Special Counsel Robert Mueller has released the sentencing guideline memo against General Michael Flynn (full pdf below).  Within the sentencing recommendation the special counsel recommends leniency:

Here’s the full court filing, along with CTH review and opinion therein.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/394926613/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-U7SKDN7r4cZGYnGsBglI

Notice the primary legal risk/emphasis is not directed to the *lying* issue surrounding the FBI interview with Flynn, but rather is focused on the issues surrounding the unregistered lobbying for Turkey; the FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act) violation.

There’s about a page on the FBI interview, and two pages on the Turkish lobbying issues.

The Turkish lobbying was the teeth that Mueller used to keep General Michael Flynn on the ropes.  Long time CTH readers might remember how we warned about this issue even before Flynn was selected for National Security Adviser [PLEASE SEE HERE].  So it does not come as a surprise to see this issue at the epicenter of Mueller’s leverage against Flynn.

Secondly, CTH warned again in August 2017 about how this issue was likely to be used against Flynn.  [AGAIN SEE HERE FOR THE SECOND WARNING]   The FARA issue was the preeminent leverage used by Mueller, exactly as expected.

We knew even before the election this could be a problem.  As far as we could surmise at the time – the Trump Campaign and subsequent President-Elect transition team, had no idea that campaign advocate and campaign adviser Michael Flynn was also being paid to lobby in DC on behalf of the government of Turkey, and Recep Erdogan.

The entire Flynn lobbying arrangement was beyond sketchy.  Before the election Flynn penned an op-ed advocating heavily for Recep Erdogan –SEE HERE–  The content was entirely disconnected from the assembled foreign policy outlook of Candidate Donald Trump. The Flynn Op-Ed was actually counter to candidate Trump’s policy views.  (more)

♦Now, on the issue of Flynn lying to the FBI – this is the primary focus of the media’s entire narrative construct and is part of the Mueller sentencing memo.  However, if you look at the recommendation for no-incarceration; in my opinion, there’s an angle to this that has always been FUBAR.

This is complex, so please bear with me.

Many people have asked the question why would Michael Flynn have lied about talking to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the first place?

It’s a great question.

The Occam’s Razor answer is the toxic political environment that existed in January 2017, where the administration was being hammered by a tsunami of media narratives and political opposition claiming that any scintilla of contact with anything Russian meant that Putin and Trump were “colluding BFF’s”,…. and Flynn didn’t want to fuel that nonsense.

If you look at the timeline, there was always a sketchy set of circumstances.

Reminder:  •Sunday January 15th, 2017 – VP-elect Mike Pence appears on Face The Nation. [Transcript Here]

JOHN DICKERSON: But there’s a distinction between that feeling about the press and legitimate inquiry, as you say, that the Senate Intelligence Committee is doing. Just to button up one question, did any advisor or anybody in the Trump campaign have any contact with the Russians who were trying to meddle in the election?

MIKE PENCE: Of course not. And I think to suggest that is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy. (link)

*NOTE* Notice the incoming administration was under a false-narrative siege created by the media.  At the time (early Jan, 2017) ‘any contact’ with Russians was evidence of meddling/election-collusion with Russians.  VP-elect Mike Pence poorly answered the question from Dickerson from a very defensive position.

That toxic media environment and Mike Pence speaking poorly during a Face The Nation interview was the issue. Once Vice-President Mike Pence made the statement that Flynn had no contact with anyone from Russia etc. any contradictory statement from Flynn would make Pence appear compromised; so Flynn had to stick to Pence’s false point without clarification.  Flynn was interviewed by the FBI on January 24th, nine days after Pence made his comments.

•Tuesday January 24th – Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn was interviewed at the WH by the FBI.

During this ambush interview, disguised as a meeting, FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka were contrasting Vice-President-elect Pence’s statements to CBS against the known action of Mike Flynn.  [Flynn has three options: either (1) Flynn contradicts Pence, or (2) he tells a lie; or (3) Flynn explains Pence misspoke, those were his options.]

How Flynn responded to the line of inquiry and explained/reconciled the difference between Pence’s statement on Jan 15th, and what actually took place, is why the FBI ended up with the conclusion that Flynn wasn’t lying.

I have long believed it is within this dynamic where the FD-302 reports, written by Strzok and Pientka, then became the subject of political manipulation by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe.

Stay with me and think about this carefully.

The FBI knew the content of the Flynn call with Sergey Kislyak because they were listening in.  The FBI were intercepting those communications.  So when Pence said no-one had any contact on January 15th, the FBI crew IMMEDIATELY knew they had a bombshell issue to exploit.

We see the evidence of the FBI knowing they had an issue to exploit, and being very nervous about doing it, in the messages between Lisa Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok who would end up doing the questioning of Flynn.

The day before the Flynn interview:

♦January 23, 2017, the day before the Flynn interview, Lisa Page says: “I can feel my heart beating harder, I’m so stressed about all the ways THIS has the potential to go fully off the rails.” Weird!

♦Strzok replies: “I know. I just talked with John, we’re getting together as soon as I get in to finish that write up for Andy (MCCABE) this morning.” Strzok agrees with Page about being stressed that “THIS” could go off the rails… (Strzok’s meeting w Flynn the next day)

Why would Page & Strzok be stressed about “THIS” potentially going off the rails?  The answer is simple: they knew the content of the phone call between Mike Flynn and Sergey Kislyak because they were listening in, and they were about to exploit the Pence statement to CBS.  That’s why they were so nervous.  They were planning and plotting with Andrew McCabe about how they were going to exploit the phone-tap.

I’m not convinced that Flynn lied.  There’s a good possibility Flynn was honest but his honesty contradicted Pence’s national statement on CBS; and he likely tried to dance through a needle without being overly critical of VP-elect Pence misspeaking.   Remember, the alternative, if Flynn is brutally honest, is for the media to run with a narrative about Vice-President Pence is now a national liar in the media.

That’s why the issue of how the FBI interviewers write the 302 summary of the interview becomes such an important facet.   We see that dynamic again playing out in the messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok with Andrew McCabe providing the guidance.

♦February 14th, 2017, text messages – here is a note about the FBI reports filed from the Flynn interview.  Peter Strzok asks Lisa Page if FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is OK with his report: “Also, is Andy good with F-302?”

Lisa Page replies: “Launch on F 302”.

That would be Flynn’s 302.  The FBI interpretation of the Flynn interview, is now the way the FBI can control the interview content…. and, specifically because the only recourse Flynn would have to contradict that FBI interpretation would be to compromise the Vice President… Flynn cannot challenge the structure of the narrative within the 302 outline.

See what happened?

Does it all make sense now?

Do you see why there are reports of the second FBI agent, Joe Pientka, saying he didn’t believe Flynn lied to them in the interview.  Likely because Flynn didn’t…. but the McCabe crew jumped on the opportunity to frame a lose/lose.  Either Flynn accepts a version of the 302 report where he lied; or, Flynn has to take the position that Vice President Mike Pence lied to the nation in the CBS Face The Nation interview.

See how that went down?

That’s also the likely reason why FBI Agent Joe Pietka has been kept quiet.

FUBAR !!  All of it.

Political analyst and commentator Dan Bongino has a great dot-connecting podcast today that outlines the players, motives, moves and intentions surrounding the ongoing Deep Administrative State battle.

It is an excellent presentation in all facets, with one minor gear slightly askew – which CTH will explain.  The content is very well presented. Everyone should listen to the podcast.  (Hit the little orange arrow):

.

The only divergence CTH holds to the overall outline is below.

This is not a criticism to the well thought-out Bongino presentation. When compared to our research and the myriad of granular issues that can be overwhelmingly complex, the summary and conclusions of Mr. Bongino are accurate, factual and well delivered.  There’s just a part of the process missing from the analysis.

CTH has a worm buried deep in the machine.

Think about the CTH worm like a tiny, seemingly insignificant, gear amid a massive and complex information machine that runs on hundreds of other interconnected gears that work in concert.

Here’s the flaw.

IG Michael Horowitz is *NOT* a decision-maker in the system.

The IG is an evaluator of investigative fact. He holds absolutely no power.  The distinction is important.  Understanding the distinction is critical.

Within the IG process – a draft report is assembled, exhaustively and painstakingly reconciled, and delivered to the principles. In essence, the DOJ Inspector General presents his findings to his boss.

That’s where things get squirrely.

That’s where Dan Bongino’s excellently prepared outline goes askew.

Mike Horowitz schedules an appointment, shows up and gives his DOJ boss the draft report. [This happens prior to the draft report going to the principles outlined within the report.]  The boss says: “Thanks Mike; really, you’ve done an excellent job; please thank your entire team; we’ll take it from here; and we’ll get back to you shortly”.

From that moment, Horowitz no longer has control or input. He has assembled the draft report. The bosses review the draft. Within the bosses review, redactions to the report begin.  These are not the type of redactions you are familiar with.  There are no black boxes covering up the text.

This type of redacting is actually decisions above the IG’s pay grade. The redactions are removals of report content that become part of classified appendices.  The issues the bosses want to see handled with sensitivity are removed.  Text is not covered-up, it is removed.

Remember the IG report on FBI misconduct and bias? If so, you might remember there were two classified appendices.  This is how the bosses remove the damaging stuff which allows the executive summary of the report to be written in a manner that might be entirely different from the report content.

The decision-making over the removed material (classified appendices) is the opportunity for corrupt DOJ/FBI officials to remove any uncomfortable issues for their interests.  This is where the risk is managed.  This is where the administrative state protects itself.

Once the “classified” information is removed (“classified” as determined by the officials in control to represent details that are of national security value – and not necessarily based on anything other than their arbitrary opinion), the report is given back to the IG in modified form to allow: (A) the modified draft to be submitted to the external principles for potential feedback and addition; and (B) the executive summary to be written.

The executive summary is formulated to describe what is left visible within the main report.  It is a summary of the public version.  The executive summary does not draw attention to the classified appendices.

As a result the executive summary may end up being disconnected from the main body of the report because substantive information is now removed and held only in classified appendices.

When the final report is presented, the control over the “national security” appendices is tight and only given to a select set of elected political officials charged with oversight.

As Bongino has eloquently outlined, in this current IG example the oversight team just happens to be the team that is at greatest risk from the content within the draft IG report.

The removed material, the classified and national security appendices, can hold the problematic material that is damaging to the administrative state.

This little known and highly opaque process allows the deep state damage control.  It is not a flaw in the system; it is by design.  The ‘system’ is not technically influencing the IG report; the ‘system’ is controlling the consequences of the report based on national security interests.

See how that works?

That is the process.

Now…. That’s the bad news.  There is, however, a possibility for good news.

Without providing my opinion on the matter; it is a fact the person who Michael Horowitz would normally be calling to schedule the draft report meeting has changed.

Because of the Jeff Sessions recusal issues, the previous two draft reports (¹FBI handling of Clinton email, and ²FBI bias in ’15/’16) were delivered to Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller.

It was Rod and Bob, with input from Chris who said: “Thanks Mike, we’ll take a look and get back to you”; and then proceeded with the removal of *national security* content for placement in the lock-box of classified appendices.

Do the prior IG report consequences, or lack therein, make sense now?

For this third IG report, perhaps the most important IG report, Michael Horowitz should be calling Acting AG Matthew Whitaker to schedule the appointment.

Depending on your confidence in Mr. Whitaker; the very positive potential outcome Dan Bongino describes might be true…. Or, if you are more cynical of the deep state; and your experience has taught you these officials tend to think well ahead of everyone else; that Acting AG appointment might result in the same outcome of the prior two.

To fuel the optimism angle…. Perhaps that’s why Jeff Sessions *needed* to resign.

Perhaps, without knowing the granular details – but on the advice of others, that’s why POTUS Trump agreed to allow the IG to complete his tasks (prior to Sessions removal announcement); with advisors aiding the office in timing etc.

I agree with Bongino that there’s an epic game of political chess afoot within the overarching dynamic.  The stakes could not be higher; and if you are one or two degrees wrong in forecasting the motives; you likely can’t anticipate the moves.

So CTH provides the information, you decide what it means.

The good thing is, regardless of how it all ends-up, President Trump *can* request to see all of the report content –and he can declassify it– if the people around the office of the president desire to aid him in doing so.

Then again, the deep state knows this too….

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has always worked earnestly to protect whistleblowers; it is a subject near and dear to his heart.  Against the backdrop of an unexpected raid on the home of an approved and protected whistleblower named Dennis Nathan Cain, Senator Grassley writes to Inspector General Horowitz:

(Document Link)

You’d be amazed at the number of people, presumably ‘on-our-side‘, who deny that Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein are simply an extension of the corrupt intelligence/political apparatus.  However, President Trump knows exactly what the Team Mueller intents and purposes are:

I strongly suggest reading this research:  “On page 7 of the statement of criminal information filed against Cohen, which is separate from but related to the plea agreement, Mueller mentions that Cohen tried to email Russian President Vladimir Putin’s office on Jan. 14, 2016, and again on Jan. 16, 2016. But Mueller, who personally signed the document, omitted the fact that Cohen did not have any direct points of contact at the Kremlin, and had resorted to sending the emails to a general press mailbox. Sources who have seen these additional emails point out that this omitted information undercuts the idea of a “back channel” and thus the special counsel’s collusion case.

Page 2 of the same criminal information document holds additional exculpatory evidence for Trump, sources say. It quotes an August 2017 letter from Cohen to the Senate intelligence committee in which he states that Trump “was never in contact with anyone about this [Moscow Project] proposal other than me.” This section of Cohen’s written testimony, unlike other parts, is not disputed as false by Mueller, which sources say means prosecutors have tested its veracity through corroborating sources and found it to be accurate.” [Please continue reading]

This is a painful, albeit rather telling, interview to watch.  Matt Cartwright has not had the time to fully digest how to be a good resistance member, whereby he simultaneously argues for and against the economic and trade policies of President Trump.

On domestic economic policies, specifically trade, President Trump is essentially carrying out all of the objectives of the blue-dog (moderate) Democrat party.  However, now the ‘resist we much overlay’ creates a pretzel dynamic for those same democrats.  They are for the policies, but must oppose the person carrying out those policies.  This is a goofy preview of what is to come in 2019.

.

Lost but not invisible in the Cartwright angst is any acceptance that President Obama never cancelled NAFTA; nor did President Obama ever challenge the one-way economics of China; both of these confrontations and resets are favored by the new co-chair of the democrat platform committee…. but favored/not-favored when Trump does it.

As an outcome of supporting/not supporting, policies they support/don’t support, what surfaces is a word salad mixed up faster than a bar blender.

NAFTA bad and USMCA better/not-better.  NAFTA labor constructs horrible, and USMCA better/not-better; and ending with something about infrastructure spending that Democrats refused to engage in discussing throughout 2018, because the economy is on the precipice of an invisible recession, or something.

All the growth in factory investment and manufacturing jobs; as well as the lowest unemployment in 50-years means the economy is coming to an immediate collapse.

Tariffs are bad, they are creating too many U.S. jobs.

75% required North American content in USMCA is bad… it creates too many U.S. jobs.

The furniture industry might return; the electronics manufacturing industry is certainly returning;  Speaker Pelosi and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka shout: damn you Trump and all of this expanded U.S. manufacturing job growth.   Aiiieeeee.

Democrats want to argue for more restrictions on imports?  Alright, alright, alright – Lucky Day, Lucky Day!

WhaFaSau? or something similar.

The democrats need new linguistics that explain upside-down counter-reality doublespeak words that can invert themselves and become something favorable to the resistance.

The bottom-line is…. On the domestic economic agenda, Democrats have no actual point of opposition that President Trump is not likely to embrace.  Don’t like the USMCA? Okay, kill it, remember NAFTA bad, and we’ll go for something even more America First.

But wait… wha, huh?

President Trump directly supports middle-class U.S. workers more than any Democrat President ever has.   You want more support for middle-class workers?  Okay, spank me long time bad panda… let’s go for it.

Hate Wall Street, or at least need to do the pretend to hate Wall Street thing?  Hey, #MeToo smiles POTUS!   President Trump has clearly shown support for Main Street over Wall Street…  that’s what America First is all about.

MAGA Trump hates the multinationals’ and favors the credit unions.  Let’s roll !

Democrats are in a really unusual economic space with the dimension of their resistance.  They don’t want to give President Trump any wins, but he’s working on almost all of their ‘claimed’ objectives for middle-class workers.  If they come at Trump with legislation that benefits the U.S. economy/worker; he’s all good with that.

So now what will they do?

Pass the word-salad blender, please.

It’s not confirmational bias – IT’S CONFIRMATION !!

Today on Face The Nation Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Vice-Chairman Mark Warner describes how his committee is working with Robert Mueller; including: (a) several criminal referrals (Cohen was one); and (b) the sharing of congressional transcripts so Mueller (the team, not the person) can cross reference statements given to him with testimony given to the SSCI.

.

Tell me again how letting SSCI Security Director, James Wolfe, off the hook for leaking classified intelligence to the media, including the Carter Page FISA application, was not to cover for SSCI members instructing Mr. Wolfe to carry out those leaks.

For several years, and with increased urgency at each discovery/admission, CTH has been highlighting how the SSCI was part of the 2015, 2016, 2017 plan to eliminate Donald Trump (spygate), and later remove President Trump (insurance policy).

The most recent series of events by Robert Mueller is a quid-pro-quo to cover for the SSCI involvement.  This is not confirmational bias against the SSCI; this is factual evidence of the SSCI’s corruption.  Please understand the basic issue here.  The SSCI is complicit with the overall scheme – and Robert Mueller, via a plan of mutual benefit and coordination, is trying to protect that from surfacing.

♦The SSCI and Mueller are working together (per Warner)
♦The SSCI has sent transcripts to Mueller (per Warner)
♦The SSCI has sent criminal referrals to Mueller (per Warner)

Now consider:

♦The same SSCI was conducting covert communications with Christopher Steele via lobbyist Adam Waldman.

♦The same SSCI publicly leaked the Glenn Simpson transcript (D Feinstein), everyone seems to forget.

♦The same SSCI (Feinstein Staffer) Dan Jones paid Fusion GPS $50 million to continue operations against President Trump after the election. [That’s some CYA operation funding eh?]  (And, oh yeah, Feinstein gave up her Vice-Chair seat)

♦The same SSCI had a security officer (Wolfe) leaking classified intelligence documents to the media (Ali Watkins).

♦The SSCI security officer was busted in December 2017, admitted the leaks (several reporters), and was never charged (Rosenstein/Mueller) with anything except one single count of lying to FBI.

♦Every corrupt FBI/DOJ and downstream official caught up in the congressional investigative web all want to talk to the same committee, the SSCI.

♦A whistleblower (Dennis Cain) comes forward to the DOJ-Inspector General Michael Horowitz. The IG gives the whistleblower full protection and recognition as a confirmed whistleblower. The IG gives the whistleblower’s evidence documents to the SSCI (per guidelines); what happens next? The whistleblower gets a 3:00am 16-agent FBI raid courtesy of authorization no-one can explain.

You seeing this?

You seeing the clarity inside this picture?

This is not just coincidental.

This is not me just haphazardly making a theory of how a corrupt Senate Committee and a corrupt Special Counsel working in concert with each other with mutual interests. This stuff is in our faces. All of the data-points involving the SSCI go in one direction…. toward corruption. There is not a single data-point going in the other direction.

Remember the Chair and Vice-Chair of the SSCI are two members of the oversight Gang of Eight.  During the 2016 operation against candidate Trump, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr were part of that oversight.  Reference John Brennan testimony:

“Again, in consultation with the White House, I PERSONALLY briefed the full details of our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election to congressional leadership; specifically: Senators Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr; and to representatives Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff between 11th August and 6th September [2016], I provided the same briefing to each of the gang of eight members.”

“Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case [that means the FBI], involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in our presidential election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of congress; each of whom was accompanied by one senior staff member.”… (link)

After the 2016 presidential election, Senator Dianne Feinstein turned over the Vice-Chair to Senator Mark Warner.

Remember, those SSCI Senators (Vice-Chair Mark Warner, Dianne Feinstein and senior staffer Dan Jones etc.) were coordinating with Fusion GPS and the Clinton campaign allies; and were direct participants in “Spygate” and the insurance policy known as the special counsel.

This is one of the reasons why it is likely, damned near certain, that senior SSCI senators instructed James Wolfe to leak information, including the March 17th copy of the Carter Page FISA application, and that is why Rosenstein and Mueller let James Wolfe plea to a much lesser one-count crime of lying.

Remember when SSCI senator Dianne Feinstein released the transcript of Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson’s testimony so that all of downstream participants could coordinate their stories? Oh, how quickly we forget.

It is near certain that Feinstein gave up her Senate Intelligence Vice-Chair position following the 2016 presidential election because there was an inherent political risk for any intelligence-oversight Democrat in relation to the FBI’s Trump operation, “spygate”. Feinstein’s staffer, Dan Jones, then paid Fusion-GPS $50 million to continue the efforts.

Remember Oleg Deripaska’s lawyer/lobbyist Adam Waldman having secret text messages with new SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner relaying communication from Christopher Steele that Senator Warner wanted to keep quiet?

Adam Waldman texting Senator Warner about Chris Steele and outlining how Feinstein’s former senior staffer Dan Jones was coming to see him.

(link)

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is as corrupt and complicit within the entire spygate fiasco as the DOJ and FBI. That’s why Mueller and Rosenstein (small group) are working to protect the Senators and staff just like they protect the corrupt officials in the DOJ and FBI. Mueller’s entire operation is structured around this type of scheming cover-up.

This is Deep State (via Mueller/Rosenstein) fighting President Trump; and trying to blunt the declassification weapon he holds. Nothing more.

Some people have called Carter Page and/or George Papadopoulos “moles”, but that’s really not what it appears they were.  The better description is “tools” or “pawns”.   Once the U.S intelligence assets Joseph Mifsud and Stefan Halper dirtied them up, they gave the appearance of being involved in a vast Russian conspiracy.

It was the appearance that mattered in order to generate the foundation for: the counterintelligence operation; and the subsequent FISA surveillance warrant; and the Vast Russian Conspiracy narrative; and ultimately the post-election Special Counsel investigation.  In total, this was the Peter Strzok “Insurance Policy“.

Chairman Nunes published the HPSCI Report on Russian Active Measures; and in doing so the DOJ and FBI redacted his report for the public.  Nunes objected to the redactions.

In part of the report the HPSCI describes the origin of the FBI 2016 Counterintelligence Operation.  The DOJ and FBI redacted the paragraph where Nunes outlined who was targeted at the start.

If my analysis is accurate, there were FOUR initial targets of the FBI counterintelligence operation who were connected to the Trump campaign.  Here’s what I think those redactions are hiding:

[Page 12, PDF HERE]

The DOJ didn’t redact Carter Page because he was already ‘outed’ in the House FISA memo.  However, I believe the current DOJ redactions are hiding George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn.

Those would be the July 2016 targets outlined by the originating EC (electronic communication) from John Brennan when the FBI Counterintelligence operation began.

The CIA provided raw intel, and the NSA generated the raw monitoring intelligence from the characters identified by the CIA and approved by FBI FISA warrant submissions.

The FBI were running the counter-intelligence operation and generating the actual reports that were eventually shared with the White House, Susan Rice and the Dept of Justice. After the November 2016 election, those reports, or interpretations of the report content, were eventually leaked to the media in a coordinated effort to undermine the incoming administration.

During the time James Comey’s FBI was generating the intelligence reports, Comey admitted he intentionally never informed congressional oversight: “because of the sensitivity of the matter“.

In his May 2017 testimony John Brennan tried to take himself out of the picture from the perspective of the illegal acts within the entire process. ODNI James Clapper, while rubbing his face and scratching his head, had taken the same route earlier. That left the majority of scrutiny for the anti-Trump intelligence operation upon James Comey.

This explained why Comey changed his mind on testifying to congress in May of 2017 until he had the opportunity to talk to newly appointed special counsel Robert Mueller.

Former FBI Director James Comey is not stupid.  He is, however, intensely political.

James Comey completely understood the legal risks he was  facing within the faux “Russian conspiracy story” and the “subsequent leaking” of his political FBI reports.  Comey was up to his eyeballs.

Remember, it was FEBRUARY 15, 2017  when the FBI (McCabe) went to President Trump’s Chief of Staff and privately told Reince Priebus there was no truth to media reports, based on FBI leaks, of FBI evidence showing Trump campaign officials involved with Russian officials regarding the 2016 election.  It was all a complete nothingburger.

During that February 15th, 2017, meeting, while discussing another issue FBI Assistant Director Andrew McCabe asked Reince for 5 minutes alone. At the one-on-one meeting McCabe told Priebus the New York Times Russia and Trump campaign story was a “bunch of BS”.

As a result Reince Priebus asked Andrew McCabe if McCabe would be able to say that publicly and get the media off Priebus’ back about a ridiculously false narrative.  Asst. Director McCabe said he would check with his boss, FBI Director James Comey.

Later, McCabe called back and said he couldn’t issue a statement about it.

Reince Priebus was asking for the FBI to give truthful information about the false reports to the public.  The White House was asking James Comey to deliver transparency.

Quote from the FBI to Priebus: “We’d love to help, but we can’t get into the position of making statements on every story”…

Now think about this carefully.  Those February 2017 media leaks (mentioned above) that drove the New York Times report were actually later shown to be leaks coming from James Comey.

Stop and think about it.

Andrew McCabe was telling Trump’s chief-of-staff Reince Priebus not to worry about a NYT report based on leaks that were coming from FBI Director James Comey.  James Comey then tells Priebus, via McCabe, he cannot publicly refute the story which was based on his leaking.

Yea.  Perhaps eventually everyone will see how Machiavellian this is.