Some brief Russia Hoax updates.
Toward the end of an interview yesterday (May 3, 2020) with Breitbart News Sunday, Sidney Powell was asked when this injustice against Michael Flynn would finally end. Joel Pollak did the interview and Powell's response was unambiguously straightforward:
BREITBART: So, why are they still prosecuting this man? Why is the Department of Justice not simply saying: You know what? We don't have a case any more. Your honor, we're just gonna throw this one away.
POWELL: I think they're gonna hafta do that. I think they're gonna hafta do that by May 11th at noon at the latest.
BREITBART: What makes that date particularly special? And that would be next Monday.
POWELL: Because Judge Sullivan ordered them to respond to our supplement to the motion to dismiss by that day.
Save the date!
BTW, while the Breitbart web site transcribes much of the interview, that part is not included.
Another bombshell that is transcribed is this one:
Recently unsealed FBI documents revealed that the Bureau “completely made up what they said [Michael Flynn] said wrong,” said Powell. “I think that’s going to be more evident with the next productions we’re expecting this week. The government has advised that we will be getting more documents, including more text messages between FBI people. What we have right now only goes through approximately January — maybe some into mid-February [i.e., 2017] — but what it shows is an extremely disturbing conversation — and multiple conversations, frankly — between the agents that were in the small group at the FBI determined to set up General Flynn and make up something to prosecute him for or get him fired — their own words even, with respect to their goal.”
If you suspect that "completely making stuff up" in order to prosecute someone you don't like is kind of a big No-no, you're absolutely right.
When asked how she got involved in the Flynn case, what motivated here, Powell traced it back to the Enron case, in which she handled an appeal, and to the book she wrote about it--Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice:
“The lead villain in that case is a man by the name of Andrew Wiessmann. So as soon as Andrew Weissman wound up on the Mueller hit squad, as I call it, I knew what was going to come down.”
"Weissmann makes up crimes against people and he hides the evidence that shows their innocence. That is his textbook modus operandi, his standard operating procedure. In fact, every case that the Enron task force — when [Andrew Weissmann] was on it — actually took to trial was reversed in whole, or in part, for some form of government misconduct.”
It was after all those reversals for government misconduct, including a 9-0 reversal at the SCOTUS, that Weissmann--seeking a safe landing spot--was taken on board the FBI by his good friend and mentor, Robert "Bob" Mueller. That was the first of Weissmann's two stints as General Counsel for the FBI, both under Mueller.
Here's another tidbit that should interest anyone who's not already aware of it--and Sidney Powell, you can be sure, is very much aware of it:
[Christopher] Wray was Assistant Attorney General from 2003 to 2005, working under Deputy Attorney General James Comey. While heading the Criminal Division, Wray oversaw prominent fraud investigations, including Enron.
In other words, Wray oversaw the Enron case when Mueller was FBI Director and Weissmann was head of the Enron Task Force. Could someone please tell me who recommended Wray to Trump as FBI Director? Was that Rod Rosenstein?
John Durham also knows all this history. I see Durham and Barr as very much on a mission, as much so as Sidney Powell has shown herself to be.
Joe diGenova did his usual Monday appearance on WMAL this morning. He starts by stressing that the FBI had "no basis" (i.e., predication) for investigating Flynn. Yes, there's a reason why sharp legal people like diGenova, Powell, and Tolman emphasize that over and over--it really is fundamentally important.
DiGenova then expands a bit on the reasons why the Deep State had to "get" Flynn. The reason he gives is: Spying on Americans through the misuse of NSA databases. My belief is that Durham is studying that issue closely, which explains why he is said to be consulting with former NSA head Mike Rogers "regularly." Some say at least once a week. No, Barr wasn't kidding. This really is a "sprawling" investigation.
DiGenova proceeds to explain that the attack on Flynn was part of the overall attack on Trump, and then offers this bottom line:
The Flynn information is confirmatory of the fact that senior DoJ and FBI officials--in the Obama Justice Department--conspired to deny General Flynn his civil rights.
When Joe says "confirmatory" he means "probative". The Flynn information is evidence that goes toward proving the existence of the conspiracy among senior DoJ and FBI officials to deny Flynn his civil rights. But, because the ultimate goal was to "get" Trump, it will also go toward proving the same with regard to Trump.
Toward the end of the interview () diGenova is asked about Rick Grenell's move to require all IC agencies to account forthwith for their handling of information about US citizens. His (edited) response:
The reason he's [Grenell] doing this is, this is part of Durham's investigation. I call this the "Rice rule." She [Susan Rice] was deeply involved with Samantha Power, the UN Ambassador under Obama.
His [Grenell's] order that went out ... was directly aimed at Rice and Powers [sic] and Brennan on the unnecessary unmasking of US Persons and then the illegal leaking of that information to the press. And the best example of that is the Michael Flynn case.
There is also a Gov't response due in the Flynn case today, at noon time, IIRC.ReplyDelete
Covington just filed a Notice of Compliance, including the admission they found YET MORE material they failed to previously turn over to Flynn' s current attorney.
New material has been turned over.
Apparently in response to a covington & burling motion. Anyone know what that motion is?Delete
The judge ordered them to do a new review and to certify compliance.Delete
>> Sidney PowellDelete
They provided another 32 pages of handwritten notes and 16 pages of documents with handwritten notations--in addition to the 17,500 new pages produced a week or so ago. #CovingtonBurlingLLP says anything more would be too difficult, too expensive & not required. <<
Heh. Those last few pages must really be something!Delete
This has been a great spring. I can't wait for the charges coming, be they in June, or even in fall.ReplyDelete
I read (maybe at your site or possibly somewhere else) that there is real fear in Benjamin Wittes' tweets. He may try to portray that he was mocking Mollie Hemingway in his tweets, but others noted the underlying fear.
Toward the end of an interview yesterday (May 3, 2017) with Breitbart News Sunday, Sidney Powell was asked when this injustice against Michael Flynn would finally end.ReplyDelete
Mark, didn’t you mean 2020 rather than 2017? Or am I missing something? (Today, that is possible….)
I was sure I'd fixed that--now I have!Delete
There is a new DOD directive dated April 14, 2020 5111.11 Director, Net Assessment..James H. Baker. Is he the Deep State Pentagon official who leaked the Flynn's phone call to Ignatius?ReplyDelete
Thanks Mark, for all you do. Hope you are using screen protector or glasses to save your eyes. We need you.
Yep. That's him. The eye thing is something that happens very rarely. Usually it goes away if I rest for 10 minutes. I've had my eyes checked, no problem.Delete
Isn’t Net Assessment the dept. that was paying Stephen Halper?Delete
Yes. It seems to have been basically a somewhat covert slush fund for CIA. For political ops.Delete
Supposedly Chris Christie recommenced Wray:ReplyDelete
Oh--that's right! Wray defended Christie in that bridge thing, and I believe Wray kept evidence secreted in his safe. Good to have an experienced prosecutor, eh?Delete
I have a vague memory of reading somewhere that Power did all those unmaskings in relation to Jews and Israel.ReplyDelete
She did not do them in relation to Russia and Trump.
That rings a bell, Mike. Possibly in re the Iran deal, and the opposition to it? But a quick search didn't turn anything up. Maybe wrong parameters.Delete
You are thinking of the unmasking of Congressmen in relation to the Iran Deal, who were talking to people in Israel, who were obviously opposed to the Obama/Iran Sweetheart Deal.Delete
That was long before the Powers/Rice unmasking frenzy in 2016.
EZ is correct re: Unmaskings surrounding the Iran deal. Powers merely denied her role ("It wasn't me!") the later coup/hoax/Flynn umaskings.Delete
In addition to Mark's invaluable coverage:ReplyDelete
"JohnWHuber," a.k.a. "Hugh W," on an overlooked missing piece:
Career FBI-apologist Gagliano (who never misses an opportunity to remind everybody that he was FBI) finally realized the wind velocity and direction of the Flynn case could leave him stranded on the Resistance Island leper colony. Did I mention he was FBI?:
Federalist's Guide To The Obama Admin Hit On Michael Flynn:
Problem for liberals is they really can't cut their losses on the Flynn case, because as Sidney Powell and everyone else knows, it's really all about Team Mueller. How do they throw Weissmann and Mueller overboard?Delete
To save SCO figurehead and Hero of the Resistance Mueller, they wouldn't throw Weissmann under the bus, they'd tie him down in the road, jump on the bus and run over him, then slam it in reverse, back over him and do it again.Delete
-->How do they throw Weissmann and Mueller overboard?Delete
Media and Dems just go silent on those names, by not reporting on them, by not mentioning them going forward.
It's the old NYT joke: If a tree falls in the wood, and the NYT doesn't report it, does it make a sound? It didn't happen if the NYT didn't report it...
Unless Mueller or Weismann are ever indicted, media never has to breath their names. And if they are indicted, it'll be reported as if these two are fresh faces with no history.
DEVELOPING: Who within the NSC helped the FBI set up National Security Adviser Michael Flynn? Investigators taking another look at the so-called "whistleblower," as well as Comey's G-man inside the White House <<
Speculation: what if the FBI, instead of relying on the actual transcript of the Flynn/Kislak calls, relied insted on a "read-out" prepared by a certain CIA asset seconded to the NSC during the Obama Admin?
Recall Ciaramella's read-out of the Trump/Ukraine president call was at odd's with the actual transcript, making it sound like Trump was doing a quip-pro-quo" when the actual transcript makes it clear no such thing was going on.
What if he did the same trick in relation to a "read-out" of the Flynn/Kislyak calls, making it sound like FLynn discussed the Obama sanctions, when in fact what Flynn may have discussed was the incoming admin's wishes wrt Putin's "RESPONSE" to the US sanctions, not the sanctions per se.
This might explain why Flynn prosecutors have steadfastly refused to turn over the call transcripts, and never refer to them as "transcripts" in their pleadings, calling it the call "information."
One way or another, it is very interesting. At the very least it shows Durham is digging deep. Very deep.Delete
However, there's no doubt at all that the FBI had an actual transcript. Priestap's notes and communications make that clear, and they would have had their own FISA coverage. No need for "read outs".
Mr Wauck - a bit off topic but related; Praying Medic made a bold prediction: HRC wouldn’t be the nominee/on the ticket BC she’ll be dealing with charges.Delete
She was never going to be the nominee. No other thoughts.Delete
Check this out:ReplyDelete
>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EXKCkicUwAI-Zhl?format=jpg&name=large <<
Pientka told IG that McCabe pressured him to change the Flynn 302.
No kidding? Heh. How'd you know I was just now perusing that?Delete
My ACME crystal ball knows all; sees all!Delete
Sure it wasn't your "8" ball, and it said "probably"? ;-)Delete
"You may rely on it."Delete