Editor’s Note: The following is a letter to the editor from Lanny J. Davis, a U.S. attorney for Dmytro Firtash, a Ukrainian oligarch in exile. On Sept. 2, the Kyiv Post in its weekly feature “Friend and Foe of Ukraine” named Davis “Ukraine’s foe of the week” for his recent op-ed defending Firtash as an “anti-corruption” democrat who stands for “a strong and independent Ukraine.” Although the “Friend and Foe of the Week” feature is usually written by one staffer, the candidates are selected collectively by the Kyiv Post editorial team.
To the editor of the Kyiv Post:
Ms. (Daryna) Antoniuk labeled me as a “foe” of Ukraine.
I challenge her to cite a single factual error in my column from my in RealClearDefense.com published on Thursday, Sept. 3. See here. As the piece sets out, I state facts that contradict media myths based on innuendo, and no facts. Ms. Antoniuk’s piece about me and my column proves my point – exactly.
In fact, she cannot cite a single fact I cited to support my statements as untrue. And she does not. Just innuendo.
For example, she refers to Mr. Firtash being “sanctioned.” As widely reported, these sanctions were based on the false assertions by some Ukraine government security officials that Mr. Firtash has sold titanium products to a “Russian military enterprise.” In fact, she fails to note Mr. Firtash and I put out an international press release denying that false charge and I challenged the Ukrainian officials to cite a single fact to support the charge that led to the “sanctions.”
They did not and still have not.
Ms. Antoniuk also failed to note that it is a Ukraine government-owned company that is selling titanium products to a Russian monopoly company that is the largest producer of titanium in the world. Why did she ignore that? Or the fact, despite my public challenge, the Ukraine government officials still haven’t explained their failure to disclose that fact at the press conference while making false charges against Mr. Firtash.
Another example of fact-free accusation is Ms. Antoniuk‘s citing a statement made by a former US Ambassador to Ukraine over 10 years ago associating Mr. Firtash with a business relationship with a Russian mobster. In my RealClearDefense piece, I pointed out that claim by the former US Ambassador was based on notes taken by someone in the room, based on a translation of Mr. Firtash’s Russian into English. And Mr. Firtash categorically denied that claim. Ms. Antoniuk chose not to repeat my response, at least with a modicum of fairness.
Another sad example is Ms. Antoniuk actually citing a claim made by a US prosecutor without any facts or evidence that Mr. Firtash was a mobster. Does Mr. Antoniuk know the prosecutor offered no facts or evidence to support accusing someone of being a criminal? Does she know the standard of proof in the US under rules of due process to convict someone of a crime? Evidence produced in a transparent trial, with due process rules, leading to a conclusion “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Way below that standard is the evidence needed to obtain an “indictment” in the US – which is sometimes called “probable cause.” The process is secret, allowing prosecutors to present one-sided evidence, unchallenged or with any counter-point facts, the accused unrepresented in the room. There are experienced criminal defense lawyers in the US who say that it is as easy for US a prosecutor to obtain an “indictment” of someone as it is to “indict a ham sandwich.”
And even below that low level of evidence to obtain an indictment is when a prosecutor makes an accusation in open court without evidence – and did not even include that charge in an indictment.
Yet in her hit piece, Ms. Antoniuk gave credence to that fact-free prosecutorial charge.
Seriously? No one who understands due process should write such a statement and give it credence. Except perhaps a Kyiv Post journalist who can publish what she wishes, without fact-checking or any standards close to due process or fairness, in making a defamatory, baseless accusation against someone for being a mobster.
And so the only conclusion possible here is that Ms. Antoniuk labels me a “foe” of Ukraine because I spoke the truth – since she couldn’t contradict with facts a single factual assertion I made in my RealClearDefense.com piece.
It follows that Ms. Antoniuk would label someone who lies a “friend” of Ukraine.
What am I missing? I ended my piece in RealClearDefense by expressing hope that the dystopian world of former President Trump, who called lies “alternative facts” and sold the Big Lie that he didn’t’ overwhelming lose last November’s election – to himself and other conspiracy theorists but no one else.
I expressed the hope America can put those days behind us and get back to the truth and facts.
I was hoping that would occur among Ukrainian journalists too. Sorry to say, Ms. Antoniuk doesn’t seem to have learned that lesson.
I am a supporter or a strong and independent and democratic Ukraine – as is my client, Dmitro Firtash. See his May 2014 op-ed piece.
My record as a progressive Democrat who worked for both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush speaks for itself. See www.lannyjdavis.com.
Sincerely,
Lanny J. Davis
Attorney for Dmitry Firtash
