Michael Flynn

Some Commentary On General Flynn (Plus: Transcripts Released)

Published by Papa Giorgio

UPDATES NEAR BOTTOM — JUMP

Michael Flynn did not commit a crime and they knew it.

Michael Flynn fiasco exposes left’s dirty tactics.

Comey’s investigation found no collusion from anyone associated with Trump.

Adam Schiff was forced to release some documents that he had hoped wouldn’t be released — because — he knew they undermined his MANY public statements that there was evidence of Russian collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia. WEASEL ZIPPERS has a good “overnight thread” which this is adapted from:

TRANSCRIPTS

  • Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair John Podesta told House Intel in 2017: “I have no specific facts or information relating to conversations that may have been had between people from the Trump campaign and either Assange or representatives of the Russian Gov’t”
  • Ben Rhodes when asked whether he had evidence of collusion, conspiracy, coordination bewtween Trump campaign and Russia: “I saw indications of potential coordination, but I did not see, you know, the specific evidence of the actions of the Trump campaign”
  • Former AG Loretta Lynch was asked whether she had evidence of collusion, coordination or conspiracy. She said that she did “not recall that being briefed up to me.” “I can’t say that it existed or not”
  • Ambassador Rice when asked whether she had evidence of collusion, conspiracy, coordination: “I don’t recall intel or evidence to that effect”
  • Samantha Power, when asked if she had evidence of collusion, coordination, conspiracy between Trump campaign and & Russians: “I am not in possession of anything – I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community”

And we shouldn’t forget James Clapper:

Yet time after time the above went on to the MSM shows and said different. The new acting DNI threatened Adam Schiff if he wasn’t going to release these interviews, he would. Schifty didn’t want them released because everyone would see they had nada as far as evidence for the Russian Collusion Hoax: https://intelligence.house.gov/russiainvestigation/

Breaking: Rick Grenell Delivers SECOND SET OF DOCUMENTS to DOJ in Satchel — may be released tomorrow:

Trey Gowdy weighs in on the FBI (ouch!):  Former congressman and Fox News contributor, Trey Gowdy, weighs in on the Department of Justice’s decision to drop Michael Flynn charges.

UPDATED FUN

The ex CIA Chief briefed the Obama White House that the “Russian Collusion” was the brain child of Hillary Clinton (NEW YORK POST):

… Ratcliffe disclosed the information in a letter published by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) just hours before Trump debates Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, who was vice president at the time.

Clinton’s alleged July 2016 plot would tar Trump by “tying him to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee,” Ratcliffe wrote Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Handwritten notes by then-CIA Director John Brennan, who now is a fiery anti-Trump commentator, say that Brennan briefed Obama on “alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.”

The FBI opened its investigation of possible Trump-Russia collusion on July 31, 2016 — five days after Clinton allegedly hatched the plan — premised on Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos allegedly telling an Australian diplomat that Russia had damaging information on Clinton, the 2016 Democratic nominee.

It’s unclear when Obama was briefed or if Biden was informed. It’s also unclear which Clinton foreign policy aide allegedly proposed the idea….

The WASHINGTON EXAMINER discusses John Brennan’s worry over Durham’s investigation:

…Brennan has sought to pin questions about the discredited dossier on the FBI, which used it to obtain a FISA to wiretap Page.

“There were things in that dossier that made me wonder whether they were, in fact, accurate and true,” he said in February 2018. He also said that “it was up to the FBI to see whether or not they could verify any of it.”

Durham is looking into how the dossier was used in the 2017 assessment, why former FBI Director James Comey and his deputy, Andrew McCabe, insisted on it being part of the assessment, how allegations from the dossier ended up in an appendix of the assessment, and whether Brennan made misleading assertions about the research’s use. The top federal prosecutor in Connecticut is also reportedly reviewing Brennan’s handling of a secret source said to be close to the Kremlin and working to find out what role that person’s information played in the assessment.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican, has pinned the blame on Brennan. In March of last year, he tweeted, “A high-level source tells me it was Brennan who insisted that the unverified and fake Steele dossier be included in the Intelligence Report.”

Watergate sleuth Bob Woodward, who has a book coming out next month, said in April 2019, “I think it was the CIA pushing this.”…

To that last point by Woodward I excerpted… here is a good story about the CIA head and his obsession with Trump (note: I do not support most of what Zero Hedge writes, this is just a pretty decent post on the topic): “Ex-CIA Chief and “Russian Collusion” liar John Brennan urges palace coup against Trump so he doesn’t ‘declassify everything‘”

Just two examples of what an “under oath” session can do to a person:

RHODES

“Russia attacked our democracy. Trump campaign sought its help, had many contacts with Russians, lied about it and obstructed the investigation into it. Several senior Trump associates were convicted of crimes. Trump would have been indicted if he wasn’t President. Not complicated.” – Ben Rhodes

“I saw indications of potential coordination, but I did not see, you know, the specific evidence of the actions of the Trump campaign” – Ben Rhodes

CLAPPER

“What was the Trump campaign doing the same time was essentially aiding and abetting the Russians.” Clapper stated that the Russia investigation had surpassed that of Watergate, referencing the break-in at Democratic National Committee headquarters in 1972 that led to the resignation of former President Richard Nixon. “I think if you compare the two that Watergate pales, really, in my view, compared to what we’re confronting now,” Clapper told reporters during a trip to Australia.

In December of 2017, Clapper was asked by CNN’s Jim Sciutto about the difference between Trump’s criticism of Russia as a rival power and his praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin after the Russian leader foiled a terror attack using CIA intelligence. “I think that this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is,” Clapper said. “He knows how to handle an asset and that’s what he’s doing with the president,” he said. Sciutto asked Clapper to reiterate his statement, to confirm whether he was indeed calling the American president an “asset” of Russia. “That’s the appearance to me,” Clapper said. “He’s a [former] KGB officer. That’s what they do. They recruit assets.”

➤ “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/ conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” – James Clapper under oath

 

Pam Keith’s “Hit Card” (Democrat’s Violent Past)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(This is with a hat-tip to Santa Clarita Community Watchdog Group — a Facebook group) In a post on Facebook I came across this linked article to LAW ENFORCEMENT TODAY discussing a Democrat politician from Florida’s 18th Congressional district apparently putting out a “hit list” against Republicans. Here is a portion of that article:

Politics is hardly ever pretty when it comes for folks racing toward an election, and thus that means the election for Florida’s 18th congressional district is not immune from the likes of nasty rhetoric from people trying to get a seat at the table.

But when you have people calling for an “open season” for killing your political opponents, then that is where a line has been crossed.

The person who crafted a hypothetical call for murdering the likes of President Trump, Roger Stone and AG Bill Barr is Pam Keith. This Democrat is vying to land Florida’s congressional seat for the 18th district, but a Twitter post dating back to June 10th  of this year puts her disturbing mindset on full display:

“GOP: Yeah he’s dead. But it’s not a big deal because he was a “bad guy.” Is that REALLY the new rule they want? Killing is OK if it’s a “bad guy?” Is it now open season on: Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Gates, Cohen, Trump, Barr, Kavanaugh, Lewandowski, Bolton, Pompeo, Papadopolous, Parscale.”

NATIONAL REVIEW is the original source for the LET article and notes the political struggle in that district, writing that “The race between Mast and Pam Keith for Florida’s 18th district is now considered a toss up by the Niskanen Center.” Continuing they note:

…The district has swung Republican since 2016, however Keith represents a first major challenge to Mast’s tenure.

Mast is a veteran of the Afghanistan War, where he lost both legs after a bomb exploded under him. Keith is herself a former judge in the Navy, and is an African American who has voiced support for the Black Lives Matter movement.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairwoman Cheri Bustos has said of Keith, “Pam has never backed down from fighting for what’s right. She’s running for Congress to put an end to the petty partisanship that gets in the way of delivering results for Floridians.” However, Keith is not one of the candidates listed as part of the organization’s “Red to Blue” campaign to flip Republican-held districts.

With a competitive election on the horizon, focus has shifted to both candidates’ social media history. Keith was the subject of a profile in the Washington Post on Friday which did not mention her more controversial posts…..

Of course if this were a Republican, WaPo would have included those “controversial” posts. All this led to a humorous aside:

HOWEVER…

This made me think of a connection to the Democrat Party’s historical past. Here is my comment on that part of the group on Facebook:

You know, this reminds me of something from the Democrats past. What this is is a “hit card” that the violent arm [the KKK] of the Democrat Party use to carry around with them. They would use it as an identifier to kill or harass members of the “radical group” (Republicans who thought color did not matter) in order to affect voting outcomes. While we hear of the lynchings of black persons (who did make up a larger percentage of lynchings), there were quite a few white “radicals” lynched for supporting the black vote and arming ex-slaves. It is also ironic that the current Democrat melee is focused on racial differences.

I could go on, but I won’t.

Here is a short video discussing the matter:

  • “…virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.” — Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), ix;
  • “…not every Democrat was a KKK’er, but every KKK’er was a Democrat.” — Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel [Penguin], 2012), 19.

Steele Dossier Was Exclusively Used (UPDATED)

Published by Papa Giorgio

UPDATE BELOW

NEWSBUSTERS notes this about the Steele Dossier:

  • While CNN previously insisted that the FISA warrant against Page did not use the infamous and debunked Steele dossier, in a Senate hearing on Wednesday, IG Michael Horowitz confirmed that the warrant was “entirely” reliant on it. The report also showed that FBI investigators knew the dossier was bogus and presented it to the FISA court as a reliable source of information.

They link to this excellent article by THE FEDERALIST:

In an astonishing admission, the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz conceded to lawmakers Wednesday that the FBI’s FISA applications used to continue surveillance on the 2016 Trump campaign were based entirely on sources for the widely discredited Steele Dossier funded by the Democrats.

“The FISA applications relied entirely on information from the Steele… from the primary sub-source’s reporting to support the allegation that Page was coordinating with the Russian government on 2016 U.S. presidential election activities. However, the FBI did not share this information from department lawyers, and it was therefore omitted from the last two renewal applications,” Horowitz said.

The Democrat-funded Steele Dossier was basis for the grand Russian conspiracy theory peddled by deep-state government officials and the media that lead to a two-and-a-half year special counsel investigation with unlimited resources that ultimately vindicated the president.

The Horowitz report illustrates how the primary sub-source’s information fed to the Steele Dossier undercut the dossier’s own claims….

BTW, for 2-years I was told that the Steele Dossier was only PART of the warrants. NOPE. I was right, others woefully wrong.

Some Additional Stuff

In an article noted by POWERLINE, Tucker Carlson notes how the media is partially responsible for the “cover-up” of facts regarding the spying on an American citizen – via JEWISH WORLD REVIEW:

Thanks to the Department of Justice Inspector General’s report, we now know for certain what has been, for those paying attention, fairly obvious. The Steele dossier played a central role in the genesis of the Russia hoax and was used to justify extensive spying on former naval officer and Annapolis graduate Carter Page.

The top two leaders of the FBI were closely involved in this fiasco. Other powerful people knew what was happening and lied to cover it up. That all was confirmed by the IG report. The report was a disaster for the credibility of top leaders in Barack Obama’s FBI, and it’s also a big problem for the American news media.

For example, in early 2018, Washington Post intelligence and national security correspondent Shane Harris lectured Kim Strassel of The Wall Street Journal about how little she knows about the story.

“Yes,” he wrote, “I am telling you the dossier was not used as the basis for a FISA warrant on Carter Page.” That’s false. And yet, Harris hasn’t apologized or even acknowledged his incompetence.

Or take NBC News’s so-called intelligence correspondent Ken Dilanian. In the summer of 2018, he smugly tweeted, “Trump is wrong about Carter Page, the dossier and the FISA warrant.” But it looks like Trump was right, and he was wrong.

CNN Newsroom anchor and chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto did admit the Steele dossier might have been used for the warrant. But don’t be impressed. He lectured readers that “the FBI would corroborate information in the dossier on its own before using such intel to justify the FISA warrant.” Of course, that didn’t happen. In fact, the FBI hid information showing the dossier was false. Did Sciutto issue a correction? Of course not. But it does seem a little unfair to focus on Jim Sciutto. He was merely following the lead of almost everyone else at CNN, all of whom were frantically trying to convince us that the dossier was irrelevant:

Evan Perez, CNN senior justice correspondent: “You know, a lot of people will focus on the dossier, a lot of people will focus on a FISA, of Carter Page, and they’ll say they were spying on a campaign. But at the beginning, this is all about what Russia was doing.”

Shimon Prokupecz, CNN crime & justice correspondent: “Now Republicans were trying to claim that the dossier was key to getting the FISA, the surveillance warrant for Carter Page. But the Democrats memo clearly shows it wasn’t key.”

James Clapper, CNN national security analyst: “Even the earlier version of the redacted FISA authorization to me had enough information in it to indicate that the dossier was certainly not used as the primary source.”

Everything you just read turned out to be wrong. Has CNN retracted the comments or apologized? That’s a rhetorical question. Apologies require introspection and integrity. At CNN, they’re doubling down. CNN’s Don Lemon explained that, by definition, everything CNN reported was true….

Back in September of 2017, the EMPTY WHEEL was already noting John Sipher’s defense of the dossier as indefensible: “John Sipher’s Garbage Post Arguing the Steele Dossier Isn’t Garbage” And my post documenting the hard work of MYRDDRAAL showing that almost nothing was confirmed as true or fitting reality is here: “Past CIA Head of Russia Clueless“

CHUCK ROSS add to the media blame by noting that a Washington Post reporter is going back and doing a series on how the Steele Dossier was proffered as fact. In this latest article, Rachel Maddow is under the microscope: “WaPo Columnist Rips Rachel Maddow For Hyping Steele Dossier“

…According to the IG report, the FBI was unable to corroborate any of Steele’s allegations of collusion involving the Trump campaign. Steele’s primary source for the dossier also disputed key allegations in the document. Steele told FBI agents in October 2016 that one of the main sub-sources for the dossier was a “boaster” and “embellisher,” the report further stated.

Wemple laid out a timeline of Maddow’s coverage of the dossier, noting that she tended to hype developments that cut in favor of Steele’s reporting, while ignoring information that undermined the ex-spy.

“When small bits of news arose in favor of the dossier, the franchise MSNBC host pumped air into them,” wrote Wemple. “At least some of her many fans surely came away from her broadcasts thinking the dossier was a serious piece of investigative research, not the flimflam, quick-twitch game of telephone outlined in the Horowitz report.”

“She seemed to be rooting for the document,” he noted.

According to Wemple, Maddow touted reports from other news outlets that claimed parts of the dossier were corroborated. On May 3, 2017, she said on her show that “more and more” aspects of the dossier had been “independently corroborated.”

On Oct. 5, 2017, she said that “a lot” of the claims in the dossier were “dead to rights.” On April 16, 2018, she hyped a story published by McClatchy that the special counsel’s team had received evidence backing up the dossier’s allegation that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen visited Prague in August 2016 to meet Kremlin operatives. The IG report said that the allegation was “not true.”

Maddow appeared so convinced of the dossier’s accuracy that she aired an hour-long special report on Dec. 8, 2017 hyping Steele’s reporting.

[….]

Maddow has only mentioned the Steele dossier once on her show since the release of the IG report. But instead of discussing the report’s critique of Steele, Maddow asserted that the IG debunked a GOP theory that the dossier was the spark for the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign.

“She was there for the bunkings, absent for the debunkings — a pattern of misleading and dishonest asymmetry,” says Wemple.

And where is the full-court-press in discussing how Adam Schiff has been shown to be woefully wrong at best, and a liar at worst (THE LID):

….Schiff ‘s also lied when he claimed the Justice Department was truthful with the FISA court about “Steele’s prior relationship with the FBI.”

Page 364 of Horowitz report says the “source characterization statement asserting that Steele’s prior reporting had been “corroborated and used in criminal proceedings,” which overstated the significance of Steele’s past reporting and was not approved by Steele’s FBI handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures”

[….]

Schiff claimed the FBI conducted a “rigorous process” to vet Steele’s allegations, and the Page FISA application explained the FBI’s reasonable basis for finding Steele credible. But Horowitz disagreed on Page 383 and 384 of his report.

We determined that prior to and during the pendency of the FISAs the FBI was unable to corroborate any of the specific substantive allegations against Carter

Page contained in the election reporting and relied on in the FISA applications, and was only able to confirm the accuracy of a limited number of circumstantial facts,\ most of which were in the public domain, such as the dates that Page traveled to Russia, the timing of events, and the occupational positions of individuals referenced in the reports.

In addition to the lack of corroboration, we found that the FBI’s interviews of Steele, the Primary Sub-source, and a second sub-source, and other investigative activity revealed potentially serious problems with Steele’s description of information in his election reports.
None of this was told to the court.

The Steele report also contended that the Russians had evidence that while staying at the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow Trump hired a hooker to give him a “golden shower,” ignoring the fact that the POTUS is something of a germaphobe and would never do that with a stranger.  Page 188 of the Horowitz report explains the FBI knew the source who told Steele about the supposed incident was joking:

The Primary Sub-source explained that his/ her information came from “word of mouth and hearsay;” “conversation that [he/she] had with friends over beers; ” and that some of the information, such as allegations about Trump’s sexual activities, were statements he/she heard made in “jest.” 

The Primary Sub-source also told WFO Agent 1 that he/she believed that the other sub-sources exaggerated their access to information and the relevance of that information to his/her requests. The Primary Sub-source told WFO Agent 1 that he/she “takes what [sub-sources] tell [him/ her] with ‘a grain of salt.”

[….]

The Horowitz report proves that Adam Schiff, the man who is leading the effort to impeach President Trump, lied to America about the FISA report….

All this is a travesty to truth.

BAM! Flynn’s Hearing Explained (Dan Bongino)

Published by Papa Giorgio

WOW! Dan Bongino explains well what I wasn’t grasping… and the key for me next time is to read the “in court transcript,” as it makes clear what the Judges actions were really about — rather than the MSM running roughshod over the happenings in the courtroom. For headlines. Judge Sullivan threw a red-flag for Flynn… I hope his legal team takes the generous offer to rethink their strategy. Bongino’s fourth point is about the Logan Act (at the 16:02 mark) – great stuff!

SARA CARTER has more:

…After giving Flynn and his attorney’s ample opportunity to change his guilty plea, Sullivan then went on a tirade against Flynn. He accused the three-star general of “treason” and excoriated him for crimes he’s never been formally accused of by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office.

“Arguably, that undermines everything that this flag over here stands for,” said Sullivan to Flynn and looking at the flag in the courtroom. “Arguably, you sold your country out.”

Shocked. That was the face of everyone in the courtroom. Whispers. Everyone was wondering what was going on – what happened to Sullivan, whose record against prosecutorial misconduct is well documented. He dismissed the ethics conviction of former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens in 2009 after he discovered government prosecutors withheld exculpatory information and possible ethical misconduct.

Why didn’t Flynn withdraw his plea, I wondered? Could it be that he’s overwhelmed with debt, his family is exhausted of the whole situation or did Mueller’s office threaten to go after his son for something we have yet to discover. Maybe, all of the above.

The government prosecutors corrected Sullivan but the damage was done. The prosecution also reiterated that Flynn was still assisting them on the case against Bijan Kian, Flynn’s former business partner with the former Flynn Intel Group. Sullivan gave Flynn’s counsel one more out before moving forward with the sentencing, suggesting it might way better in Flynn’s case to have a sentencing hearing after he finishes cooperating with the Special Counsel.

Flynn’s more relaxed demeanor at the beginning of the trial was now gone. He seemed stoic, upset and his body language reflected that fact. Sullivan then announced a 25 minute break to let Flynn discuss the matter with his attorneys. Flynn accepted the postponement of his sentencing.

When the break ended Kelner told Sullivan that they would accept the postponement. Sullivan then walked back all the inaccurate statements that Flynn was a traitor, along with the faulty statement that Flynn served as an unregistered foreign agent for Turkey, while he was at the White House.

[….]

Flynn’s case wasn’t about collusion with Russia or his work for Turkey.

But it did start with a felony. Not a felony committed by Flynn but one committed by a senior U.S. Obama official who disclosed to the public a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant on then Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak and his private phone calls with Flynn in December, 2016.

The second felony committed by this former senior government official was unmasking Flynn’s name in the media reports….

Comey let’s out small snippets of his thoughts in handling the Russian Dossier. Comey AGAIN slips up. Enjoy the fun:

 

Devin Nunes Discusses “Flynn’s Fate” (plus Trey Gowdy)

Published by Papa Giorgio

POWERLINE notes the following in their 7th part of a longer series:

In “Flynn’s fate (6)” I posted the Special Counsel’s reply memorandum in the matter of Michael Flynn’s sentencing. Judge Sullivan had ordered the parties to file the FBI 302 and underlying notes of the the FBI’s interview with General Flynn. The attachments to the reply memorandum include neither. Where are they?

Those documents are not included, but McCabe’s memo of his conversation scheduling the meeting with Flynn is included as Attachment A. It is a key document.

I find the reply memo to be shockingly weak. Something does not compute. As I said on Friday, anyone seriously trying to understand what happened here will be frustrated by the threadbare and circular quality of the reply memo and attached materials. Assuming the documents Judge Sullivan ordered to be produced haven’t been separately filed, I trust that Judge Sullivan will notice…..

And lets not forget GOWDY!

Rod Rosenstein Will Not Allow FBI Interrogator Joe Pientka To Testify

Published by Papa Giorgio

Gregg Jarrett: Rod Rosenstein WILL NOT ALLOW Gen. Flynn Interrogator Joe Pientka To Testify. Hmmm, I wonder why?

GATEWAY PUNDIT has some good stuff on this:

As TGP previously reported in February, according to Mike Cernovich, McCabe altered far left FBI investigator Peter Strzok’s 302 notes on his interview with General Michael Flynn.

And then McCabe destroyed the evidence.

In early May Senator Grassley demanded the FBI and DOJ produce the transcript of Flynn’s intercepted calls with Russian Ambassador Kislyak and the 302’s by May 25th.

The DOJ and FBI ignored him.
Grassley then concluded his letter by reiterating his request to schedule an interview with the second special agent who was present at Flynn’s interrogation, Joe Pientka, after push back from the DOJ….

As GATEWAY further notes…  Joe Pientka’s name was redacted in the newly released 302s:

As noted above, Special Agent, Joe Pientka, who was present during the interrogation of General Flynn. He has been ready to give testimony regarding circumstances surrounding the ambush interview (GATEWAY PUNDIT | SARA CARTER). Investigative reporter, Sara Carter says Pientka, if issued a subpoena, will discuss how forthcoming Flynn was about very specific sensitive information that Flynn could not have possibly known the investigators already knew, which may give additional insight into Flynn’s veracity and willingness to tell the truth.

SARA CARTER notes that with these new revealed documents, that some internal document discrepancies are noted… and it is because of the changed 302 we know Strzok had written:

The Special Counsel’s Office released key documents related to former National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn Friday. Robert Mueller’s office had until 3 p.m. to get the documents to Judge Emmet Sullivan, who demanded information Wednesday after bombshell information surfaced in a memorandum submitted by Flynn’s attorney’s that led to serious concerns regarding the FBI’s initial questioning of the retired three-star general.

The highly redacted documents included notes from former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe regarding his conversation with Flynn about arranging the interview with the FBI. The initial interview took place at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017.

The documents also include the FBI’s  “302” report regarding Flynn’s interview with anti-Trump former FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka when they met with him at the White House. It is not, however, the 302 document from the actual January, 2017 interview but an August, 2017 report of Strzok’s recollections of the interview.

Flynn’s attorney’s had noted in their memorandum to the courts that the documents revealed that FBI officials made the decision not to provide Flynn with his Miranda Rights, which would’ve have warned him of penalties for making false statements.

“The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview,” the Flynn memo says. According to the 302, before the interview, McCabe and other FBI officials “decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed, and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport.”

The July 2017 report, however, was the interview with Strzok. It described his interview with Flynn but was not the original Flynn interview.

Apparent discrepancies within the 302 documents are being questioned by may former senior FBI officials, who state that there are stringent policies in place to ensure that the documents are guarded against tampering…..

JOHN SOLOMON also is in the mix as he dropped a bombshell of information:

As the NATIONAL SENTINEL continues in their posting, we see the Judge in Flynn’s case

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Emmitt Sullivan demanded to see the FBI’s 302s — interview summaries — of agents’ ambush interview with Flynn on Jan. 24, 2017, just a few days after POTUS Trump was inaugurated.

According to Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton: “Big: Judge Sullivan, who is overseeing General Flynn’s case, demands to see the infamous FBI 302 and other FBI doc about the ambush Flynn interview set up by Yates, McCabe, and Strzok.”

DAN BONGINO also joins the fun by letting us know about the destruction of key evidence to another investigation (seperate from Mueller’s of course) that hints at something damning is being hidden:

The 11-page report reveals that almost a month after Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team, his government-issued iPhone was wiped clean and restored to factory settings by another individual working in Mueller’s office. The special counsel’s Record’s Officer told investigators that “she determined it did not contain records that needed to be retained.”

“She noted in her records log about Strzok’s phone: ‘No substantive texts, notes or reminders,’” the report states.

When the OIG obtained his old cell phone in January, it had been issued to another individual within the agency and investigators were unable to recover any text messages sent or received by Strozk on that device.

Two weeks after Page departed Mueller’s team on July 15, 2017, her government-issued iPhone was also wiped and restored to factory settings and had not been reissued to another person within the agency. No one within the special counsel’s office or the Justice Management Divisions of the agency had any records as to who cleared all the data from the iPhone.

[….]

Some of their most memorable texts (there are too many to list them all) include:

  • Page: “Trump’s not going to become president, right?” Strzok: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”
  • Page: “God Trump is loathsome human.”  Strzok: “Yet he many win.”
  • Strzok: “God Hillary should win. 100,000,000-0.” Page: “I know”
  • Strzok: “I am riled up. Trump is a f***ing idiot, is unable to provide a coherent answer.”

Page resigned from the FBI in May of 2018 and Strzok was fired in August.

I guess they were learning from Hillary Clinton? As Trey Gowdy noted about the HIllary:

Hillary Clinton’s lawyers used a special tool to delete emails from her personal server so that “even God can’t read them,” House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy said on Thursday.

Gowdy (R-S.C.) said the use of BleachBit, computer software whose website advertises that it can “prevent recovery” of files, is further proof that Clinton had something to hide in deleting personal emails from the private email system she used during her tenure as secretary of state.

[….]

“She and her lawyers had those emails deleted. And they didn’t just push the delete button; they had them deleted where even God can’t read them,” Gowdy said Thursday morning during an interview on Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom.” “They were using something called BleachBit. You don’t use BleachBit for yoga emails or bridemaids emails. When you’re using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see.”…

(POLITICO)

Her aid also smashed her cell phones and hard drives with a hammer. I wonder why? CONSERVATIVE TREE-HOUSE breaks down the issue well.

 

 

Called It A Year Ago – Flynn May Be A Rich Man

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Yes, its a witch hunt)

I called this a year ago (Alan Dershowitz was calling it a few days earlier as well!):

Leftist legal scholar Jonathan Turley says Flynn was put in a perjury trap:

Rep. Jim Jordan has been on this scent for a year… here he lays out his thoughts anew:

PJ-MEDIA makes note of the judge involved:

…The bombshell allegation seems to have piqued the interest of Sullivan, a magistrate known for having a low tolerance level for the shenanigans of federal prosecutors.

Sullivan — who  overturned the 2008 conviction of former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens after government misconduct came to light — is weighing how to sentence Flynn, who pleaded guilty to one count of lying to federal authorities during the 2017 interview in the West Wing. Flynn faced mounting legal bills that forced him to sell his home amid the prosecution, and Mueller  has already recommended he receive no prison time. 

The judge’s brief order states that Mueller can choose to file the materials under seal if necessary.

Sullivan also ordered the Flynn team to turn over the documents backing up its assertions. The judge could determine why the FBI apparently took a significantly more aggressive tack in handling the Flynn interview than it did during other similar matters, including the agency’s sit-downs with Hillary Clinton and ex-Trump adviser George Papadopoulos.

Flynn is set to be sentenced next Tuesday — but Sullivan’s move might delay that date, or lead to other dramatic and unexpected changes in the case. Sullivan even has the authority to toss Flynn’s guilty plea and the charge against him if he concludes that the FBI interfered with Flynn’s constitutional right to counsel, although he has given no indications that he intends to do so.

Federal authorities undertaking a national security probe are ordinarily under no obligation to inform interviewees of their right to an attorney unless they are in custody, as long as agents do not act coercively. Flynn’s lawyers claimed in Tuesday’s filing that FBI brass had threatened to escalate the matter to involve the Justice Department if Flynn sought the advice of the White House Counsel before talking with agents.

In his order, Sullivan requested Mueller turn over the FBI’s Flynn interview report (known as a 302), a memo written by McCabe, and any similar documents in the FBI’s possession.

The judge is likely interested in finding out why the Flynn 302 is dated August 22, 2017, seven months after the interview took place….

(MORE: Judge Orders Mueller to Turn Over Key Documents in Flynn Case | Judge Demands Interviews With Flynn After Sentencing Memo Raises Questions About the FBI’s Conduct)

Wrap It Up, Mr. Mueller (Wall Street Journal)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Wrap It Up, Mr. Mueller. Wall Street Journal, 10 December 2018.  A16. (Click image if you prefer to read it from the paper – image will enlarge)

Last week was supposed to be earthshaking in Robert Mueller’s special counsel probe, with the release of sentencing memos on three former members of the Trump universe—Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen. Yet Americans learned little new and nothing decisive about the allegations of Russia-Trump collusion that triggered this long investigation.

The main Russia-related news is the disclosure, in Mr. Mueller’s memo on Mr. Cohen, of a previously unknown attempt by an unidentified Russian to reach out to the Trump presidential campaign. “In or around November 2015, Cohen received the contact information for, and spoke with, a Russian national who claimed to be a ‘trusted person’ in the Russian Federation who could offer the campaign ‘political synergy’ and ‘synergy on a government level,” the memo says.

The Russian also offered the possibility of a meeting between Mr. Trump and Vladimir Putin. Alas for conspiracy hopefuls, MR. COHEN “DID NOT FOLLOW UP ON THIS INVITATION,” the memo says, because Mr. Cohen says he was already talking to other Russians about a Trump Tower hotel project that has been previously disclosed. Mr. Trump has said he shut down that hotel negotiation in 2016 because he was running for President.

So a Russian wanted to insinuate himself into the Trump orbit but nothing happened. Why drop this into a sentencing memo? The press is breathing heavily that it signals Mr. Mueller’s intention to promote a narrative that the Trumpians were all too willing, for commercial and political reasons, to hear Russian solicitations.

This would make Trump officials look dumb or naive, as Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner were when they took that famous meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016. Such a narrative would be politically embarrassing, but it’s not conspiring to hack and release the email of Democratic Party officials.

The Manafort memo is even less revealing. The memo says Mr. Manafort lied about his contacts with a Ukrainian business partner, Konstantin Kilimnik. But the memo redacts the details about those lies, so it’s impossible to know if they concern Russia or the tax and other violations that Mr. Manafort has pleaded guilty to. We are left again with media speculation about what else Mr. Mueller knows, not with evidence of any attempt to steal an election.

More legally troubling is the separate sentencing memo on Mr. Cohen from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Mr. Mueller handed off the probe into Mr. Cohen’s business practices, including the legal grifter’s payoffs to porn actress Stormy Daniels and another woman who claim to have had affairs with Donald Trump and threatened to go public during the 2016 campaign.

This was another example of dumb and dumber, SINCE ANY SENTIENT VOTER KNEW MR. TRUMP HAD A BAD HISTORY WITH WOMEN. Voters ignored it in 2016 because Hillary Clinton spent years apologizing for worse behavior by her husband. But the payoffs are now a political problem for Mr. Trump because Mr. Cohen has pleaded guilty to violating campaign-finance laws and implicated Mr. Trump.

Campaign violations are often treated as CIVIL, NOT CRIMINAL, VIOLATIONS, and the Justice Department dropped criminal charges against Democrat John Edwards in 2012 for payments made by campaign donors to his mistress. But acting U.S. Attorney Robert Khuzami is playing up Mr. Trump’s role, saying in the memo that Mr. Cohen “acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1” (Mr. Trump).

The memo waxes on about the importance of campaign-finance law to American democracy, which suggests Mr. Khuzami would indict Mr. Trump if he could. Justice Department guidelines advise against indicting a sitting President, so Mr. Khuzami’s memo looks more like a road map for House Democrats. So much for all the media handwringing that Mr. Trump has interfered with the independence of the Justice Department. He has less influence at Justice than any President since Richard Nixon in his final days.

The political dilemma for Democrats is that lying about sex and paying to cover it up are wrong, but they’re a long way from collaborating with the Kremlin to beat Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Trump lied to the public about his dealings with Mr. Cohen. Bill Clinton lied to the public and under oath in a legal proceeding, yet Democrats defended him. Good luck trying to impeach Mr. Trump for campaign-finance violations.

* * *

All of this argues for Mr. Mueller to wrap up his probe and let America get on with the political debate over its meaning for Mr. Trump’s Presidency. Mr. Mueller has been investigating for 19 months, and the FBI’s counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign began in July 2016, if not earlier. The country deserves an account of what Mr. Mueller knows, not more factual dribs and drabs in sentencing memos.

 

WOW! Judge In Flynn Case Abruptly Recuses Himself

Published by Papa Giorgio

(GATEWAY PUNDIT)

RELATED!

On Thursday evening, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, was recused from former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s criminal case. Emmet G. Sullivan will now oversee over the trial. […ᖴOᖇ YOᑌᖇ IᑎᖴOᖇᗰᗩTIOᑎ…] “Every single judge on the FISA Court as of today was appointed during Obama’s Presidency! (March 2017)”

[….]

So was Judge Contreras also the FISA Judge who signed off on the application to spy on the Donald Trump campaign — including General Flynn?

(GATEWAY PUNDIT)

ALSO!

…POLITICO reports:

President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, will face a different judge to be sentenced than the one who took Flynn’s guilty plea to a felony false statement charge last week, court records show.

Judge Emmet Sullivan was randomly assigned to take over the case after Judge Rudolph Contreras recused himself.

[…] Sullivan is an appointee of President Bill Clinton, while Contreras was appointed by President Barack Obama.

The news come amid questions surrounding the circumstances of Flynn’s interview with the FBI….

(GATEWAY PUNDIT)

I see the justice supporting Flynn. Except he is broke now… maybe he will sue?

When Lying To The FBI Wasn’t A Crime

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is a large excerpt of the article by Daniel Greenfield at FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE:

“There’s always conflicting recollections of facts,” FBI Director Comey said.

It was a year ago and Comey was explaining why Hillary’s close aide, Cheryl Mills, not only received an immunity agreement in exchange for turning over her laptop, but a pass on lying to the FBI.

The FBI Director claimed that Mills had to receive immunity because the laptop might be protected by attorney-client privilege. Mills, like Hillary Clinton, had worked as a lawyer. But they were both government officials working for the State Department. Hillary wasn’t Mills’ client. The government was.

Comey and his people knew the law. They chose to ignore it to protect a key Hillary aide from rolling over. Mills was the woman Hillary would send in to clean up her dirty laundry. Mills had taken point on the email server cover-up. If anyone knew where the bodies were buried, she did. Instead not only did she get an immunity agreement, but the FBI also agreed to destroy the computers after the search.

Mills had told the FBI that she didn’t know about Hillary’s email server. But the FBI had notes and emails proving that Mills was lying. And when Comey was asked about it, he came out with, “There’s always conflicting recollections of facts.”

No doubt.

That is what the lawyer of the woman who had been caught lying to the FBI might have been expected to argue. But there were no charges, instead the FBI Director was presenting her defense.

George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn were charged with lying to investigators. But lying to investigators isn’t a crime when you’re Hillary Clinton.

Or one of her associates.

Hillary Clinton had told the FBI that she had no idea that the “C” stood for confidential. Instead of laughing in her face or arresting her, the FBI boss testified personally to her truthfulness.

Hillary Clinton, Mills and Huma Abedin made what appear to be false statements to the FBI.

Had Mills been working for Trump, the same number would have been run on Mills as on Flynn and Papadopoulos. But the men interviewing Mills didn’t want her to sing. They wanted her to keep quiet.

Mills and Abedin were interviewed by the FBI’s Peter Strzok and the DOJ’s David Laufman. Strzok was exchanging pro-Hillary and anti-Trump messages in an extramarital affair with a woman working for FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. McCabe’s wife had received a sizable amount of money from a Clinton ally. Laufman, whose counterintelligence section was heading the investigation, is an Obama donor.

Mills’ lie made it more urgent to hand her an immunity agreement on any pretext. The immunity agreement wasn’t leverage for her testimony. It was leverage to keep her from testifying. The obstruction of justice was coming from the inside.

Strzok received input on the Comey letter exonerating Clinton. The Mills interview killed two birds with one stone. A key Hillary aide got immunity and the evidence would be destroyed.

This wasn’t an interview. It was a cover-up.

It’s why Comey sounded like Mills’ lawyer. And why so many Clinton associates got immunity agreements. Why the FBI agreed to destroy evidence. Why there were no recordings of Hillary’s testimony. And why lying to the FBI wasn’t a crime when it came to Hillary and her aides.

But the double standard kicked in when the Clinton cover-up crew went after Trump.

While Mills received an immunity agreement based on an imaginary attorney-client privilege that didn’t exist, Manafort was denied attorney-client privilege with his actual attorney.

The double standard isn’t surprising when you look at who was doing the interviewing.

Strzok and Laufman had also interviewed Hillary. No recordings were made of the session. But Comey testified that it’s a “crime to lie to us”.

Not for the Clintons and their associates.

Hillary had told her interviewers that she hadn’t received training on handling classified information, but she signed a document testifying that she had. Hillary claimed that she hadn’t carried a second phone, but an aide, Justin Cooper, who made the server possible, testified that indeed she did.

Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills told the same lie.

These are the kinds of misstep that Team Mueller would have used to hang a Trump associate. But Comey testified that Hillary Clinton did not lie.

And that meant he was lying.

Not only did Clinton’s people lie to the FBI. But the head of the FBI had lied for them.

The fix had been in all along……..

(READ IT ALL)

I predict Flynn will be exonerated from all this. And with Mueller’s teams past, other cases he has and will put forward may fall apart. NOT because he is wrong, but because of the tactics used (like with Enron and the like).