Pages

Monday, September 28, 2020

UPDATED: Mental Health Day

I'm taking a bit of time off today--or at least this morning. Also to rest my eyes. 

Two quick comments. 

The next Michael Flynn hearing is coming up. FWIW, what will interest me the most will be how aggressive the DoJ attorney is. We know Sidney Powell will push hard on the theme of government misconduct and that Gleeson will be unhinged. So I'm interested in how DoJ intends to react to having been stonewalled--in the face of all evidence and legitimate constitutional concerns--at both the District and Circuit court levels. Powell has stated that, if balked again, she'll "go straight to the Supreme Court." Will DoJ adopt a similarly aggressive posture?

And now a request.

Shipwreckedcrew has an article out today in which he maintains--IMO convincingly--that the "insurance policy" that Strzok and Page texted about was, in fact, simply the Michael Flynn case. I say his argument is convincing. It's extended and draws in most of the available evidence. Here's his conclusion. As you'll see, he's echoing points made here--both by me as well as by commenters--while expanding on them:


Agent Barnett said there wasn’t much “predicate” to support the investigation of General Flynn, yet on August 15, 2016, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok have already concluded that General Flynn has connections to Russia and Putin that meant he should not have access to classified information.

It is a violation of FBI policy to open a counterintelligence case file on a US Person with no present intention to conduct a counterintelligence investigation of the US Person.  It might even be a crime.

And yet that is exactly what Special Agent Barnett says FBI Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strzok did with regard to General Michael Flynn, decorated U.S. war hero.

He opened a counterintelligence case file on General Flynn, then put it in his “back pocket” just in case it turned out that he needed to have such a file open later on — depending on who won the election.

That’s a problem.

Strzok knows it.

So does his lawyer.

Andy McCabe told him to do it.

Andy McCabe is an idiot.

Peter Strzok is a fool for following that direction.

Proving once again something that I have said here a few times — and my friends connected to the FBI are unhappy about having to grudgingly admit — moving up through the ranks of FBI management too often has nothing to do with whether the people being promoted know what they are doing.

“All Volunteer” management results in too many idiots volunteering to be promoted.


Earlier in the article he mentions something else that a commenter here pointed out--the close connection in time between the Flynn case opening and the "insurance policy" text. Could some kind person try to locate that comment for me, while I'm on my mental health break? I recall specifically responding with praise for that insight.

The "just in case" nature of the Flynn case--with little actual investigation conducted--is also a point I made.

And how many times have I recounted Field Agent "folk wisdom" to the effect that, to get promoted in the Bureau all it takes is a "willingness to relocate?"

UPDATE: Here's the comment from EZ that I was referring to above--pointing out the connection between the opening of the Flynn case and the reference to the "insurance policy." I've also added a comment from Unknown that points out that Sidney Powell had made that connection in March, 2020. Probably sooner, but she mentioned it publicly at that point:

EZ September 25, 2020 at 2:59 PM

An interesting related discovery:

Look at the date for the "insurance policy" text message:

>> The text Strzok sent to Lisa Page on Aug. 15, 2016, read: “I want to believe the path you threw out in [former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's] office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take the risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” <<

And what happened on Aug 15, 2016?

Crossfire Razor was opened on Flynn.

(Officially, it was opened on the 16th, but IIRC it was green-lit" on the 15th, and thus was likely a topic of discussion in the meeting attended by Strzok/Page in McCabe's office.)

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.198.3_1.pdf

This is consistent with Barnett's account of virtually nothing going on in CR in September to November 2016; management was giving no direction to investigate anything, and wasn't approving NSLs that Barnett sought, and refused to allow him to interview Flynn. After the election, FBI management sudden got much more interested, most likely because Trump won the election, and now they needed to dust off the "insurance policy" investigation -- CR -- and see if they could find a way to frame Flynn for something. Even with that push, Barnett and the other agents/analysts could see any basis to continue, because there was no evidence Flynn committed any crime. Strzok even approved shutting it down at the end of December, but countermanded it when the Flynn/Kislyak phone call transcripts were discovered by CR, and somebody conjured up the laughable Logan Act angle to keep the investigation open even longer.

The[y] never planned to use the Flynn investigation before the election because they knew there was no there there. It likely was opened to placate somebody high up in the WH, and was seen by Strzok and others prior to Trump's surprise election as merely an "insurance policy" investigation that could be dusted off and used to hobble the trump administration if the inconceivable were to happen, which it did. That's why there was no pressure from above to do much of anything before the election.

After the election everyone at the top of FBI and DOJ went into CYA mode, and CR took on a much greater importance in that regard.

Reply

mark wauck September 25, 2020 at 3:01 PM
Excellent. Fascinating.


Note that McCabe's role is probably key, here. SWC, echoing EZ, raises it, too. The significance of McCabe is that he had a definite axe to grind against Flynn. I'm guessing that McCabe's grudge against Flynn for testifying against McCabe in the Robyn Gritz lawsuit played a role here. Of course, the IC jihad against Flynn was a major factor, but McCabe's grudge made possibly "getting even" with Flynn very attractive to McCabe--to set the FBI's wheels in motion.

SWC is right about that: It's appalling that an idiot like McCabe was running the day to day operations of the FBI.


Unknown September 28, 2020 at 12:15 PM

I watched a video of Sidney Powell's speech at Hillsdale College on March 11, 2020. She mentioned the closeness in time during the speech: the 15 August "insurance policy" email; the 16 August opening of an investigation of Flynn by the FBI; and the 17 August meeting with Flynn when Pientka was observing him as a subject.


37 comments:

  1. Mark, are you aware that Showtime is broadcasting a dramatic series about Comey and Trump?

    The Comey Rule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I recall reading about that somewhere. But I don't get cable.

      Delete
    2. "Why should anyone believe James Comey?"

      http://tinyurl.com/yyexws4p

      Delete
    3. Both Showtime and HBO are broadcasting absurdly left-wing hate Trump series at the moment.

      Sad things is that many viewers will take what they see and hear as gospel. What little I've seen on HBO is outrageous, absolutely outrageous.

      The material is truly vile. If Mueller and McCabe had scripted and directed the HBO excrescence, it would actually have been fairer.

      Delete
    4. "The documentary is interesting but it’s as biased as you’d expect. Glenn Simpson, McCabe and Michael Isikoff are the primary commentators. No journalists who called BS on this from the start are on the show."

      https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1310286165388472326

      Delete
  2. "Aggressive" is sometimes hard to tell to a non-lawyer in a court proceeding. So far, the DOJ lawyers have been "aggressive" in all the recent Flynn hearings, but in an outwardly very measured fashion. In this type of hearing, one of the large battles will be for Sullivan to try to bait DOJ and Powell into some discussion, new issues, or just general BS that needs to be 'looked into' and discussed further, and that could lead to discovery. Gleeson will pile onto this attempt. So, for DOJ to be "aggressive" they will need to be more passive, and avoid being drawn into those types of discussions. Probably, the most aggressive position DOJ could take is to come in and say this is it, assert some type of executive branch power, and then pretty much ignore the rest of the proceeding. Flynn doesn't have the separation/power argument, but can assert the law and record, and state the court has no power to do anything except grant the motion for dismissal, and then sit out the rest of the circus Sullivan and Gleeson try to put on. This will be like judo, where any energy coming from DOJ/Flynn will be amplified and used against them, and if they stay passive, Sullivan and Gleeson will just look like what they are... All DOJ/Flynn wants is the dismissal order, or any other order they can appeal- they don't want any further discussions or complications. Sullivan no doubt wants a reason to spend months or years deposing DOJ officials up the chain to get to where Barr admits the only reason he's doing this is because the orange man told him to...haha Who's seen the pic of Obama with a purse (not that there's anything wrong with that) and Sullivan when they were younger? Is it legit? Goes a long way to explain things, if it is...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom, the second half of your comment is what I had in mind, what I considered would be "aggressive."

      Delete
  3. https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-barnett-302.html?showComment=1601063950553#c2981651762366113386

    ReplyDelete
  4. Don’t know whether this helps, but the text was in August 2016 (specific date not included in this article)

    Mr. Strzok wrote, “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40…”

    Ms. Page and Mr. Strzok couldn't be reached for comment.

    The text came after a meeting involving Ms. Page, Mr. Strzok and FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, according to people close to the pair and familiar with their version of events. At the meeting, Ms. Page suggested they could take their time investigating the alleged collusion because Mrs. Clinton was likely to win, the people said.


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-fbi-agents-account-insurance-policy-text-referred-to-russia-probe-1513624580

    Hope this helps.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The Razor investigation continued to remain in a holding pattern through late 2016, with no one making a specific request for him to close the investigation and no one pushing for further investigative activity to be conducted ... And right there is the lie being told by the partisans who want to say the interview of Gen. Flynn on January 24, 2017, was 'material' to an ongoing investigation."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mark,

    Thanks so much for the time and energy you spend sharing your analysis of this huge criminal act of hubris and collusion that tried to remove a sitting President.

    Your analysis have helped a huge amount in explaining what happened.

    Ray

    ReplyDelete
  7. This looks as though it’s the comment you need to see again:

    EZSeptember 25, 2020 at 2:59 PM
    An interesting related discovery:

    Look at the date for the "insurance policy" text message:

    >> The text Strzok sent to Lisa Page on Aug. 15, 2016, read: “I want to believe the path you threw out in [former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's] office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take the risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” <<

    And what happened on Aug 15, 2016?

    Crossfire Razor was opened on Flynn.

    (Officially, it was opened on the 16th, but IIRC it was green-lit" on the 15th, and thus was likely a topic of discussion in the meeting attended by Strzok/Page in McCabe's office.)

    https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.198.3_1.pdf

    This is consistent with Barnett's account of virtually nothing going on in CR in September to November 2016; management was giving no direction to investigate anything, and wasn't approving NSLs that Barnett sought, and refused to allow him to interview Flynn. After the election, FBI management sudden got much more interested, most likely because Trump won the election, and now they needed to dust off the "insurance policy" investigation -- CR -- and see if they could find a way to frame Flynn for something. Even with that push, Barnett and the other agents/analysts could see any basis to continue, because there was no evidence Flynn committed any crime. Strzok even approved shutting it down at the end of December, but countermanded it when the Flynn/Kislyak phone call transcripts were discovered by CR, and somebody conjured up the laughable Logan Act angle to keep the investigation open even longer.

    The never planned to use the Flynn investigation before the election because they knew there was no there there. It likely was opened to placate somebody high up in the WH, and was seen by Strzok and others prior to Trump's surprise election as merely an "insurance policy" investigation that could be dusted off and used to hobble the trump administration if the inconceivable were to happen, which it did. That's why there was no pressure from above to do much of anything before the election.

    After the election everyone at the top of FBI and DOJ went into CYA mode, and CR took on a much greater importance in that regard.

    Reply
    mark wauckSeptember 25, 2020 at 3:01 PM
    Excellent. Fascinating.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I wrote the comment observing the connection between the opening of CR and the Strzok/Page "insurance policy" text message, and opining that this is the smoking gun that shows CR WAS THE INSURANCE POLICY, for use in the unlikely event Trump was elected.

    I also pointed out that this interpretation is consistent with Barnett's description of lack of activity or demands from upper FBI management to do anything CR until after the election. It was the FBI investigative equivalent of "IN CASE OF TRUMP ELECTION, BREAK GLASS AND ACTIVATE CR INVESTIGATION."

    The comment is in the blog post that SWC linked in one of his recent tweets.

    IIRC it in the Barnett 302 blogpost.

    I made the connection after reading Barnett's 302. I am not aware of anyone making this connection previously (someone else could have made this observation before me, but I do not recall ever seeing it anywhere.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. My observation that the insurance policy was likely CR, based on the temporal coincidence of the text message and the opening of CR, is the first comment on the Barnett 302 blogpost:

    https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-barnett-302.html?showComment=1601063950553#c2981651762366113386

    ReplyDelete
  10. Full text of my comment and your reply to it:

    >> EZ September 25, 2020 at 2:59 PM

    An interesting related discovery:

    Look at the date for the "insurance policy" text message:

    >>> The text Strzok sent to Lisa Page on Aug. 15, 2016, read: “I want to believe the path you threw out in [former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's] office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take the risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” <<<


    And what happened on Aug 15, 2016?

    Crossfire Razor was opened on Flynn.

    (Officially, it was opened on the 16th, but IIRC it was green-lit" on the 15th, and thus was likely a topic of discussion in the meeting attended by Strzok/Page in McCabe's office.)

    https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.198.3_1.pdf

    This is consistent with Barnett's account of virtually nothing going on in CR in September to November 2016; management was giving no direction to investigate anything, and wasn't approving NSLs that Barnett sought, and refused to allow him to interview Flynn. After the election, FBI management sudden got much more interested, most likely because Trump won the election, and now they needed to dust off the "insurance policy" investigation -- CR -- and see if they could find a way to frame Flynn for something. Even with that push, Barnett and the other agents/analysts could see any basis to continue, because there was no evidence Flynn committed any crime. Strzok even approved shutting it down at the end of December, but countermanded it when the Flynn/Kislyak phone call transcripts were discovered by CR, and somebody conjured up the laughable Logan Act angle to keep the investigation open even longer.

    The never planned to use the Flynn investigation before the election because they knew there was no there there. It likely was opened to placate somebody high up in the WH, and was seen by Strzok and others prior to Trump's surprise election as merely an "insurance policy" investigation that could be dusted off and used to hobble the trump administration if the inconceivable were to happen, which it did. That's why there was no pressure from above to do much of anything before the election.

    After the election everyone at the top of FBI and DOJ went into CYA mode, and CR took on a much greater importance in that regard.
    Reply
    Replies

    mark wauckSeptember 25, 2020 at 3:01 PM

    Excellent. Fascinating. <<

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that's it. I was simply assuming that all the CH cases were pretty much opened the same day, so I missed that. I meant to include your comment in an update but got distracted--as happens far too often.

      Delete
  11. Thanks to everyone for looking the comment up. I'll paste into a post--or maybe two--as an update. I try to give credit wherever it's due, and it's a puzzler to me that others don't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "it's a puzzler to me that others don't."
      When they don't, it's their loss.
      That you do, is one of many reasons why I spend more time, and post much, on your blog, vs. on others.

      Delete
  12. I watched a video of Sidney Powell's speech at Hillsdale College on March 11, 2020. She mentioned the closeness in time during the speech: the 15 August "insurance policy" email; the 16 August opening of an investigation of Flynn by the FBI; and the 17 August meeting with Flynn when Pientka was observing him as a subject.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that. Sidney Powell has to be as familiar with the whole Russia Hoax as almost any single person on earth--she has to be, to properly represent her client. I'm sure all the documentation has been all consuming for her, and she undoubtedly has good sources. That's why I was so pleased that she took note of the Barnett 302 post.

      Delete
    2. Happy to see Powell beat me to this conclusion.

      It proves she's paying attention to details.

      Delete
    3. One additional thought: it's the details of the Barnett 302, which was not available at the time Powell offered her hypothesis, that makes the hypothesis that CR is the "insurance policy" sit up and fly -- his description of CR going nowhere before the election gives the hypothesis circumstantial evidence that fits perfectly.

      Delete
  13. "I want to believe ... that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, thats the part that bothers me immensely.

      "but I’m afraid we can’t take the risk."

      Who exactly is "we" and why is it so risky. The way I read it is there is a group of people who are willing to destroy the FBI/DOJ in the process of keeping Trump out of the white house. And the "we" should all do hard time, or if I had my way, be put down for good.

      Delete
    2. A senior FBI official talking of knowingly and deliberately abusing the power of the FBI to target the POTUS in the event that the people voted the "wrong" way is shocking enough. But then he actually took steps to act on it. It's astounding.

      Delete
    3. And Chris Wray's FBI is no more trustworthy than Comey's was.

      Delete
  14. Kudos to everyone--a lot of effort went into finding these evidentiary needles in the hoax&coup haystack. Good job always, Mark, for bringing it all together!

    ReplyDelete
  15. https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1310532800974528513

    As long as some of us are saying I told you so...I'll say I told you so.

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't have expected such naivete on SWC's part.

      Delete
    2. By this, I gather you mean
      "I suspect the **GOP will try** to do to any Biden AG nominee what the Dems did to Barr -- force him to promise that the prosecutors... will be allowed to finish their cases".
      *Force* him with what, a handful of wet noodles?

      How did the Dems "force" Barr to do any such thing, without backing from the GOPe?

      Delete
    3. @Mark

      But on mine? :-)

      @Mouse

      Mouse, I take your point. Without the connivance of the GOPe back in 2017 this story would have unfolded very differently.

      Its easy to opine that if Biden wins Durham will simply be shut down...because the GOP are spineless wimps. I'm willing to go on record that I don't think it will be quite so easy. I think we have entered a fairly existential stage of this story and I can't see either side simply conceding.

      I'll go so far as to predict that if Durham/Jensen files indictments before Biden is inaugurated (God help us) prosecutions will follow.

      We'll see.

      Delete
  16. If prosecutions will follow, so will pardons, etc.
    No way any perp (in good standing on the Left) does a minute of time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Regardless of who wins the election, the country is both relatively equally divided and increasingly polarized. Dry tinder. The Dems will fire prosecutors and issue pardons...and coverup Obamagate...and pack the SC and grant statehood to PR and DC...at their peril.

      Not saying they won't try...but I don't think they'll succeed.

      Delete
    2. "The Dems will fire prosecutors", etc., and deploy the DS to *finish* the job SparkleFarts started, and love every minute of it.
      (Thus leaving the Deplorables with the option of Extinction or secession.)
      At their peril? Or to their delight?

      Delete
    3. @Mouse

      I respect your POV, but I hope you're wrong!

      Delete
    4. I don't see them stopping, short of *hugely-credible* threats of secession.

      Delete
    5. I likewise quite respect your POVs (on numerous issues), so I quite hope that you can really put your finger, on your bases for your relative optimism on this.

      Delete