Thread by @DanLamothe

It’s Saturday. It’s cold across much of the country. It seems like a good time to lay out reporting on a case involving Army Special Forces, U.S. Marines, the CIA and a war-crimes investigation that dates back years. There will be news.

A thread:

For several years, I’ve been writing about the murder investigation of Matt Golsteyn, a former Special Forces officer who led both his own team and U.S. Marines during the hellscape that was the Battle of Marja in 2010.

The story, like many large ones, has come out in waves. In 2011, he was awarded the Silver Star for valor in that battle in Afghanistan on Feb. 20, 2010. The Army later moved to upgrade it to a Distinguished Service Cross, one step down from the Medal of Honor.

That means that for a time, the Army recognized Golsteyn as one of the biggest heroes in the largest battle in the entire U.S. war in Afghanistan.

Golsteyn was promoted to major, and he appeared at the White House in October 2013 as an old colleague, Will Swenson, received the Medal of Honor. Here's a photo from that day, released to me some time ago.

Things quieted down publicly until 2015, when @Rep_Hunter disclosed that the Army decided that Golsteyn deserved neither the Silver Star nor the Distinguished Service Cross -- a very rare move. The Army confirmed it was true, citing an investigation.

washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoin…

Details were mysterious. But officials at least confirmed the investigation focused on a potential violation of the military’s oft-maligned rules of engagement in the death of a suspected insurgent.

Read between the lines back then, and it was clear: This was likely a war-crimes investigation. The Army didn’t find enough evidence to bring charges, so it closed the investigation. Then it punished Golsteyn administratively instead.

Within a day or so of that initial story on Feb. 4, 2015, the Army moved "chapter" Golsteyn out of the military, effectively forcing him out. But its criminal investigation was still closed.

Two days later, I determined the source of the investigation: In a job interview with the CIA ,Golsteyn had said something that triggered concerns and a report back to the Army.

washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoin…

Already, this sounds like something out of a movie. And then there was additional weirdness: @thedailybeast published a story saying Army CID agents had combed through the trash of Swenson, a Medal of Honor recipient. The target: Golsteyn.

thedailybeast.com/exclusive-army…

Meanwhile, I put in a FOIA request for documents related to Golsteyn. The system is notoriously difficult to work with. But I figured it certainly didn’t hurt to ask. Maybe I’d get lucky and be able to share a fuller understanding of the case.

In May of that year, @theintercept dropped a surprise story about the case with a loud headline: “Documents: Green Beret Who Sought Job at CIA Confessed to Murder.”

The origin of those docs @jeremyscahill and Co. obtained is still unclear.

theintercept.com/2015/05/06/gol…

Shortly afterward, a surprise: The Army was releasing to me hundreds of pages of investigative documents about the case. Bottom line up front: They wanted to charge Golsteyn with murder, but didn't have the evidence. Soldiers refused to testify, even when offered immunity.

The @washingtonpost put my story on Page 1 -- one of my first as a WaPo reporter. It's published here.

washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoin…

Considering both the interest and the strangeness in the case, we also posted all of the investigative documents I obtained. They're posted here, along with excerpts.

washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoin…

Back to the case: After the Army sought to push Golsteyn out, he brought them to an administrative board known as a Board of Inquiry. @AmandaMOAA, then with @fayobserver, was there for much of the proceedings.

fayobserver.com/069c761d-fd63-…

After days of arguments, a panel of three officers determined that the Army did not substantiate that Golsteyn violated the law of armed conflict. But it did find that he demonstrated conduct unbecoming of an officer. Split the difference, perhaps.

washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoin…

The situation allowed Golsteyn to leave the Army with his benefits, in theory.

washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoin…

Golsteyn took what is known as "excess leave," preparing to leave the Army. He moved to Northern Virginia and took a job a few blocks away from the White House at @IAFFNewsDesk, a firefighters union.

Then, a decision: Golsteyn went on @FoxNews with @BretBaier and discussed the case as part of a story on rules of engagement. He acknowledged again killing a bombmaker. The Army re-opened its criminal investigation afterward.

mediaite.com/tv/heres-the-f…

The case has stayed open ever since. And in December the Army did what it opted not to previously: It preferred a charge of murder against Golsteyn.

washingtonpost.com/world/national…

Since then, supporters of Golsteyn, including his wife @GolsteynJulie and lawyer @pstackhouse have taken to the airwaves. They're angry. In a surprise, President Trump pledged on Twitter in December to review the case. Could a pardon happen? Hard to say.

washingtonpost.com/national-secur…

That takes us to here. This week, I sat down on the record with Matt Golsteyn for about two hours in his work office near the White House. We talked about the deployment, the case, his family, and what he said during that CIA job interview.

Here is that story.

washingtonpost.com/world/national…

Golsteyn still isn't shy of saying he killed the man in question. He described setting up an ambush position, but also was careful in answering some questions about it.

“If [he goes] any other direction of the 360 that you have available to you but mine, and he doesn’t meet me,” Golsteyn said. “He had been released, and are you going to go back to what you were doing? Or are you going to go somewhere else?"

More Golsteyn: "If it had been me, this guy’s ass would have beaten feet in a completely different direction.”

It's hard to say where this goes next. The Army has alluded to having new evidence, but it has not clarified. Did someone in the unit start talking, after all these years? If so, are they credible?

We also still haven't heard what Golsteyn said in his CIA job interview in 2010. Does it square with how the Army has characterized his actions? I've requested transcripts of both the job interview and the Board of Inquiry hearing Golsteyn faced. Neither have been released.

Because of @realDonaldTrump's expressed interest, there also is the question of what he does. Does he let this play out? Take over the case as commander in chief? Pardon Golsteyn if he disagrees with the outcome?

I asked Golsteyn about that. He said he would be grateful for a pardon, but can't expect one is coming.

“We are playing for a court-martial," he said. "It would be pretty dangerous to be playing for a pardon, and then there is no pardon and we have to go to court-martial.”

One last piece. I reached out to @rachelv12 seeking perspective from a military justice expert. Her take for now: It all comes down to the specifics of how Golsteyn initiated the ambush.

An Article 32 hearing is scheduled for March 14 to review evidence.

/END