Once again: It ain't a theory.
A long time prosecutor endorses my explanation of what went down with the Flynn/Kislyak overhear (the linked article cites my explanation extensively):
Based on my experience, this is the best explanation for where the Flynn/Kislyak call info came from. Regular interception of Russian Embassy Comms -- by Ambassador and others -- done by FBI Counter-Intelligence section on a continual basis.
Classified Leak Against Michael Flynn Didn’t Come From An ‘Unmasking’ Request, Analysis Suggests
Gen. Flynn was the subject of a CI investigation under Crossfire Hurricane/Razor. He would not have been "masked" in these "tech cuts" which are for internal use only. This kind of data is accumulated by intel analysts and then pushed out to case agents who have "need to know".
That would have included the CH/CR case agents. But they made no use of it in their investigation, which leads to the conclusion that they saw nothing in the "tech cuts" of the Flynn/Kislyak calls that supported the basis for opening the counterintel investigation on Gen. Flynn.
And this explains why on Jan 5 Comey had nothing of substance to tell Obama and others in terms of what Flynn and Kislyak had discussed -- only that the number of conversations seemed "unusual."
If there was anything truly sig[nificant] in any of the calls, the tech cuts would have been referenced in some investigation somewhere, and Comey would have gone over such information with Obama and the others in that Jan 5 meeting. Rice's memo confirms that he did not.
This is actually an almost classical application of Occam's Razor--not to be confused with Crossfire Razor.
Yesterday I heard a smart lawyer (Joe diGenova) agreeing with another smart lawyer (Andy McCarthy) that the CIA must have been spying on Flynn from overseas. Uh, why? Why would smart lawyers come up with complicated explanations of a very simple fact situation?
We know that the FBI conducts non-stop monitoring of the Russian Embassy Comms. Therefore, if Flynn communicated with the ambassador--which he did--then the FBI would inevitably capture that conversation. The Russians knew it, Flynn knew it, you and I know it. Even if the conversation had--in addition to the FBI capture--been captured in some other way, the FBI capture of the conversation would be the easiest and least controversial way to document what had happened--so you go with that!
And that's exactly what happened, as the FBI has be happy to tell the world. The FBI captured the conversation. The FBI wrote it up in "tech cuts." The FBI gave the tech cuts to James Clapper, and Clapper gave it to the White House. Boom. End of story.
I saw that yesterday Rice requested Grenell to release the full transcripts of all the Flynn-Kislyak calls. The implication being that once the public saw the details of the conversations they would understand why the Obama FBI/Intel group had concerns and needed to investigate Flynn. Is this just a bluff? If not, how does that comport with your statement that there was nothing in the "tech cuts" that justified the investigation.ReplyDelete
It's just a bluff.Delete
It just makes you wonder why she would try that move and how she thinks it would help her. Grenell doesn't seem to be one who is shy about calling a bluff. Although I suppose there could still be things in those transcripts that could be used as further fodder. And a breach of confidentiality in the relationship with RussiaDelete
It's not Grenell's call--it's Barr's call.Delete
Did I mention that it's just a bluff?
Rice still thinks Republicans are too nice and she has ample reason for that, even now.Delete
If anything in those calls had anything damming, it would have been used fully and Comey wouldn’t have made that extremely weak justification to Obama.
Personally, release it all unless it hurts a current active investigation and then, afterwards, release it all.
It's like Trumps tax records. nothing illegal or out of the ordinary, but if it is sliced, diced and massaged enough by a dishonest press some doubt might be sown and fodder provided for the harpies like Bill Kristol or Mitt Romney.Delete
Nothing of substance.
Now two criminals are bluffing:Delete
"It's just a bluff."
Of course you're right. If there were anything helpful to the conspirators in the transcript(s) of the call(s) Van Grack would have given them to Flynn/Covington.
Nice try by Rice. There is nothing but hurt for the conspirators in those transcripts.
New outfall from the Dems ill-considered, failed impeachment effort:ReplyDelete
Ukraine judge orders Joe Biden be listed as alleged perpetrator of crime in prosecutor’s firing
In Kiev late last month, District Court Judge S. V. Vovk ordered the country’s law enforcement services to formally list the fired prosecutor, Victor Shokin, as the victim of an alleged crime by the former U.S. vice president, according to an official English translation of the ruling obtained by Just the News.
Lots of stuff hitting the fan these days.Delete
"Lots of stuff hitting the fan these days."Delete
Now would be a good time for you to break out the world's tiniest violin that you recently mentioned.
Mine’s at the cleaner's….Delete
diGenova and McCarthy may have gotten the notion of CIA from Larry Johnson:ReplyDelete
"likely intercepted by the CIA"
( https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2020/05/understanding-the-mueller-lies-about-michael-flynn-by-larry-c-johnson.html )
While possible that CIA was pulling ELINT on Kislyak (potentially illegally if in CONUS), your more experienced and knowledge-based assertion with respect to FBI surveillance activities against foreign targets in CONUS is much more likely by far. Probably the only legitimately "routine" element discovered so far in Obamagate.
I saw Johnson saying that, and it really surprised me--I expected him to know better. He actually gives the example of some Agency guy in Geneva, Switz. doing overhears! Huh? The FBI had the tech cuts!Delete
Speaking of stuff hitting the fan, Judicial Watch just obtained the EC opening CH:ReplyDelete
>> https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/declassification-spyoperation/ <<
I just started reading. Should be a laugh a minute. Right at the start:Delete
"[Redacted] government had been seeking prominent members of the Donald Trump campaign in which to engage to prepare for potential post-election relations should Trump be elected U.S. President. One of the people identified was George Papadopolous ..."
Here's another great line:Delete
"statements Mr. Papadopolous made about suggestions from the Russians that they (the Russians) could assist the Trump campaign"
Strzok probably shoulda put that in all caps for scare effect:
"statements Mr. Papadopolous made about suggestions from THE RUSSIANS that they (THE RUSSIANS) could assist the Trump campaign"
Who knew Russians don't have names or titles?
Oh my goodness [clutching pearls]: The Russians were seeking contacts with the Trump campaign in case he won the election? Oh, the Horror, the horror!Delete
The EC for opening CH reads like it was written by The Onion, instead of a CI official in FBI HQ (Strzok.)
Actually, the best laugh line is right at the start:Delete
"An investigation is being opened based on information received by Legat [Redacted]"
Absolutely no discussion, analysis, evaluation of reliability, background on Papadopoulos. etc. Just:
"this investigation is being opened to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign are witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia."
There's no way that Strzok wrote that up without being instructed to do so by higher ups. He wouldn't have dared submit such BS unless told to do so.Delete
>> Undercover HuberDelete
This means the FBI’s opening predication for Crossfire Hurricane directly contradicts the *entire theory of the Steele dossier*
Why would Russia need to “seek” “prominent members of the Trump campaign” to engage with if they were *already Colluding* with Manafort, Page & Cohen?
>> https://twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1263230851728510976 <<
This exact point is one I have been screaming about for years. It completely contradicts the Steele Dossier premise that Trump was a long time Russian Intel asset, and his minions were colluding with Russians to steal the election.
The money question is who told Strzok to do this. I'm betting it's McCabe, who has ties to the Clinton Cabal through his wife's State Senate campaign
FLASHING LIGHT BULB!Delete
Now we know why FBI didn't want to cite Steele's reports as part of the predication -- it contradicts what Strzok put in the EC about Russia seeking contacts in Trump admin in case he won!
If he cited BOTH pieces of information -- which are mutual contradictory -- no one would believe this was an up and up investigation. Strzok had to pick one or the other to help bolster the non-existent predication, and could not use both.
What UCHuber is quoting is the Judicial Watch summary. JW, purporting to quote the EC, writes:
"The redacted document details seeming third hand information that the Russian government 'had been seeking prominent members of the Donald Trump campaign in which to engage to prepare for potential post-election relations should Trump be elected U.S. President.'”
However, the email quoted in the EC doesn't say "Russian government." Rather, it's clear that the contact here must be Downer and therefore the foreign government must mean Australia--which makes much better sense in context of entire paragraph:
"[Redacted] advised that [Redacted] government had been seeking prominent members of the Donald Trump campaign in which to engage to prepare for potential post-election relations should Trump be elected U.S. President. One of the people identified was George Papadopolous (although public media sources provide a spelling of Papadopoulos), who was believed to be one of Donald Trump’s foreign policy advisers. Mr. Papdopoulos was located in [Redacted] so the [Redacted] met with him on several occasions, with [Redacted] attending at least one of the meetings."
Sad but true: You have to be very careful dealing with stuff JW puts out, despite the good work they do.
Well, that explains why Undercover Huber deleted his tweet....Delete
Yes it does. You've got to be careful with JW. They do great work, but they also jump to conclusions and inflate narratives for self promotion purposes.Delete
Yes, but have you seen Tom's guns lately? It could take a while, but I'll try to find a pic somewhere on his Twitter timeline...Delete
>The FBI was conducting (FISA) surveillance on Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. When Kislyak contacted Flynn the call was intercepted by the FBI. The calls were then transcribed and “tech cuts” created.<ReplyDelete
Here's the best part:Delete
"The Washington Post confirms today what we have been saying for almost two years."
He means to say that Flynn was not unmasked.Delete
TBF to you, he has unilaterally dropped the pen register thing without any comment.
"he has unilaterally dropped the *** thing without any comment."Delete
I understood that he was trying to draw attention away from his pen register nonsense by crediting, yes, the WaPo (!) for clearing this up. There's a lot of that sort of thing going around.
My comment was intended to draw attention to the fact that this isn't the first time that themes from this blog have been picked up elsewhere without any comment.
As if the WaPo is a reputable source to validate whether it's day or night, much less anything to do with .gov.Delete
It's always night at The Washington Post. They murder democracy in darkness.Delete
Dyer has a lot to say about the Rice memo, the “meeting”, and Flynn here. I wouldn’t begin to paraphrase it or pull out some quotes. She has an interesting mind. (She also mentions you, Mark, in this piece.)ReplyDelete
Thanks for the heads up. As you'll see, I've been writing this morning. I only wish Dyer could condense a bit more, but I suppose I'm hardly the one to be saying that.Delete
Unfortunately, Dyer's got it all wrong.Delete
"We are to believe that the FBI routinely monitored Russian Ambassador Kislyak’s phone calls"
That's not a belief or a theory. It's a simple, unavoidable fact.
Dyer mentions the tasking from the PDB staff, but misconstrues it:
"the FBI’s counterintelligence division, ..., had to be prompted via the PDB to go paw through the FBI’s “holdings” to find phone calls between Kislyak and Flynn?"
Wrong. The PDB staff tasking wasn't for Flynn/Kislyak calls--it was for any information from any source that would explain the lack of the anticipated Russian response to sanctions. As I explained, the obvious reason that the Flynn/Kislyak calls prompted no red flags at the FBI--not initially--was because the trained counterintelligence analysts recognized that these calls weren't terribly noteworthy. Until they got the tasking. Once they got the tasking they would naturally turn to the calls as the explanation for the question posed in the tasking.
The tasking didn't change the nature of the calls, of course. That was for Comey to do.
I still think you have it right, Mark. It's a bit frustrating to see all the media hypesters fumbling all over this, because they’re needlessly confusing the matter. Your line here...ReplyDelete
“This is actually an almost classical application of Occam's Razor--not to be confused with Crossfire Razor.”
…made me chuckle. You're right! Keep up the great work!