Commenter Tom Bop alluded to these new revelations earlier this evening. DoJ has turned over handwritten notes that make it quite clear that the FBI knew they had no legitimate case against Flynn. The conclusion can only be that the FBI was seeking to undermine the new Trump administration. I say these are "bombshell" revelations not because we didn't already know this with moral certainty, but because it's astonishing to see it all in writing.
Think of it as the FBI making a claim against their "insurance policy."
Add to that what Senator Johnson said Sunday about the games the FBI continues to play with excessive and absurd redactions of documents that Johnson has requested, and OIG's letter today saying basically the same thing. The picture you get is of the FBI as an existential threat to our constitutional order. Exaggeration?
Anyway, Roscoe Davis does a super job summarizing this new material, which is almost totally redacted--by Sullivan. Consult the link to the court filing to see just how much is redacted. Nevertheless, from the little that's revealed it's completely clear that the FBI at its highest management levels--with plenty of support within DoJ--was fully aware that there was no legitimate case against Flynn. None. The continuing Flynn case was all about hobbling the new Trump administration.
The real question for Barr's investigators would seem to boil down to this:
Was this just the FBI operating on its own to cash in its insurance policy? After all, they seem to have been ready to close the case up until the Kislyak call. Or did they receive really high level and possibly broadly based political pressure--even after Trump's inauguration--to continue down this slow rolling coup road? And if so, from whom?
We really are talking about a Big Picture Conspiracy narrative here.
Here's Roscoe:
This is a little different being that these redactions are by Sullivan's Protective Order not DOJ/FBI classification.
Working on what's shown
courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
"SF86 + Security Materials
Wait + see to determine 4 [sic = if]
[strikethrough = can?] need to interview
-no longer looking for collusion
-Logan Act
-FARA - 2 things
Yet they claim publically they were looking for collusion and the whole Mueller investigation was centered on looking for collusion.
Szrtok/Page/McCabe's analysis of Flynn saying he can't have access to classified info, conflicts with the fact that the DIA had just renewed his TS/SCI clearance in the spring of 2016
Gen Flynn briefed the DIA about his contacts/comms at the Moscow RT dinner afterward, which had been pre-approved beforehand.
1/19/18
Flynn-
As of today re-interviewing
600 issue have Brady Order from J
Sullivan probably refer
-still being interviewed
-Bad memory doesn't remember small
details. How useful he will be in [sic = is] a big
issue
FBI/McCabe/Baker
Rybicki/Pete/T????
Scott/Tash/McCord
Dana
*Flynn case on path to closure until
Kislyak conversation
*likely false statement + Logan Act both
They used the call as a predicate to extend the surveillance & the investigation to push Flynn out of Trump's Administration
Really good stuff in the slow drip which suits somebody’s goals. For your info, I believe T is George Toscas, Dep, Asst. Attorney General in the NSD. Need to give Mr. Toscas his due. Thx.
ReplyDeleteExcellent! I'll revise.
DeleteHowever, on second thought, "T" is grouped with FBI personnel, separate from DoJ. Since Toscas was DoJ, I'm still thinking "Trisha".
DeleteHello from Oz. Have been following your blog for a few months now, first comment.
DeleteIf you open up Davis's actual tweet (not the threadreader), you will notice a few add-ons, including - Between Feb 7, 2017, & Mar 7, 2017, Peter Strzok authorized the issuance of 7 National Security Letters (“NSLs”), Those NSLs were approved by the FBI’s Deputy General Counsel Trish Anderson.
There is a courtlistener link to a document titled, "Summary of National Security Letters Issued in CROSSFIRE RAZOR."
Bruce from Oz
G'day! Oz played a significant role, as you know.
DeleteReitereating what I wrote on the the other thread:
ReplyDelete>> https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2020/09/lindseys-three-buckets.html?showComment=1601339842615#c2550955649954602123 <<
This latest info supports my growing suspicion Jensen could bring the first indictments, not Durham.
Look at handwriting next to “Pete”. Sure looks like Toscas to me-not clear but very close. Thx.
ReplyDeleteYeah, eyeballing that I think you're right. Revise again.
DeleteTrish was rooting for my view. She is extremely happy to have missed that meeting.
DeleteLOL!
DeleteTo what extent do you think it's possible that Judge Sullivan's actions are representative of an attempt to close off this method of disclosure by trying to keep the brady material Jensen is uncovering under seal, or under control of the court? I fail to comprehend what this delaying stunt is accomplishing for the bad guys.
ReplyDeleteThis type of thing makes it look like Sullivan is still gonna try to run this past the election.
DeleteBTW, I moderate all comments. Pls be patient.
Except Sullivan knows Powell will immediately run this to the supreme court.
DeleteRob S
Could Jensen appeal such covering under seal/ control of Sullivan's court?
DeleteTo SCotUS?
If the goal is dragging it past the election, then taking it to the SC will also accomplish that end.
DeleteNot necessarily. This case has been very fully briefed already, and the SCOTUS can act with remarkable dispatch when the need arises.
DeleteAnd there are five on the Court,as now comprised, that feel a burning need to act? The SCOTUS is as much a bastion of the DS as the NSC or the 7th floor of the J. Edgar Hoover bldg.
DeleteOnly 4 needed to grant cert, so no problem there, and even never-Trumper Roberts couldn't rule against the dismissal. (Or could he???) But wouldn't he have leeway to keep any hearing or judgment from happening anything like quickly?
DeleteI also suppose he (along with the 3 lefties, obviously) could also agree with en banc that until Sullivan actually denies dismissal, the case isn't ripe for review, but that would take quite the pair of stones, I'd think. Still, a 4-4 tie is all it takes for lower court to prevail, so anything's possible.
At a bare minimum, one thing that seems safe is if Powell petitions SCOTUS, the talk will be much about "whither Roberts?"
I'm half surprised, that this major stuff wasn't totally redacted by Sullivan.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what would have stopped him from that course.
Pete? = Strzok
ReplyDeleteJust letting you know that Roscoe's threadreader has been updated to include an email from Kevin Clinesmith (dated Dec. 23, 2016) to Strzok (Crossfire Hurricane/Razor Team) saying ""No more NSLs on Razor" (Flynn)"
ReplyDeleteTwo to three months later, between Feb 7, 2017, & Mar 7, 2017, Strzok authorized the issuance of 7 National Security Letters (“NSLs”), which were approved by the FBI’s Deputy General Counsel (Trish Anderson?).
Also an email to Sullivan from Aitan D. Goelman (Sept. 28, 2020) having a bit of a whinge.
Bruce from Oz
Yes--confirms what Barrett told Jensen.
Delete@Mark
ReplyDelete"Was this just the FBI operating on its own to cash in its insurance policy? ... Or did they receive really high level and possibly broadly based political pressure...? And if so, from whom?"
Impossible that they were not working for the White House (and ex-WH after the inauguration).
Biggest political scandal in the history of the U.S.
Seems so to me. Biggest. End of the republic, rule by Deep State Praetorian Guard unless Trump is reelected.
DeleteWe should be so lucky that the DS would be as disinterested in our day-to-day lives as the Praetorians were in ordinary Roman's.
DeleteCombine the ugliest, most degrading, aspects of "1984" and "Brave New World" and it will look like Disneyworld compared to Wokeworld as envisioned by our betters.
I've maintained since 2017 that the argument of, "Trump couldn't declassify everything during the SCO days because they'd then charge him with obstruction" has always had it all backwards.
DeleteThe SCO's only power with respect to criminal charges was always impeachment. If in 2017 Trump had ordered the govt at all levels to find & disgorge every last little detail relevant to the Russia hoax, the hoaxers would've been exposed & there would be no way that impeachment - by a Republican House - could ever have gotten off the ground.
As for resistance by his own govt, he could simply have given a televised address, and launched a major PR campaign afterwards, in which he sincerely pleaded with the people to allow all the cards to be put on the table and if after all that it looked like he was the one abusing power or was guilty of collusion, then by all means he should be impeached & tried. And if Resisters in the govt resisted, he’d have then had the political cover to replace them. There is simply no way the House Republicans, even with the votes of all House Dems, would’ve had the votes to say, “No, Mr. President, if you even attempt to get the truth to the people, we’ll impeach you before you can get that truth uncovered.”
All these ugly hoax-related facts slowly being revealed recently have no punch because of how solidly the anti-Trump narrative has set in over the years and because we’re now so close to the election. Had all this, or even just a lot of it, been forced out way back when, so much today would be so different. Just the facts of Steele’s “network” of sources added to Danchenko’s being investigated by the govt as a possible Russian spy would alone probably have been enough to pop the hoax balloon. At a minimum, their revelation would’ve been enough to buy Trump greater permission from the voters to turn the govt’s investigative eye even more sharply on the hoaxers, from there the rest could have been uncovered, and there’d have been plenty of time to develop criminal charges and prosecute them.
None of this is hindsight on my part since I’ve believed exactly all this for more than 3 years now. And I’m not saying it to whine or be negative, either. I’ve just long been a radical believer in the philosophy that however poorly voters may govern themselves even if they know what their govt is doing, they’ll govern themselves infinitely worse if they do NOT know.
If Donald Trump loses this upcoming election and thereby leaves America and its people to the tender mercies of this despicable band of fascist Marxists (a redundancy, I know), it will be more than anything else because he failed to understand that the most powerful political weapon he could possibly have are the tens of millions of supporters who could have been armed with the specific facts of what his opponents have been doing all this time. Instead, those supporters have remained substantially unarmed while his opponents have been armed to the teeth.
The hoax could’ve been exposed early and relatively quickly. Instead, not trusting the voters to be able to sort things out is the position that won the day in the White House, so Donald Trump has remained the hunted, not the hunter, and that’s a big part of why we are where we are today. This is what happens when the voters are kept in the dark; the details will vary from one instance to another, but the big picture of freedom and self-govt being lost is always the same.
I hope we as a nation get the chance someday to put people into office who deeply trust in the power of transparency. We the voters need to put far more of a premium on agitating for the appearance of candidates who by word and deed make it their highest priority to make govt and its minions as transparent as humanly possible. If we give such candidates a chance to show us what true transparency looks like, and if they make good on that promise, we will only have to see it one time to learn that no other way should ever be acceptable to us again.
Yeah, the ugliest, most degrading, aspects of "1984".
DeleteIf they don't transform this place, into "a boot *stomping* on a human face, forever" by 2034, I'll be quite surprised.
"he could simply have given a televised address... in which he sincerely pleaded...."
DeleteYeah, even if 2017 was too early, Oct. 2018 (after the Kav orgy) or July 2019 (after the Mueller testimony), or maybe even Dec. 2019 (after the IG rept.) could've been ripe times.
That DJT waited to try to seize the initiative, until the MSM/ DS etc. could ambush him with their lockdowns stampede, is excruciatingly tragic.
If he pulls this one out, it'll be largely due to his foes hubris, esp. in their overplaying their hand with BLM etc.
Cuomo's whining about "why must protests be peaceful?", may be the most classic blooper since "rum, Romanism, & rebellion" in 1884.
If Biden wins, I'll be of a mind to advise youngsters to consider bugging out of here, to east of the Hajnal Line, e.g. to Russia, or maybe Israel. The folks in those places know what *real* Nazism (and in the former place, Communism) is.
DeleteAnd, of course, the folks in the latter place know, that *real* (Saudi- financed) Islam is not what SJWs claim to be "a religion of peace".
DeleteThose folks have very *real* views about real people.
In the first handwritten image that has been recast in type as:
ReplyDelete"SF86 + Security Materials
Wait + see to determine 4
need to interview"
I think the '4' is actually an 'if'; the handwriting by the original author appears definite in the formation of numbers (86 and later 2). The correction would then read as:
SF86 + Security Materials
Wait + see to determine if
need to interview.
Further guesstimations, the scratched out word right before 'need' looks like 'can'
Thanks. I corrected. The point seems to be gaming reasons to fake need to interview.
DeleteCheck Roscoe's threadreader again, has been updated. Sullivan has granted 'Leave for filling' on the Goelman letter (also contains the letters in question). This is going to drag on.
ReplyDeleteBruce from Oz
I find this very interesting! Since the interest isn’t collusion but the Logan Act, who mentions the Logan Act in previously released conversations on General Flynn. Isn’t there a meeting in the Oval Office where Flynn is discussed and everyone is told “by the book” where Biden is in fact suggesting the use of the Logan Act?
ReplyDelete@Anonymous
DeleteYes. It seems that most observers believe that the evidence suggests it was Biden who raised 'Logan Act' issue although I believe there is also a point of view that it was Comey.
Of course it is impossible (literally impossible) that Biden was doing his own legal research to determine whether Flynn's telephone calls with Kislyak complied with US law.
I have a recollection that it was disclosed sometime over the summer that the Logan Act gambit was devised by an obscure Obama administration lawyer type (of the Lawfare variety) whose name I can't recall. I've tried googling the name but have come up empty.
Anyone remember?
https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2020/06/strzok-page-baker-emails-re-logan-act.html#more
DeleteBob Litt. Not obscure at all--except to people who don't count, like the general public. General Counsel for ODNI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Litt
Oldest lawyer trick in the book. When you are losing, turn loose a flock of rabbits for the decider(s) to run after. Sorry for the mixed metaphors.
ReplyDeleteVery Interesting! In the art of Theatre (or Politics) setting the scene at your opponents door step to explain the evil is crucial. To have the Biden Campaign (Media, Never Trumpers & Internet Trolls) work to define or defend his proclamation of pursuing the Logan Act will force them to acknowledge this all started from the Oval Office. Claiming it was a WH Legal Counsel states it was Obama’s orchestrated attempts to get a Political rival. Anyway they spin it doesn’t look good for Team Biden or Obama Legacy.
ReplyDelete