Just wait, 10-12 days, said Lindsey, if you think you're mad now.
Just in time for the new Flynn hearing, a big doc drop by DoJ. The docs mostly deal with Flynn case and were turned over to Sidney Powell for her latest filing, but there's some relevance for the entire Crossfire Hurricane case--especially Comey's attempt to blackmail Trump at Trump Towers on January 6, 2017. The Federalist has an excellent summary here:
‘Trump Was Right’: Explosive New FBI Texts Detail Internal Furor Over Handling Of ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ Investigation
Newly disclosed internal FBI notes and text messages detail the extent of the FBI's desire to take down Trump and his associates at any cost.
Here's how it starts:
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents tasked by fired former Director James Comey to take down Donald Trump during and after the 2016 election were so concerned about the agency’s potentially illegal behavior that they purchased liability insurance to protect themselves less than two weeks before Trump was inaugurated president, previously hidden FBI text messages show. The explosive new communications and internal FBI notes were disclosed in federal court filings today from Sidney Powell, the attorney who heads Michael Flynn’s legal defense team.
“[W]e all went and purchased professional liability insurance,” one agent texted on Jan. 10, 2017, the same day CNN leaked details that then-President-elect Trump had been briefed by Comey about the bogus Christopher Steele dossier. That briefing of Trump was used as a pretext to legitimize the debunked dossier, which was funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign and compiled by a foreign intelligence officer who was working for a sanctioned Russian oligarch.
“Holy crap,” an agent responded. “All the analysts too?”
“Yep,” the first agent said. “All the folks at the Agency [CIA] as well.”
“[C]an I ask who are the most likely litigators?” an agent responded. “[A]s far as potentially suing y’all[?]”
“[H]aha, who knows….I think [t]he concern when we got it was that there was a big leak at DOJ and the NYT among others was going to do a piece,” the first agent said.
Note that--"folks at the Agency as well". So, a sense of guilt at CIA? That's highly suggestive of ... a big picture conspiracy.
And if that isn't enough, get a load of what was being said about the Flynn case. The FBI wanted to close the Flynn case as soon as they found out Trump had won. And in these texts they leave no doubt whatsoever that there never was a case against Flynn--except that he sat next to Putin at a dinner. No, I'm not kidding about that.
The easiest way to get a handle on all this, in addition to the article at The Federalist linked above, is this rollout from Techno Fog. You'll need to follow this link to expand the texts, but you'll get the idea.
Explosive. Sidney Powell must be dying of laughter.
ADDENDUM: Shipwreckedcrew says he'll be doing an article about the legal implications of all this--what they "portend" for the Durham investigation. Note that. He doesn't even say, For the Flynn investigation. Because I think, as I've said, that the Flynn case leads to the heart of Team Mueller. They knew they were framing Flynn, and these texts are smoking guns.
11/8/16: "So glad they're closing Razor"
12/5/16: Disagreement with getting Flynn financials. "We didn't find anything..."
12/5/16: "This [investigation] is a nightmare"
1/5/17: After Obama WH meeting - Razor is going to stay open.
"It's got to be someone on the [WH] staff"
"[Presidential Daily Briefing] staff."
"Or WH Seniors [senior officials]"
Flynn Intel Group "satisfied the registration obligation"
"No evidence of any willfulness" to violate laws.
"We put out traces, tripwires to community and nothing."
"So whats an NSL [National Security Letter] going to do - no content."
1) Notes from Strzok and McCabe
2) FBI analyst messages
3) More Strzok/Page texts
Read it all here:
• • •
Sidney Powell on Hannity just said "more to come ..."ReplyDelete
Holy sh*t! Lindsey wasn't kidding.Delete
>> “I’m tellying [sic] man, if this thing ever gets FOIA’d, there are going to be some tough questions asked,” one agent wrote. “[A]nd a great deal of those will be related to Brian having a scope way outside the boundaries of logic[.]” <<Delete
Anybody know who "Brian" was?
Consensus appears to be "Brian" is Brian Auten, SIA.Delete
Anyone know Agent Auten's political affiliation? Aligned with McCabe or Comey's for example?Delete
Holy living shit balls, there’s more!!!ReplyDelete
There's just too much here, for heads not to roll soon.ReplyDelete
If we see no Fireworks (which the MSM *must* cover, e.g. big busts) by when the Debates start, it'll be ever harder, to dispute the cynics who suspect, that this whole Durham etc. thing is being slow-walked, 'til Biden takes office.
If only the MSM would cover this...Delete
Also a huge shot across Judge Sullivan's bow just ahead of the Flynn hearing.ReplyDelete
The insurance thing, especially with respect to both FBI and "the agency" connects the CIA into this. That part is interesting.ReplyDelete
CIA operating within the US, Oh Me Oh MyDelete
Where are you getting that?Delete
The CIA has admitting to spying on Senate staffers, but I'd bet they were also spying on Senators, too.Delete
Obama was spying on EVERYONE using the Hammer, control file on your political enemies can be very helpful when needed.Delete
Well, maybe professional insurance works differently, but I've never known an insurance company to back-date squat. It would seem that any acts they thought they needed coverage for had already been committed. And it seems to me that if the insurance company found out that a group was discussing insurance for future or on going acts that they openly recognized were of questionable legitimacy prior to purchase the policy would self void at the speed of heat. Insurance companies are very good at "limiting liability", much better that gov't employees apparently.ReplyDelete
I don't take that literally. That's just their way of saying, we could be totally screwed. They would have had liability insurance to begin with, but it wouldn't cover criminal acts.Delete
I wondered the same thing, actually. Prior acts would not be covered, and knowing future acts would be considered insurance fraud. So the only good this insurance likely would have done would be to have this discussion captured and make them look like they have a guilty conscience.Delete
Mark has the meaning. It's an insider colloquialism as hyperbole. There's no insurance for criminal acts, and qualified immunity protects against civil suits for acts in the performance of government duties, including legitimate errors and mistakes.Delete
prior acts can be covered- many professional liability policies are issued on a "claims made" basis, so you're covered for 'claims made' during the period the policy is in effect. fwiw, this is the type of admission/quote that's frequently sufficient to turn a whole case in front of a jury or in public opinion. It's candid, unscripted, against their own interest, very honest, and shows that it was obvious something very wrong was going on. It's a game changer for the casual follower!Delete
FBI agents aren't professionals. They're government bureaucrats.Delete
What's coming is far far worse than the malicious persecution of Flynn or even the attempted coup against a duly elected president. I know that sounds insane because . . . what could be worse than DOJ/FBI operating as a criminal enterprise and habitually committing major felonies. But stand by for Pay-to-play corruption of unimaginable proportions; did you say billions of dollars in payouts? Yes, Yes indeed.ReplyDelete
"Pay-to-play corruption of unimaginable proportions", and a systematic effort to smash all effective political opposition.Delete
Maybe more concrete connections between the Deep State and the Master class. Especially if they tie in the political Seneschals and BLM/Antifa Brownshirts.
Some of those texts are really fun. Delightful cynical sense of humor in some of them.ReplyDelete
This is like Lucy holding the football for us to kick again! And we're falling for it again! Sad.ReplyDelete
The sheer stupidity though. I agree with Mark that they were probably speaking figuratively with regards to their need for legal liability insurance. To share that thought on a company Lync chat that could be discoverable in any future civil litigation. It's unimaginably stupid. Or, alternative hypothesis, it was a deliberate trail of breadcrumbs by line agents disgusted about what they'd been asked to do?ReplyDelete
Networks need to be put to rest.ReplyDelete
Here's the messages:ReplyDelete
>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EitUXGmXsAQYJhS?format=png&name=900x900 <<
Note the discussion re: liability insurance includes a discussion of reimbursement details from "BU" after 6 months.
This suggests the reference to liability insurance is not metaphorical.
I think Powell will throw decorum in the garbage if Sullivan does anything other than dismiss the complaint.ReplyDelete
A failure to do so is strong evidence that Sullivan is part of the corruption.
Are you kidding? Sullivan is going to take 2 months to review the new evidence before ruling...Delete
Powell will go to the Supreme Court if Sullivan doesn't dismiss the case within one week. She's had enough of is bullshit.Delete
EZ, good point on the reimbursement details discussion. But I still return to Mark's point. These are FBI Agents (and according to the messages some CIA analysts as well)--wouldn't the USG already be providing them with insurance against lawsuits, if not outright indemnity based on USG's sovereign immunity?ReplyDelete
And regardless of the answer to that question, for the love of god, why if you were worried about legal exposure would you deliberately talk about your potential legal exposure on the government's Lync system where you would have no expectation of privacy if an investigator came looking?
No, no G insurance. We bought it for ourselves.Delete
Because people are people. They are going to chit-chat, say things, without thinking, unless they are elbow deep in exceptionally nasty business. I would say skirting the law, or ethics, is pretty much all in a days work (we don't call it the Swamp as a matter of serendipity). Even Clinesmith, Strzok,and Page could't refrain and they were in to their eyeballs. This is the 21st Century equivalent of water-cooler talk. Nobody thinks anyone really takes it seriously/listens unless their a Hanson or Ames.Delete
The "Praetorians" never think anyone will investigate them; thus many of them have little fear of being somewhat candid, even in digital media.Delete
See also: "Arrogance of the anointed."
Yes, hubris is not just a dip made out of chickpeas.Delete
Wouldn't "qualified immunity" be adequate if they were doing straight up business, "by the book," as Obama would say?Delete
If you feel you need liability protection from your own actions mid stream of an operation, you should have been a whistle blower.ReplyDelete
Ya know, a real one, not that partisan Eric Ciaramella. Oh, type his name in a FB post and the post will not show up. It shows once you post, but if go back to your posts, it’s gone. Just tested it ... again.
I knew the Steele Dossier was made up.ReplyDelete
I didn't imagine it was made up by a Russian spy.
The new spin. They knew it was Russian disinformation from the beginning, but that just proved Trump's devious collusion with Putin. They knew that he knew that they knew that he knew and so it had to be a trap and so they went ahead and used it, knowing that it would appear they were being hustled while really they weren't, they were just pretending all along for "reasons". And that's how they successfully flushed the, "... whole huge host of activity," into the open, to quote Strzok, because that's just how masters of counter-intelligence roll.Delete
Or to translate into official Bureaucratese ...Delete
The assessed that he assessed that they assessed that he assessed ...
LOL, indeed. Or as we proles would say, "If you can't defeat them with facts baffle them with bulls--t."Delete
Did you see the letter which said, "Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri has been conducting an ongoing review" and "ursuant to that continuing review, an interview was recently conducted of the former case agent, SA William Barnett, who handled the counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Flynn, and was thereafter assigned to the Special Counsel’s Office investigating Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Election."ReplyDelete
That interview is devastating.
Right. Here's a link to a Fox article, which itself links to the 302. He said the SCO prosecuted Flynn to "get Trump."
Yes, trying to digest that. From the tone, it sounds like some of those texts were his.Delete
He said the SCO prosecuted Flynn to "get Trump."Delete
No sh*t, eh? Hopefully he can tell us some things we didn't already know.
If this is a sample of what's to come from others ...
However, I'm not downplaying the importance of testimonial confirmation. This is what we'll be seeing at trials, if some one won't plead.Delete
If I read the dates right, that interview was very recent. Like a few days ago. Is this right?ReplyDelete
I was puzzling over that, too. Surely they knew long ago that the Flynn case was hinky. Why the delay? Scared of publicity?Delete
I've read the Barnett 302. I'm sorry (if this offends anyone with any remaining affection for the bureau) but Barnett comes off like an idiot to me. Like Strzok, who knew there was 'no there there', Barnett knew the Flynn investigation was unpredicated (and worse) yet he kept working on it...going so far as to join the SCO team. He ignored numerous red flags (including directly contradictory evidence) and stayed on the team.Delete
In one particularly offensive part of the interview he professed the belief that investigations of Papadopoulos and Page (and Manafort) were legitimate. On what basis?
I am not impressed.
My faith in the FBI's 302 process is not enhanced either. Who was the notetaker who refers to the 'Washington Street Journal'. In this, perhaps the most important case of political corruption and criminality in our country's history, I'd like to see a verbatim transcript, thank you very much.
Correct. The interview was on Sept. 17. It shows that the FBI can create a 302 in less than a week and without endless edits. IIRC it took them 3 weeks to create the final draft of Flynn's 302, and yet they've never produced the original. Hmmm.Delete
Barnett came across to me like many other agents I knew. He appears to have had no legal training beyond what the FBI gave him, so was willing to go along with what the lawyers said without arguing back--even though he had doubts. He also appears to have been politically rather naive or maybe just not even politically attuned. That should be remarkable in someone working intel related matters, since foreign policy affects that work, but Barnett is far from exceptional in that regard.
This interview took place +/- 4 years after the events. Obviously self serving in some respects, minimizing his realization of what was going on. Of course the current prosecutors would probably not want to probe too, too deeply there. They want him to be a successful witness--which I believe he will be. OTOH, the texts do tend to support his narrative, even if it doesn't make him look like the sharpest tool in the shed.
But it's a reminder--FBI agents aren't independent contractors. They're government bureaucrats working within a bureaucratic structure. Unlike prosecutors, it's not as easy to find another job with comparable pay and benefits once you've been in for 15 years, like Barnett. The fact that he expressed concern about OIG is pretty striking evidence that he knew there were potentially MAJOR problems.
"even if it doesn't make him look like the sharpest tool in the shed."Delete
Better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and admit to knowingly contribute to a criminal conspiracy and end up wearing an orange jumpsuit.
These texts show a clear understanding among these peons of the theory explaining the relationship of gravity and excrement on a "frictionless inclined surface", as they say in Physics 101.
"Barnett came across to me like many other agents I knew."
I'm sure you're right. And on some level we're all bureaucrats (or something similar). Wanting to get the job done, please the boss, not get fired, pay the mortgage.
I can't help but think there was more than a little Emperor's New Clothes going on here. Either the 'FBI 7th Floor' or the 'Langley Task Force' or the 'West Wing' or all of them decided Trump couldn't be President and so...Trump couldn't be President.
In the real world its often not so easy to say, "But he has no clothes..."
Or as Hans Christian Andersen delightfully put it:
"So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.
"But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said.
"Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?" said his father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, "He hasn't anything on. A child says he hasn't anything on."
"But he hasn't got anything on!" the whole town cried out at last.
The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, "This procession has got to go on." So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all."
Or, as we might say today, the Emperor doubled down.
Another tidbit from Papa-D.ReplyDelete
Was the 'proof of collusion' Weissmann was expecting the $10,000 cash payoff to frame Papadopoulos?Delete
I dunno. That happened a bit late in the day. And $10K isn't much of a quid pro quo with Trump in the picture. Did we ever hear about a yacht with PapaD involved? The 302 makes it sound like this had to do with Flynn somehow, which is a bit hard to figure from this remove.Delete