(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch released 143 pages of new records today from the U.S. Department of Defense, showing extensive communications between the Pentagon’s Director of the Office of Net Assessment James Baker and Washington Post reporter David Ignatius.

Lawyers for Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn alleged in a November 1, 2019, court filing that Baker “is believed to be the person who illegally leaked” to Ignatius the transcripts of Flynn’s December 29, 2016, telephone calls with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak. The Washington Post published Ignatius’ account of the calls on January 12, 2017, setting in motion a chain of events that lead to Flynn’s February 13, 2017, firing as National Security Advisor and subsequent prosecution for making false statements to the FBI about the calls. U.S. Attorney John Durham is reportedly investigating the leak of information targeting Flynn.

Citing “the government’s bad faith, vindictiveness and breach of the plea agreement,” in January 2020 Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, moved to withdraw Flynn’s 2017 guilty plea during the Mueller investigation. Flynn claims he felt forced to plead guilty “when his son was threatened with prosecution and he exhausted his financial resources.” Last week, prosecutors provided Flynn’s defense team with documentation of this threat, according to additional papers Flynn’s lawyers filed April 24, 2020, in support of the motion to withdraw.

Judicial Watch obtained the records in a November 2019 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the DOD failed to respond to a September 2019 request (Judicial Watch v. Department of Defense (No. 1:19-cv-03564)). Judicial Watch seeks:

  • All calendar entries of Director James Baker of the Office of Net Assessment.
  • All records of communications between ONA Director James Baker and reporter David Ignatius.

The time frame for the requested records was May 2015 through September 25, 2019.

The records include an exchange on February 16, 2016, with the subject line “Ignatius,” in which Baker tells Pentagon colleague Zachary Mears, then-deputy chief of staff to Obama Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, that he has “a long history with David” and talks with him regularly.

read more here:


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center


  • Why did it take all this time to discover this information... More importantly: WHY DID IT TAKE a FOIA request from JUDICIAL WATCH, a private agency outside the government, to obtain this information from the DOD?  Why did the DOJ not have this information or why have they been sitting on it? These questions ought to result in the AG Barr and U.S. Attorney Durham both being fired, along with every DOJ and DOD official who knew anything at all about these records and events.  The coverup and official attempts to obstruct justice appear to involve current, sitting members, located in Key positions within Pres. Trump's Administration...The President's Administration appears to be full of corrupt or inept individuals. 

    Espionage and Obstruction of Justice... possibly sedition to unlawfully remove a sitting President should be the charges resulting from this information, just in case the DOJ actually does anything... which appears unlikely, based on the historical record.  The AG and Durham have not acted to announce Grand Jury proceedings against those familiar and involved in this breach of justice and our laws. I'll say this again. What is most troubling about this incident is: that the DOD and DOJ, are both implicated in a coverup for DIrector Baker and others who know of his betrayal and espionage ... leaking 'classified information' to reporter David Ignatius, of the Washington Post, with the intent to bring down the President, is espionage and seditious conduct.

    Clearly, criminal malfeasance is involved at the DOJ and DOD... The question, now becomes: How much more evidence of sedition and espionage could be discovered by an investigator who is actually attempting to uncover crimes committed and the truth surrounding the illegal attempts to ruin Pres. Trump and his close allies. The ease with which Judicial Watch uncovered this evidence of criminal conduct brings AG Barr, and U.S. Attorney Durham competence into question... they are either inept, corrupt, or both. 

    • Is it not clear the Obama administration was not only one of the most corrupt in modern history, but also one of the most CRIMINAL administrations? It's clear that the DOD, DOJ, and other executive agencies were seeded with seditionists, and possibly traitors, even before it became apparent Sec. Clinton would lose the 2016 election. It seems there are still many imbedded in multiple agencies that Obama weaponized.

      It's also obvious that these Obama weaponized agencies ARE NOT cooperating with the Trump WH, AG Barr, or US Attorney Durham. So it has taken numerous lawsuits to force COURTS to demand the DOD, DOJ, and othere agencies to release documents according to the laws the agencies strive to ignore.


    • The idea that the President and his agents are being barred by his own Administration... forcing him to take those he supervises and can FIRE to court too obtain documents and testimony in an investigation is CRAP... in fact, it is just more misinformation and bad advice to the President.  ANY, ANY... agent in the President's administration that refuses to provide documents or assistance to the DOJ or US Attorney Durham... should be FIRED ON THE SPOT ... escorted out of the building and the next person in the chain of command asked to comply... and if they refuse... fire them on the spot, escort them out of the building, go to the next.

      The only refusal by agents in the administration to respond to the President and his agents is for classified information and that can be declassified on the spot by the President... so all this bull dung is nothing but excuses to slow down... OBSTRUCT JUSTICE and I submit AG Barr and US Attorney Durham KNOW THIS... 

    • It's called lawfare, and it's goal is obstruction of justice.


    • Yes, and the best defense against lawfare is lawful dismissal of those using it... let them sue to prove they were not insubordinate put the onus on them to spend their time and money in a civil court only to lose.  No agent of the Federal Government is permitted to disobey a lawful order from the President without being subject to termination... arbitration or other mitigating regulatory personnel disciplinary actions ... aside... the President or his authorized agent may still fire the offending employee and that employee's recourse is to spend his time and money to sue... not the other way around.

    • Good point. Those who sue and lose should be liable for the legal costs of the defendants. In addition, judges should discipline attroneys who bring frivilous cases to court.

      As for arbitration and mitigating regulations, perhaps they're FAR too broad. As you and I know, disobey or lawful (constitutional) orders carries a penalty.


    • carry on my friend

    • Through rain or snow and even flack. :-)


    • Okay


    • what is lawfare? that's the first time I hear about that word.


This reply was deleted.