Gallagher Correspondence

Kenneth, 

Realize you're likely busy today for a call so just wanted to synopsize the two points before your meeting with the boss that I think you'll find relevant to his decision: 

• The first is to the morale issue. I know when we met I spoke about Eddie, the unfairness, his terrible treatment, etc, but the closer we get to trial the more that we're hearing from the SEAL community how worried they are about the severe and lasting negative impact it'll have on morale. Asking for POTUS to assume the case and dismiss is both for the fair treatment of a decorated warfighter, but equally to the preservation of unit cohesion and SEAL morale. As I believe Rep. Crenshaw is gathering with his phone calls, we've had a lot of folks involved in this case begin to recant, change their stories, and refuse to testify due to the worry of repercussions, being labeled as pariahs, etc. (This was the point I made when saying these junior guys had never meant it to go this far and had no idea they process they started) The case will involve up to 30+ people in a small community, and while our family would like nothing more than the truth be exposed and for folks making false statements to reap what they sow, I know Eddie would not want it at the expense of the naval special warfare community. Part of the request for dismissal to stave off a fissure in NSW so they can be focused the important work they do. 

• The second point is just to provide yet another example into the skewed process of UCMJ - I mentioned some examples in our meeting, but a recent one from his motions hearing last Friday was that the investigators (NCIS) literally got kicked out of the courtroom for constantly whispering and feeding information to the prosecution during the hearing. NCIS is supposed to be impartial and unbiased - they're simply investigators. However, a judge kicked out NCIS because they were feeding slanted information and helping the navy lawyers which is strictly prohibited. While we're happy the judge recognized this half way through the hearing, it's just another example that it's anything but fair for Eddie and his chances to fight against the prosecution, their resources, and lack of accountability.

Thanks Kenneth, talk soon. 

-Sean 

Kenneth, 

This is my clip from Fox and Friends this morning, along with the Op Ed I wrote yesterday. I suggest you send these to your boss as they directly reply to his sentiment yesterday about the merits of getting involved. 

I also highly suggest you send him this message, and relay it clearly. 

I have been asked by many in the SEAL community, active duty, recently retired and team guys that reach back generations -- why Rep. Crenshaw hasn't gotten involved yet or spoken out. My response is that he was doing digging and needed time to see the full depth of the abysmal treatment of a decorated war hero, and that when he saw and heard the truth, he'd come to our side. Now I have to tell them the opposite. 

Our meeting yesterday gave me the clear impression you and your boss don't believe it wise nor useful to weigh in. Aa a matter of fact you seem annoyed I stopped by. To say that I am disappointed is an understatement. Let me remind you that Eddie has been in jail for 5 months without his day in court for something he didn't do, ripped from the family and community that he's dedicated his life to, and beaten down by an outrageously unfair and broken system. Rep. Crenshaw has spoken to eye witnesses who were there in the events in question and say they accusations are flat out lies. He's spoken to active duty officers who say the accusations are baseless because they were there when they first made and are ridiculous. He's also talked with people who have visited Eddie every single weekend in the brig for 5 months who have relayed the atrocious treatment and disrespect shown a decorated warrior who hasn't been convicted of shit.  I don't know if there is anyone outside our family, lawyers, and close group of friends who has a more thorough accounting of the shame of Eddie's situation. If that doesn't compel one to act, I don't know what will. 

Folks always wonder if Washington changes people. I guess they don't have to wonder anymore. 

I have also cc'd my sister in law, Eddie's wife Andrea, on this email as she will also relay to the team wives community that when we reached out to Rep. Crenshaw for help when we needed it the most, he wasn't there. 

If you disagree with this, and think that signing on to a letter to the president merely asking him to review Eddie's case is too much to ask, let me know. I may be busy speaking with folks who are working to get Eddie the treatment he deserves.

Sean 

You, me and Andrea have spoken about details and efforts regarding my brother Chief Gallagher's case. With the government pushing back his trial yet another three months, Ed will have to spend a total of nine months in jail before his day in court. It is, simply put, infuriating. 

Representative Crenshaw has just sent around the attached Dear Colleague asking for your boss' signature on a letter requesting that the Navy let Eddie out before trial to receive medical care and properly defend himself. We'd really appreciate your boss signing on, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Cc'd on this email is Kenneth Depew, Congressman Crenshaw's Legislative Assistant for National Security & Foreign Affairs who is collecting signatures. 

Can we count on your boss signing on? 

Sean & Andrea

Dear Rear Admiral Lindsey:

We are writing in regard to the ongoing legal matter of Special Warfare Operator Chief Petty Officer (SOC) Edward Gallagher, United States Navy. Chief Gallagher has been in pre-trial confinement awaiting trial for over five months, since his arrest on September 11^th, 2018. With the recent delay of Chief Gallagher’s trial due to actions of the government, he will have to spend nine months in jail before his day in court. To confine any service member for that duration of time, regardless of the authority to do so, sends a chilling message to our warfighters and is contrary to our constitutional system of innocent until proven guilty. As a result, we are respectfully requesting that he be released to properly prepare for trial, receive medical treatment, and see his family.

According to information provided to us and reported at SOC Gallagher’s legal hearings, the Naval Consolidated Brig Miramar has improperly confined Chief Gallagher with the general population of prisoners, which primarily consists of convicted sex offenders. In addition, the brig deprives Chief Gallagher of adequate food, heat, hygiene, medical care and sufficient access to legal counsel typically given to others awaiting trial. Regardless of the accusations levied against Chief Gallagher, this is no way to treat a decorated warfighter who has served our country, much of it in combat, for nearly 20 years.

Responses given to previous inquiries in Chief Gallagher’s case have often cited the authority, under the Rules of Courts Martial 305, to keep him in the brig pending trial. While we recognize the Navy, and specifically the convening authorities over Chief Gallagher, have this authority – we disagree with its use and in this case believe it to be an unnecessary and excessive exercise of said authority. The discussion section for R.C.M. 305(h)(2)(B) clearly states that “a person should not be confined as a mere matter of convenience or expedience” and “less serious forms of restraint must always be considered before pretrial confinement may be approved.” There are many other forms of restraint that are less severe, such as restriction to base, that should prove adequate in Chief Gallagher’s case given his long and decorated career and proven record of following orders.

We are asking you to view the situation in light of the message this sends to our service members and warfighters, and to rectify this situation. We do not want to impart the view that before they have the chance to defend themselves, a service member could be held for extreme periods of time and denied necessary medical and health services and the proper access to legal defense.

In addition, as you know, you are required to consider Chief Gallagher’s prior record and his character when determining whether to order pre-trial confinement, instead of your imposition of

“conditions on liberty” or restriction in lieu of arrest. There are a myriad of restrictions that would be far more appropriate. Those are to be considered in determining whether or not he will appear at a hearing or trial, and whether he will commit a serious criminal misconduct. A review of his service record should go beyond probable cause to making abundantly clear that Chief Gallagher is more likely to commit a future act of valor in courageous service to his country than commit some future serious crime. 

Pre-trial confinement is never to be used for punishment. A literal following of the UCMJ and Rules of Courts-Martial would, at most, require only such restrictions as you deem appropriate, rather than retributive confinement. If the matter goes to trial, and if he were ever found guilty, there would be plenty of time for confinement.

We respectfully request that pursuant to your authority under R.C.M. 305(g), you direct Special Warfare Operator Gallagher’s release from pre-trial confinement and provide less severe restraint, such as restriction to base.

All, 

     I have included you on this email because of previously expressed interest by your boss in joining Rep. Crenshaw’s letter on behalf of Chief Eddie Gallagher. 

     I have consulted with counsel at HASC and we are working to make minor revisions in the letter that are likely to make it more effective. Therefore, we are pushing the send date for the letter from today until next week, ideally Wednesday, March 6^th. 

     The intent of the letter has always been and will continue to be to ensure Chief Gallagher has unfettered access to counsel and access to critical medical care for injuries related to his service, most of which resulted from his eight combat deployments. 

     The revised letter will likely be completed today. As soon as I have the revised letter and Rep. Crenshaw reviews the new language, I will circulate to your offices for review. 

     I look forward to hearing back from your office after your review of the new letter and hopefully coming around to your office for a signature.

Thanks for sending Kenneth. 

Would like to see revisions from hasc. Unfettered access to counsel and access to critical medical care for injuries related to his service - these things were supposed to be given Eddie all along. The thing I don’t want is watering down the letter to the point that we’re asking for Eddie to get things/treatment that is normal. 

In addition, while pretrial confinement may have precedent - doesn’t make it right. Like we talked about 200 plus days in jail before your day in court is wrong - plain as day. I know you re on the same page with all this, but the way I see hasc counsel trying to weigh in is making a letter which has 40 plus members now in support of it (is leverage they're scared of) watered down so it doesn’t make the military look bad. Our concern shouldn’t be institutional reputation - it’s Eddie and our warfighters. 

For the previous dear colleague and the previous draft of the letter - those were the ones I handed out and spoke to members in person and what they agreed to sign on to. While minor revisions are normal, in person I told members to their faces it was about getting Eddie out of pretrial confinement and confined to base - and they agreed. I just don’t want major changes to something I told them in person about. 

That make sense? 

Kenneth,

I am the wife of Chief Eddie Gallagher. I've been informed of the conversations you've had with Sean over the past week and also the information Dan directly conveyed today to Ralph Norman who has been strongly advocating for our family along with Duncan Hunter. 

In short, it has come to my attention that your office desires to change the language of the finalized letter to reflect HASC's priorities and not the sole desires of my husband, myself, and our family. 

Although I am saddened by the recent turn of events my goal here is to come to a swift resolution.

First I want to convey that I have informed Eddie of this situation and we are both in agreement~ We do NOT want the letter changed. Your/Dan's assertion that by appeasing HASC and softening the language Eddie would be 'guaranteed' access medical care, his legal council, and the ability to see his family seems absurd to us. Eddie is entitled to these rights as an American; much less a decorated war hero, and the fact they have been denied is exactly why we are petitioning members of Congress to intervene.

In addition, we do NOT want two letters. We want one letter asking that my husband - who has been maligned, abused, and tormented for 6 1/2 months as well as our children and family {See attached Human Rights Violations handwritten by Eddie and Typed by me} be let out of Pretrial Confinement at the Brig at Miramar. 

If Dan is uncomfortable asking for this and taking bold action to ensure the constitutional rights of my husband are upheld then I am asking that he consider remaining on as a signer and we will take it from here.

The letter that I posted on social media asking our faithful supporters to take action and join our efforts by exercising their right to contact their representatives to encourage them to sign onto the final approved letter seemed well within my rights.  Kenneth you titled the letter as "Gallagher Letter Final 20190225" {See attached} and I personally could have never foreseen this as being construed as some political betrayal to you and Dan but then again I am not a politician. I am a wife and a mother and my family has been continuously terrorized by the actions of a few and the inaction of many. 

If by advocating for my husband I have caused you or Dan some undue affliction I would ask that you weigh that against our current situation and forgive whatever grievances you have so that Ralph, Duncan and Sean - who have been working tirelessly to get signatures can continue on with the initial final letter. 

Their efforts, meeting face to face with members in DC have yielded numerous endorsements and we have countless members of Congress who have already committed to sign on.

The last thing we want is to do is generate confusion with two requests or two letters with multiple leads. It's one letter, on behalf of my husband, asking for something incredibly simple- that he be let out of jail. This in my mind is not too much to ask since he should never have been put in Pretrial Confinement or withheld from medical, legal council or his family in the first place. 

In conclusion; I would like to know if Dan will agree to remain on as a signer on this letter which will be lead by Ralph & Duncan in support of our family's wishes and best interests. We have many other members of congress, their staff, and their constituents who have asked us for the status on this letter and would appreciate an answer/resolution as soon as possible. 

We appreciated Dan's attention to this issue, but we must have the letter spearheaded by individuals that are willing to call HASC, the Navy, and the prosecutors out on their atrocious behavior and who are willing to ensure that Eddie is afforded the ability to receive what he rightly deserves- Justice. 

Justice for Eddie is our only motivation and goal and again - we appreciate all your efforts to work to advocate for our family and hope we can move forward together united in this effort. 

Sincerely,

Andrea Gallagher ~ Eddie's loving and devoted wife 

Mrs. Gallagher, 

     I received your e-mail and understand your concerns. I could not imagine being in your position and have the utmost respect for the commitment you have to advocating for your husband. 

     I have passed your message along to Representative Crenshaw.

     Before we proceed, it is important we correct the record on some issues. 

     Before anything else, I want to make it explicit that the intent of any action by Representative Crenshaw has been to ensure Chief Gallagher is being afforded the rights he is guaranteed as an American citizen and a Sailor: access to counsel to provide for an adequate defense; critical medical treatment, especially given the injuries and conditions are directly related to his almost 20 years of service; and the ability to have quality family visits. As you so rightly state, these rights should never have been impeded or denied.  

     It is with this intent, and with these ends in mind that the initial letter, which you have seen, was drafted. The means to achieving these ends was to request release from the brig to confinement on base. After further research and consultations, I have been informed that the military justice system does not have the capacity to place someone in conditions similar to house arrest. 

     Additionally, I understand there have been motions to release Chief Gallagher from pre-trial confinement and those motions have been denied. From the information relayed to me, pre-trial confinement is determined by certain criteria: the seriousness of the charges; the likelihood of harm to self or others if released; and the likelihood of influencing potential witnesses and destroying evidence. 

     However, I have also learned that the military is supposed to ensure the segregation of personnel held in pre-trial and post-trial confinement. Something which does not appear to be happening in the brig at Miramar. 

     This being the case, the language of the letter is being modified so that is has the best chance to be effective, which is the ultimate goal. I see that you write, and Sean has said, that the revised language has been softened. I don’t know how this determination was made, given neither you nor he has had access to the new language. Revisions requesting the Secretary of the Navy, who has oversight on this matter, are more likely to achieve the intended results of counsel, medical, and family.

     I hope this provides clarity. 

     Now, for a few issues I noted in your email and in conversations with Sean. 

     Any letter with Representative Crenshaw’s signature, especially one he will ask other members to sign their name to, will prioritize Chief Gallagher’s needs. I have been deeply involved in our office’s efforts and can tell you Representative Crenshaw is not “appeasing” anyone or any group. He is approaching the matter in the way he determines to be most effective. 

     At this point I should note, per Sean’s own admission when we sat in Representative Crenshaw’s office and talked, Sean doesn’t think the draft that was shared would be effective in achieving the desired results. Sean went on to imply, in a phone conversation last Friday, that the letter was more about messaging than efficacy.   

     I want you to know that we will work toward providing the most effective efforts to ensure the intended result of ensuring Chief Gallagher’s rights are respected and not infringed. While it is clear we may not agree on tactics at the moment we are both working towards the same goal of justice for Chief Gallagher.  

Kenneth,

I want to thank you for your help in clarifying your/Dan's position and can respect your view that although the way you are pursuing this may be different your intentions are good.

I also appreciate your statement of commitment to advocate for my husband and I will take you at your word.

We are very thankful for all the hard work that you and Dan are doing to ensure my husband and our family are able to get the justice & respect we have been consistently denied in this utter nightmare and travesty of justice we have been afforded.

I agree that we can all work towards the goal of - Justice for Eddie in the way we see fit tactics wise and please let Dan know if he needs anything further from our family, Ralph, or Hunter we will be prepared to help and again appreciate the united show of support. 

Please let me know as new developments arise and what we can share about your involvement/efforts publicly when the time is right. 

Thanks and have a great weekend,

Andrea Gallagher