Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 1 of 36

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEAN LLC d/b/a FUSION GPS
1700 Connecticut Ave., NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20009,

Plaintiff,

V. Case No. 1: 1 7-cv-02187-TSC

DEFENDANT BANK,

Defendant,

PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON
INTELLIGENCE OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
Intervenor.

DECLARATION OF MARK R. STEWART

1. I currently am, and have been since February 2017, General Counsel for the House

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence ("Committee"). In this capacity, I provide legal

oversight of Committee matters, including the Committee's investigation regarding the Russian

active measures campaign targeting the 2016 U.S. election and the publicly announced

parameters of that investigation. The facts set forth in this Declaration are based upon my

personal knowledge.

2. House Resolution 5, approved by the full House on January 3, 2017, and adopting the

Rules of the House of Representatives for the 115th Congress, grants the Committee broad

oversight over intelligence- and intelligence-related activities.

1
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 2 of 36

3. In an exercise of its oversight jurisdiction, on March 1, 2017, the Committee publicly

announced its Scope of Investigation regarding the Committee's investigation relative to the

Russian active measures campaign targeting the 2016 U.S. election. While a detailed, six-page

Committee scoping document remains classified, the Committee announced key questions the

investigation seeks to answer: 1) What Russian cyber activity and other active measures were

directed against the United States and its allies?; 2) Did the Russian active measures include

links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns or any other U.S.

Persons?; 3,) What was the U.S. Government's response to these Russian active measures and

what do we need to do to protect ourselves and our allies in the future?; and 4) What possible

leaks of classified information took place related to the Intelligence Community Assessment of

these matters?

4. Based on extensive media reporting and the Committee's own investigative efforts,

the Committee formed a reasonable belief no later than March 17, 2017, that Fusion GPS and its

founders Mr. Glenn Simpson, Mr. Peter Fritsch, and Mr. Thomas Catan ("Fusion GPS

principals") may have relevant information responsive to the Committee's investigation.

Specifically, the Committee learned of Fusion GPS' commissioning of former British

intelligence officer Christopher Steele to compile the approximate 35-page "Trump Dossier." A

version of the "Trump Dossier" was published by BuzzFeed News on January 10, 2017.

5. Through public reporting, the Committee learned that Fusion GPS was allegedly

commissioned by one or more unnamed parties in Fall 2015 to conduct political opposition

research on then presidential candidate Donald Trump; that this unnamed third party withdrew

from its investigation contract with Fusion GPS during Spring 2016; and that additional

2
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 3 of 36

(unnamed) client(s) took over the contract and continued to pay for the opposition research on

candidate Donald Trump.

6. Based on public reporting, the Committee learned that, as part of that second contract,

Fusion GPS retained the services of Mr. Steele as a subcontractor to conduct an investigation on

then-candidate Donald Trump focusing on Trump's purported ties to Russia. Public reports

indicate that the resulting "Trump Dossier" was allegedly based in part on information gathered

by or in the possession of Russian intelligence.

7. The Committee also learned that, as reported publicly, Mr. Steele had been paid an

undisclosed sum of money for previous work performed on behalf of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation ("FBI") over many years, dating to at least 2010.

8. The Committee also learned from media reporting that at least three of the individuals

who attended a meeting with Donald Trump, Jr., at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016 - Soviet

counterintelligence officer Rinat Akhmetshin, Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, and

Russian-born interpreter Anatoly Samochornov also have ties to Fusion GPS dating to at least
-

2015. The Committee seeks to investigate the extent of these ties and their potential relationship

to the Russian active measures campaign, and the financial records requested in the subpoena

will directly assist in that effort. Fusion GPS has also reportedly been involved in lobbying

against the Global Magnitsky Act, and has been accused of working on behalf of the Russian

Government in an effort to fight U.S. sanctions. Additionally, Fusion GPS has allegedly

provided litigation support to Russian holding group Prevezon in a Magnitsky-related money-

laundering case, a case in which according to a Foreign Agent Registration Act complaint filed
-

by Hermitage Capital Management on July 15, 2016 the same three above referenced
-
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 4 of 36

individuals who were present at the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting have also been involved.

Thus, the extent to which the banking records shed light on Fusion GPS's relationship with these

and any other individuals or entities with links to Russia has become a core focus of the

Committee's investigation.

9. A copy of the "Trump Dossier" was reportedly provided to the FBI in 2016 and

briefed to President Obama and then President-elect Trump by elements of the intelligence

community in January 2017. Thus the Committee seeks to determine whether the FBI—an

intelligence community component over which the Committee exercises oversight—relied on the

"Trump Dossier" or other information provided by Fusion GPS and/or reported longtime FBI

informant Christopher Steele as part of its counterintelligence investigation that was initiated in

July 2016—which was publicly announced by former FBI Director James Comey on March 20,

2017—or any other law enforcement or intelligence investigation. Given that Fusion GPS was

hired to conducted political opposition research—beginning in 2015—related to the 2016

campaign that is the focus of the Committee's inquiry, access to Defendant Bank's records is

expected to reveal key facts regarding the relationships between and among Fusion GPS, its

clients and subcontractors, and the U.S. Government.

10. As part of its inquiry, the Committee is also seeking to understand all facets of the

"Trump Dossier," including who received it, and what steps (if any) were taken—including by

U.S. Government agencies—to corroborate the information contained therein?

11. The responsive records in the possession of Defendant Bank will also allow the

Committee to fully understand and conclusively determine who may have paid for the "Trump

Dossier" and the amount of funds that Fusion GPS paid to Mr. Steele for the performance of his
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 5 of 36

work, and will also further the Committee's investigation into the extent of Fusion GPS 's

engagement in other Russia-related work and interactions with other Russia- and/or intelligence-

community-related entities and individuals within the scope of the Committee's investigation.

The answers to such questions are likely to be found in the possession of Fusion GPS and in the

records of one or more Fusion GPS accounts at Defendant Bank. Access to bank records is

fundamental to understanding the extent and nature of key investigation-related links and

relationships. Further, such information is necessary for the Committee to fully investigate the

"Trump Dossier" and its relevance to the question of whether there was possible "collusion"

between the Russian Government and individuals associated with political campaigns or any

other U.S. Persons in accordance with the public parameters of the Committee's investigation.

12. On August 18, 2017, the Committee issued a letter signed by Representative K.

Michael Conaway and Ranking Member Adam Schiff to Joshua Levy, the counsel representing

the Fusion GPS principals. A true and correct copy of the August 18, 2017, letter is attached

hereto as Exhibit A. The letter requested that the Fusion GPS principals provide the Committee

with all relevant documents and materials that could reasonably lead to the discovery of facts

with the Committee's investigation, and invited them to appear voluntarily before the Committee

for a transcribed interview.

13. Committee staff engaged in numerous e-mail exchanges and telephone conversations

with Mr. Levy in September and October 2017 as part of an effort to schedule the Fusion GPS

principals for an interview.

a. After Mr. Levy failed to propose interview date(s) despite numerous requests,

the Committee's Deputy General Counsel, Scott Glabe, sent Mr. Levy an e-mail on

5
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 6 of 36

September 29, 2017, indicating that the Committee would resort to compulsory process

unless Mr. Levy provided such dates by noon on October 2, 2017.

b. In response, Mr. Levy requested a meeting. On October 3, 2017, the

Committee hosted a bipartisan meeting with Mr. Levy and his co-counsel, Rachel

Clattenberg, to discuss the Fusion GPS principals' concerns with complying with the

terms of the Committee's letter. During that meeting and consistent with a prior e-mail

sent to the Committee on October 2, 2017, Mr. Levy informed Committee staff that his

clients would be unable to fully answer all questions likely posed by the Committee

during a voluntary interview. Mr. Levy advised that his clients would likely invoke

various constitutional, common law, and contractual privileges in response to questions

from the Committee. Mr. Levy further indicated that his clients would also refuse to

appear for a voluntary interview absent a prior written agreement that limited the scope of

questioning and expressly preserved certain privileges. Mr. Levy was informed that such

a precondition would be inconsistent with Committee practice and the manner in which

all other prior voluntary interviews in this investigation had been conducted.

14. On October 4, 2017, Committee Chairman Devin Nunes issued subpoenas for

testimony and documents to each of the Fusion GPS principals. Additionally, a subpoena for

documents was successfully served on Defendant Bank on October 5, 2017.

a. The subpoenas directed the Fusion GPS principals to produce responsive

documents—by October 17, 2017, in the case of Mr. Simpson and by October 11, 2017

in the case of Messrs. Fritsch and Catan (which deadline was subsequently extended to

October 16, 2017, at the request of Mr. Levy).
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 7 of 36

b. The subpoenas further directed the Fusion GPS principals to appear for

compelled testimony—on November 8, 2017, in the case of Mr. Simpson; and October

18, 2017, in the case of Messrs. Fritsch and Catan.

c. The subpoena to Defendant Bank required it to provide all documents sufficient

to identify Fusion GPS's banking transaction history, among other items, from August 1,

2015 to October 4, 2017, by October 13, 2017—which deadline was subsequently

extended to October 23, 2017, at the request of counsel for Defendant Bank Alexander

IT&I

15. All four subpoenas were issued pursuant to Rule 10 of the Rules of Procedure For

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, United States House of Representatives, Jl5

Congress. Representative K. Michael Conaway requested that Chairman Nunes issue the

subpoenas, and notice of their pending issuance was provided to the Ranking Member via an e-

mail from me to the Minority General Counsel before the subpoenas were issued. This

consultation e-mail further informed the Minority General Counsel, Maher Bitar, that copies of

the subpoenas were available for review in the office of the Committee's Chief Clerk.

16. On October 16, 2017, Mr. Levy sent the Committee a 17-page letter which attacked

the legitimacy of the subpoenas issued to his clients and the jurisdiction of the Committee to

execute its constitutionally authorized oversight obligations. A true and correct copy of the

October 16, 2017 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Mi. Levy, on behalf of his clients, again

invoked various constitutional, common-law, and common law privileges in this letter.

17. On October 18, 2017, Mr. Catan and Mr. Fritsch, accompanied by Mr. Levy and Ms.

Clattenberg, each appeared before the Committee to give compelled testimony pursuant to their

7
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 8 of 36

respective subpoenas.

a. During their interviews, both Mr. Fritsch and Mr. Catan refused to answer any

substantive questions, and each invoked constitutional privileges not to testify, including

the First and Fifth Amendments.

b. On October 19, 2017, Mr. Fritsch executed a declaration in support of Fusion

GPS' motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. This

declaration included information that would have been responsive to questions posed to

Mr. Fritsch during his appearance before the Committee.

18. Defendant Bank, via its counsel Mr. Bono, indicated in a letter dated October 18,

2017, that it both objected to the Committee's subpoena pursuant to specific procedural and

substantive objections, and requested an additional unspecified extension of the subpoena

compliance deadline to work with the Committee to address the objections. A true and correct

copy of the October 18, 2017 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

a. In an e-mail reply on October 19, 2017, Majority Senior Counsel Kash Patel,

declined to grant a further extension and rebutted each of Defendant Bank's objections.

b. In an October 19, 2017 e-mail response, Mr. Bono informed the Committee

that Defendant Bank intended to comply with the subpoena and produce all responsive

documents by 9 A.M. on October 23, 2017.

c. Mr. Bono has since been repeatedly confirmed verbally and in writing that

Defendant Bank desires to comply with the subpoena and has completed the production

and preparation of responsive documents.

19. On the evening of October 19, 2017, Mr. Levy sent an e-mail informing Committee
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 9 of 36

Majority staff that his client Fusion GPS had been informed by the Defendant Bank that it

intended to comply with the Committee subpoena and that Fusion GPS would "have no choice

but to seek judicial relief tomorrow morning."

a. Mr. Levy's e-mail further requested a conference call on the evening of

October 19, 2017, to discuss "an effort to resolve the matter outside of court." Majority

counsel consented to the call and discussed with Mr. Levy and his co-counsel William

Taylor for over 30 minutes a request to extend Defendant Bank's subpoena deadline in an

effort to continue discussions with Fusion GPS on how they may be able to voluntarily

provide certain financial records partially responsive to the Committee's subpoena.

b. After due but expeditious consideration, the Committee declined the offer to

grant the Defendant Bank an extension.

c. As requested, Mr. Levy and Mr. Taylor were informed of this decision, via e-

mail, later that evening.

d. The next morning, October 20, 2017, Fusion GPS filed the instant action.

20. Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedure For Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,

United States House of Representatives, 115th Congress prohibits the disclosure of "any

information received by the Committee in executive session," except as otherwise provided by

Committee Rules of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Consistent with Committee and

House Rules, it is the Committee's standard and consistent practice to handle any documents

produced to the Committee pursuant to a subpoena as executive session material. Accordingly,

any records produced by Defendant Bank in response to the subpoena would be treated as

executive session material—and protected from public disclosure absent a vote of the full
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 10 of 36

Committee during a Committee business meeting.

21. As of October 23, 2017, no documents have been produced to the Committee in

response to either the Fusion GPS Subpoenas or the subpoena to Defendant Bank.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief.

Executed this 23rd day of October 2017, in Washington, D.C.

MARK R. STEWART

10
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 11 of 36

Exhibit A
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 12 of 36
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 13 of 36
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 14 of 36

Exhibit B
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 15 of 36
Letter to Chairman D. Nunes 
October 16, 2017 
Page 1 of 17 
 

 

 
October 16, 2017 
 
via Electronic Mail 
 
Devin Nunes 
Chairman 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
U.S. House of Representatives 
HVC‐304, U.S. Capitol 
Washington, DC  20003 
c/o Kashyap P. Patel 
Kash.Patel@mail.house.gov 
 
  Re:  Subpoenas – Thomas Catan, Peter Fritsch & Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS 
 
Dear Chairman Nunes: 

  Through this letter, we timely respond to the subpoenas issued on October 4, 2017, bearing your 
signature and demanding documents and testimony from our clients Thomas Catan, Peter Fritsch and 
Glenn  Simpson  of  Fusion  GPS,  purportedly  as  part  of  the  House  Permanent  Select  Committee  on 
Intelligence’s “Russia investigation.”1  

 

  This letter will address our objections, on behalf of Messrs. Catan, Fritsch and Simpson, to the 
foregoing subpoenas for documents and testimony.  In the main, these objections go to the legitimacy 
of  these  subpoenas,  your  authority,  the  authority  of  the  House  Permanent  Select  Committee  on 
Intelligence (“HPSCI” or “the Committee”), the ambiguity and pertinency of these subpoenas, and the 
scope  of  our  clients’  First  Amendment  rights.    Notwithstanding  these  objections,  our  clients,  in  good 
faith, immediately preserved documents. 

 

                                                            
1
 The subpoenas are attached to this letter at Exhibits A, B and C. 
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 16 of 36
Letter to Chairman D. Nunes 
October 16, 2017 
Page 2 of 17 
 
  Despite your recusal from the Committee’s Russia investigation after falling under scrutiny by 
the  House  Ethics  Committee,  your  unilateral  issuance  of  these  subpoenas  violates  your  recusal  and 
further  undermines  the  legitimacy  of  this  investigation.    Nothing  within  the  subpoenas  or  their 
attachments provides any indication that the Committee authorized you, as Chair, to sign or issue them.  
This  act  is  another  example  of  how  you,  as  Chair,  have  run  your  own  operation  in  parallel  to  the 
Committee’s investigation.  Indeed, in your haste to circumvent your own Committee’s investigation, 
rules,  process  and  Ranking  Member,  you  and  your  staff  sent  us  subpoenas  directing  “the  Central 
Intelligence Agency” – with which our clients have no relationship – to produce documents. 

 

The subpoenas include multiple other infirmities.  They are not issued pursuant to any publicly 
identifiable, formal and unambiguous resolution establishing this investigation.  Nor do the subpoenas 
attach any such formal resolution; rather, they attach what appears to be an excerpt from a press release. 
That is an insufficient and legally improper substitute.  Of acute importance, these subpoenas, if indeed 
directed to our clients, violate the First Amendment rights of our clients and their clients, and would chill 
any  American  running  for  office  –  regardless  of  party  affiliation,  political  viewpoint  or  candidate 
preference – from conducting confidential opposition research in an election.  No individual should be 
expected to respond to such an abuse of power. 

 

Before you issued these subpoenas, we, in correspondence and in the single meeting permitted 
by your staff, had set forth and elaborated upon the privileges and legal obligations that our clients are 
required to maintain.  Notwithstanding these privileges and obligations, our clients could have provided 
information to this Committee, subject to certain assurances acceptable to every other congressional 
committee  seeking  the  same  information.    As  this  letter  will  set  forth,  prior  to  the  issuance  of  these 
subpoenas, we worked in good faith to cooperate at each step and proposed a way forward that would 
balance the interest of the Committee to obtain information for its investigation with our need to protect 
those privileges and obligations.  But within 24 hours of making that proposal, you, acting as Chair – and 
without  consulting  the  Ranking  Member  and  without  any  further  discussion  of  our  proposal  –  issued 
these subpoenas.   

 

The abrupt issuance of these subpoenas demonstrates your unwillingness to work in good faith 
with  counsel  in  order  to  obtain  information  from  our  clients  for  this  Committee’s  investigation.2    It  is 
shameful and reflects a pattern of ultra vires behavior, whereby  you have launched your own parallel 
                                                            
2
 See Evan Perez, Manu Raju & Jeremy Herb, “Nunes Signs off on New Subpoenas to Firm behind Trump‐Russia 
Dossier,” CNN, Oct. 10, 2017 (“A Democratic committee source said ‘the subpoenas were issued unilaterally by 
the majority, without the minority's agreement and despite good faith engagement thus far by the witnesses on 
the potential terms for voluntary cooperation.’”), available at http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/10/politics/fusion‐gps‐
subpoenas‐devin‐nunes/index.html. 
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 17 of 36
Letter to Chairman D. Nunes 
October 16, 2017 
Page 3 of 17 
 
investigation to the detriment of any serious attempt by this Committee to obtain information about 
whether  the  Russian  government  and  its  associates  influenced  the  2016  presidential  election.  For 
example,  as  has  been  widely  reported,  two  of  your  staff  members  made  an  unscheduled  visit  to  the 
London offices of Fusion GPS subcontractor Christopher Steele’s solicitors ‐‐ at the precise time that Mr. 
Steele (a former British intelligence official) was there meeting with them.3 

   

  Based on this Committee’s bad faith interactions with the undersigned counsel and its pattern of 
unprofessional conduct exhibited during different points throughout this investigation, you have left us 
with  no  choice  but  to  advise  our  clients  to  assert  their  privileges  in  the  face  of  these  subpoenas.    By 
contrast,  this  has  not  been  the  result  with  other  congressional  committees  investigating  the  same 
subject  matter;  for  example,  Fusion  GPS  co‐founder  Glenn  Simpson  testified  for  10  hours  before  the 
Senate Judiciary Committee.  Now that you, and by extension, your staff, have proven to be unreliable 
partners in good faith negotiations, we cannot reasonably be expected to trust anything that you or your 
staff would represent to us. We cannot in good conscience do anything but advise our clients to stand on 
their constitutional privileges, the attorney work product doctrine and contractual obligations.4 

 

  In  light  of  the  assertion  of  privileges  before  this  Committee  by  Messrs.  Catan,  Fritsch  and 
Simpson, we ask that they be excused from appearing for testimony before this Committee on the dates 
demanded through the Chair’s subpoenas.   

 

I.  Procedural History 

 

  Since March 2017, our clients have been cooperating with congressional investigations of Russian 
interference during the 2016 presidential election.  In each of these investigations, we have worked in 
good  faith  with  the  other  congressional  committees  investigating  this  matter,  even  as  some  of  these 

                                                            
3
 Ali Watkins, “Hunt for Trump Dossier Author Inflames Russia Probe,” POLITICO, Aug. 4, 2017, available at 
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/04/trump‐steele‐dossier‐russia‐241299. 
4
 We note that the “Instructions,” attached to the subpoenas, state that the U.S. House of Representatives and 
the Committee “do not recognize” common law privileges and contractual obligations.  See, e.g., HPSCI 
Subpoena to Thomas Catan, Oct. 4, 2017, at 5 ¶ 11, attached at Exhibit C.  However, in order to preserve common 
law privileges for purposes of other proceedings, we are required by federal courts to protect those privileges here 
and not waive them.  See U.S. v. Philip Morris, 212 F.R.D. 421 (D.D.C. 2002) (holding that Philip Morris had waived 
the attorney‐client privilege over documents by not making all reasonable efforts to protect the privilege before 
Congress and thus was compelled to produce the same otherwise privileged documents in litigation).  Likewise, 
without consent from our clients’ contractual parties to disclose matters covered by confidentiality agreements, 
our clients are required to preserve that confidentiality. 
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 18 of 36
Letter to Chairman D. Nunes 
October 16, 2017 
Page 4 of 17 
 
other  committees  have  pursued  information  from  our  clients  in  an  aggressive  and,  at  times,  unfair 
manner.  Our clients’ cooperation with these committees has been costly and burdensome to a small 
business and to its principals.  But our clients have nevertheless cooperated due to their recognition of 
Congress’  right  to  information,  as  well  as  those  other  committees’  acknowledgement  of  our  clients’ 
rights and privileges – a balance that you as Chair have refused to strike.  The following history of our 
clients’ interaction with Congress demonstrates a clear record of cooperation and good faith, supported 
by  our  course  of  conduct  working  with  your  staff,  prior  to  your  abrupt  ultra  vires  issuance  of  these 
subpoenas.      

 

A. Cooperation with the Senate Judiciary Committee 
 
  On March 24, 2017, we received from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley a 
letter  seeking  information  and  documents  from  Mr.  Simpson.5    A  week  later,  without  any  notice  to 
counsel and prior to any substantive conversations with counsel about the March 24 letter, Chairman 
Grassley  publicly  referred  Mr.  Simpson  to  the  U.S.  Department  of  Justice  for  criminal  investigation 
regarding  false  allegations  that  he  did  not  comply  with  the  requirements  of  the  Foreign  Agents 
Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.6   

 

On April 7, 2017, we sent a letter to Chairman Grassley and asserted constitutional and common 
law privileges.7  On June 23, 2017, we sent a follow‐up letter elaborating on the privileges asserted.8  On 
July  19,  2017,  Chairman  Grassley  and  Ranking  Member  Dianne  Feinstein  sent  Mr.  Simpson  a  letter 
seeking an even broader set of documents as well as his testimony at a July 26, 2017, hearing.9  On behalf 
of Mr. Simpson, we agreed to respond to the document request on a rolling basis and presented him to 
the committee for a voluntary transcribed interview, subject to a broad, but limited scope, and written 
assurances from the Chair and Ranking Member that nothing he said at the interview would constitute a 
waiver of any privilege.  On August 3, 2017, the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair and Ranking Member 
sent us a letter, setting forth the terms of our agreement.10  On August 9, 2017, we produced thousands 
                                                            
5
 See Letter from Senator Charles E. Grassley to Glenn Simpson, March 24, 2017, available at 
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017‐03‐
24%20CEG%20to%20Fusion%20GPS%20(Trump%20Dossier).pdf. 
6
 See Letter from Senator Charles E. Grassley to Hon. Dana Boente, Acting Deputy Attorney General, March 31, 
2017, available at https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news‐releases/complaint‐firm‐behind‐dossier‐former‐
russian‐intel‐officer‐joined‐lobbying‐effort. 
7
 See Letter from Joshua A. Levy to Senator Charles E. Grassley, April 7, 2017, attached at Exhibit D. 
8
 See Letter from Joshua A. Levy to Senator Charles E. Grassley, June 23, 2017, attached at Exhibit E. 
9
 See Letter from Senator Charles E. Grassley & Senator Dianne Feinstein to Glenn Simpson, July 19, 2017, 
available at https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017‐07‐
19%20CEG%20DF%20to%20Glenn%20Simpson%20(Document%20Request).pdf. 
10
 See Letter from Senator Charles E. Grassley & Senator Dianne Feinstein to Joshua Levy, August 3, 2017, 
available at Exhibit F. 
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 19 of 36
Letter to Chairman D. Nunes 
October 16, 2017 
Page 5 of 17 
 
of documents.  On August 11, 2017, Senate Judiciary Committee staff acknowledged that the documents 
were responsive, and, on August 17, 2017, we continued to respond to the Senate Judiciary Committee 
document request.  On August 22, 2017, Mr. Simpson sat for ten hours of questions and told the truth, at 
a voluntary transcribed interview before the Senate Judiciary Committee.11 A transcript of that testimony 
has not been released by the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

 

B. Cooperation with the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 
 

  On July 14, 2017, the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 
sent our clients a letter seeking voluntary cooperation.  Since that time, we have been cooperating with 
that committee to balance the interests of the committee in obtaining information for legislation and 
perfecting oversight with the need for our clients to protect privileges and meet other legal obligations. 

 

C. Cooperation with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence  
 
  On August 18, 2017, Rep. Conaway and the Ranking Member of this Committee sent a letter to 
counsel  asking  that  Messrs.  Catan,  Fritsch  and  Simpson  appear  for  voluntary  interviews  and  produce 
documents.12  The letter, however, did not specify the information being sought.  Your staff and counsel 
agreed to discuss the letter in September.  On September 20, 2017, committee staff informed counsel of 
the Committee’s interest in interviewing Messrs. Catan, Fritsch and Simpson; staff, however, did not seek 
documents.    Staff  said  the  interviews  would  pertain  to  the  scope  of  the  Committee’s  investigation; 
however,  the  Committee  had  not  yet provided  counsel  with  that  scope  in  writing,  apologized  for  not 
having  included  it  with  the  August  18  letter  and  said  staff  would  send  us  the  written  scope  of  the 
investigation to us.  We told staff that, upon its receipt, we would review the document and discuss it 
with them further.  After the call, the Chair’s staff sent counsel a one‐page document setting forth the 
‘parameters’ of the information being sought through the August 18, 2017, letter.  We understand this 
one‐pager is an excerpt from a Committee press release.  It is not a formal committee resolution.  In any 
event, we intended to discuss the matter on the phone with staff. 

 

  Rather than entertain a phone call to discuss the matter further, majority staff, on September 26, 
2017, sent counsel an email stating:  “Please let us know which of your clients have agreed to come in for 
an  interview  before  our  committee,  the  details  of  which  we  have  outlined  in  previous  telephonic 
                                                            
11
 See Tom LoBianco & Ted Barrett, “Russia Dossier Firm Founder Speaks With Senate Judiciary Investigators,” 
CNN, Aug. 22, 2017, http://cnn.it/2in58Rf; Ali Dukakis et al., “Attorney: Glenn Simpson Did Not Reveal Clients For 
Trump ‘Dossier’ To Investigators,” ABC NEWS, Aug. 22, 2017, http://abcn.ws/2w1dz7T.  
12
 See letter from Rep. K. Michael Conaway & Rep. Adam Schiff to Joshua A. Levy, Aug. 18, 2017, at Exhibit G. 
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 20 of 36
Letter to Chairman D. Nunes 
October 16, 2017 
Page 6 of 17 
 
conversations.  We  hope  to  hear  from  you  by  close  of  business  Thursday  September  28.  Thanks  very 
much.”  

 

  On September 28, we timely responded as follows:   

 

             On  September  20,  we  spoke  on  the  phone  with  both  staffs.   In  that  call,  we 
informed  you  that  we  had  not  yet  received  language  setting  forth  the  scope  of  this 
Committee’s investigation.  On the same call, we said that we would review the language 
once  we  received  it,  evaluate  your  request  for  interviews  and  get  back  to  you  the 
following week.  Later that day, you sent us a memorandum setting forth the scope of 
the Committee’s investigation.   

            The scope of the investigation is exceedingly broad, and the scope of any interview, 
by necessity, would be narrower than the scope of the entire investigation.  It would be 
helpful to have notice from the Committee what the scope of the interviews for these 
three witnesses would be, so that we can properly evaluate how such an interview would 
impact  any  of  the  company’s  legal  obligations  and  privileges  and/or  that  of  its 
clients.  Depending on what you are seeking to learn from our clients, questions might 
call for testimony that would be protected by various constitutional and common law 
privileges, as well as other legal obligations.  Please understand that most of what Fusion 
GPS  employees  know  derives  from  their  confidential client‐based work.   Disclosure  of 
such material therefore requires the consent of Fusion GPS [clients], and we will need 
greater specificity from staff in order to help obtain that consent. 

             As  discussed,  Mr.  Simpson  and  Fusion  GPS  have  cooperated  with  Congress.   In 
cooperating with Congress, Mr. Simpson testified for ten (10) hours.  Before doing so, we 
worked  with  another  congressional  committee  on  an  agreement  that  balanced  the 
interest of the committee to seek information with the company’s obligations, as well as 
the  burdens  imposed  on  this  small  company  and  its  employees.   As  a  matter  of 
fundamental fairness, we would like the opportunity to sit down and discuss the same 
considerations with you.   

            We can meet with you any time next week.  Please let me know what dates work 
for you.  Thank you.13 

 

                                                            
13
 E‐mail from Joshua A. Levy to Kash Patel (Sept. 28, 2017, 4:28 PM EST). 
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 21 of 36
Letter to Chairman D. Nunes 
October 16, 2017 
Page 7 of 17 
 
Later  that  day,  minority  staff  agreed  to  meet  with  majority  staff  and  us.    But  your  staff  ignored  our 
considerations, as well as our invitation to sit down for a meeting to discuss them.  Instead, on September 
29, your staff e‐mailed us to say:  “As you know, your clients have been invited for a voluntary interview, 
and  are  encouraged  to  provide  information  on  that  basis.   However,  if  you  are  unwilling  or  unable  to 
supply prospective interview date(s) by noon on Monday, October 2, 2017, we will resort to compulsory 
process.”14 

 

  On  October  2,  we  did  what  your  staff  asked  and  timely  provided  the  requested  “prospective 
interview  date(s).”    We  also  explained  that  our  clients  could  participate  in  voluntary  transcribed 
interviews,  subject  to  certain  assurances  from  the  Committee  about  scope  and  the  treatment  of 
privileges, and we renewed our request for a meeting to discuss these matters.  We wrote as follows: 

 

We have times during the weeks of November 6 and 13 for interviews, subject to 
certain assurances from the Committee about the interviews’ scope and the treatment 
of privilege, as well as consent from Fusion GPS’s former clients.  We renew our simple 
request  to  hold  a  meeting  to  discuss  our  considerations  with  you,  as  we  had  done 
elsewhere in Congress.   

   Having sat through the Senate Judiciary Committee’s interview of Mr. Simpson, 
we can tell you the vast majority of his testimony fell within the scope of this committee’s 
investigation.  We encourage you to wait for the release of the transcript.  It will inform 
your  investigation  and  will help  this  committee  narrow  its  areas  of  inquiry,  without 
further  burdening  Fusion  GPS,  a  small  company  that  already  has  spent  considerable 
resources  cooperating  with  Congress.   Fusion  GPS  has  cooperated  with  Congress,  the 
information from that cooperation could be available very soon, and Congress should not 
compel this small business to divert considerable time and money in order to prepare for 
and answer a redundant set of questioning. 

              Further,  we  have  never  asked  for  the  Committee  to  modify  the  scope  of  the 
investigation  itself.   Rather,  we  have  asked  you  to  identify  a  narrower  scope  of  the 
interviews, within the investigation.  As a matter of fairness to the potential witnesses 
and  your  Committee’s  time  and  resources,  were  we  to  know  more  about  what  the 
Committee seeks to learn from our clients, we could help the Committee receive that 
information in a maximally efficient way.  

             In the face of your request, Fusion GPS must meet its legal obligations and protect 
certain privileges, which it lacks the authority to waive.  Should this Committee compel 

                                                            
14
 E‐mail from Scott Glabe to Joshua A. Levy and Kash Patel (Sept. 29, 2017, 3:16 PM EST). 
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 22 of 36
Letter to Chairman D. Nunes 
October 16, 2017 
Page 8 of 17 
 
Fusion GPS to disclose confidential information from these client matters, Fusion GPS 
may be forced to stand on its privileges.  Compulsory process here would chill anyone, 
including  the  members  of  this  Committee,  from  conducting  confidential  opposition 
research  in  a  federal  election  campaign.   Fusion  GPS  should  not  be  forced  to  disclose 
information  about  confidential  opposition  research  conducted  during  a  presidential 
campaign,  including  but  not  limited  to  the  identity  of  the  clients,  because  such 
information is protected by the First Amendment.   

   Fusion  GPS  worked  with  and  for  its  clients  in  furtherance  of  its  clients’  First 
Amendment  rights  to  engage  in  political  activity  and  political  speech,  to  speak 
anonymously, to associate freely with others, to exercise freedom of the press, and to 
petition their government.  Fusion GPS continued to work, in the absence of a client, in 
furtherance of the same First Amendment rights.  The information sought is protected 
by those First Amendment privileges.  These freedoms are ones we all value and lie at 
the  very  foundation  of  our  constitutional  democracy.   “[S]peech  on  public  issues 
occupies the highest run of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to 
special protection.”  Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 452 (2011) (internal quotation marks 
omitted).  On a similar pedestal is the freedom of association:  “the ability of like‐minded 
individuals to associate for the purpose of expressing commonly held views may not be 
curtailed.”  Knox  v.  Serv.  Employees  Int’l  Union,  Local  100,  567  U.S.  298,  309 
(2012).  Likewise:  “the right to petition [the government is] one of the most precious of 
the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights” because “the right is implied by the very 
idea of a government, republican in form.”  BE & K Constr. Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516, 
524‐25 (2002) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). 

   The Supreme Court has limited the right of Congress to demand information and 
materials  from  Americans  when  doing  so  would  violate  their  First  Amendment 
rights.  “[T]he constitutional rights of witnesses will be respected by the Congress as they 
are  in  a  court  of  justice….   Nor  can  the  First  Amendment  freedoms  of  speech,  press, 
religion, or political belief and association be abridged.”  Watkins v. United States, 354 
U.S. 178, 188 (1957).  For that reason, the Supreme Court ruled that the State of Alabama 
could  not  compel  the  NAACP  to  disclose  the  names  of  its  members  because  such 
compulsion would result in a “substantial restraint” of their freedom of association under 
the First Amendment.  NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462‐63 (1958).  When the court 
in Perry  v.  Schwarzenegger analyzed  a  claimant’s  assertion  of  a  First  Amendment 
privilege in the face of a subpoena, the court found:  “The existence of a prima facie case 
turns not on the type of information sought, but on whether disclosure of the information 
will have a deterrent effect on the exercise of protected activities.” 591 F.3d 1147, 1162 
(9th Cir. 2010). 

             Fusion GPS also must honor confidentiality obligations in its contracts with clients, 
and it lacks the authority to waive those obligations.  Similarly, where it has worked at 
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 23 of 36
Letter to Chairman D. Nunes 
October 16, 2017 
Page 9 of 17 
 
the  direction  of  counsel,  in  anticipation  of  litigation,  Fusion  GPS  is  not  authorized  to 
waive the attorney work product privilege over such work. 

  

             We  remain  committed  to  balancing  the  Committee’s  interest  in  obtaining 
information for its investigation with the need for our client to honor its legal obligations 
and  preserve  its  privileges,  as  well  as  those  of  its  clients.   To  that  end,  as  set  forth  in 
correspondence last week, we are available this week to meet with you to discuss issues 
that are likely to arise during the course of the interview, and how to meet them ahead 
of time, so that both we and the Committee have clarity going forward.  Per Ms. Greene’s 
e‐mail of September 28, the minority staff is available and willing to meet with us.  We 
hope you can be available, too.15 

 

Finally, your staff agreed to meet with us. 

 

  On October 3, 2017, we met with majority and minority staff.  The meeting was straightforward, 
cordial and lasted about an hour.  At the meeting, we discussed a number of considerations and seemed 
to have charted a way forward toward cooperation, in the absence of compulsory process.  Just as we 
had sought – with success – from the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair and Ranking Member, we asked 
for a broad, but more limited scope and written assurances from the Committee, at the member level, 
that  nothing  said  in  those  interviews  would  interfere  with  their  ability  to  assert  privileges  before  the 
Committee at a later date.  As noted with your staff, were the Committee to have granted those requests, 
we would have worked with Fusion GPS’ clients to obtain consent, so that the appropriate individuals 
could testify.  At the meeting, we had told staff that Mr. Simpson would have the most information, and 
that the other two witnesses would have little to no information.  We encouraged staff to review the 
Senate Judiciary Committee transcript because it, once public, would be part of the record anyway and 
would, by necessity, save everyone from what likely would be a redundant set of questioning.  Your staff 
indicated an interest in attorney proffers, so that the Committee could better understand the value in 
talking to all or only some of the three individuals, as well as the desired scope of the interviews.  Your 
staff  also  discussed  the  possible  prioritization  of  Mr.  Simpson’s  interview  over,  and  instead  of,  the 
interviews  of  the  other  two  individuals,  whose  knowledge  is  far  less  and  likely  repetitive  of  what  Mr. 
Simpson knows.  Were the Committee to have limited the scope of the interviews and agreed to our 
requested written assurances about privilege, we were prepared to make those proffers.  We also told 
the Committee staff that we were open to other thoughts about a way forward for voluntary cooperation.  
Surprisingly at this meeting, given your staff’s once purported urgent need for interview dates from us, 
no one from your staff ever mentioned whether the proposed dates were either available, too early or 
                                                            
15
 E‐mail from Joshua A. Levy to Scott Glabe, Shannon Green, and Kash Patel (Oct. 2, 2017, 11:01 AM EST). 
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 24 of 36
Letter to Chairman D. Nunes 
October 16, 2017 
Page 10 of 17 
 
too soon.  We exited the meeting with an expectation that we would receive a constructive response 
from the Committee in the next couple days, and that we would be able to continue to work with staff 
about a path toward voluntary cooperation. 

 

  But we received nothing of the sort.  To the contrary, on the very next day (i.e. October 4, 2017), 
we  received  the  three  instant  subpoenas  for  documents  and  deposition  testimony.    The  subpoenas 
required depositions of Messrs. Catan and Fritsch not in November, as we had proposed, but on October 
18, 2017.  Two of the subpoenas require the production of documents no later than October 11, 2017.  The 
third subpoena requires production of documents by October 17, 2017, and a deposition for Mr. Simpson 
on November 8, 2017. 

 

  On October 6, 2017, we asked your staff for a reasonable two‐week extension of time by which 
to respond to the subpoenas requiring production of documents.  Your staff rejected that request and 
required us to respond on October 16, 2017. 

 

II.  General Objections to the Subpoenas for Testimony and Documents 

 

  Through these subpoenas, you demand testimony and documents.  These subpoenas include a 
number of infirmities, as a general matter, including: 

 

A. You, as Chair, Were Not Authorized to Issue Subpoenas in This Investigation. 
 

We  object  to  this  subpoena  because  you  are  no  longer  authorized  to  issue  subpoenas  for 
testimony or materials in this investigation, on your own.  Inasmuch as you, as Chair, were authorized to 
issue these subpoenas, your unilateral exercise of that power was unethical, given your own pledge of 
recusal and your status in this investigation as a witness to alleged obstruction efforts – namely, that you 
surreptitiously  worked  with  White  House  officials  to  discuss  and  bring  to  light  classified  documents, 
without consulting the Ranking Member, in order to help defend the White House in what was supposed 
to be an oversight investigation conducted by the Committee you chairs.16  

                                                            
16
 See Brian Barrett, “Devin Nunes:  A Running Timeline of His Surveillance Claims and White House Ties,” WIRED, 
Apr. 12, 2017, available at https://www.wired.com/2017/04/devin‐nunes‐white‐house‐trump‐surveillance/.   
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 25 of 36
Letter to Chairman D. Nunes 
October 16, 2017 
Page 11 of 17 
 
 

In  early  April  2017,  the  House  Ethics  Committee  began  investigating  you  for  ethical  breaches 
related  to  to  this  alleged  misconduct,  in  connection  with  HPSCI’s  Russia  investigation.    Upon  the 
commencement of the House Ethics Committee investigation, you announced on April 6, 2017, that you 
would  “continue  to  fulfill  all  [your]  other  responsibilities  as  Committee  Chairman,”  but  that 
“Representative  Mike  Conaway,  with  assistance  from  Representatives  Trey  Gowdy  and  Tom  Rooney, 
temporarily  take  charge  of  the  Committee’s  Russia  investigation  while  the  House  Ethics  Committee 
looks into this matter.”17  The House Ethics Committee investigation continues. 

 

When, in late May 2017, you emerged from your recusal to sign subpoenas in this investigation, 
without  written  authority  from  Messrs.  Conaway,  Gowdy  or  Rooney,  Ranking  Member  Adam  Schiff 
stated that the authority to issue subpoenas in this investigation “should have been delegated to Mike 
Conaway in consultation with myself.  That hasn’t happened yet, … [a]nd I think that’s a violation of the 
recusal  by  the  chairman.”18    Fred  Wertheimer,  president  of  Democracy  21  and  longtime  advocate  of 
bipartisan campaign finance reform, said:  “This is an incredibly inappropriate action, and it is a matter 
that the House Ethics Committee must look at promptly.  Nunes is supposed to be completely out of the 
Russia investigation.”19 

 

The October 4, 2017, subpoenas bear your signature and omit any indication that Mr. Conaway 
authorized  them.    Nor  does  the  subpoena  indicate  any  prior  consultation  with  the  Ranking  Member.  
While you might have retained other duties as Chair, you are no longer running this investigation and 
thus lack the authority to issue and serve subpoenas pursuant to it.  We therefore object to the issuance 
and service of these subpoenas on that basis. 

 

B. The Subpoenas Were Not Issued Pursuant to a Formal Unambiguous Resolution. 
 

The  Committee  has  failed  to  pass  a  public  resolution  regarding  this  investigation.    None  is 
attached to these subpoenas.  In fact, attached to prior correspondence and these subpoenas, in lieu of 
a resolution, is an odd, one‐page, unsigned Microsoft Office document that includes four broad questions 
and  press  statements  from  the  committee  chair  and  ranking  member.20    Indeed,  it  appears  to  be  an 
                                                            
17
 Press Release, “Nunes Statement on Russia Investigation,” Congressman Devin Nunes, Apr. 6, 2017, available at 
https://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=775. 
18
 Russell Berman, “The Un‐Recusal of Devin Nunes,” THE ATLANTIC, Jun. 1, 2017, available at 
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the‐un‐recusal‐of‐devin‐nunes/528882/. 
19
 Id. 
20
 See, e.g., Exhibit A. 
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 26 of 36
Letter to Chairman D. Nunes 
October 16, 2017 
Page 12 of 17 
 
excerpt  from  a  press  release.    It  is  thus  impossible  for  anyone  in  the  greater  public,  including  this 
investigation’s  witnesses  such  as  our  clients,  to  evaluate  whether  a  subpoena,  in  this  “investigation,” 
seeks matters pertinent to legitimate questions under inquiry, see Watkins v. U.S., 354 U.S. 178 (1957), 
and whether the issuance of this subpoena constitutes activity that falls within “the legitimate legislative 
sphere.”  Eastland v. U.S. Serviceman’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 503 (1975) (emphasis added).  In Eastland, the 
Court found that a Senate subcommittee’s issuance of a subpoena fell within the “sphere of legitimate 
legislative  activity”  and  was  thus  afforded  protection  under  the  Speech  or  Debate  Clause  because, 
among other things, the subcommittee “was acting under an unambiguous resolution from the Senate 
authorizing  it  to  make  a  complete  study  of  the  ‘administration,  operation,  and  enforcement  of  the 
Internal Security Act of 1950,” id. at 506 (citing S. Res. 341, 91st Cong, 2d Sess. (1970)), and “[t]hat grant 
of authority is sufficient to show that the investigation upon which the Subcommittee had embarked 
concerned a subject on which ‘legislation could be had.’”  Id. (citing cases).  By contrast, no “unambiguous 
resolution”  is  present  here;  instead,  we  have  a  vague,  unsigned  one‐pager  that  seemed  to  have 
undergone no democratic process or vote of any congressional body or sub‐body.  We therefore object 
to these subpoenas because they were not issued pursuant to a formal unambiguous resolution and thus 
do not fall within “the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.”  Id. (emphasis added). 

 

C. The Subpoenas Violate the Committee’s Rules. 
 

HPSCI Committee Rule 10(e) provides that “[e]ach subpoena shall have attached thereto a copy 
of these rules.”21  But the subpoenas issued did not include a copy of the committee’s rules.  Rather than 
hide the ball and set traps for our clients, you as Chair and your staff should have been transparent and 
should have attached a copy of the Committee’s rules to these subpoenas.  But either out of malice or as 
a  consequence  of  your  haste  to  circumvent  the  Committee’s  process  and  its  Ranking  Member,  you 
omitted  them  from  these  subpoenas.    Without  the  rules  attached  to  the  subpoenas,  you  issued  the 
subpoenas in violation of the Committee’s rules.  We therefore object to the subpoenas on that basis. 

 

 

 

 

D. Enforcement of These Subpoenas Would Violate the First Amendment Rights of 
Our Clients and Their Clients. 

                                                            
21
 Rules of Procedure for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. House of Representatives, § 10(e), 
available at https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hpsci_rules_of_procedure_‐_115th_congress.pdf. 
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 27 of 36
Letter to Chairman D. Nunes 
October 16, 2017 
Page 13 of 17 
 
 

The immediate production demands as set forth in Schedule A attached to the subpoenas, taken 
on their own terms, constitute a broad, undifferentiated and impermissible inquiry into Fusion GPS’ and 
its  clients’  constitutionally  protected  free  speech  and  free  association  activities  under  the  First 
Amendment,  and  the  information  sought  through  this  unconstitutional  inquiry  is  not  relevant  or 
pertinent to the scope of this investigation, however improperly  or poorly defined.  These  subpoenas 
demand the production of all documentation reflecting any confidential opposition research conducted 
on  a  presidential  candidate.    Enforcement  of  this  subpoena  would  certainly  chill  the  exercise  of 
confidential opposition research in elections and might put a halt to it, once and for all, further depriving 
our fellow citizens of information before they vote for their next president. 

 

There  is  no  general  governmental  authority  –  either  in  the  Legislature  or  the  Executive  –  to 
require those engaged in the free association and free speech activity protected by the First Amendment 
to  give  up  their  books  and  records  or  to  provide  whatever  other  information  about  that  activity  the 
government may demand. 

 

To  the  contrary,  the  first  principle  here  is  “that  compelled  disclosure,  in  itself,  can  seriously 
infringe on privacy of association and belief guaranteed by the First Amendment” and, because that is 
so, “significant encroachments on First Amendment rights of the sort that compelled disclosure imposes 
cannot be justified by a mere showing of some legitimate governmental interest.”  Buckley v. Valeo, 424 
U.S. 1, 64 (1976).  Thus, “the subordinating interests of the State must survive exacting scrutiny,” and 
there must “be a ‘relevant correlation’ or ‘substantial relation’ between the governmental interest and 
the information required to be disclosed.”  Id. (footnotes omitted). 

 

In the context of a legislative inquiry, as Gibson v. Fl. Legis. Investigative Comm’n, 372 U.S. 539 
(1963), recognizes, “before proceeding in such a manner as will substantially intrude upon and severely 
curtail  or  inhibit  constitutionally  protected  activities  or  seriously  interfere  with  similarly  protected 
associational rights,” the inquiring committee must establish a “foundation” based on “fact and reason” 
that demonstrates the necessity of disclosure to achievement of a “compelling” public interest.  Id. at 
557. 

 

The essential point, then, is the one the Supreme Court crystallized 60 years ago: “It is particularly 
important  that  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  compulsory  process  be  carefully  circumscribed  when  the 
investigative process tends to impinge upon such highly sensitive areas as freedom of speech or press, 
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 28 of 36
Letter to Chairman D. Nunes 
October 16, 2017 
Page 14 of 17 
 
freedom of political association, and freedom of communication of ideas.”  Sweezy v. NH, 354 U.S. 234, 
245 (1957). 

 

  The First Amendment’s protection in this regard “reflects our ‘profound national commitment to 
the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide‐open,’” Buckley, 424 
U.S. at 14, and, that protection extends to all aspects and stages of the “debate.” Id. From the “‘abstract 
discussion’ … of political policy generally [to] advocacy of the passage or defeat of legislation,” to “the 
right to engage in ‘vigorous advocacy,’” id. at 48, all political activities in the continuum of the public 
discourse “lie at the very core of the First Amendment,” Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Comm., 
459 U.S. 87‐97 (1982).  

  It is, moreover, “beyond debate” that the First Amendment protects lawful associational activity 
as well as individual activity. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 460‐61 (1958). “[E]ffective advocacy of 
both public and private points of view … is undeniably enhanced by group association,” Buckley, 424 U.S. 
at 22 (quoting NAACP, 357 U.S. at 460). For the purposes of associational rights, “it is immaterial whether 
the beliefs sought to be advanced by [the] association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural 
matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to 
the closest scrutiny.” NAACP, 357 U.S. at 460‐61. As the Constitution recognizes, the association exists 
as a means for engaging in “effective advocacy” of the group’s beliefs; and, accordingly, the autonomy 
and integrity of the association, no less than that of its members, must be free from compromise. 

  The  danger  to  First  Amendment  protected  associational  activity  posed  by  government‐
compelled disclosure is particularly acute where the activity in question is political activity and where the 
disclosure is required of certain associations engaged in political activity and not others. As the three‐
judge district court stated in Pollard v. Roberts, 283 F. Supp. 248 (E.D. Ark.), aff’d, 393 U.S. 14 (1968) (per 
curiam), in enjoining a prosecuting attorney’s subpoena of the bank records and contributor lists of the 
Arkansas Republican Party: 

 

To  the  extent  that  a  public  agency  or  officer  unreasonably  inhibits  or  discourages  the 
exercise  by  individuals  of  their  right  to  associate  with  others  of  the  same  political 
persuasion  in  the  advocacy  of  principles  and  candidates  of  which  and  of  whom  they 
approve, and to support those principles and candidates with their money if they choose 
to do so, that agency or officer violates private rights protected by the First Amendment. 
[283 F. Supp. at 258‐59.] 

  

  That danger is accentuated when the “broad subpoena” seeking materials of a “delicate nature” 
is  directed  to  an  independent  association  engaged  in  political  activity.  Fed.  Election  Comm’n  v. 
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 29 of 36
Letter to Chairman D. Nunes 
October 16, 2017 
Page 15 of 17 
 
Machinists Non‐Partisan Political League, 655 F.2d 380, 388 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 897 (1981). 
The Machinists Court cautioned: 

 

[T]he subject matter of [the subpoenaed] materials represent[ed] the very heart of the 
organism  which  the  first  amendment  was  intended  to  nurture  and  protect:  political 
expression and association concerning federal elections and officeholding. The FEC first 
demands  all  available  materials  which  concern  a  certain  political  group’s  “internal 
communications,” wherein its decisions “to support or oppose any individual in any way 
for nomination or election to the office of President in 1980” are revealed.... Then this 
federal agency, whose members are nominated by the President, demands all materials 
concerning communications among various groups whose alleged purpose was to defeat 
the President by encouraging a popular figure from within his party to run against him. 
As a final measure, the FEC demands a listing of every official, employee, staff member 
and volunteer of the group, along with their respective telephone numbers, without any 
limitation on when or to what extent those listed participated in any MNPL activities. The 
government  thus  becomes  privy  to  knowledge  concerning  which  of  its  citizens  is  a 
“volunteer” for a group trying to defeat the President at the polls....  [R]elease of such 
information to the government carries with it a real potential for chilling the free exercise 
of  political  speech  and  association  guarded  by  the  first  amendment.  [655  F.2d  at  388 
(footnotes omitted).] 

 

  It is apparent that these dangers are most acute when the subpoenaed materials “represent the 
very  heart  of  ...  political  expression  and  association  concerning  federal  elections  and  office  holding,” 
when  the  inquiring  body  is  constituted,  not  of  appointed  law‐enforcement  officials  but  of  successful 
candidates for political office who in the nature of things have a profound political interest in obtaining 
and evaluating those materials, and when the political branch deploys its governmental powers against 
independent actors on the political scene. 

 

  So  it  is  here.  A  Congressman,  who  served  on  and  advised  Donald  J.  Trump’s  presidential 
campaign,  has  used  the  office  to  which  he  was  elected  to  issue  a  subpoena  to  a  third  party  that  had 
engaged in opposition research on Mr. Trump that took place during the same campaign. The threat to 
the First Amendment interests at stake could not be greater. The subpoenas seek to burden “a category 
of  speech  that  is  ‘at  the  core  of  our  First  Amendment  freedoms’—speech  about  the  qualifications  of 
candidates for public office.” Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 774 (2002). 

 
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 30 of 36
Letter to Chairman D. Nunes 
October 16, 2017 
Page 16 of 17 
 
Significantly, First Amendment freedom of association protects not only the privacy of  group 
affiliation,  but  also  the  confidential  internal  documents  of  organizations  involved  in  political  activity.  
“[T]he  Supreme  Court  has  concluded  that  extensive  interference  with  political  groups’  internal 
operations  and  with  their  effectiveness  [  ]  implicate[s]  significant  First  Amendment  interests  in 
associational autonomy.” Am. Fed’n of Labor & Cong. of Indus. Organizations v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 
333 F.3d 168, 176–77 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (“AFL‐CIO v. FEC”) (citing Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic 
Central Committee, 489 U.S. 214 (1989) and Tashjian v. Republican Party, 479 U.S. 208, 224 (1986)).  In 
AFL‐CIO v. FEC, the D.C. Circuit held that a Federal Election Commission regulation that required public 
release of the Commission’s investigatory materials after the close of an investigation violated the First 
Amendment associational rights of the groups subject to the investigation, in that case, the Democratic 
National Committee and the AFL‐CIO. The court grounded its decision on the fact that disclosure of the 
groups’  “confidential  internal  materials”  would  unlawfully  intrude  into  the  groups’  “‘privacy  of 
association  and  belief  guaranteed  by  the  First  Amendment,’  .  .  .  as  well  as seriously  interfere[]  with 
internal group operations and effectiveness.” Am. Fed’n of Labor & Cong. of Indus. Organizations v. Fed. 
Election Comm’n, 333 F.3d 168, 177–78 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 64). 

 

The subpoenas here seek to expose the confidential internal records of an organization involved 
in political activity merely to harass a group whose work you as Chairman want to discredit for political 
reasons.  The  “First  Amendment  prevents  use  of  the  power  to  investigate  enforced  by  the  contempt 
power to probe at will and without relation to existing need.” DeGregory v. Attorney Gen. of State of N. 
H.,  383  U.S.  825,  829  (1966)  (citing  Watkins  v.  United  States,  354  U.S.  178,  197  –  200  (1957)).  The 
subpoenas  here  are  not  related  to  any  “existing  need,”  and  certainly  no  “compelling”  government 
interest. The subpoenas seek documents, the disclosure of which would “have a potential for chilling the 
free  exercise  of  political  speech  and  association  guarded  by  the  First  Amendment,”  Wyoming  v.  U.S. 
Dep’t of Agric., 208 F.R.D. 449, 454 (D.D.C. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted), and would also 
“cripple”  political  research  organizations’  “ability  to  operate  effectively[,]  …  reduc[ing]  ‘the  free 
circulation of ideas both within and without the political arena.’” Brown, 459 U.S. at 98 (quoting Buckley, 
424 U.S. at 71). 

 

E. The Subpoenas Demand Irrelevant Information and Material. 
 

Based on the demand for documents, it appears as though these subpoenas are a vehicle to assist 
Senator  Grassley  obtain  materials  sought  in  March  2017,  regarding  an  unrelated  Senate  Judiciary 
Committee oversight question as to whether the FBI had complied with its confidential informant policy.  
That matter, of course, is not pertinent to even the “parameters” of this investigation set forth in the 
excerpt from the HPSCI press release, attached to these subpoenas. 

 
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 31 of 36
Letter to Chairman D. Nunes 
October 16, 2017 
Page 17 of 17 
 
Such a matter has nothing to do with whether the Russian government interfered with the 2016 
election,  counter‐measures  against  it,  leaks  or  cyber‐intrusion.    It  is  a  simple  question  of  FBI  policy 
compliance.   

 

Secondarily,  these  subpoenas  seek  to  help  Senator  Grassley  obtain  the  answer  to  another 
irrelevant and inappropriate question – the identities of Fusion GPS’ clients.  Who contracted with Fusion 
GPS during the 2016 election campaign has absolutely no bearing on what findings Christopher Steele 
developed  overseas,  let  alone  on  whether  the  Russian  government  interfered  with  the  2016  U.S. 
presidential election. 

 

CONCLUSION 

  Incorporating the foregoing points and authorities by reference, we set forth specific objections 
to the subpoenas for documents and have attached those specific objections to this letter at Appendix 
A.  Likewise, for the foregoing reasons, we object to the subpoenas for our clients’ testimony.   

   

Should  you  compel  any  of  our  three  clients  to  appear  at  the  scheduled  deposition,  they  will 
invoke their constitutional privileges not to testify.  Since that will be the case, we ask that the Committee 
excuse them from appearing.22 

            Sincerely, 
 
 
 
 
            Joshua A. Levy 
            Robert F. Muse 
            Rachel M. Clattenburg 
 
cc:  Rep. Michael Conaway 
  Rep. Adam Schiff 
 

Enclosures 

                                                            
22
 See D.C. Legal Ethics Opinion 358, Subpoenaing Witness When Lawyer for Congressional Committee Has Been 
Advised that Witness Will Decline to Answer Any Questions on Claim of Privilege; Legal Ethics Opinion 31 
Revisited, available at https://www.dcbar.org/bar‐resources/legal‐ethics/opinions/opinion358.cfm. 
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 32 of 36

Exhibit C
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 33 of 36

NEW YORK
LONDON D uane Morris® ATLANTA
BALTIMORE
SIN(;APORI' WILMINGTON
Pl IILAl)f:I.PI 11.i\ FIRM twnl Al•HI.IA17c /)ffl('i,S M I AMI
('IHCAGO BOCA RATON
W AS! IINGT<)N, [)C PITTSBURGH
SAN FRANCISCO NEWARK
A LEXANDER 0 . BONO
Sll.lC'ON VALl.f.Y I.ASVfZGAS
DIRECT DIAL: + I 215 979118 1
SAN f) fr;GO ('HF.RRY HII.I,
PERSONAL FAX: + 1 2 15 689 4472
SHANGIIAI E-MA II.: abono@duancmorris.com LAK£TNmE
TAIWAN MYANMAR
llOSTON www.duanemorris.com 0.AN
IIOUSTON A ( iC'C 'f((,'PRJ•:

/•.'N'J:.1TJI 'F 01'1•'/f. 'f,'
Of/ f){,~f.11/£ .HORUJS
LOS ANGELES
IIANOI
ALLIANCES IN Ml'.XIC'O
l!O Cl II MINI I CITY
AND SRI LANKA

October 18, 2017

VIA EMAIL

The Honorable Devin Nunes, Chainnan
The Honorable K. Michael Conaway, Acting Chairman on Russia Investigation
The I lonorable Adam Schiff, Ranking Member
Pennanent Select Committee on Intelligence
United States House of Representatives
IIVC-304, U.S . Capitol
Washington, DC 20003

Re: United States House of Representatives,
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence ("Select Committee")'s
Subpoena dated October 4, 2017, Directed to '
1
- " ("Subpoena")
Dear Chairman Nunes, Acting Chairman Conaway, and Ranking Member Schiff:

We represent concerning the Subpoena. Our client and my
firm appreciate the courtesy exten poena compliance date until October 23, 2017 at
9:00 a.m.

- respectfully requests an additional extension, objects and responds to the
Subpoena as stated below, and respectfully requests a meaningful opportunity to cooperate with
the Select Committee to address apparent infirmities in the Subpoena and objections to
production raised by ~ ustomcr.

was incorrectly named in the Subpoena as
On October 12, 201 7, the Select Committee amcnde
, and executed on

D UANE MORR IS Lt.P

.'###BOT_TEXT### SOUTII 17TII STR EET PlllLADELPIIIA, PA 19 103 -41 96 PHONE: t I 215 979 1000 f'A X: +I 21l 979 1020
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 34 of 36

' S Responses and Objections to
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Subpoena
October 18, 2017
Page 2

OBJECTIONS - PROCEDURAL

l, - objects to the Subpoena because the Subpoena is procedurally defective.

2. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent that it is signed by Chairman
Nunes as "Chairman or Authorized Member" and dated October 4, 2017, which is after he
recused himself on April 6, 2017 from the Select Committee's Russia Investigation referenced in
the Subpoena ("Select Committee's Russia Investigation"),

3. - objects to the Subpoena because the Select Committee Rules of
Procedure were not attached to the Subpoena in violation of Rule 10(e) of the Select Committee
Rules of Procedure.

4. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent it was made in the absence of a
formal, unambiguous resolution regarding the Select Committee's Russia Investigation.

5. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent that the Select Committee's Russia
Investigation is not approved by Chairman Nunes or Acting Chairman Conaway in consultation
with Ranking Minority Member Adam Schiff in violation of Rule 9(a) of the Select Committee
Rules of Procedure.

6. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent that the Subpoena was not
authorized by Chairman Nunes or Acting Chairman Conway in consultation with Ranking
Minority Member Adam Schiff, or by vote of the full Committee, in violation of Rule 1O(a) of
the Select Committee Rules of Procedure.

7. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent it does not fall within the "sphere
oflegitimate legislative activity." Eastland v. U. S. Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S . 491, 506
(1975).

OBJECTIONS - DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. - objects to Definition No. 6 because " you'' and "your" are defined to
"include all otl~ viduals, or entities within the Central Intelligence Agency, including,
without limitation, anyone presently or formerly employed by, assigned to, or detailed there."2
Thus, the Subpoena seeks responses from a government agency over which the responding party,
- lacks control and is ambiguous.

2 Emphasis added throughout unless indicated to the contrary.
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 35 of 36

s Responses and Objections to
ermanent e ect Committee on Intelligence Subpoena
October 18, 2017
Page 3

2. - objects to Definitions Nos. 3 and 6 to the extent they are indefinite and
undefined because they are "not limited to" or "without limitation."

3. ~ bjects to Instruction No. 9 and expressly reserves its rights and
protections under the attorney/client privilege, the attorney work product privilege or any other
statutory or common law privilege.

4. - objects to Instruction No. 13 because the "request is continuing in
nature and applies to any newly-discovered information" and therefore is overly burdensome.

OBJECTIONS - SUBSTANTIVE

1. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent that it attempts to place burdens or
requirements o~ that are inconsistent with the Rules of the House of Representatives,
the Rules Adopted by the Committees of the House of Representatives, or the Select
Committee's Rules of Procedure.

2. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent that the requests for documents are
overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive.

3. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent that it requires production or
identification of data, documents and information:

a. subject to the attorney/client privilege, the attorney work product privilege or any
other statutory or common law privilege;

b. subject to the self-investigative privilege or self-critical analysis privilege;

c. relating to a Suspicious Activity Report ("SAR") or any information that would
disclose a SAR or reveal the existence of a SAR because such disclosure or
revelation is expressly prohibited by federal law and regulation, see 31 U.S .C.
§ 53 18(g)(2)(A)(i) and 12 C.F .R. § 21.11 (k)(l) and any attempts to request such
disclosure or revelation will result in notification, pursuant to the foregoing
federal law and regulation, to (i) Director, Litigation Division, Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency; and (ii) The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
(FinCEN); or

d. constituting or relating to OCC materials because such disclosure is expressly
prohibited by federal law and regulation pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 18.9;

4. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent that the requests for documents are
vague and ambiguous, or contain undefined or ambiguous terms.
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 36 of 36

D uan~orri~
s Responses and Objections to
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Subpoena
October 18, 2017
Page 4

5. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent that it seeks documents that are
protected from disclosure by Federal law and regulation.

6. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent that the requests for documents are
cumulative and/or duplicative.

7. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks the production of
1ents, data and information that are confidential, privileged, sensitive, or proprietary to II
• or confidential customer data that that is prohibited or protected from disclosure under any
federal and State Privacy Law or Regulations, including the Right to Privacy Act of 1978, 12
U.S .C. § 3401 el seq. and the Gramm-Lcach-Bliley Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6801 et seq.

-s
8. - objects to the Subpoena because its customer has objected to production
of its documents that are its bank records .

9. - objects to the Subpoena because it infringes on customer's
First Amendment rights.

RESPONSES

- expressly incorporates its Objections to each individually numbered paragraph,
I -10, in Schedule A of the Subpoena.

Given the foregoing Objections, particularly - 's customer's objections, before
producing responsive documents, - respectfully requests a meaningful opportunity to
cooperate with the Select Committee to address apparent infirmities in the Subpoena and
objections to production raised by- s customer. Notwithstanding these Objections,1 1
. .is taking appropriate steps to preserve its records. W c arc authorized b to accept
service of a validly issued subpoena that satisfies the procedural objections as
asserted.

Please contact me if you wish to set a time to ess the issues raised in this
response.
Resp t:fi ,

·~ er D
AB:ws

cc: Kashyap P. Patel, House Permanent Select ommittee on Intelligence, Senior Counsel
for Countcrtcrrorism (via Email)

Related Interests

/•.'N'J:.1TJI 'F 01'1•'/f. 'f,'
Of/ f){,~f.11/£ .HORUJS
LOS ANGELES
IIANOI
ALLIANCES IN Ml'.XIC'O
l!O Cl II MINI I CITY
AND SRI LANKA

October 18, 2017

VIA EMAIL

The Honorable Devin Nunes, Chainnan
The Honorable K. Michael Conaway, Acting Chairman on Russia Investigation
The I lonorable Adam Schiff, Ranking Member
Pennanent Select Committee on Intelligence
United States House of Representatives
IIVC-304, U.S . Capitol
Washington, DC 20003

Re: United States House of Representatives,
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence ("Select Committee")'s
Subpoena dated October 4, 2017, Directed to '
1
- " ("Subpoena")
Dear Chairman Nunes, Acting Chairman Conaway, and Ranking Member Schiff:

We represent concerning the Subpoena. Our client and my
firm appreciate the courtesy exten poena compliance date until October 23, 2017 at
9:00 a.m.

- respectfully requests an additional extension, objects and responds to the
Subpoena as stated below, and respectfully requests a meaningful opportunity to cooperate with
the Select Committee to address apparent infirmities in the Subpoena and objections to
production raised by ~ ustomcr.

was incorrectly named in the Subpoena as
On October 12, 201 7, the Select Committee amcnde
, and executed on

D UANE MORR IS Lt.P

.'###BOT_TEXT### SOUTII 17TII STR EET PlllLADELPIIIA, PA 19 103 -41 96 PHONE: t I 215 979 1000 f'A X: +I 21l 979 1020
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 34 of 36

' S Responses and Objections to
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Subpoena
October 18, 2017
Page 2

OBJECTIONS - PROCEDURAL

l, - objects to the Subpoena because the Subpoena is procedurally defective.

2. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent that it is signed by Chairman
Nunes as "Chairman or Authorized Member" and dated October 4, 2017, which is after he
recused himself on April 6, 2017 from the Select Committee's Russia Investigation referenced in
the Subpoena ("Select Committee's Russia Investigation"),

3. - objects to the Subpoena because the Select Committee Rules of
Procedure were not attached to the Subpoena in violation of Rule 10(e) of the Select Committee
Rules of Procedure.

4. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent it was made in the absence of a
formal, unambiguous resolution regarding the Select Committee's Russia Investigation.

5. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent that the Select Committee's Russia
Investigation is not approved by Chairman Nunes or Acting Chairman Conaway in consultation
with Ranking Minority Member Adam Schiff in violation of Rule 9(a) of the Select Committee
Rules of Procedure.

6. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent that the Subpoena was not
authorized by Chairman Nunes or Acting Chairman Conway in consultation with Ranking
Minority Member Adam Schiff, or by vote of the full Committee, in violation of Rule 1O(a) of
the Select Committee Rules of Procedure.

7. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent it does not fall within the "sphere
oflegitimate legislative activity." Eastland v. U. S. Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S . 491, 506
(1975).

OBJECTIONS - DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. - objects to Definition No. 6 because " you'' and "your" are defined to
"include all otl~ viduals, or entities within the Central Intelligence Agency, including,
without limitation, anyone presently or formerly employed by, assigned to, or detailed there."2
Thus, the Subpoena seeks responses from a government agency over which the responding party,
- lacks control and is ambiguous.

2 Emphasis added throughout unless indicated to the contrary.
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 35 of 36

s Responses and Objections to
ermanent e ect Committee on Intelligence Subpoena
October 18, 2017
Page 3

2. - objects to Definitions Nos. 3 and 6 to the extent they are indefinite and
undefined because they are "not limited to" or "without limitation."

3. ~ bjects to Instruction No. 9 and expressly reserves its rights and
protections under the attorney/client privilege, the attorney work product privilege or any other
statutory or common law privilege.

4. - objects to Instruction No. 13 because the "request is continuing in
nature and applies to any newly-discovered information" and therefore is overly burdensome.

OBJECTIONS - SUBSTANTIVE

1. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent that it attempts to place burdens or
requirements o~ that are inconsistent with the Rules of the House of Representatives,
the Rules Adopted by the Committees of the House of Representatives, or the Select
Committee's Rules of Procedure.

2. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent that the requests for documents are
overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive.

3. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent that it requires production or
identification of data, documents and information:

a. subject to the attorney/client privilege, the attorney work product privilege or any
other statutory or common law privilege;

b. subject to the self-investigative privilege or self-critical analysis privilege;

c. relating to a Suspicious Activity Report ("SAR") or any information that would
disclose a SAR or reveal the existence of a SAR because such disclosure or
revelation is expressly prohibited by federal law and regulation, see 31 U.S .C.
§ 53 18(g)(2)(A)(i) and 12 C.F .R. § 21.11 (k)(l) and any attempts to request such
disclosure or revelation will result in notification, pursuant to the foregoing
federal law and regulation, to (i) Director, Litigation Division, Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency; and (ii) The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
(FinCEN); or

d. constituting or relating to OCC materials because such disclosure is expressly
prohibited by federal law and regulation pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 18.9;

4. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent that the requests for documents are
vague and ambiguous, or contain undefined or ambiguous terms.
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 36 of 36

D uan~orri~
s Responses and Objections to
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Subpoena
October 18, 2017
Page 4

5. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent that it seeks documents that are
protected from disclosure by Federal law and regulation.

6. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent that the requests for documents are
cumulative and/or duplicative.

7. - objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks the production of
1ents, data and information that are confidential, privileged, sensitive, or proprietary to II
• or confidential customer data that that is prohibited or protected from disclosure under any
federal and State Privacy Law or Regulations, including the Right to Privacy Act of 1978, 12
U.S .C. § 3401 el seq. and the Gramm-Lcach-Bliley Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6801 et seq.

-s
8. - objects to the Subpoena because its customer has objected to production
of its documents that are its bank records .

9. - objects to the Subpoena because it infringes on customer's
First Amendment rights.

RESPONSES

- expressly incorporates its Objections to each individually numbered paragraph,
I -10, in Schedule A of the Subpoena.

Given the foregoing Objections, particularly - 's customer's objections, before
producing responsive documents, - respectfully requests a meaningful opportunity to
cooperate with the Select Committee to address apparent infirmities in the Subpoena and
objections to production raised by- s customer. Notwithstanding these Objections,1 1
. .is taking appropriate steps to preserve its records. W c arc authorized b to accept
service of a validly issued subpoena that satisfies the procedural objections as
asserted.

Please contact me if you wish to set a time to ess the issues raised in this
response.
Resp t:fi ,

·~ er D
AB:ws

cc: Kashyap P. Patel, House Permanent Select ommittee on Intelligence, Senior Counsel
for Countcrtcrrorism (via Email)

","doc_promotions_enabled":false,"static_promo_banner_cta_url":"https://www.scribd.com/"},"eligible_for_exclusive_trial_roadblock":false,"eligible_for_seo_roadblock":false,"exclusive_free_trial_roadblock_props_path":"/doc-page/exclusive-free-trial-props/362447944","flashes":[],"footer_props":{"urls":{"about":"/about","press":"/press","blog":"http://literally.scribd.com/","careers":"/careers","contact":"/contact","plans_landing":"/subscribe","referrals":"/referrals?source=footer","giftcards":"/giftcards","faq":"/faq","accessibility":"/accessibility-policy","faq_paths":{"accounts":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/sections/202246346","announcements":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/sections/202246066","copyright":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/sections/202246086","downloading":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/articles/210135046","publishing":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/sections/202246366","reading":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/sections/202246406","selling":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/sections/202246326","store":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/sections/202246306","status":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001202872","terms":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/sections/202246126","writing":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/sections/202246366","adchoices":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/articles/210129366","paid_features":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/sections/202246306","failed_uploads":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/en-us/articles/210134586-Troubleshooting-uploads-and-conversions","copyright_infringement":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/en-us/articles/210128946-DMCA-copyright-infringement-takedown-notification-policy","end_user_license":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/en-us/articles/210129486","terms_of_use":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/en-us/articles/210129326-General-Terms-of-Use"},"publishers":"/publishers","static_terms":"/terms","static_privacy":"/privacy","copyright":"/copyright","ios_app":"https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/scribd-worlds-largest-online/id542557212?mt=8&uo=4&at=11lGEE","android_app":"https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.scribd.app.reader0&hl=en","books":"/books","sitemap":"/directory"}},"global_nav_props":{"header_props":{"logo_src":"/images/landing/home2_landing/scribd_logo_horiz_small.svg","root_url":"https://www.scribd.com/","search_term":"","small_logo_src":"/images/logos/scribd_s_logo.png","uploads_url":"/upload-document","search_props":{"redirect_to_app":true,"search_url":"/search","query":"","search_page":false}},"user_menu_props":null,"sidebar_props":{"urls":{"bestsellers":"https://www.scribd.com/bestsellers","home":"https://www.scribd.com/","saved":"/saved","subscribe":"/archive/pmp_checkout?doc=362447944&metadata=%7B%22context%22%3A%22pmp%22%2C%22action%22%3A%22start_trial%22%2C%22logged_in%22%3Afalse%2C%22platform%22%3A%22web%22%7D","top_charts":"/bestsellers","upload":"https://www.scribd.com/upload-document"},"categories":{"book":{"icon":"icon-ic_book","icon_filled":"icon-ic_book_fill","url":"https://www.scribd.com/books","name":"Books","type":"book"},"news":{"icon":"icon-ic_articles","icon_filled":"icon-ic_articles_fill","url":"https://www.scribd.com/news","name":"News","type":"news"},"audiobook":{"icon":"icon-ic_audiobook","icon_filled":"icon-ic_audiobook_fill","url":"https://www.scribd.com/audiobooks","name":"Audiobooks","type":"audiobook"},"magazine":{"icon":"icon-ic_magazine","icon_filled":"icon-ic_magazine_fill","url":"https://www.scribd.com/magazines","name":"Magazines","type":"magazine"},"document":{"icon":"icon-ic_document","icon_filled":"icon-ic_document_fill","url":"https://www.scribd.com/docs","name":"Documents","type":"document"},"sheet_music":{"icon":"icon-ic_songbook","icon_filled":"icon-ic_songbook_fill","url":"https://www.scribd.com/sheetmusic","name":"Sheet Music","type":"sheet_music"},"summary":{"icon":"icon-ic_globalnav_snapshot","icon_filled":"icon-ic_globalnav_snapshot_fill","url":"https://www.scribd.com/snapshots","name":"Snapshots","type":"summary"}},"nav_categories":["mixed","book","audiobook","magazine","document","sheet_music"],"selected_content_type":"mixed","username":"","search_overlay_props":{"search_input_props":{"focused":false,"keep_suggestions_on_blur":false}}}},"recommenders":{"related_titles_recommender":{"ids":[381194811,371381223,371002694,345814908,365208275,365192265,368440102,371622097,349454334,362448199,360083823,363016712,361343461,369750230,367287379,324026766,362127538,344413452,353857003,369815742,349454375,353868118,363696227,362797316,329597550,370786900,370009743,353856170,353766594,353864582,362864527,370985779,365192265,368440102,369472864,369473128,364807435,341229814,349423678,360875151,362797316,359366565,362448199,360083823],"title_link":null,"title":null,"track_opts":{"compilation_id":"YhEfJt2IKBAkoPTxykKacD3MI3s=","module_id":"6/aRUuXqEdzIiVzSLlA8/rV32Nw=","widget_name":"right sidebar","track_id":"flattened_recommender"}},"footer_recommenders":{"recommenders":[{"ids":[381194811,371381223,371002694,345814908,365208275,365192265,368440102,371622097,349454334,362448199,360083823,363016712,361343461,369750230,367287379,324026766,362127538,344413452,353857003,369815742,349454375,353868118,363696227,362797316,329597550,370786900,370009743,353856170,353766594,353864582],"title_link":null,"title":"Documents Similar To Declaration of Mark Stewart: General Counsel for HPSCI responding to Fusion GPS","track_opts":{"compilation_id":"YhEfJt2IKBAkoPTxykKacD3MI3s=","module_id":"RS8jnClwnN1hU5JUk0zXfJxa4Xs=","widget_name":"document_carousel"}},{"ids":[362864527,370985779,365192265,368440102,369472864,369473128,364807435,341229814,349423678,360875151,362797316,359366565,362448199,360083823],"title_link":null,"title":"More From N.S.","track_opts":{"compilation_id":"YhEfJt2IKBAkoPTxykKacD3MI3s=","module_id":"iQPII3IPuHzIJbo8X9UUHSfydh4=","widget_name":"document_carousel"}}]},"seo_new_docs_recommenders":{"recommenders":[]},"documents":{"324026766":{"type":"document","id":324026766,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/324026766/149x198/92d846364b/1473884405?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/324026766/298x396/afbeb1b872/1473884405?v=1","title":"Bloomberg Unweighted Poll of Ohio Likely Voters Sept 14th","short_title":"Bloomberg Unweighted Poll of Ohio Likely Voters Sept 14th","author":"The Conservative Treehouse","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":324026766,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"Pb5zvVeJoVg0K2/MrnKdskV/vYc="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/324026766/Bloomberg-Unweighted-Poll-of-Ohio-Likely-Voters-Sept-14th","top_badge":null},"329597550":{"type":"document","id":329597550,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/329597550/149x198/cce4c7ac10/1477982167?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/329597550/298x396/da3b9d6db0/1477982167?v=1","title":"Huma Abedin FBI Interview of 5 April 2016, FBI 302 of 7 April 2016","short_title":"Huma Abedin FBI Interview of 5 April 2016, FBI 302 of 7 April 2016","author":"nolu chan","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":329597550,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"RSg/Flbfjyvc5x0jXgfHdXwgipw="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/329597550/Huma-Abedin-FBI-Interview-of-5-April-2016-FBI-302-of-7-April-2016","top_badge":null},"341229814":{"type":"document","id":341229814,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/341229814/149x198/9c5c8440e5/1488931556?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/341229814/298x396/1874c49115/1488931556?v=1","title":"Governmental Crime","short_title":"Governmental Crime","author":"N.S.","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":341229814,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"u1etJ2f7UwfJGnMzEYtKm1Rj/zU="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/341229814/Governmental-Crime","top_badge":null},"344413452":{"type":"document","id":344413452,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/344413452/149x198/5b327a7676/1491586826?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/344413452/298x396/e4646483c5/1491586826?v=1","title":"Shayrat Airfield 7Apr17 WV (002) Post Strike (1)","short_title":"Shayrat Airfield 7Apr17 WV (002) Post Strike (1)","author":"Anonymous jGIHL9A","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":344413452,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"k+oeIe6tRahDzphxX/kjWyqr774="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/344413452/Shayrat-Airfield-7Apr17-WV-002-Post-Strike-1","top_badge":null},"345814908":{"type":"document","id":345814908,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/345814908/149x198/cbc7eb2317/1492741558?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/345814908/298x396/5c19ed30be/1492741558?v=1","title":"MemoInSupportOfMotionforInvestigation Filed","short_title":"MemoInSupportOfMotionforInvestigation Filed","author":"Daniel","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":345814908,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"v95zJeHfREiRoGxj79FgvIAkW/8="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/345814908/MemoInSupportOfMotionforInvestigation-Filed","top_badge":null},"349423678":{"type":"document","id":349423678,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/349423678/149x198/1f76f48317/1495731167?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/349423678/298x396/37a2250f1a/1495731167?v=1","title":"How Drones are going to Change the Definition of Privacy on Domestic Soil","short_title":"How Drones are going to Change the Definition of Privacy on Domestic Soil","author":"N.S.","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":349423678,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"dIY0wOyZ9n9tJjV6Ll31zGdKjnA="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/349423678/How-Drones-are-going-to-Change-the-Definition-of-Privacy-on-Domestic-Soil","top_badge":null},"349454334":{"type":"document","id":349454334,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/349454334/149x198/57796ccce0/1495754821?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/349454334/298x396/12b91197a1/1495754821?v=1","title":"April 2017 Production Part 2","short_title":"April 2017 Production Part 2","author":"Nick DiMarco","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":349454334,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"u37D+KzvET42sriQukUJvihKRNQ="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/349454334/April-2017-Production-Part-2","top_badge":null},"349454375":{"type":"document","id":349454375,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/349454375/149x198/da7cf53a99/1516666143?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/349454375/298x396/14ddca084a/1516666143?v=1","title":"2016 Cert FISC Memo Opin Order Apr 2017","short_title":"2016 Cert FISC Memo Opin Order Apr 2017","author":"Nick DiMarco","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":349454375,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"iJvDK1jMnOb1JQgoz6pcjzOcfXg="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/349454375/2016-Cert-FISC-Memo-Opin-Order-Apr-2017","top_badge":null},"353766594":{"type":"document","id":353766594,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/353766594/149x198/682b33a005/1500297235?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/353766594/298x396/87b11e2be8/1500297235?v=1","title":"2017-04-04 CEG to DHS (Akhmetshin Information) With Attachment","short_title":"2017-04-04 CEG to DHS (Akhmetshin Information) With Attachment","author":"Sero Hour","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":353766594,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"wB5Z/7Q4KDFDEeItCu6k8pLGzqU="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/353766594/2017-04-04-CEG-to-DHS-Akhmetshin-Information-With-Attachment","top_badge":null},"353856170":{"type":"document","id":353856170,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/353856170/149x198/d9b42842bb/1500155858?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/353856170/298x396/babb66a492/1500155858?v=1","title":"Veselnitskaya1","short_title":"Veselnitskaya1","author":"maganw","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":353856170,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"afruy8DSiTdLX7bZub8zTy1mUTs="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/353856170/Veselnitskaya1","top_badge":null},"353857003":{"type":"document","id":353857003,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/353857003/149x198/b6fe1264bb/1514271123?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/353857003/298x396/5f5a7a044e/1514271123?v=1","title":"Podesta Clinton","short_title":"Podesta Clinton","author":"maganw","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":353857003,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"AszI6Rii6hmW6chzEMtHzBkhrWU="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/353857003/Podesta-Clinton","top_badge":null},"353864582":{"type":"document","id":353864582,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/353864582/149x198/e30adc743c/1500167733?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/353864582/298x396/d3dd429606/1500167733?v=1","title":"Dnc","short_title":"Dnc","author":"maganw","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":353864582,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"t1pCBLINYzi4QyKFAfC9g8QVDsU="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/353864582/Dnc","top_badge":null},"353868118":{"type":"document","id":353868118,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/353868118/149x198/2823d180b1/1500171639?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/353868118/298x396/32d63d58dd/1500171639?v=1","title":"Manafort","short_title":"Manafort","author":"maganw","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":353868118,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"tjUtfb8J2nfnlG99QyFB478OQl4="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/353868118/Manafort","top_badge":null},"359366565":{"type":"document","id":359366565,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/359366565/149x198/b07dfbf2b5/1505864521?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/359366565/298x396/3b34940c3e/1505864521?v=1","title":"Ray Valas Petition Filed 08/17/17","short_title":"Ray Valas Petition Filed 08/17/17","author":"N.S.","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":359366565,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"wEqL0blAX0+yjdCNkmxkgq5B6HM="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/359366565/Ray-Valas-Petition-Filed-08-17-17","top_badge":null},"360083823":{"type":"document","id":360083823,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/360083823/149x198/f3d747e32b/1507073673?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/360083823/298x396/470f2e605a/1507073673?v=1","title":"The Role of Select Non-Governmental Organizations in Doha’s Support for Terrorism","short_title":"The Role of Select Non-Governmental Organizations in Doha’s Support for Terrorism","author":"N.S.","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":360083823,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"1YS1M5RhFVCw2g7b87HgxePwyzY="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/360083823/The-Role-of-Select-Non-Governmental-Organizations-in-Doha-s-Support-for-Terrorism","top_badge":null},"360875151":{"type":"document","id":360875151,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/360875151/149x198/c8519328c9/1507307182?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/360875151/298x396/39281a3777/1507307182?v=1","title":"Toward a Sensible, Coherent Trumpism","short_title":"Toward a Sensible, Coherent Trumpism","author":"N.S.","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":360875151,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"lbcrfXP5hgAefeogQ4NMa2ZqWu4="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/360875151/Toward-a-Sensible-Coherent-Trumpism","top_badge":null},"361343461":{"type":"document","id":361343461,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/361343461/149x198/1529f6d282/1507758410?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/361343461/298x396/030138fe5a/1507758410?v=1","title":"Yvette Felarca 2016 Disciplinary Letter","short_title":"Yvette Felarca 2016 Disciplinary Letter","author":"WeSearchr","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":361343461,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"bzGmRfnKvtvjhpWrkS/G9Hu2fTg="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/361343461/Yvette-Felarca-2016-Disciplinary-Letter","top_badge":null},"362127538":{"type":"document","id":362127538,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/362127538/149x198/f4d1b7bf85/1508519088?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/362127538/298x396/a0d446f9de/1508519088?v=1","title":"Citizens United Releases Clinton - Russia Related FOIA Documents From State Dept.","short_title":"Citizens United Releases Clinton - Russia Related FOIA Documents From State Dept.","author":"Citizens United","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":362127538,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"r0ibidwHkPNVhW/somyPomLXiy4="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/362127538/Citizens-United-Releases-Clinton-Russia-Related-FOIA-Documents-From-State-Dept","top_badge":null},"362448199":{"type":"document","id":362448199,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/362448199/149x198/ffdaaf463d/1508852152?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/362448199/298x396/1b1a5eb8f2/1508852152?v=1","title":"Response of Intervenor the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. House of Representatives in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion","short_title":"Response of Intervenor the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. House of Representatives in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion","author":"N.S.","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":362448199,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"fxgXXCkA+FPY2fLrMqlEgMVnyt0="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/362448199/Response-of-Intervenor-the-Permanent-Select-Committee-on-Intelligence-of-the-U-S-House-of-Representatives-in-Opposition-to-Plaintiff-s-Motion","top_badge":null},"362797316":{"type":"document","id":362797316,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/362797316/149x198/0a6062be29/1517163459?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/362797316/298x396/facb4171d5/1517163459?v=1","title":"FRIDMAN et al v. BEAN LLC aka FUSION GPS et al","short_title":"FRIDMAN et al v. BEAN LLC aka FUSION GPS et al","author":"N.S.","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":362797316,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"sMYkI34x4VNF7ho/H/Ki9kMvVVA="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/362797316/FRIDMAN-et-al-v-BEAN-LLC-aka-FUSION-GPS-et-al","top_badge":null},"362864527":{"type":"document","id":362864527,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/362864527/149x198/ef12f8713a/1509220765?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/362864527/298x396/b374d634ad/1509220765?v=1","title":"Third Party Subpoena to Fusion GPS et al. v Buzzfeed Inc et al.","short_title":"Third Party Subpoena to Fusion GPS et al. v Buzzfeed Inc et al.","author":"N.S.","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":362864527,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"8th28Hg3bXF4xoY8gtxvkGkIDLE="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/362864527/Third-Party-Subpoena-to-Fusion-GPS-et-al-v-Buzzfeed-Inc-et-al","top_badge":null},"363016712":{"type":"document","id":363016712,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/363016712/149x198/dae585da74/1515594594?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/363016712/298x396/804452ba00/1515594594?v=1","title":"George Papadopoulos LinkedIn Profile","short_title":"George Papadopoulos LinkedIn Profile","author":"juliabhaber","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":363016712,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"1Ra2kG9pvOQb4RIpwhiVkZfZlo8="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/363016712/George-Papadopoulos-LinkedIn-Profile","top_badge":null},"363696227":{"type":"document","id":363696227,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/363696227/149x198/a43e5e11b2/1510078673?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/363696227/298x396/e19d741724/1510078673?v=1","title":"SEARCHABLE Carter Page Hpsci Hearing Transcript Nov 2 2017","short_title":"SEARCHABLE Carter Page Hpsci Hearing Transcript Nov 2 2017","author":"Just Security","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":363696227,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"kHBkaGNolGi7jb5rTc0CCp5rj2A="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/363696227/SEARCHABLE-Carter-Page-Hpsci-Hearing-Transcript-Nov-2-2017","top_badge":null},"364807435":{"type":"document","id":364807435,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/364807435/149x198/14b5dec3bc/1511234258?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/364807435/298x396/26ec04e61f/1511234258?v=1","title":"Russia's New Generation of Warfare","short_title":"Russia's New Generation of Warfare","author":"N.S.","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":364807435,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"40Dtj692CYyN73rMZi4O7x/B9kc="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/364807435/Russia-s-New-Generation-of-Warfare","top_badge":null},"365192265":{"type":"document","id":365192265,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/365192265/149x198/bf369d6e2b/1511368047?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/365192265/298x396/1f6cefc4e9/1511368047?v=1","title":"Response Of Intervenor on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence In Opposition To Fusion GPS's Renewed Application For a Temporary Restraining Order","short_title":"Response Of Intervenor on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence In Opposition To Fusion GPS's Renewed Application For a Temporary Restraining Order","author":"N.S.","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":365192265,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"UJIO/8MwAhzJP6Kz6SUmVCdwj3U="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/365192265/Response-Of-Intervenor-on-the-House-Permanent-Select-Committee-on-Intelligence-In-Opposition-To-Fusion-GPS-s-Renewed-Application-For-a-Temporary-Restr","top_badge":null},"365208275":{"type":"document","id":365208275,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/365208275/149x198/03fbcc2e6d/1511379101?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/365208275/298x396/d425bb0632/1511379101?v=1","title":"Declaration of Scott L. Glabe, Deputy General Counsel for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence","short_title":"Declaration of Scott L. Glabe, Deputy General Counsel for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence","author":"N.S.","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":365208275,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"RQCc3CpH5cbCxH8mIrNYXVb0hAc="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/365208275/Declaration-of-Scott-L-Glabe-Deputy-General-Counsel-for-the-House-Permanent-Select-Committee-on-Intelligence","top_badge":null},"367287379":{"type":"document","id":367287379,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/367287379/149x198/531606720f/1513385657?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/367287379/298x396/a4cab36be0/1513385657?v=1","title":"Horowitz Letter to House Judiciary Dems","short_title":"Horowitz Letter to House Judiciary Dems","author":"natasha bertrand","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":367287379,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"ahfIU27ryTm6J3C1Hb8KZckv/RM="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/367287379/Horowitz-Letter-to-House-Judiciary-Dems","top_badge":null},"368440102":{"type":"document","id":368440102,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/368440102/149x198/379d2e5e19/1516344628?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/368440102/298x396/241f6e9b8c/1516344628?v=1","title":"Memorandum Opinion signed by Judge Richard J. Leon denying Plaintiff's (Fusion GPS) Motion for Preliminary Injunction ","short_title":"Memorandum Opinion signed by Judge Richard J. Leon denying Plaintiff's (Fusion GPS) Motion for Preliminary Injunction ","author":"N.S.","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":368440102,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"CLzP1DkyzdIT4/7yKP3k2UcRv3Q="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/368440102/Memorandum-Opinion-signed-by-Judge-Richard-J-Leon-denying-Plaintiff-s-Fusion-GPS-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction","top_badge":null},"369472864":{"type":"document","id":369472864,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/369472864/149x198/f534e1faf6/1516313963?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/369472864/298x396/fdcee55af3/1516313963?v=1","title":"Glenn Simpson November 8, 2017 Interview with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence","short_title":"Glenn Simpson November 8, 2017 Interview with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence","author":"N.S.","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":369472864,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"OYVQTL3Ie40Eg4EwFPqAPedgDac="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/369472864/Glenn-Simpson-November-8-2017-Interview-with-the-House-Permanent-Select-Committee-on-Intelligence","top_badge":null},"369473128":{"type":"document","id":369473128,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/369473128/149x198/a28e37da2d/1516314336?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/369473128/298x396/24d6b83577/1516314336?v=1","title":"Glenn Simpson November 14, 2017 Interview with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence","short_title":"Glenn Simpson November 14, 2017 Interview with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence","author":"N.S.","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":369473128,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"3YQ4qY7/jbtQ1C86Pw1uVazdHcA="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/369473128/Glenn-Simpson-November-14-2017-Interview-with-the-House-Permanent-Select-Committee-on-Intelligence","top_badge":null},"369750230":{"type":"document","id":369750230,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/369750230/149x198/2bd9991b25/1516663785?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/369750230/298x396/c3b26f1823/1516663785?v=1","title":"1-19-18 Boyd Nunes Letter","short_title":"1-19-18 Boyd Nunes Letter","author":"zmtillman","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":369750230,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"xx/152vDbG3CzIEOfhNJH5lpsj8="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/369750230/1-19-18-Boyd-Nunes-Letter","top_badge":null},"369815742":{"type":"document","id":369815742,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/369815742/149x198/316235d56b/1525532652?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/369815742/298x396/1b29cdaef6/1525532652?v=1","title":"Strzok Page Text Messages 5-19-17","short_title":"Strzok Page Text Messages 5-19-17","author":"Chuck Ross","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":369815742,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"PvJdVoWVCm9qIor+Hyfidc7l7mQ="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/369815742/Strzok-Page-Text-Messages-5-19-17","top_badge":null},"370009743":{"type":"document","id":370009743,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/370009743/149x198/aedd747502/1526827860?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/370009743/298x396/c60c6e8fdd/1526827860?v=1","title":"Grassley Text Message Release 1-25-18","short_title":"Grassley Text Message Release 1-25-18","author":"The Conservative Treehouse","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":370009743,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"i4vxu1UVX0bbGSDtEWwBWZZIdNI="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/370009743/Grassley-Text-Message-Release-1-25-18","top_badge":null},"370786900":{"type":"document","id":370786900,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/370786900/149x198/1b08ac54fd/1519842716?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/370786900/298x396/7d64db417a/1519842716?v=1","title":"Unclassified CEG LG Memo to DOJ FBI (Steele Referral)","short_title":"Unclassified CEG LG Memo to DOJ FBI (Steele Referral)","author":"Washington Examiner","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":370786900,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"oOmlwp2g+li+F7nO9BaIi0H6ByY="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/370786900/Unclassified-CEG-LG-Memo-to-DOJ-FBI-Steele-Referral","top_badge":null},"370985779":{"type":"document","id":370985779,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/370985779/149x198/3a451e8848/1518024693?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/370985779/298x396/bcc329b03b/1518024693?v=1","title":"\"The Clinton Email Scandal and the FBI's Investigation of It\" Interim Report by the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee ","short_title":"\"The Clinton Email Scandal and the FBI's Investigation of It\" Interim Report by the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee ","author":"N.S.","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":370985779,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"ue90CPTijAKAudPQTW/3OfHTqew="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/370985779/The-Clinton-Email-Scandal-and-the-FBI-s-Investigation-of-It-Interim-Report-by-the-chairman-of-the-Senate-Homeland-Security-and-Governmental-Affairs","top_badge":null},"371002694":{"type":"document","id":371002694,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/371002694/149x198/d261366c95/1519927223?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/371002694/298x396/b2fc75e924/1519927223?v=1","title":"Senator Ron Johnson Appendix C - Documents and Text Messages","short_title":"Senator Ron Johnson Appendix C - Documents and Text Messages","author":"The Conservative Treehouse","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":371002694,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"JkARhFph/8OwMsV152SRmhrR1QI="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/371002694/Senator-Ron-Johnson-Appendix-C-Documents-and-Text-Messages","top_badge":null},"371381223":{"type":"document","id":371381223,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/371381223/149x198/1f4a69f2d9/1518479176?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/371381223/298x396/091c3ee5df/1518479176?v=1","title":"Carter Page October 2016 letter","short_title":"Carter Page October 2016 letter","author":"Fox News","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":371381223,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"nPCGuj5u03OuDds4IuAuXLYGJQ0="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/371381223/Carter-Page-October-2016-letter","top_badge":null},"371622097":{"type":"document","id":371622097,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/371622097/149x198/823355446a/1535649911?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/371622097/298x396/fbab8c58a6/1535649911?v=1","title":"FISA Court Presiding Judge Rosemary M Collyer Response to Chairman Goodlatte","short_title":"FISA Court Presiding Judge Rosemary M Collyer Response to Chairman Goodlatte","author":"The Conservative Treehouse","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":371622097,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"ZyJYHGfmuO1zeQUA+Yij/G4Vw/s="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/371622097/FISA-Court-Presiding-Judge-Rosemary-M-Collyer-Response-to-Chairman-Goodlatte","top_badge":null},"381194811":{"type":"document","id":381194811,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/381194811/149x198/5be7ef1e90/1528561329?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/381194811/298x396/f40d2e8dee/1528561329?v=1","title":"DOJ Letter to Graham on Rosenstein recusal","short_title":"DOJ Letter to Graham on Rosenstein recusal","author":"Washington Examiner","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":381194811,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"QlEZ8B0zmJ+sDDlQuk3WwHXHgFQ="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/381194811/DOJ-Letter-to-Graham-on-Rosenstein-recusal","top_badge":null}}},"seo_roadblock_props_path":"/doc-page/seo-roadblock-props/362447944","signup_context":null,"toolbar":{"search_path":"/search-4gen?allowed_pages=&auth_token=f5RTPnLv9s4SUc6ob%2Blz4u9ALzg%3D&authenticity_token=29g5hXg2RgRNOZ%2Bw5BunEzq1h0xTA44dCFRS73JO6si%2FO6lUQfbsnCoa7YOclXKs6EM1DlvIlOjMuhP%2FmmlzGw%3D%3D&expires=1540173842&wordDocumentId=362447944&wordUploadId=369589417"},"renewal_nag_props":null}-->