The Greatest Political Scandal in US History


Interesting Segment – Trey Gowdy Discusses FBI Investigation and The Flynn-Kislyak Transcripts He Has Read…


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 AAG Matt Whitaker Discusses Flynn Case and New FBI Internal Investigation…


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:

Wray Reversal – FBI Launches Internal Investigation Surrounding FBI Conduct in Flynn Case…


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…

 

Should We Prepare to Discover The FBI Never Officially Used The Kislyak-Flynn Transcript?…


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:

Sidney Powell Discusses Latest Flynn Revelations and Judicial Proceedings…


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.

DNI Ric Grenell Declassifying Flynn-Kislyak Transcripts: “The IC doesn’t have all the transcripts/summaries….it wasn’t our product”…


Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard “Ric” Grenell announced today he is in the process of declassifying the transcripts of the calls between Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

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.

Example:

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 today, 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….

 

Devin Nunes Discusses ‘Spygate’, Flynn and Obama-Era Intelligence Corruption….


HPSCI ranking member Devin Nunes appears on Lou Dobbs to discuss some of the most recent revelations about Obama-era political surveillance operations; and the downstream effort by career participants to cover it up.

.

If you read last night’s discussion on the origin of Crossfire Hurricane vis-a-vis Papadopoulos; and if you read Lee Smith’s article today on why Obama’s system, writ large, was apoplectic about Flynn;… consider the possibility that Joseph Mifsud was an Obama-aligned Israeli intelligence operative. What would that mean?

DC Circuit Panel Orders Judge Sullivan To Respond Within 10 Days…


A three panel DC Appeals Court Panel, Judge Henderson, Judge Wilkins and Judge Rao have ordered Michael Flynn’s Judge, Emett Sullivan, to respond to the defense petition for a writ of mandamus within ten days:

Quoting the U.S. vs Fokker ruling the panel is not responding directly to the Flynn petition with an immediate decision; instead they are requiring Judge Sullivan to explain his decision to engage with extra-party amicus actions despite the DOJ and Flynn defense agreement on the motion to dismiss.

The order can be viewed as a smart move by the appeals panel because Judge Sullivan has yet to rule on the original unopposed DOJ motion. In essence, Sullivan has never explained himself; and this approach will require Sullivan to put his proverbial cards on the table.  The DC panel has given Judge Sullivan ten days to respond.

Advertisements

Barr’s Exposés of Susan Rice, Cutting Obama Off At The Knees


Some day, the bones Barr unearthed about Rice will lead directly back to Obama and his wobbly House of Cards

Judi McLeod image

Re-posted from the Canada Free press By  —— Bio and ArchivesMay 20, 2020

Barr’s Exposés of Susan Rice, Cutting Obama Off At The Knees

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton and Fox Business’ Lou Dobbs should cut Attorney General William Barr a break in saying he does not expect an investigation into the origins of the Russia probe will lead to a ‘criminal investigation’  of either former President Barack Obama or former Vice President Joe Biden.

Exposing former UN Ambassador and National Security Advisor 
Susan Rice for the consummate liar that she is, is, in effect, cutting Obama and Biden down at the knees.

Liars don’t change their pants even when they’re on fire

Susan Rice not only knows where all the Obama skeletons were buried—she actually buried all the skeletons—including the Trump Inauguration Day memo she wrote to herself.

How is it even possible that Rice knew nothing about an email memo she studiously wrote to herself?

This little gem unearthed by investigative AG Barr will ultimately lead to the downfall of Obama’s FBI-weaponized House of Cards.

Give Barr some time and space to unearth those skeletons leading to the Obama downfall, gentlemen!

Susan Rice was Obama’s liar-in-chief long before she wrote that memo to herself on inauguration day, 2017.

It was a Barr-exposed Rice who provided cover for both Obama and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the Benghazi tragedy—making five televised appearances with rat-a-tat lies that protests and an obscure anti-Muslim video were the cause for American loss of life in the Benghazi boondoggle.

Liars don’t change their pants even when they’re on fire:

Obama’s FBI-weaponized House of Cards

“Just weeks ago, Rice in promoting her new book, was lamenting how she was sent out in place of Clinton to cover Benghazi, at the White House’s request: (Canada Free Press, Oct. 29, 2019)

“Where is Hillary Clinton? (Fox News, Oct. 8, 2019)

“That was the question then-U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s mother asked when she told her she would be appearing on all five Sunday morning political shows on Sept. 16, 2012 — just five days after the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

“I smell a rat,” her mother said. “This is not a good idea. Can’t you get out of it?” (Fox News)

“The exchange was detailed in Rice’s new book, “Tough Love: My Story of the Things Worth Fighting For,” as she recalled what led to and what fueled the biggest political controversy of her government career.

Trump’s accusation that then-President Barack Obama had “wiretapped”

As recently as last year Rice came out in a huff all because President Donald Trump did not inform Obama about the coming al-Baghdadi take down.(Canada Free Press, Oct. 29, 2019)

“A three-year-old interview clip of former National Security Adviser Susan Rice resurfaced Tuesday after the declassified email she sent to herself on the final day of the Obama administration was released. (Fox News, May 19, 2020 )

“During an April 2017 appearance on PBS News Hour, Rice was asked about the then-breaking revelations about members of President Trump’s transition team having been surveilled before he took office.

“In the last few hours, we’ve been following a disclosure by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, that in essence, during the final days of the Obama administration, during the transition after President Trump had been elected, that he and the people around him may have been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals and their identities may have been disclosed. Do you know anything about this?” PBS anchor Judy Woodruff asked.

“I know nothing about this,” Rice said at the time. “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.”
“Rice then pivoted to Trump’s accusation that then-President Barack Obama had “wiretapped” him during the 2016 election, insisting that “nothing of the sort occurred.”

“She later insisted that “no president, no White House can order the surveillance of another American citizen. That can only come from the Justice Department with the approval of a FISA court.”

“However, the newly released email appeared to indicate Rice had knowledge of the surveillance that took place that led to the “unmasking” of then-incoming National Security Adviser (NSA) Michael Flynn from his communications with the then-Russian ambassador.

“The email, which was written on Jan. 20, 2017, documented a Jan. 5 Oval Office meeting with then-President Obama and others, during which he provided guidance on how law enforcement needed to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential race. Parts of it were released previously, but the section on then-FBI Director James Comey’s response had been classified as “TOP SECRET” until now.

“Comey suggested to Obama that the National Security Council (NSC) might not want to pass “sensitive information related to Russia” to Flynn, according to a newly declassified email that Flynn’s predecessor sent herself on Inauguration Day.

“The section showed that Comey affirmed to Obama he was proceeding “by the book,” and went on to discuss concerns about Flynn’s known conversations with Russia’s ambassador at the time—conversations that would play a role later in the criminal case against Flynn.

“Rice continued in her email: “From a national security perspective, Comey said he does have some concerns that incoming NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador [Sergey] Kislyak. Comey said that could be an issue as it relates to sharing sensitive information. President Obama asked if Comey was saying that the NSC should not pass sensitive information related to Russia to Flynn.”

“Rice then wrote: “Comey replied, ‘potentially.’ He added that he has no indication thus far that Flynn has passed classified information to Kislyak, but he noted that ‘the level of communication is unusual.’”

“In a statement Tuesday evening about the email’s release, a representative for Rice stressed that “no discussion of law enforcement matters or investigations took place, despite accusations to the contrary.” The spokeswoman also insisted the Obama administration did not change the way it briefed Flynn, saying Rice briefed Flynn for more than 12 hours on four separate occasions during the transition.

“Ambassador Rice did not alter the way she briefed Michael Flynn on Russia as a result of Director Comey’s response,” representative Erin Pelton said.

“Last week, a list of top Obama officials who had requested the “unmasking” of Flynn was released. The list included Comey, former Vice President Joe Biden, former CIA Director John Brennan, former DNI James Clapper, former U.N. ambassador Samantha Power and former White House chief-of-staff Denis McDonough.”

Meanwhile, until Barr went out on his digging-up-skeletons tour, all lies told by Rice had been conveniently buried.

Some day, the bones Barr unearthed about Rice will lead directly back to Obama and his wobbly House of Cards.

Go Bill Barr, go!