Wednesday, June 24, 2020

UPDATED: Strzok's Notes Implicate Obama And Biden

When those sources told Sean Davis yesterday that Strzok notes that DoJ had just turned over to the Flynn team would be "explosive," they weren't kidding. Remember how I've stressed how important the Flynn case is for getting to the heart of the Russia Hoax. I thought that meant Team Mueller--and it probably still does. But now we're learning that Strzok's notes directly implicate Obama and Biden. Do you think Michael Flynn will have something to say about that--that Trump will, too--between now and the election? Me too.

We'll see more later, but here's the first take available. It appears that Strzok must have been briefed regarding Comey's conversation with Obama--and that Biden was also present at the discussion on the Flynn case:

Techno Fog
Peter Strzok notes from 1/4/17 released in Flynn case:
Discussion among Obama, Comey, Yates, Biden, and Susan Rice. 
Biden: "Logan Act" 
Obama: "Have the right people on" Flynn case. 
Comey: The Flynn/Kislyak calls "appear legit."

9:49 AM · Jun 24, 2020

From Sidney Powell's summary:

And a copy of the notes:

The immediate significance should be apparent: Comey told Obama (and Biden) that the Flynn - Kislyak calls "appear legit." Obama, however, wants Flynn investigated and wants Comey to be sure to have "the right people" on the case. Biden--apparently already suffering from senile dementia--chimes in: "Logan Act."

So Comey says, There's no case, there's no predication for an investigation. And Obama--the former "law professor"--appears to urge Comey to "investigate" Flynn anyway, and to handpick investigators who will be willing to go along with this illegal "investigation." That's huge! (I seem to be using that word a lot, today.)

And Dana Boente--Chris Wray's top legal counsel--was hiding this document? Very not good.

As Mr. Bean would say: Brace yourself!

UPDATE: Techno Fog states that the notes date from 1/4/17, but I don't see how that could be the case. Strzok's notes clearly appear to be notes taken at a briefing provided to top FBI officials by disgraced former FBI Director James Comey. The clearly appear to reflect Comey's recollections of the Oval Office meeting that took place on 1/5/17. In other words, on 1/4/17 Strzok got word from Comey that there would be a discussion of the Flynn case with Obama on 1/5/17--so Strzok immediately scrambled and told Pientka to keep the Flynn case open. Strzok's reason, as texted to Pientka, was that the "7th floor" was involved, i.e., Comey. But the real reason was that Obama was involved.

Margot Cleveland offers another shrewd insight. Susan Rice wrote her famous email to self, in which she memorialized the 1/5/17 Oval Office meeting, only after two weeks had passed: on 1/20/17, Inauguration day. Rice wrote the email at the direction of Neil Eggleston, Obama's White House Counsel. In that email Rice wrote that Obama instructed everyone to conduct the Flynn investigation "by the book."

But that, Cleveland notes, raises a very interesting question. What part of doing everything "by the book" is it for the POTUS--having been informed by the FBI Director that the matter under advisement "appears legit"--to nevertheless instruct the FBI Director:

Make sure you look at things, have the right people on it.

What "book" was Obama reading from when he gave those instructions to Comey? Further, as Cleveland points out, why did Strzok not include that admonition about the "book" in his notes? It's possible, of course, that Comey forgot to mention the admonition, but could it be that the admonition was never in fact given? That it was invented after the fact by Susan Rice at Neil Eggleston's instructions? Recall: Sally Yates, in her 302 on this meeting, did not mention any such admonition, either.

All of this suggests a disturbing mentality at Obama's White House, a mentality that was casting about wildly for some way--whether via Flynn and the nonsensical Logan Act claim, or Comey's attempted blackmail of Trump the next day with the "dossier" slander--to prevent Trump from being inaugurated as President of the United States.


  1. would be nice if they were less redacted - as is, they appear open to the charge of selective leaks.

  2. I wonder how this evidence fits with Barr's comments that the POTUS and VPOTUS were not subjects of any criminal investigation (or words to that affect). Barr also has said that nobody who would be running for federal office would be the subject of investigation that require special consideration so as not to influence an election.

    Could it be that this document was only recently discovered? Or was Barr perhaps being crafty and careful with his language, since Biden is not actually nominee officially?

    Maybe the issue is one of constitutional prerogatives of the executive office posing a challenge to criminally charging Obama or Biden, thus preventing any sort of targeting those two for a criminal investigation. Certainly what we see would be impeachable if the evidence holds up. And Barr has said quite clearly that not every wrong act, no matter how egregious or how much of an abuse of power it is, is a crime.

    1. Barr is ALWAYS careful with his language. When he made those remarks re Obama and Biden he qualified them by stating that his remarks were based on what he knew at that time.

    2. My understanding is that Jensen found the document, which suggests he he's NOT FINISHED "looking into" the Flynn case.


      "More documents may be produced."

    3. Might be setting them up as unindicted co-conspirators.

      Rob S

    4. Could be that Flynn's upcoming civil rights lawsuit may inflict "punishment" on Obama and Flynn than a prosecution that would certainly be difficult in D.C.

      Flynn likely has a number of defamation claims against media organizations and the likes of Brennan and Clapper, and others.

  3. A question: does it strike anyone else odd that the FBI would be briefing the POTUS/VPOTUS on an investigation of Flynn regarding whether he was working on behalf of the Russians when the FBI had not found ANY evidence to substantiate the allegation, and by Comey's admission in Strzok's notes, saw that the Kislyak call was "legit."

    IOW, why brief people who have in theory much bigger fish to fry, on an FBI investigation that was going nowhere?

    The only answer I can think of is that Obama/Biden had some sort of ulterior interest in the Flynn investigation -- such as: "we need to destroy this guy before he gets into his job as the new National Security Advisor."

    Thus, the new Strzok notes imply that not only was the FBI 7th Floor interested in extending the Flynn investigation despite no "derogatory evidence" being found; but that the 7th Floor interest was being driven FROM THE WH itself, by the POTUS and VPOTUS.

    On implication of this document is that Obama and Biden cannot throw underlings like Susan Rice or ValJar under the bus for pushing the Flynn investigation continuance in the absence of any evidence whatsoever. It's appears to be on their shoulders, especially when Obama says to Comey: "You need to put 'the right people' on this."

    1. That seems to be Sidney Powell's view, and we may soon be hearing what Flynn's and Trump's views on the subject are.

    2. It reminds me of a scene from a movie from long ago:

      >> Dean Vernon Wormer : Find me a way to revoke Delta's charter. You live next door. Put Neidermeyer on it, he's sneaky little sh*t just like you, right? The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me! <<

      Obama was playing "Dean Wormer," and Comey was his submissive errand boy, dispatched to task "the right people" to create the excuse for expelling Gen. Flynn.

    3. Kevin Brock weighs in:

      >> “It was a political meeting about a policy dispute, and the bureau had no business being involved,” Former Assistant Director for Intelligence Kevin Brock said. “No other FBI director would ever have attended such a meeting.

      “Comey is quoted in the notes as saying the Kislyak call appeared legit. At that point he should have gotten up and left the room," Brock added. "The FBI had no business being represented in that meeting. It did not have a counterintelligence interest any longer.” <<

      >> <<

  4. I've just read Mark's post and all of the comments to date. As all here know I am no fan of Obama's, but I will observe that the POTUS has broad powers to assure the national security of the United States, including by ordering intelligence investigations 'by the book'. Flynn's calls with Kislyak may have passed the 'legit' test, but we don't know what other reasons Obama (will claim he) had in mind for investigating him.

    Don't sell these f**kers short.

    1. The problem isn't "investigating" Flynn. The problem is administering a memory-test to him, then claiming he failed the memory-test and therefore "lied" to the memory-testers. Etc. etc.

    2. However ...

      1) Comey would have had all necessary clearances to enable him to understand what his intel investigation was supposed to be ... investigating.

      2) Whatever those other reasons, if they were real reasons then there was no reason to do the CYA email protesting the purity of one's motives. You just say, hey, these were my reasons, I was president, that's good enough.

    3. I don't think they had legitimate reasons to investigate Flynn. But they will claim they did. They will make stuff up. Hasn't stopped them yet.

      The CYA email will turn out to have been a panic move at the proverbial 11:59 on the last day. They'll regret it since, as you say, Mark, "hey, these were my reasons, I was president..." would have been good enough.

      Why did they panic? Because there was far worse sh*t to hide than we yet know.

      Over to you, John (Durham).

    4. All true, but once you get people in a conspiracy in a conflict with one another, all bets are off. Who's vulnerable? I don't know. But for sure that's what Barr and Durham are looking at.