2 Key Lawyers in Whistleblower Saga Have Lauded Oversight. Now, They Are Divided
The two men have publicly split over whether a whistleblower complaint involving the Trump administration should be handed over to the House Intelligence Committee.
September 20, 2019 at 11:44 AM
8 minute read
A secret whistleblower complaint that has consumed Washington, D.C., is now dividing two top lawyers who have both previously backed Congress' right to obtain that kind of information.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff is seeking the whistleblower complaint after the information wasn't shared with congressional committees despite it being labeled an "urgent" matter by the intelligence community's inspector general. But the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, bolstered by legal advice from the Department of Justice, argues the complaint is privileged and doesn't have to be shared with lawmakers overseeing intelligence matters.
Both Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson and Office of the Director of National Intelligence General Counsel Jason Klitenic backed Congress' oversight of the intelligence community during their confirmation hearings before the Senate in 2017.
Atkinson now says he believes the congressional intelligence committees should be able to access the complaint under a federal whistleblower statute. But Klitenic wrote in a letter this week that officials don't have to share it with Congress, arguing it doesn't meet the standard needed for disclosure.
Committee Democrats believe the whistleblower complaint is somehow connected to President Donald Trump and his administration, and are considering legal action to get the complaint.
From ex-intelligence officers to Justice Department veterans, here are the main attorneys involved in the unfolding legal drama.
>> Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson: The former Winston & Strawn partner spent roughly four hours meeting with the House Intelligence Committee behind closed doors Thursday. But, according to lawmakers present, he did not provide details of what the tipster told his office because he was not authorized by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to do so.
Atkinson disagrees with ODNI, and his thinking on the handling of the complaint was summed up in a letter released by the House Intelligence Committee Thursday. Atkinson said he is currently unable to fulfill two of his duties: informing the appropriate congressional committees of potential issues in the intelligence community and ensuring that the whistleblower's complaint is addressed.
That's in line with what Atkinson told Senators on the Intelligence Committee during his confirmation hearing in 2017.
"In terms of the whistleblower protection, I talked about a commitment to integrity and that to me is what is essential so that whistleblowers have trust in the process," he said.
Atkinson also testified that he views "the concept of congressional oversight of U.S. intelligence activities as an obligation of Congress and essential to ensure U.S. intelligence activities meet our nation's security needs, respect our laws and reflect American values."
Before Trump tapped Atkinson for the job, he spent 15 years at the DOJ. He started off as a trial attorney in the criminal division before serving as an assistant U.S. attorney for D.C. for a decade. Atkinson rounded out his time in the national security division, including a stint as senior counsel to the assistant attorney general.
At Winston & Strawn, Atkinson worked on white-collar defense cases and internal investigations from 1991 until 2002. His family is still heavily involved in Big Law: His wife, Kathryn Cameron Atkinson, was elected the new chairwoman of Miller & Chevalier in July, after she spent 27 years with the firm.
Atkinson praised his wife during his opening statement at his 2017 Senate confirmation hearing, thanking her for having "made her own personal and professional sacrifices to help me realize my professional goals."
His Senate questionnaire shows that his wife would commit to not taking on any work that would conflict with his oversight of the intelligence community.
Jason Klitenic, ODNI general counsel: Klitenic joined Holland & Knight in 2010 and led its national security team in Washington. Klitenic, who is the brother-in-law of FBI Director Christopher Wray, was also on the Trump transition team.
Klitenic got a shoutout from Wray at the FBI director's confirmation hearing in 2017, when Wray thanked Klitenic and his wife Kate by name.
"A commitment like this affects the whole family, and I have no words to adequately express my gratitude to all of them," Wray said at the time.
Klitenic in July 2017 reported receiving $828,483 from Holland & Knight in salary and bonus, according to his financial disclosure form.
He's no stranger to working with federal agencies, as Klitenic previously worked with the Homeland Security, State and Defense departments. Since joining ODNI, he's likely to have regularly coordinated with the Justice Department, as he has during the whistleblower controversy.
Klitenic is now in the spotlight for letters he wrote to the House and Senate Intelligence committees earlier this week, on behalf of ODNI. In the letters, he argued that a whistleblower complaint sought by the House panel did not have to be shared with Congress because it didn't reach the statutory standards needed for disclosure.
During his confirmation hearing in 2017, Klitenic told Senators in his opening statement: "I also believe strongly in my responsibility, if confirmed, to keep the Congress fully and currently informed and my responsibility to support your oversight over the IC. The IC's unique missions are often practiced in secrecy, to protect critical sources and methods in support of our national security."
>> Compass Rose Legal Group's Andrew Bakaj: The former CIA officer is representing the whistleblower, whose identity remains unknown.
The founding and managing partner of Compass Rose Legal Group, Bakaj previously worked at the CIA's Office of Inspector General, where he ran criminal and administrative probes. But more appropriately, he created a program to investigate instances of whistleblower reprisals.
Bakaj is a former whistleblower himself. He was forced out of the CIA after he filed a complaint in 2014 about alleged evidence tampering at the agency's inspector general office. It was later determined that Bakaj faced retaliation at the CIA over that complaint.
According to Bakaj's bio on his firm's website, he is a "subject matter expert" in whistleblower complaints. He also used to work with ODNI, the Defense Department and Justice Department in that role.
The attorney also previously oversaw investigations into retaliatory actions taken against civilian staffers at the Defense Department. While at DoD, Bakaj also created a framework used for the first federal probes into potential whistleblower reprisals.
The attorney also comes with Capitol Hill credentials, as he worked for then-Sens. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Hillary Clinton, as well as now-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
>> House general counsel Doug Letter: After being hired in January, Letter is quickly becoming a familiar face in courthouses handling the House's legal battles, not that he wasn't well-known there already, after spending roughly 40 years at the DOJ.
Schiff said Thursday that his panel is currently weighing its options with Letter, including whether they may go to court to obtain the whistleblower complaint.
If a legal fight is pursued over the complaint, it will add yet another case to Letter's already heavy caseload. The House counsel has been involved in nine cases since Speaker Nancy Pelosi hired him, including two lawsuits in which he is arguing as an amicus party.
But Letter has proved himself both an eager litigator and defender for the House. Seeking the complaint would also provide the House general counsel's office with a new kind of legal challenge, standing in stark contrast from the other lawsuits surrounding Trump's private financial records.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSplit 4th Circuit Ruling Is a Win for Covington & Burling in US Army Base Attack Litigation
3 minute readA Conversation with NLJ Lifetime Achievement Award Winner Jeff Smith
11 minute readBiden's Nominee Secures U.S. Senate Confirmation for Phila. Federal Judgeship
3 minute read'Export Violations'?: RTX Settles Civil Charges With $200M Consent Agreement
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250