Tomorrow morning ends the tenure of Richard “Ric” Grenell as the acting Director of National Intelligence.  At 12:15pm DNI John Ratcliffe will be sworn-in [LINK] and the declassification/sunlight baton will be passed to senate confirmed DNI John Ratcliffe.

On the topic of the FBI capture and use of the December 29, 2016, Flynn-Kislyak phone call…  First we had a hunch; then it became a suspicion… that evolved into a likelihood… that has now become a strong probability.

The capture of the December 29th phone call, which generated the raw “CR cuts“, was an FBI summary, modified for a specific interpretation.  Much like the missing 302 there is now a very strong probability the FBI ‘CR cuts’ do not represent the actual call content.

Within a twitter response by Grenell, part of the riddle behind the transcripts gets a little more clarity: “The IC doesn’t have all the transcripts/summaries…. it wasn’t our product.”

The implication here is the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) did not generate one of the transcripts; that evolved into an FBI equity, and was later used in their case against Lt. General Michael Flynn. The December 29, 2016, intercept was not exclusive to the U.S. intelligence apparatus, and the call summary became proprietary to the FBI; the agency exploiting the underlying content.

This makes sense and explains how the FBI was able to manipulate the framework of the call and keep the remaining U.S. intelligence system away from their internal plan.

There was more than one phone call and conversation between Flynn and Kislyak.  Some immediately after the election and in/around mid-December 2016.  Reports of those contacts and communications WERE in the U.S. IC network and those reports led to unmasking requests.  However, the specific December 29th communication was not an exclusive intercept of the U.S. intelligence community and therefore easier for the FBI to shape.

When Susan Rice, and now all of the downstream politicians, are requesting the release of the Flynn-Kislyak transcripts, those specific demands do not encompass the Dec.29th call; and it appears from the political narrative being assembled, the democrats do not necessarily expect DNI Grenell to be able to release the transcript of that specific call.

DNI Ric Grenell is signaling that he intends to release all the call transcripts not just the ones obtained by U.S. intelligence intercepts.

The “CR cuts” are summaries of the intercepted communication and therefore subject to being manipulated or shaped by the FBI official doing the summary.  The call summary is subject to interpretation and shaping much like a 302 report would be.  However, Grenell doesn’t just want to release the FBI summary, he wants to release the full transcript.

This approach by Grenell seems to confirm what we have been assembling about the transcripts, the “CR cuts”, and how the FBI used them.

There are intercepted communications between Flynn-Kislyak that were part of the ongoing FBI investigation of Flynn and monitoring of Russian interests.  Those intercepts became reports, and within those reports Flynn was masked; and later unmasked by political operatives.

However, the specific December 29, 2016, call while Flynn was in the Dominican Republic was a third party intelligence intercept; transferred to the FBI exclusively as part of their counterintelligence operation.  That 12/29/16 intercept generated proprietary FBI “CR cuts” or summaries of that intercepted communication specific to the FBI investigation.  That call content remained outside the larger intelligence community.  Hence Grenell saying: “The IC doesn’t have all the transcripts/summaries…. it wasn’t our product.”

But Grenell is working to bring that specific FBI equity (call transcript) into the IC and release it -in total- along with all other transcripts that were already within the control of the IC; thus Grenell gives an honest presentation of the totality of the contact, not just the parts that have been manipulated and shaped by officials in their targeting of Flynn.

Combine what Grenell is doing along with the announcement by FBI Director Chris Wray to review FBI action in the Flynn investigation, and a more fulsome picture emerges.

As many have long suspected the FBI shaped the December 29, 2016, call content; the FBI biased interpretation of what took place on that call; specifically to target Flynn.  They were able to do this, in part, because they exclusively held the evidence they were shaping.

With U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen now reviewing the background evidence, and with DNI Ric Grenell declassifying and releasing the underlying documents, the truth is being pushed to the surface….

For well over a year we’ve been saying AG Bill Barr’s biggest challenge is not investigating the soft-coup but rather managing through what We The People are already aware of.

With that in mind; and with congress moving to put former DAG Rod Rosenstein and former Special Counsel Robert Mueller under a microscope; it is interesting to note AG Bill Barr recently conceding his two friends were corrupt.  WATCH:

[Transcript] …”Now what happened to the president – and I’ve said this many times – what happened to the president in the 2016 election; and throughout the first two years of his administration was abhorrent. It was a grave injustice and it was unprecedented in American history.”

“The law enforcement and intelligence apparatus of this country were involved in advancing a false and utterly baseless Russian-collusion narrative against the president.”

The proper investigative and prosecutive standards of the Dept of Justice were abused, in my view, in order to reach a particular result.”  ~ (AG Barr, May 18, 2020)

How can AG Barr say the DOJ/FBI conduct during the first two years of the administration “was abhorrent” without specifically implying his two friends, Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein were complicit in the “grave injustice” he outlines?

It is interesting that no media (of any disposition) has ever questioned AG Barr about Rosenstein and Mueller considering his words that outline their behavior as abhorrent.

With that in mind it’s worth revisiting the only case of Russian election interference that was ever brought by Special Counsel Mueller and DAG Rosenstein.  The case that was dropped by the Dept. of Justice, and ignored by media, on March 16, 2020:

Almost everyone who researched the substance behind Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller’s heavily promoted Russian indictments knew the underlying claims were centered on the thinnest of evidence.

A few Facebook memes were used to accuse Russian company Concord LLC of violating FARA and FEC election laws.

In July,2018, Robert Mueller asked a federal judge in Washington for an order that would protect the handover of voluminous evidence to lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting LLC, one of three companies and 13 Russian nationals charged in a February 2018 indictment. They are accused of producing propaganda, posing as U.S. activists and posting political content on social media as so-called trolls to encourage strife in the U.S.

Indeed, to an incurious media, a Russian catering company posting Facebook memes might sound like a good justification for a vast Russian election interference prosecution; however, when Concord & the accused Russians show up in court and request to see the evidence against them, well, the prosecutors might just have a problem.

It was that problem that dogged the Mueller prosecution since 2018.  In March, of this year predictably and finally, the DOJ dropped the nonsense case (full pdf below):

.

Here’s the Full Filing:

.

The Russia election interference narrative was always a farce. The ridiculous Russian indictments were only created to give some sense of validity to a premise that did not exist; and to allow the Robert Mueller investigation to continue operating when there was never a valid justification for doing so.

This was perhaps the biggest shell game operation, with a non-existent pea, using the DOJ and FBI to give the impression that something nefarious had happened; when factually the ‘Russian Conspiracy Narrative’ was all just one big hoax upon the American people.

The purpose of Robert Mueller was to create something, find anything, that would lead to their political allies being able to remove a sitting president. Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein participated in that hoax for those intents….

This purposeful fraud has yet to be addressed.

.

When contemplating the malign activity of Rod Rosenstein; and how angered President Trump is with former AG Jeff Sessions; it is worth remembering that Sessions requested Rod Rosenstein as his deputy, and then immediately thereafter Sessions recused himself, effectively positioning Rosenstein to run the operation against President Trump.

That’s the background context for a great interview by Gregg Jarrett where Jarrett walks through the timeline of events with former HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes. At the 5:30 point of the interview, Nunes identifies Rosenstein as part of the coup attempt and blasts him for how Rosenstein structured the fraudulent scope memos.

Nunes says his investigation is now looking at the part of the effort where Robert Mueller’s investigation was used as part of the initiating effort to remove President Trump. With the focus on the Mueller team, Nunes is now making additional criminal referrals based on his findings. WATCH:

.

The Obama-era surveillance network is at the center of all of this.

It’s worth remembering Sharyl Attkisson has identified Rosenstein as a defendant in her lawsuit about illegal surveillance operations carried out while she was a CBS reporter.

According to the lawsuit (full pdf) Rod Rosenstein, as the U.S. Attorney for Maryland, was in charge of the Obama 2011 and 2012 operation to monitor journalists specific to Ms. Attkisson’s reporting on Fast-n-Furious and Benghazi.

Former DOJ Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein is named in the Attkisson lawsuit as the person who was in charge of the operation; and the former head of the FBI DC field office, Shawn Henry is also outlined.

Mr. Henry is the head of Crowdstrike, a contractor for the government and a politically connected data security and forensic company.  Those who have followed the aspects related to the FBI use of the NSA database to illegally monitor U.S. persons; and those who followed the DNC cover story of Russia “hacking”; will be familiar with Crowdstrike.

What I find additionally interesting is the overall timeline in the bigger picture.

In the April 2017 release from FISC Judge Rosemary Collyer outlining the abuses of the FISA-702 process by FBI “contractors”, where the NSA database was being use for unlawful surveillance of U.S. persons, Collyer specifically noted the findings of her review of the period from November ’15 to May ’16 (85% non compliant rate) was likely to have been happening since 2012. [Go Deep]

The “IRS Scandal” were the DOJ was creating a list of U.S. persons for political targeting, and requested CD ROM’s of tax filings, was the lead-up to the 2012 exploitation of the NSA database. [The Secret Research Project] So there’s a larger picture of government surveillance under the Obama administration that becomes more clear.

Political spying 1.0 was actually the weaponization of the IRS. This is where the term “Secret Research Project” originated as a description from the Obama team. It involved the U.S. Department of Justice under Eric Holder and the FBI under Robert Mueller. It never made sense why Eric Holder requested over 1 million tax records via CD ROM, until overlaying the timeline of the FISA abuse:

The IRS sent the FBI “21 disks constituting a 1.1 million page database of information from 501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” The transaction occurred in October 2010 (link)

Why disks? Why send a stack of DISKS to the DOJ and FBI when there’s a pre-existing financial crimes unit within the IRS. All of the evidence within this sketchy operation came directly to the surface in early spring 2012.

This is the same time-frame when DNI James Clapper falsely denied to congress about the U.S. government -through the NSA- collecting metadata on all U.S. electronic communication.  This is the same time-frame where CIA Director John Brennan was monitoring the computer networks of congressional intelligence oversight staff.

Within the Attkisson lawsuit the DOJ inspector general is identified as adverse to the interests of the case.  Meaning DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz was engaged in behavior to help the institution cover-up what independent computer forensic technicians were able to discover.   Employees from the IG’s office also told Ms. Attkisson they had received instructions from the DC offices adverse to the interest of truthful discovery.

In addition to the institutional cover-up effort; it would be worth noting that current DOJ and FBI officials, who have been identified as holding corrupt motives, are still being positioned at key offices.  An example is FBI Supervisory Special Agent David Archey (Mueller Team) being promoted to head up the Virginia FBI field office.

Obviously the DC institutional swamp is very deep and very corrupt.  Current and former politicians and federal officials who have engaged in corrupt behavior, or who have facilitated corrupt -potentially unlawful- surveillance activity, are still working within the system to avoid exposure.

Another recent example is former Christine Blasey-Ford hoax facilitator and Andrew McCabe attorney, Michael Bromwich, being hired by corrupt Chicago prosecutor Kim Foxx in an effort to protect herself from the outcome of the Jussie Smollett hoax in Chicago.  Why does a Cook County, Illinois, State Attorney need to hire a DC-based lawyer?

It was obvious early on the Jussie Smollett hoax was connected to several members of the Obama team and network.  Michael Bromwich is a former DOJ inspector general with ongoing direct contacts with corrupt DOJ and FBI officials inside the institutions.  Chicago State Attorney Foxx hiring Bromwich is yet another example of DC managing the cover.

Whether it’s the identified weaponization of NSA databases; or whether it’s corrupt FBI officials covering for each-other and the DOJ ‘declining to prosecute’; or whether it’s current AG Bill Barr appearing to cover for the transparently corrupt former DAG Rod Rosenstein; or whether it’s the need for the DOJ to hide the scope memos until DNI Ric Grenell showed up; one thing remains brutally obvious…

…This entire surveillance network hits on the epicenter of DC’s corrupt interests.

Through a FOIA request Judicial Watch received Rod Rosenstein’s email communication around the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller [See Here]. The content further confirms when Rosenstein took Mueller to the White House on May 16th, 2017, the purpose was for Mueller to preview his target, President Trump.

Rosenstein took Mueller to visit Jeff Sessions on May 13th, the specifics of that email likely concern keeping prior private conversations out of the discussion with Sessions.

(Source pdf)

If we insert the Rosenstein email conversation into our timeline the picture is clear.

Perhaps the most important aspect is how DAG Rosenstein took Robert Mueller to the White House on May 16th, to interview President Trump.  The decision to appoint Mueller as special counsel was pre-determined prior to the White House visit:

♦James Comey was fired at approximately 5:00pm EST on Tuesday May 9th, 2017. The next morning, less than 15 hours after Comey was fired, Rosenstein contacted Robert Mueller about the special counsel appointment.

During the congressional testimony of Robert Mueller, Representative Andy Biggs noted evidence of a phone call between Mueller and Rod Rosenstein on Wednesday May 10th, 2017, at 7:45am.  Listen carefully at the 2:26 point of the video.

.

From the Judicial Watch FOIA release we can see that following the 7:45am phone call Rod Rosenstein received contact info from Mueller’s asst (8:09am), and Rosenstein emailed his assistant at 8:13am with instructions to contact Mueller’s asst and set up a meeting for Friday May 12th:

Marcia Murphy from the Office of the DAG, then followed through and set up a meeting for 8:00am, Friday May 12th at Main Justice, between Rosenstein and Mueller:

Following that May 12th 8:00am meeting with Mueller, Rod Rosenstein then met with Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe Andrew McCabe.  –  According to McCabe:

… “[Rosenstein] asked for my thoughts about whether we needed a special counsel to oversee the Russia case. I said I thought it would help the investigation’s credibility. Later that day, I went to see Rosenstein again. This is the gist of what I said: I feel strongly that the investigation would be best served by having a special counsel.” (link)

Later that night (May 12th), at 9:15pm Rosenstein then emails Robert Mueller: “I assume you realize the boss and his staff do not know about our discussions.”

That email is directly related to a meeting scheduled on Saturday May 13th between Rosenstein, Mueller and Jeff Sessions; which is confirmed in the Andy Biggs questioning.

♦Sunday May 14th –  Comey transmitted copies of Memos 2, 4, and 6, and a partially redacted copy of Memo 7 to Patrick Fitzgerald, who was one of Comey’s personal attorneys.  Fitzgerald received the email and PDF attachment from Comey at 2:27 p.m. on May 14, 2017, per the IG report.

♦Monday May 15th, McCabe states he and Rosenstein conferred again about the Special Counsel approach. McCabe: “I brought the matter up with him again after the weekend.”

On this same day was when James Rybicki called SSA Whistleblower to notify him of Comey’s memos. The memos were “stored” in a “reception area“, and in locked drawers in James Rybicki’s office.

♦Tuesday May 16th – Per the IG report: “On the morning of May 16, Comey took digital photographs of both pages of Memo 4 with his personal cell phone. Comey then sent both photographs, via text message, to Richman.

Back in Main Justice at 12:30pm Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, Jim Crowell and Tashina Guahar all appear to be part of this meeting.  I should note that alternate documentary evidence, gathered over the past two years, supports the content of this McCabe memo.  Including texts between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok:

[Sidebar: pay attention to the *current* redactions; they appear to be placed by existing DOJ officials in an effort to protect Rod Rosenstein for his duplicity in: (A) running the Mueller sting operation at the white house on the same day; (B) the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel, which was pre-determined before the Oval Office meeting.]

While McCabe was writing this afternoon memo, still May 16th, Rod Rosenstein took Robert Mueller to the White House for a meeting in the oval office with President Trump and VP Mike Pence.

After six days of phone calls, emails and in person meetings, this visit to the White House was clearly Rod Rosenstein introducing Robert Mueller to the target of the investigation.  Rosenstein already knew he was going to appoint Mueller; and Mueller, along with the small group in the FBI, already knew Mueller was going to be appointed.

Later that night (May 16th), following the Mueller visit, there was a debriefing session back at Main Justice.  This evening meeting appears to be Lisa Page, Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe; along with Tashina Gauhar again taking notes.

♦ Wednesday May 17th, 2017:  Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe go to brief the congressional “Gang-of-Eight”: Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes, Adam Schiff, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, Richard Burr and Mark Warner.

… […] “On the afternoon of May 17, Rosenstein and I sat at the end of a long conference table in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol. We were there to brief the so-called Gang of Eight—the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Rosenstein had, I knew, made a decision to appoint a special counsel in the Russia case.”

[…] “After reminding the committee of how the investigation began, I told them of additional steps we had taken. Then Rod took over and announced that he had appointed a special counsel to pursue the Russia investigation, and that the special counsel was Robert Mueller.” (link)

Immediately following this May 17, 2017, Go8 briefing, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein notified the public of the special counsel appointment.

According to President Trump’s Attorney John Dowd, the White House was stunned by the decision. [Link] Coincidentally, AG Jeff Sessions was in the oval office for unrelated business when White House counsel Don McGahn came in and informed the group.

Jeff Sessions immediately offered his resignation, and Sessions’ chief-of-staff Jody Hunt went back to the Main Justice office to ask Rosenstein what the hell was going on.

Resources/Citations:

FOIA Info – McCabe Memos

FOIA Info – Archey Declarations

Timeline

On the topic of the FBI capture and use of the December 29, 2016, Flynn-Kislyak phone call…  First we had a hunch; then it became a suspicion… that evolved into a likelihood… that has now become a strong probability.

The capture of the December 29th phone call, which generated the raw “CR cuts“, was an FBI summary, modified for a specific interpretation.  Much like the missing 302 there is now a very strong probability the FBI ‘CR cuts’ do not represent the actual call content.

In this short interview segment Trey Gowdy alludes to one issue, and speaks directly to another.  First, the only reason the FBI opened the internal INSD review is because the information previously hidden has become public.  Second, the Flynn-Kislyak calls that Trey Gowdy has reviewed were “boring” nothing-burgers.  WATCH:

.

SELECTIVE CAPTURE – Did you note the part where the FBI told Gowdy some of the Flynn phone calls were “not captured”?  Wouldn’t it be a very convenient framework if the FBI was going to summarize one of those non-captured calls into a “CR cut.” 

FBI: “Oh, sorry, we don’t have the actual transcript, but we do have a summary of what we interpreted that call content to be.”  Huh, funny that.

Lastly, does anyone else find it odd that now is Trey Gowdy admitting that he viewed the Flynn-Kislyak phone call transcripts.  I wonder why he waited to say that….

Former Acting AG Matt Whitaker appears with Liz MacDonald to discuss the latest revelations in the Flynn case; the ongoing declassification of documents by DNI Ric Grenell; and the announcement of a new internal FBI investigation.  WATCH:

This is not a surprising development; though with breaking news it is prudent to pause before assigning motives.  At first review it appears the FBI cannot hold back the sunlight.

FBI Director Christopher Wray has announced his launching of an internal investigation based on details surfacing from the Michael Flynn case. “FBI Director Christopher Wray today ordered the Bureau’s Inspection Division [INSD] to conduct an after-action review of the Michael Flynn investigation” the bureau said in the statement:

(screen grab from Catherine Herridge)

This is an interesting development considering this same FBI Director previously claimed the office of inspector general found no intentional wrongdoing by people within the FBI; and Wray further asserted there was “no evidence of political bias” after each of three OIG investigations completed in 2018 and 2019.

If the OIG did not find FBI wrongdoing, then what changed?  Why is FBI Director Chris Wray now launching an internal investigation?  The answer appears to be an outsider’s investigation via Missouri U.S. Attorney, Jeff Jensen.

Second part of statement below:

The inspection division (INSD) previously reviewed FBI conduct and reported to Office of Inspector General Michael Horowitz.  The resulting IG findings of FBI conduct was carefully worded and disingenuous at best, but it was embraced by FBI Director Wray.

Now the outsider review by US Attorney Jeff Jensen; combined with the simultaneous declassification of documents by DNI Ric Grenell; appears to be highlighting a lot more internal FBI corruption.  Hence this unavoidable shift in tone from Wray.

This announcement today comes as Ric Grenell is working to declassify the transcript(s) of the Flynn-Kislyak call, with some rather interesting comments.  More soon…

You may have recently noticed that Susan Rice has called for the release of the transcript of the conversation between Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak:

(Source and Full Statement)

However, what many people do not realize is the motive for Susan Rice to call for the release of this transcript.  This aspect of the intercepted communication is very interesting.

First, there is nothing damaging in the content of the Flynn-Kislyak call.  We know there is nothing damaging in the transcript because the call was made on December 29, 2016; and the FBI investigators who intercepted the call reviewed the call content; and five days later on January 4, 2017, the same Washington DC field office of the FBI wanted to close the investigation of Michael Flynn having “found no derogatory information.”

If there had been something damaging within the call to either the incoming Trump administration, or Michael Flynn himself, the FBI would not be saying they have found nothing derogatory and they were closing the Flynn investigation five days after the call.

Additionally, we also know there was nothing damaging or inappropriate within the call because Robert Mueller’s investigators outlined the content:

Flynn requesting that “Russia not escalate the situation” or get into a “tit for tat” is not inappropriate, impolite, undermining of Obama foreign policy, or violating any norm of diplomatic political standards during a presidential transition.  Incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn simply said don’t “escalate” beyond standard reciprocity.

So the “transcript” of a call that was already reviewed by FBI investigative monitors -who found no issue- and reviewed by the special counsel -who found nothing of issue-  isn’t going to all of a sudden present damaging optics for the Trump administration three years later.  [I put “transcript” in quotation marks for a reason; I will explain below.]

The bottom line is any transcript released today, if there is one, is a nothing-burger.

So why is Susan Rice advocating for the release of the transcript?

Here’s where things get interesting…

Remember, the objective of Susan Rice and her lawyer, former White House counsel and Obama ‘fixer’ Kathryn Ruemmler, is to protect President Obama and the former administration.   Obama, Rice and Ruemmler know the transcript angle is a nothing-burger; however, the transcript does one thing very clearly…. It puts the burden of consequence for the use of the transcript squarely on former FBI Director James Comey.

I suspect, very heavily, Susan Rice is requesting release of full transcript because she knows it was non-existent to the Obama White House.  That fact puts more distance between Obama and Comey; and that paints the FBI operation against Flynn as rogue. The distance here was/is ongoing goal.

This gets a little nuanced; but the REAL story is in the weeds.

In early January 2017 DNI James Clapper was asked by the White House to find out why the Russians were not escalating the issue over sanctions by reacting with more ferocity to the action of President Obama.  As James Comey testified, the intelligence community was tasked to “review all intelligence for an answer.”

FBI Director Comey reviewed the content of the Kislyak-Flynn interception and briefed DNI James Clapper on the “Flynn cuts.”  The “cuts” are essentially raw intelligence summaries of the intercept.

DNI Clapper requested “copies” (plural) of the intercepted raw intelligence summaries known as “CR cuts” (Flynn is Crossfire Razor “CR”); and using the copies of the intercept summaries DNI Clapper briefed President Obama on January 4, 2017, thereby answering the question about why the Russian’s were not reacting more severely.

However, the outcome of DNI Clapper briefing President Obama, with what Deputy Director Andrew McCabe described as “a summary document” that wasn’t an official “intelligence product”, was the White House now being officially informed of an open FBI investigation against incoming NSA Michael Flynn.  The White House was now infected with knowledge of the investigation…. and that could be a potential problem later on.

The knowledge of an investigation into the incoming administration; and the document trail created by Clapper/Comey; created a need for President Obama to have the pull-aside meeting with FBI Director James Comey the next day, January 5, 2017.

The purpose of the meeting was to create distance from an explosive & political issue.  The outgoing administration needed distance from James Comey.  Everything written in Susan Rice’s memo about the meeting is specifically worded to create that distance.

Susan Rice writes: “The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective”, adding three times that President Obama instructed Comey to handle everything “by the book.”   In essence the way Susan Rice framed the conversation was to place James Comey as specifically responsible for anything that happens.

Now, FBI Director James Comey isn’t stupid, and he would have immediately picked up on how he was being positioned outside the protective wire and completely on his own.  Being a very political FBI Director, Comey would know exactly what the purpose of these specific words and instructions from the President implied.

Rice’s memo, written with the advice of White House counsel, is specifically worded to create distance.  You might say the White House was leaving Comey holding the proverbial bag; and setting him up to be the ‘fall guy‘ if things went sideways.

This is the point where we need to put ourselves in Comey’s very political shoes.  Comey knows the purpose of that meeting.  Comey also knows essentially Obama is saying he didn’t authorize an investigation of Flynn and Obama is not going to protect Comey.

So what exactly was Comey tasked to do on behalf of the White House?

The only thing (provable) the FBI was specifically tasked to do was find out the reason for Russia’s behavior or lack thereof.  That’s it.  Comey carried authority to produce the intercepted “tech cuts”; and as an outcome of the task share them with DNI Clapper. But that’s the end of the White House/DNI tasking authority to the FBI against Flynn.

Director Comey was not tasked, authorized or requested to produce a transcript of the intercepted phone call; and he was not tasked to do anything else with it.  From the perspective of Obama, Comey’s task was complete January 5th, anything more is on him.

The lack of investigative authority toward Flynn is a key point to consider as we look at the internal FBI debate.  Remember, the day before the Obama/Comey conversation the FBI investigators had already determined there was “no derogatory information” and they were going to close the investigation.  Additionally, there was nothing of issue within the Flynn-Kislyak call content itself.

Anything, including legal risk from an abuse of power, after that January 5th meeting was now completely on Director Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s shoulders.

With that in mind, the debate with FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap, and the January 23/24, 2017, meetings where Priestap is taking notes of conversations with Comey and McCabe, take on a new and narrow focus.

As Priestap took notes about his original concerns: “what is our goal?”

The FBI small group (Comey, McCabe, Baker, Page, Priestap, Strzok, Pientka) together with the DOJ small group (Yates, McCord, Guahar, Moffa) had proposed a wild theory about accusing Flynn of Logan Act violations.  Somehow, despite their own investigators saying there was nothing derogatory, the group was determined to eliminate Flynn.

The crew was leaking to the media for support; but even with the severe echo chamber Bill Priestap had reservations writing in his notes during their meeting “I believe we should rethink this.”

The FBI team led mostly by Comey, McCabe, Page and Strzok never even told the main justice crew about the decision to interview Flynn until after it was over, according to Deputy AG Sally Yates.

The FBI wasn’t tasked by anyone else to interview Flynn four days after the inauguration.  The content of the Flynn-Kislyak call was fine according to the DC FBI investigators; and the controversy was generated by their own ‘small group’ media leaks and narrative engineering.   So ultimately what was the authority to interview Flynn?

According to the outside review by Missouri U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen there wasn’t any legal reason or justified authority to conduct the interview.  Hence, Jensen recommended to AG Bill Barr that the DOJ just drop the case; and they did.

The only FBI “pre-authorized” evidence was the gathering of the tech summary or “cuts” from the intercept.  There was no task or authorization to generate a transcript or do anything further.  James Comey would know that, and he would definitely know from the earlier conversation with President Obama that he was all alone.

With that in mind, do you think Comey would assemble an actual transcript for use in the Flynn interview that Main Justice was never informed was going to happen?  Or, would it be safer to stick with the “CR Cuts” and summaries that FBI Agent Strzok and FBI Agent Pientka saw, reviewed and knew about?

In the aftermath of the interview; and amid six months where nothing was done as a result of the interview; and amid all of the subsequent congressional requests for the transcript with no results; and amid all of the special counsel indictment filings against Flynn; and amid all of the legal proceedings against Flynn where the transcripts were requested (defense) and later ordered (judge) over two years; and not produced by prosecutor (Van Grack et al) there is zero evidence the Flynn-Kislyak transcript(s) even exist.

The reality is: there is 100 percent evidence the Flynn transcripts were never used in any proceedings, including legal proceedings; and zero percent evidence they even exist.

When we consider there is nothing derogatory within the Flynn-Kislyak conversation; and the only Flynn issue is how the FBI framed the content of answers to questions about a transcript the FBI has never admitted to exist, or presented to prove their case…Well, is it possible all of the efforts against Flynn were constructed from the use of “tech cuts” or “CR cuts” or summaries of the intercept?

That possibility is only real because the transcripts have never been identified.

The FBI, the DOJ, the special counsel, and the specific prosecutors have never stated they ever held an official transcript beyond the evidence of the call summaries identified above.

Could it be the DOJ bluffed Flynn into a guilty plea with: (1) threats against Mike Flynn Jr, (2) a fabricated 302 written/edited/shaped AFTER the interview, and (3) a non-existent transcript?  

We know 1 and 2 did happen… should we prepare for 3?

.

… A few more days:

Michael Flynn’s defense attorney Sidney Powell appears for an interview with Liz MacDonald to discuss the latest revelations in the Obama effort to target Lt. General Michael Flynn. Within the interview Ms. Powell walks through the timeline/process of FBI Director James Comey intercepting the Flynn Kislyak call and briefing former DNI James Clapper, who in turn briefed President Obama on January 4, 2017.  {Go Deep}

Additionally, Ms. Powell discusses the latest order by the DC appeals court requesting a response from Flynn’s Judge Emett Sullivan to explain why he refuses to accept the unopposed motion by the DOJ and defense team to drop the charges against Mr. Flynn.