Michael Flynn’s defense attorney appears for a brief interview with Sean Hannity to discuss the recently unsealed documents showing FBI strategic planning to target Lt. Gen Flynn prior to their interview on January 24, 2017.  WATCH:

.

A few notes of caution.  Don’t fall into the outrage trap; the DOJ will certainly justify the FBI notes as a valid discussion on investigative strategy, nothing more.

Second, Bill Barr did not appoint Missouri Attorney Jensen in an effort to support General Flynn.  AG Barr was ordered by the FISA court to review every case and all evidence that touched upon the fraudulent Carter Page FISA application.  Be careful about projecting a motive onto Bill Barr around these revelations.  Without that FISC ordered sequestration review order; the DOJ/FBI may not have moved on this.

Lastly, despite the known corruption within the existing FBI leadership {outlined here}, and we can now add the FBI hiding these documents for 3 years, AG Bill Barr continues to pour effusive praise upon the FBI.  That reality doesn’t reconcile with a good intent.

When the FISA Court responded to the DOJ Inspector General report in December and January 2020 they requested an action plan from the DOJ and FBI to respond to the issues raised about misrepresentations to the court.

The DOJ/FBI replied to the FISA Court admitting the last two FISA renewals (April, June ’17) used against Carter Page were insufficiency predicated while withholding opinion on the original application (Oct ’16) and first renewal (Jan ’17).

To address the consequences of fraudulently obtained FISA warrants the DOJ and FBI informed the court they would begin a process to “sequester” all collected evidence from all four FISA warrants. [FISA COURT LINK]

Sequestering the evidence is essentially a search for what investigative material the FISA warrants were used to obtain; ie. the search for the fruit of the poisoned tree; and then a review of all DOJ/FBI cases that may have utilized that investigative material.

In late January the DOJ contacted the FISA court and asked for an extension to the deadline.  The FISA court granted an extension until February 5th [LINK]  The final response from the DOJ has not been declassified or released by the FISC for public review.

However, with media reporting of AG Barr using “outside prosecutors” to review current, former and ongoing cases, it simply makes sense this ‘outsider’ effort is part of the DOJ/FBI sequestration review.

If you consider that several DOJ offices may be involved with the material under review, including the Southern District of New York; The Eastern District of New York; The Eastern District of Virginia; The Washington DC District, and even Main Justice itself; it makes sense that outside DOJ personnel would be needed for this review.

Additionally, all of the various FBI field offices who may have used the FISA authorizations as the underpinning evidence to gain separate Title-1 and/or Title-3 warrants, wiretaps or National Security Letters, in their various investigative cases would also need to be reviewed.   This is an aspect the media is not discussing while they write opinions about AG Bill Barr bringing in outside DOJ attorneys.

The media are framing the use of outside attorneys as Bill Barr working on behalf of President Trump to undermine current and former prosecutions.  However, understanding the FISC order requiring the sequestration effort, the use of outsiders is absolutely necessary.

The same U.S. Attorneys, prosecutors and FBI agents who used evidence gathered from the FISA warrants cannot be the same attorneys, agents and prosecutors making decisions about what parts of the warrants were used to gather evidence and how each part of any case was assembled by the use therein.  It is a simple matter of a conflict of interest.

Additionally, the Robert Mueller team of FBI investigators and special counsel prosecutors certainly used the fraudulently obtained FISA warrants as part of their investigative evidence collection.   Common sense would tell us this had to be the case or the FBI and Mueller team would not have requested renewals of the FISA warrant.

If the FBI & Special Counsel were not using the FISA warrant(s) to capture information, they would not have needed them renewed.  Despite media spin to the contrary, the simple truth of renewals holding investigative value is evident in the renewal itself (ie. common sense).

Under this rather extensive effort to find exactly which investigations -over the course of three years- were touched directly, or indirectly, by the four FISA warrants; and/or which investigative paths may have been influenced downstream or enhanced -by varying degrees of importance- by evidence stemming from the FISA warrants; a reasonable person could see how AG Bill Barr would need to put a team together to retrace the investigative steps and make the sequestration determinations.

Obviously, for reasons of biased intent, corporate left-wing media would like to ignore why outside prosecutors are needed under this framework.  Ignored in part because honest reporting would require an admission the FISA warrants were fraudulently obtained; and in part because the left-wing media have never informed the public of the DOJ/FBI sequestration effort in the first place.  Likely more than half the country has no idea the DOJ and FBI have been told to go find the material.

There have been numerous articles, thousands of words, and endless hours of pundit protestations about Bill Barr using outside DC lawyers to review all of the previous DOJ Attorney activities; yet not a single time have they ever acknowledged the originating order from the FISA court requiring the DOJ/FBI to conduct the review.   Imagine that?

New York Times – Mr. Barr has also installed a handful of outside prosecutors to broadly review the handling of other politically sensitive national-security cases in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, the people said. The team includes at least one prosecutor from the office of the United States attorney in St. Louis, Jeff Jensen, who is handling the Flynn matter, as well as prosecutors from the office of the deputy attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen. (more)

Likewise, considering AG Barr has been ordered by the court to review all the targets, cases and evidence, we should not be projecting an altruistic “clean up” effort… Arguably, one could say Barr is being forced to reopen, and revisit, all of this material.  Certainly Bill Barr would not willingly expose the corrupt intents of his friends Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein…. So we should watch carefully.

It would certainly be ironic if the FISA court ends-up in 2020 as the least corrupt institution within a DC network fraught with institutional corruption.

When it comes to DC politics, we cannot be too cynical.

Remember James Wolfe?…

Many people forget that Senator Chuck Grassley has skin in this investigation.  Grassley has always suspected Flynn was framed.  Back in June of 2018, Senator Grassley was very suspicious of what Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was doing to facilitate the targeting of Michael Flynn when he said:

…”If the facts are inconsistent with the plea agreement, that would be an entirely different kettle of fish.”… (more)

Earlier today Grassley reacted to the previously hidden FBI documents showing that Michael Flynn was targeted for removal by the FBI “small group”.  WATCH:

“If the facts are inconsistent with the plea agreement, that would be an entirely different kettle of fish.”

JUNE 2018 – The Department’s reply to my May 11, 2018 letter seeking information about the circumstances surrounding Lt. General Michael Flynn’s reported conversations with the Russian ambassador and FBI records related to those conversations is insufficient. The letter only recounts a series of publicly known facts about Lt. General Flynn’s plea agreement and relies on improper excuses in refusing to provide the requested information. The Committee requires this information to fulfill its Constitutional function and its charge under Senate Rules to conduct oversight of the Department of Justice.

First, as you know, some of that information was first requested on a bipartisan basis before your confirmation. The Committee has waited patiently for much more than a year for the criminal inquiry related to Lt. General Flynn to conclude. It has been more than five months since his guilty plea. Thus, there is no longer any legitimate reason to withhold facts from the Senate about the circumstances of his conversations with the Russian ambassador and his FBI interview.

Second, the Department’s letter erroneously suggests that complying with Congressional oversight would result in “the reality or the appearance of political interference” in a “pending criminal prosecution.” There is no pending prosecution. The guilty plea was more than five months ago.

The Department’s letter describes in detail what everyone already knows. Lt. General Flynn admitted to the Statement of Offense with the able assistance of counsel. All that remains is for Lt. General Flynn to be sentenced. Simply disclosing facts to the Committee could not possibly “interfere” with the case at this late date, assuming those facts are consistent with the representations that prosecutors arranged for Lt. General Flynn to swear to in federal court.

If the facts are inconsistent with the plea agreement, that would be an entirely different kettle of fish.  (more pdf link)

The first of the sealed documents provided to the Flynn defense have been unsealed.  The documents include emails between: FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, his FBI counsel Lisa Page, as well as FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka in the lead-up to the January 24, 2017 interview of Michael Flynn.

This specific release is the court filing of five pages that was initially turned-over to the Flynn defense team last Friday. [The pdf is here]  [There are an additional 11 pages of documents from another production earlier today; those are not in this release]

The documents today also include handwritten notes taken by FBI counterintelligence chief William “Bill” Priestap; which show him both questioning and outlining the purpose of the interview: to remove National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

According to the Priestap notes it appears the position of the FBI on January 23, 2017, was that Michael Flynn had violated the Logan Act by having a conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak on December 29, 2016, prior to the inauguration.

This was a ridiculous position, there was no violation of the Logan Act; however, it was this position from which the questioning the next day, January 24 2017, would be based.

The next page of notes discusses the “Afterwards”:

The redactions are likely “the transcript“; where the FBI has the transcript of the call between Michael Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak.   The redaction would be continued to protect the source of the material (“sources and methods”).

Interestingly, on the second day, the actual day of the interview, it appears Bill Priestap had second thoughts and was questioning the goal of the interview: “I thought about it last night and I believe we should rethink this”…

FBI Asst. Director for Counterintelligence Bill Priestap then asks the question: “what is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

The premise of “wrongdoing” vis-a-vis a Logan Act violation was ridiculous.  As the incoming National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn would be talking to many counterparts throughout the globe.   Even Priestap started to realize what they were doing was “playing games.”

Here’s the full release:

.

[…] Multiple officials confirmed to Just the News that the author of the notes is William Priestap, the now-retired FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence and the ultimate supervisor for fired agent Peter Strzok, who led the Russia probe.

[…]  A special prosecutor is reviewing DOJ’s and the FBI’s handling of the Flynn prosecution, which led to the former Trump adviser and retired general pleading guilty to lying to the FBI under a plea deal with Special Counsel Robert Mueller in the Russia case.

Flynn’s lawyer Sidney Powell filed a court motion last week saying new evidence has emerged showing Flynn was “framed” and his conviction should be dismissed. The officials said the notes are part of that new evidence and had been withheld from Flynn’s defense team for years even though they were potential evidence of innocence.

More evidence is being produced in the next few days that will further illuminate the FBI’s conduct in the case that is now at the center of the DOJ investigation, officials said.  (more)

Keep in mind, the Mueller special counsel knew this all along…

Keep in mind, former DAG Rod Rosenstein knew this all along…

Also keep in mind, current FBI Director Chris Wray and current FBI Legal Counsel Dana Boente knew this all along….

These documents have been inside the DOJ and FBI for more than three years; while they prosecuted him and drove his family into bankruptcy.

NOTE: Just before this was published the court has released the notes.  More will follow…

It appears U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Jensen from Missouri, who was brought in to review all of the DOJ case files surrounding Michael Flynn, has provided an additional eleven pages of exculpatory FBI notes.  Michael Flynn’s defense counsel Sidney Powell describes the latest notes as: “even more appalling than the Friday production“.

The Flynn defense and the DOJ (likely Jensen) have filed a joint motion with the court asking for the documents to be unsealed after a classification review.  However, as Techno Fog noted looking at the cover letter, it appears these notes were already in the custody of the Special Counsels Office (“DOJSCO”)

Breaking…. As this was being assembled, the court has unsealed some of the notes.

New thread with the notes will follow…