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]