‘THE SECRETARY OF STATE WASHINGTON June 11, 2020 ‘The Honorable Eliot Engel, Chairman Committee on Foreign Affairs USS. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Mr. Chairman: You and I share a responsibility to ensure the American people have the full truth about former State Department Inspector General Steve Linick. I hear you've been busy in your District, so let me get you up to speed on what’s been going on with your Committee. ' Two weeks ago, we offered for Under Secretary of State for Management Brian Bulatao to speak with you and all Members of your Committee. * This week, Deputy Secretary of State Steve Biegun asked to have a call with you to discuss our offer and how to provide you the information you seek. Last night, your staff informed us you personally declined to speak to both Mr. Bulatao and Mr. Biegun. Instead, you asked your staff to have this conversation on your behalf. As you stated in your June 10 press release, if “State Department officials want to refute Mr. Linick’s account, they can do so.” ‘That is precisely what we've been attempting to do. This letter serves as a formal, written, public offer for Under Secretary Bulatao to voluntarily testi public hearing before the full House Committee on Foreign Affairs. If you, Mr. Chairman, want to hear the “answer[s to] critical questions about why President Trump fired Mr. Linick at the request of Secretary Pompeo,” Mr. Bulatao is prepared to unambiguously refute your incorrect accusations at a hearing on June 22 or 23 — in the morning, afternoon, or evening. Please let the Deputy Secretary know if you want to afford your Members this opportunity by returning his phone call at your earliest convenience. An email from your staff will not suffice. Tregret that you, someone for whom I have great respect, have let your staff take over this historically significant, non-partisan Committee. Please find enclosed the Department's response to your “investigation.” Sincerely yours, Michael 1 “Amid a pandemic and protests Rep. Eliot Engel i ichtine for his political survival” ~ The Hill Bridget Bowman, une 10, 2020 2 May 28. 2020 lever from the Department of State to Chainnan EngelEnclosures: June 11 Letter from Secretary Pompeo to Chairman Engel June 11 Letter from Deputy Secretary Biegun to Chairman Engel Key takeaways from the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s transcript of Linick’s interview‘THE SECRETARY OF STATE WASHINGTON June 11, 2020 The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, Chairman Committee on Foreign Affairs USS. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairman Engel Thave not yet had the opportunity to completely review the full transcript of the interview of former State Department Inspector General Steve Linick, However, I need to respond to a nasty insinuation you have made, which Deputy Secretary Biegun has also addressed in a letter to you, as you have provided a clearly misleading narrative to the American people. ‘Namely, you imply that my recommendation to remove Mr. Linick was motivated by an “ongoing investigation into allegations of misuse of government resources by [me] and [my] wife.” Just as the Deputy Secretary confirmed in his letter, I can also confirm that neither Deputy Secretary Biegun, former Deputy Secretary Sullivan, Under Secretary Bulatao, Executive Secretary Kenna, nor any other State Department official ever discussed with me any such “investigation” before the President removed Inspector General Linick from his position. Because I had no knowledge of this alleged work by the Inspector General at the time I recommended to the President that Mr. Linick be removed, it is not possible that Mr. Linick’s ‘work on this matter could have provided a retaliatory motivation for my recommendation. Rather, my recommendation to the President was based on Mr. Linick’s failure to properly perform his duties over a series of many months. The Department further described the reasons for this loss of confidence in a June 8, 2020 referral to the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) regarding, among other issues, Mr. Linick’s strange and erratic behavior in connection with the Defense Department Inspector General’s leak investigation of Mr. Linick and his office. I would also like to confirm that at no point did I discuss with Executive Secretary Kenna my recommendation to the President to remove Inspector General Linick before the President's decision became public.Inced an Inspector General working every day with integrity to improve State Department operations and efficiency. Mr. Linick was not that person, Sincerely, { VL) Michael\Yompeo Secretary of StateTHE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE WASHINGTON June 11, 2020 ‘The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, Chairman Committee on Foreign Affairs U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairman Engel T am writing to correct a serious misstatement made in a Committee press release following an interview conducted with former State Department Inspector General Steve Linick. In its release, the Committee asserted that Mr. Linick’s testimony indicated that “there was an ongoing investigation into allegations of misuse of government resources by Secretary Pompeo and his wife.” It further asserts that Mr. Linick also confirmed that his office sought documents related to this matter from “the Secretary's office through Executive Secretary Kenna, and that [Mr. Linick] had personally discussed this investigation with Under Secretary of State for Management Brian Bulatao and Deputy Secretary of State Biegun.” The Committee then wrongly concluded, without any evidence or corroboration, that Secretary Pompeo therefore must have been aware of the Inspector General’s work on this matter at the time that he recommended that he be removed from his position. This conclusion is entirely false. Ihave spoken with Executive Secretary Kenna, former Deputy Secretary Sullivan, and Under Secretary Bulatao about this conclusion. We can confirm unequivocally that, to the extent that any one of us were made aware of any “investigation” of this nature, none of us briefed Secretary Pompeo on, or otherwise discussed with him, this purported “investigation” at any time before the President removed Mr. Linick from his position, Indeed, I have maintained a “firewall” related to any Inspector General discussions to preclude —to the maximum extent practicable — the Secretary of State’s involvement in any specific investigations. Mr. Chairman, I hope that this information provides clarity for the Committee’s inquiry and that the Committee will avoid further perpetuating this false conclusion, I remain available for a phone call with you at your convenience, and I reiterate Under Secretary Bulatao’s readiness to testify at a hearing with members of the Committee to discuss this matter as well. Sincerely, S Stephen E. BiegunTHREE THINGS DEMOCRATS WON’T TELL YOU ABOUT LINICK’S TESTIMONY ‘ONE: Linick’s Poor Judgment, Inconsistent, and Inappropriate Behavior A DoD Inspector General report detailed Steve Linick’s inappropriate behavior under his own IG rules. Linick received this report on March 17, 2020 and purposefully withheld this report from the Department and Congress for inconsistent reasons. First, Linick denies that it was of interest to the Department: © LINICK: “Thad a couple calls with (senior officials)...It wasn’t on their radar” (p00 74) -uthen he denies having any hesitation of sharing it: © Q:"So,after March 17, then, what's the hesitation with sharing it with Department leadership?” ‘© LINICK: “There wasn't a hesitation...they never followed up on that end at all with it. So there was no ‘communication about the report after March ~ you know, whatever the date ~ after the date I received it.” (page D .then cites that leadership failed to follow up: © Q:“Well, how would anyone in the Department have known that you received it in March?” ‘©, LINICK: “No, I didn’t say that, They didn't ask - they didn't follow up about the report in the phone conversations that Ihad after we shut down.” ‘But isn't it possible that they didn't follow up because they had no knowledge ~ they thought the report was still ongoing? They didn’t know —" © LINICK: “Yeah. I don't know what they knew or what they didn’t know.” (page 78) -nthen cites he wanted to tell the Deputy Secretary in person: © “Well then, if there was no reason to hold it back, why’d you hold it back?” ‘© LINICK: "... [wanted to sit down with the Deputy Secretary in person.” (pase 185) suthen cites COVID-19: © LINICK: “As I said before, everything shut down. Everybody was focused on COVID-19.", suthen cites there was zero reason to withhold it: © LINICK: “This report was very favorable to us, so I'm not sure why there would be any reason to hold it back, Honestly, they didn’t ask about it” all while admitting to knowing that Department leadership wanted the results: © Q:“So you did know they wanted to know the results. But they did not bring it up again in phone calls that you hrad after that time. Is that right?” © LINICK: “Yes. Yes.” © Q:“Okay. So he did ask you forthe written product, correct?” © A:"Yes.” (page 124-1 -uyet Linick never gave this report on his misconduct to a single person in Department leadership: © LINICK: “... would imagine it would be normal to follow up if they still cared about it. Frankly, I didn't think it was a top-bumer issue for them. Ihad already told them the results of it. And that's why I didn’t give it to them.” (Pages 29-8)THREE THINGS DEMOCRATS WON'T TELL YOU ABOUT LINICK’S TESTIMONY Linick violated his administrative leave by contacting his former Deputy to obtain a copy of that report to prepare for this testimony. Linick was instructed not to speak to anyone in his office about official business or access his network. 0 LINICK: “[Department officials stated I will be placed on administrative leave with no access to my building or my network” (page 32) Q: "Did you take any proactive steps to obtain the DOD review since you were removal as inspector general?” LINICK: “Yeah, I tried to get a copy of it from my office.” “And how did you do that? Can you explain that?” LINICK: “Sure. I called ~- or I was on the phone with ~ I forget if she called me, the deputy IG and I- asked for a copy of it.” (“And why did you ask for a copy of it?” © LINICK: “Because I didn’t have a copy of it because it was on my system at the office. And I wanted it in advance of the hearing.” (page 157) TWO: Linick Repeatedly Broke IG Rules and Precedents Linick repeatedly broke IG rules and sent a sensitive draft report - which was subsequently leaked to the media- from his official account to his personal Gmail account EIGHT times in SIX days, Linick also admitted to sharing the draft report with two other IGs, including the DOD IG, whom he later selected to investigate leaks by his own office. © Q“So how many different times did the IG discover you sent the work product from your IG email to your ‘personal Gmail account?” (© LINICK: “Between -- I believe it was 23 times between March 19 of 2019 and September of 2019.” (page 160) © Q“And footnote 1, second sentence: U.S. OIG also has email policy that is documented via an information systems rules of behavior. These documents state in part, quote: Use OIG-provided equipment and systems/applications at all times, including OIG email, to conduct official OIG business. The use of corporate or personal equipment to information systems/applications, to include to email or other file storage sites to store, process, or transmit OIG or Department data is prohibited.” (oye 162) (0 "IG Linick also stated that he consulted with two colleagues who had previously worked on similar political reprisals inquiries. IG Linick said he sent a password-protected draft copy of the evaluation report to IG Horowitz from his DOS OIG email account, and spoke about the evaluation report with Glenn Fine, Principle Deputy Inspector General Performing the Duties of the Inspector General, Department of Defense OIG.” (March 17, 2020 - DOD IG limited review on the DOS IG’s unauthorized release of information to the media) Linick then claimed he was following State Department policy, rather than OIG's policy, despite repeatedly claiming independence from the Department when it suited him. (© LINICK; "So, atthe time, Iwas doing it, had State Department rules in mind. I did not have in mind this O1G rule, But, honestly, if had thought about, I would have done the time same thing because Ineeded to get my work done, but I probably would have talked to the IT folks to say Ineed an exception to this and take the appropriate precautions.” © Q: "So it seems. little convenient to me that you liked to have independence from the Department. Yet in the case where you are emailing yourself on dozens of occasions, you are going to take the State Department policy and not abide by the strict O1G policy.” © LINICK: “Well, actually, atthe time, [actually didn't have the OIG policy in mind. I thought we actually tracked the State Department policy.” (page 76)THREE THINGS DEMOCRATS WON'T TELL YOU ABOUT LINICK’S TESTIMONY ‘THREE: State Department Leadership Acted 100% Appropriately Despite baseless assumptions and Mr. Linick’s atypical handling of pending investigations, there is zero evidence supporting the theory that the Secretary was aware of ~ or attempted to influence in any way - additional ongoing investigations. Linick admitted that he was never influenced by State Department leadership on any investigation: © Q:“Atany point during the Trump administration..did anyone at the State Department ever pressure you to change a finding or a conclusion or a recommendation in any of your work products?” © LINICK: “No. mean, we had ~ you know, that doesn't mean that there wasn't disagreement, but I don’t take disagreement as an effort to pressure or change in that sense...If we got the facts wrong, we want to know that. ‘So we're very interested in the Department's perspective... [T]here is always opportunity for healthy exchange, and we want that. But I've never felt pressured unduly to change any of my findings or conclusions” (pes a Linick admitted that neither Under Secretary Bulatao, nor any other senior Department official, ever obstructed - or “bullied” — him. In fact, what Linick describes amounted to nothing more than Bulatao ~on a single occasion ~ questioning whether Mr. Linick’s investigation had exceeded the typical boundaries of an 1G investigation. Q:""The question is, is Secretary Pompeo involved in the timing of the release of the report on the arms sales?” LINICK: “No. We always ~ we're the ones who control the timing.” (page 174) “And the Undersecretary indicated that he wanted you to stop your work on that topic. Is that right?” LINICK: "... [Undersecretary Bulatao] didn't say stop our work. I don't want to misstate...” (“Even if (Undersecretary Bulatao] had directly asked you, ‘Mr. Linick, I want you to stop looking into this topic’ would you have stopped?” © LINICK: “Well, he didn’t. He didn’t say that.” (nae 206-708) © LINICK: “In connection with our work on the arms control, the emergency certification on the arms control, he told me that it wasn't an appropriate review because it wasa review of policy..while we don't question whether the policy is good or bad, we do look to see how that policy is being carried out and whether it's being carried out in an efficient, effective manner, and whether it's complying with rules and regulations.” (“And what was Under Secretary Bulatao's response when you provided him with that clarification?” LINICK: “He just continued to push back.” © Q: “Okay. Had he pushed back on any other investigations that you were involved in, or does his focus on the arms control issue stand out in your memory?” © LINICK: “That's the only thing that stands out in my memory.” (pave 22) © So this wasn’t something that you decided to do on your own. This wasn't something where you had decided OIG independently disagrees with this policy. You were asked by, I believe, all ofthe Democratic members at least from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, to look into whether or not that policy was being properly implemented and whether it was lawful, and you believed that that would have been within your responsibilities under the IG Act. Do Thave that right?” © LINICK: “Yes, that is correct...}We are nonpartisan. We just look at how policies are carried out and whether they comport applicable regulations and law.” (page 23)THREE THINGS DEMOCRATS WON'T TELL YOU ABOUT LINICK’S TESTIMONY In the House Democrats’ June 2019 letter to Linick, they asked that he look into the PROCESS LEADING to the policy decision NOT the IMPLEMENTATION of the policy: © “...itis critical that your office conduct an investigation into the process leading to the emergency determination.” ©. “The investigation should address the origins of the idea to invoke an emergency, the extent to which dissenting views were expressed and addressed, and the degree to which intelligence and other analysis was considered and incorporated.” (June 20,2019 letter from House Foreign Affairs Committee Democrats to Linick)United States Department of State Washington, D.C. 20520 -- May 28, 2020 The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, Chairman " go Committee on Foreign Affairs Ww House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Chairman Engel: ‘Thank you for your letters of May 16, May 21, May 22, and May 27 regarding President Trump's decision to remove Steve Linick from the position of State Department Inspector General. The Department is carefully reviewing your various requests for information, records, and interviews with several State Department personnel, and is committed to engaging with you in a good faith effort to accommodate these requests, ‘As you make clear in your May 21 letter, the decision and authority as to whether to remove a sitting Inspector General is vested to the President, and we note your recent correspondence to the President on this matter, Subject to the parameters of that authority, the Department will soon be providing a substantive response to your inquiries, as indicated in our interim response sent on May 22. To the extent your requests involve questions regarding ongoing open investigations by the Office of the Inspector General, we believe that it would be more prudent to direct your inquiries to that office. In an effort to demonstrate our commitment to working with you, as an initial step, we are prepared to facilitate a discussion with Members of the Committee with Under Secretary for Management Brian Bulatao, whom you requested in your May 22 letter to appear before the Committee. Once the Department has the opportunity to finalize and transmit its written substantive response to your letters, we request to have a conversation at senior levels with you, Mr. Chairman, to find a mutual accommodation for the Department to respond to your requests for transcribed interviews and information related to this matter. We do have concems, however, that you requested six senior State Department officials to participate in staff-led transcribed interviews in June — and commit to doing so within 5 days — without providing any details regarding their relevance to or involvement in the President’s decision to remove the Inspector General. We appreciate the interest among your Committee Members, and other Members of Congress, on this issue and we look forward to engaging with you in further discussions to reasonably accommodate the Committee's requests. Sincerely, Mary Elizabeth Taylor Assistant Secretary of State Bureau of Legislative Affairs