mentioned decisions are connected to the broader efforts I describe, I have chosen to include them in the classiﬁed annex. If they indeed represent genuine policy deliberations and decisions formulated to advance U.S. foreign policy and national security, one might be able to make a reasonable case that the facts are classiﬁed.
- I learned from U.S. ofﬁcials that, on or around 14 May, the President instructed Vice President Pence to cancel his planned travel to Ukraine to attend President Zelenskyy’s inauguration on 20 May; Secretary of Energy Rick Perry led the delegation instead. According to these ofﬁcials, it was also “made clear” to them that the President did not want to meet with Mr. Zelenskyy until he saw how Zelenskyy “chose to act” in ofﬁce. 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 Zelenskyy would depend on whether Zelenskyy showed willingness to “play ball” on the issues that had been publicly aired by Mr. Lutsenko and Mr. Giuliani.
- On 18 July, an Ofﬁce of Management and Budget (OMB) ofﬁcial informed Departments and Agencies that the President “earlier that month” had issued instructions to suspend all U.S. 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 ofﬁcials 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 U.S. ofﬁcials that some Ukrainian ofﬁcials were aware that U.S. aid might be in jeopardy, but I do not know how or when they learned of it.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.