Pages

Wednesday, December 16, 2020

Why Not Ask The Obvious Questions About The Swalwell Case?

There are two obvious questions in the Eric Swalwell case, regarding his sexual compromise by a Chinese spy: Who knew what, and when did they know it?

Notice that I framed the question in the plural.

This afternoon James Freeman in his Best of the Web column at the WSJ claimed to offer us:


The Swalwell Timeline

Did a communist spy know the congressman was about to assume oversight of the CIA?


What good is a timeline if none of the obvious names show up? As far as I can tell from the article, Swalwell--by his own words--was likely to have been contacted by the FBI as early as 2014 or even earlier: 


According to the Axios story, the interactions included the alleged agent known as Fang Fang or Christine Fang placing an intern in Rep. Swalwell’s office and also helping to raise funds for his 2014 re-election campaign. Axios reported that the FBI gave Mr. Swalwell a defensive briefing sometime around 2015 to warn him of the threat.

Since Axios broke the story, one of the few disclosures Mr. Swalwell has been willing to make occurred in an interview with CNN’s Jim Sciutto, when the lawmaker clarified the timeline. Mr. Sciutto asked the Congressman if he had had any concerns about the woman before receiving the defensive briefing from the FBI. Rep. Swalwell responded:

No. Jim, I was shocked when, you know, just over six years ago, I was told about this individual. And then I offered to help, and I did help and I was thanked by the FBI for my help and that person is no longer in the country.

If Mr. Swalwell’s story is accurate, it means he was told sometime in late 2014 or earlier that he had unwittingly been conducting a relationship with a communist spy.


Now, here's the only really solid date we have:


On Jan. 14, 2015, Speaker Pelosi announced that Rep. Swalwell was joining the House Intelligence Committee.


"Speaker" Pelosi? January 14, 2015? Excuse me, James Freeman, but on January 14, 2015, Paul Ryan was Speaker. In fact, there had been Republican Speakers since 2010. Ryan would remain Speaker until 2018, during which time (2016-2018) Republicans nominally controlled both houses of Congress as well as the White House. This is where we come to the important part. Swalwell admits to being confronted by the FBI, but that couldn't possibly have happened without the FBI informing a select group of members of Congress regarding what they--the FBI and Swalwell--were up to.

We're all familiar with the Gang of Eight system, right?


The Gang of Eight is a colloquial term for a set of eight leaders within the United States Congress who are briefed on classified intelligence matters by the executive branch. Specifically, the Gang of Eight includes the leaders of each of the two parties from both the Senate and House of Representatives, and the chairs and ranking minority members of both the Senate Committee and House Committee for intelligence as set forth by 50 U.S.C. § 3093(c)(2).

Under normal conditions, the President of the United States is required by Title 50 U.S.C. § 3091(a)(1) to "ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by [the] title."


When the FBI has enough information to contact a US Representative regarding possible compromise by a foreign spy, I think that qualifies as an important intelligence activity. The FBI thinks so, too, because they did, in fact, inform at least the House members of the Gang of Eight--or, at a minimum, the Speaker and the Minority leader, Ryan and Pelosi--of their concerns regarding Swalwell. We have Pelosi's word for that, as reported by Fred Fleitz:


Pelosi expressed full confidence in Swalwell and claimed there is nothing to this story because Democratic and Republican leaders were briefed on it in 2015.  House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy disputes this and wants to FBI to brief Congress on this case.


Do you know what? I'm gonna call BS on McCarthy. With the Republicans in control of the House since 2010 I simply refuse to believe that the FBI would be so stupid as not to brief BOTH parties about this matter--just as Pelosi says. That would have included Speaker Ryan and the Minority Leader Pelosi at a minimum, but I can't think of any reason why the HPSCI Chairman and Ranking Member would not have also been informed. It would have been a simple matter of CYA for the FBI. And why would they object to informing such a solid Establishment figure as Paul Ryan? Of course Ryan was informed. Nor can I imagine that the Chairman of HPSCI would not be told.

With that in mind, does that tell you something about the degree of inter-party collusion in Congress? Pelosi would have had to have been totally confident that she would not be called out by Ryan, because she selected Swalwell for HPSCI and supported him for a plum appointment on the committee:


U.S. Representative Eric Swalwell (CA-15) today was selected to serve as the senior Democrat on the Committee on Intelligence’s Subcommittee on the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). This newly established subcommittee is responsible for the oversight, policy, activities, and budget of the CIA.


The next question should be: Who was the Chairman of HPSCI? Notice that we're talking about a transition period here. Congressional elections would have been held in 2014. The Chairman at that time was Mike Rogers, but he didn't run for re-election. He was succeeded as Chairman by Devin Nunes. So the question for us is, Did Mike Rogers know, and did Devin Nunes know. Somebody needs to ask them, but I'm guessing that Nunes didn't know.

So, if Mike Rogers was told, that means Rogers and Ryan both were OK with Pelosi placing Swalwell on HPSCI. Again, you should have a feel for Paul Ryan, but may need a reminder about Mike Rogers--we're not talking about the admiral who headed NSA:


Mike Rogers ..., the former US Representative., was a Special Agent for the FBI in Chicago from 1989 - 1994 (I didn't know him, but recall hearing the office buzz when Rogers resigned to go into politics). More to the point, after leaving the House in 2014, having served as Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rogers joined the Trump campaign in 2016 as national security adviser. (You can locate other references to this Mike Rogers here.)


I speculated back then that Rogers may have been a spy or mole on the Trump campaign. Rogers was dismissed from the Trump Campaign/Transition within days of the 2016 election and went on to join the virulently NeverTrump organization The Alliance for Securing Democracy. To keep this brief (follow this link for much more), I'll quote myself again:


The Alliance for Securing Democracy--who's that? Mollie Hemingway is right about the Alliance's Advisory Council. It contains many of the usual Neocon and NeverTrump suspects. Including David Kramer who went to London to get the "dossier" from Christopher Steele--the same Christopher Steele who seems connected to Donnelly's Institute for Statecraft. Did he meet anyone else there? Did he and McCain have any other contacts there?

There are other interesting names on that Advisory Council--in fact, it's a regular Deep State rogues' gallery, even including John Podesta. But for me one name that really jumps out is: Mike Rogers. Yes, that would be the former GOP Congressman, former head of the Intel Committee, and former national security adviser to the Trump campaign. I devoted a blog post to him alone: The Spy In The Trump Campaign.


So my view is that this Swalwell affair is a real can of worms--for both parties. And that's why you're hearing so little about it, and why you've probably never heard the names Paul Ryan and Mike Rogers in connection with Swalwell. You won't find those names in Freeman's article and you won't find them in Fleitz' article. If I had to guess, I'd say that both parties in Congress have a lot to keep quiet about when it comes to China. No wonder so many want Trump gone. Of course Pelosi should be made to answer some hard questions, but so too should several Republicans.

Come to think of it, shouldn't someone be asking James Comey about this? Bill Priestap is another now disgraced but formerly a High Bureau Official who would know all about this. Briefing Congress was a regular part of his job. Andy McCabe? Sure, why not? When you stop and think about this a bit, there could be a number of people in Congress with reasons to support pulling the plug on John Durham as soon as might be.


52 comments:

  1. Anyone wanting a measure of the outrageousness of Swalwell's escapade should review the Profumo Affair:

    As summarized in Wikipedia:

    >> The Profumo affair was a British political scandal that originated with a brief sexual relationship in 1961, between John Profumo, the Secretary of State for War in Harold Macmillan's Conservative government, and Christine Keeler, a 19-year-old would-be model. In March 1963, Profumo denied any impropriety in a personal statement[n 1] to the House of Commons, but was forced to admit the truth a few weeks later. He resigned from the government and from Parliament. The repercussions of the affair severely damaged Macmillan's self-confidence, and he resigned as Prime Minister on health grounds in October 1963. The reputation of the Conservative Party was damaged by the scandal, which may have contributed to its defeat by the Labour Party in the 1964 general election.

    When the Profumo affair was first revealed, public interest was heightened by reports that Keeler may have been simultaneously involved with Captain Yevgeny Ivanov, a Soviet naval attaché, thereby creating a possible security risk. Keeler knew both Profumo and Ivanov through her friendship with Stephen Ward, an osteopath and socialite who had taken her under his wing. The exposure of the affair generated rumours of other scandals and drew official attention to the activities of Ward, who was charged with a series of immorality offences. Perceiving himself as a scapegoat for the misdeeds of others, Ward took a fatal overdose during the final stages of his trial, which found him guilty of living off the immoral earnings of Keeler and her friend Mandy Rice-Davies.

    An inquiry into the Profumo affair by a senior judge, Lord Denning, assisted by senior Civil Servant TA Critchley, indicated that there had been no breaches of security arising from the Ivanov connection, although Denning's report was later condemned as superficial and unsatisfactory. Profumo subsequently sought private atonement as a volunteer worker at Toynbee Hall, an East London charitable trust. By 1975 he had been officially rehabilitated, although he did not return to public life. He died, honoured and respected, in 2006. By contrast, Keeler found it difficult to escape the negative image attached to her by press, law and parliament throughout the scandal. In various, sometimes contradictory accounts, she has challenged Denning's conclusions relating to security issues. Ward's conviction has been described by analysts as an act of establishment revenge, rather than serving justice. In January 2014 his case was under review by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, with the possibility of a later reference to the Court of Appeal. <<

    >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profumo_affair <<

    The salient points:

    1. Profumo never had a sexual relationship with a spy; the security concern was due to the 19 year old Keeler's concurrent relationship with a Soviet Naval Attache -- IOW, the fear was "pillow talk" involving Profumo's work could have made its way into the Soviet Attache's ears, via Keeler. In contrast, Swalwell was bumping naughthy bits with a Chinese espionage agent while he was on HPSCI!

    Profumo had the decency to resign both his Defence post and his parliamentary seat, and retired from public life. The fallout of his dalliance brought down the British Government of PM MacMillan.

    Swalwell, whose security breach is far worse than Profumo's, refuses to leave HPSCI, apparently has no intention of resigning his congressional seat.

    From this point forward, do not use Swalwell's name without inserting the name "Profumo" in front of it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Every time I convince myself nothing can surprise me anymore. And here I am, shocked to see how far the cancer has metastized. Is it even possible to save the patient?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My reaction, too, Kirk. The human brain naturally wants order, so we naturally try to sort into black and white, good guys bad guys. Every time another story like this comes out-- just when I think ive got the good and bad sorted-- it's all mashed together again.

      Constitutional convention needed after Trump sorts all this out and we implement some necessary amendments.

      Delete
    2. So how do "we" implement those necessary amendments?

      I am 100% behind the proposed Convention of the States (vs. the mis-named "constitutional convention"). I have read and internalized the 11 amendments proposed in Mark Levin's "Liberty Amendments". However, with the cancer Kirk rightly cites as having so deeply metastasized throughout the political class, how are we ever going to get 38 state legislatures to agree to those or any other comparable amendments?

      The Dems OTOH had this figured out long ago, when they learned how to use the Supreme Court to enact their own "Amendments" to implement their radical agenda – viz., Wicard vs Filburn, Roe v. Wade, carbon dioxide redefined as pollutant, same-sex “marriage”, sex redefined as “gender identity” in existing federal law, etc, etc.

      Now they are ever closer to their dream of "fundamental transformation" of the Republic with their plan of packing the Court so that they can implement even more, and more draconian, constitutional "amendments" of their own to accomplish everything they ever dreamed of without going through the messy process of getting 38 states to agree.

      So, serious question: how do we fight back against that and enact actual Constitutional Amendments to get back our Republic?

      Al C.

      Delete
    3. Great points, Al.

      Maybe the starting point is to admit to ourselves that we are in uncharted territory. A convention of states may not be possible until after the Democrat Mafia is removed from power in the various states and we have enough honest patriots to debate the necessary changes. Fundamentally I'd suggest:

      1. Strict limits on Supreme Court
      2. Strict limits on size and scope of federal government
      3. Break up California
      4. Abolition of administrative agencies
      5. Limit voting to those who serve in military?

      Delete
    4. Limit voting to those with landed capital. Perhaps a few exceptions like military service, but I'd tread lightly even there.
      You shouldn't vote unless you have a vested interest in the country. No one receiving public funds should vote. Politics must be limited to public servants who receive absolutely basic compensation no higher than the national median income, if even that. It aight to be a privilege and honor and short.
      All taxes are public for all public servants during, and after tenure for at least two years. Much more to be said for restrictions.

      K***C

      Delete
  3. I still contend that Swalwell was compromised by the Chinese and then compromised by the IC in return. It only makes sense.

    DC isn't that hard to sort out... You get yourself a idiot like Swalwell. Let him compromise himself. Then turn him for your own purpose, in this case their own oversight committee.

    Have you every read some of the depositions Sibel Edmonds did about the number of congressional members the FBI had compromised?

    Just burn it all to the ground and start over. The longer we drone on the more painful it gets.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, the Chinese problem goes far and wide. And if the president doesn't do anything about it then no one ever will. It has to be shocking and rock solid the break through the MSM.

      Delete
    2. Hate to tell you devilman, but unless you're just venting, the only way to burn it to the ground and start over is US military and possibly Nat Guard. There is no, other option at this point given the utter and wholesale corruption of Congress and the bureaucracy.

      Delete
    3. But it's not longer 'just' a finger on the scale keeping these corruptocrats in office.

      Up until the 2020 election, I would have said that Article V Convention was viable to claw back representative government, force term limits and prohibit career politicians from entering the lobby industry, etc; Article V is/was the last non-violent option we have (had).

      But that would require an HONEST voting system.

      I don't think 'burning it to the ground' or 'scorched earth' is the way forward because that is precisely what The Left wants; chaos after destruction of societal pillars.

      But at this point, given how much damage has been inflicted on the Bill of Rights and US Constitution by many of the same people still in official positions?

      I'm not sure we can avoid these accelerants a.k.a. Obama/Biden and all their Leftist minions slathering their incendiary selves all over us, and striking that match. See Seattle, Portland, LA, Minneapolis, Chicago, DC etc.

      Not to beat it into the ground, but pay very close attention to what ATF under Biden is proposing regarding 2nd Amendment.

      If history is any indication, it likely will get bloody as Patriots make a stand against flagrant 2nd Amendment violations in the form of 'regulations'...watch ammunition and components of ammunition especially.

      Delete
    4. @ Tschifty Mccoy and Dave,

      Not venting or ranting, I'm accepting the actual size and scope of the problem at hand. My amnesia button is broken and I can't overlook the proceeding 10,000+ other instances before our current(s).

      As James DeLong said... "Inter arma enim silent lex is a familiar Latin aphorism meaning "amidst arms, law falls silent." (That article is burning my brain)

      "We need an aphorism expressing the complementary truth: "If law falls silent, arms will decide,"

      The institutions are now so enmeshed within this corrupt out-of-control state that no-one, even the good guys, are willing to expose it because the institutional collapse would be devastating.

      The USSC is a flock of village idiots, the uniparty is just that, the administration is eaten apart and besieged by people only interested in protecting and hiding the corruption.

      For a shorter list, I ask anyone to give me an example of function and principal in the heap which gives a workable tool to recovery? If a president can't blow it up or open, no one can.

      Not trying to be dismal here, just pragmatic.

      Succession is a dead subject, constitutional conventions are as well (you'd trust these people to give us a new one?).
      Beyond that most every "solution" I hear proposed is so small scale or novelty due to the lack of big picture understanding.

      Two centuries of paper cuts, not spygate, not Obama, not the FBI, not the IC, not banks, not election fraud, etc, etc. Those are what we call symptoms, not problems. It's waking people up but they are newborns to the actual issues of adminstrative law, executive orders and the plethora of historic unconstitutional deconstruction and are grasping at straws or fragments of a machine they can barely understand. (No one individual is capable of understanding it all)

      In the business world there is what we call the point of no return. It's a painful acceptance process but the reality of collapse is unstoppable. I'd like to take it apart before the dog catches the car but the lust for power and controlling trillions makes that difficult.

      The answer is in us, our state governments as a republic but it's painful. Rome didn't last a 1000 years, Rome was blown up many many times along the way from kings to senates to ruling dictators ...

      It's ok, we'll survive but I owe my daughter and the generations to come a better future than this current path. Pen and paper, hammer and anvil or sword and shield however it goes I'm personally willing to offer stake in it.

      And where my language is strong in my statement it should be regarded blunt towards the subject but as friendly towards the readers. We are on the same side.

      Delete
  4. Why am I not surprised at the GOP BS on this.

    Aswan Brothers was another scandal under House Leader Ryan, that was ignored, until we recently heard they got an $850K settlement for discrimination I guess Pelosi approved. Unbelievable.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A movie once contained a popular line: "Nuke it from space. It's the only way to be sure."

    Seems applicable to D.C. about January 22, 2021.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ripley: "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit...it's the only way to be sure."

      Also in the same movie: "I don't know if you've been keeping up on current events, but we just got our asses kicked pal!"

      DJL

      Delete
    2. also from that movie:

      "Game over, man! Game over!"

      Delete
  6. O/T
    Krebs in the Senate hearing today admitted (at least some of) the Dominion machines were hooked up to the internet.

    Apparently, the Dominion manual states if the machine is hooked up to the internet, the results should be invalidated.

    Wonder how they'll spin this.

    Even more O/T:

    Senator Johnson called Sen Peters a liar, multiple times. The two of them were quite going at it. Never seen that before.

    starting at 1:16
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?507292-1/senate-hearing-election-security-administration

    Frank

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, Johnson was rather good.
      Too bad he implies that he likely won't object to the EV certification rubber stamp, which the brass probably want (to duck a Senate roll-call vote on EVs).

      Delete
    2. It was wonderful, Frank. Who knew that a Republican would display such passion, such righteous anger?!!!! I was applauding...

      Delete
    3. Rogers was like, hey bro what are you doing, that isn't in the script.

      Delete
    4. That is because Peters is a liar. I know the fool from my years in Michigan.

      Rob S

      Delete
    5. @Bebe,

      "Who knew that a Republican would display such passion, such righteous anger?!!!! I was applauding..."

      We see this often when it doesn't actually count towards anything. I believe it's part of the larger "con" where Repubs are doing what they do to continue the farce of choice. Johnson has ignored and complicity buried so much in his chairmanship that his side and his side's side is clear.

      But alas, there will be no truth, only controlled opposition and agitprop theater.

      It's painful but conservatives have no stake or party and very few representatives who are anything more than masked pretenders as their predecessors the Whigs were. (American has seen this show before)

      Delete
  7. I am a southern gentleman, or at least that is how I see myself and comport myself. That said, I could never behave the way that Swalwell has. If I, or any of my family group, had unknowingly comported with a foreign spy, a Chinese near-peer spy, I would have sat on the intelligence committee, and sought to represent my and my party's interest, and kept my damn mouth shut. The man has no shame, none.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’ve read your comment three times. Are you saying that the worst thing Swalwell did was admit what he’d done? That he should have kept quiet?

      Delete
    2. I'm a little confused, too.

      But it doesn't matter.

      Swalwell is no southern gentleman. Nor is he John Profumo.

      Delete
    3. >> Swalwell is no southern gentleman. Nor is he John Profumo. <<

      Well; that makes two of us who noticed ...

      ;-)

      Delete
  8. A neutron device would leave the infrastructure standing....just sayin'.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well past time to get rid of “the most punchable” face in Congress?? Or let me punch him at least?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anybody care Senate Majority Leader China Mitch quashed two election integrity bills in July last year after receiving thousands in donations from Dominion lobbyists?
    No doubt he was bribed by Dominion and probably was given huge donations for HIS cause. These people are not Patriots. We are.



    ReplyDelete
  11. Didn't Trump tweet, or one of the legal team, that they caught them all, both democrat and republican?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm still waiting for that myself. My mother 'knows' beyond any doubt that Trump still has a massive move up his sleeve. I was hopeful till they said yesterday the report won't be ready on Friday and will come out sometime in Jan.
      This is pure Bull! They waited till last second to say that and the only way I can see justification for Trump to move unilaterally is with that report to agree there was untold fraud and interference.
      I feel like I'm trying to find the diamond on Pluto with some plastic Cracker Barrel binos.

      K***C

      Delete
    2. KC

      Thought that too but then it seems that the delay is only w the public report. The classified report, or the most salient parts, are likely already with Trump. But Trump is not going to rush it or take precipitous action. He is going to play out al Ln the other oprions short of hostilities. That report might be best released just before Congress convenes to consider the electoral votes on January 6th.

      Delete
  12. MG - Democratic House has no interest in a real election integrity bill.

    Per thenewneo the one they put forth was about keeping Democrats in power.

    Paul Ryan was the one that gets me where a gop controlled house could have put forth a Bill.

    Or the lack of gop support Trump had when he established an election integrity commission early on in his term.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Mark

    You ask (rightfully so) why don't those who know answer some easy questions about the Swalwell Affair.

    You also ask about former-Rep. Mike Rogers. Some more easy questions...Why didn't Rogers simply stand up in early 2017 and say,

    "Look. I'm a loyal American and a patriot. I'm former career FBI. I was a member of the United States House of Representatives. I was Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee for four years where I received regular briefings about covert Russian activities. I retired from Congress in 2016 and then served the Trump Campaign as National Security Adviser for six months. I saw no (zero) evidence of any communication, much less 'collusion', between any member of the campaign and any Russian official or state actor. And believe me, if there had been any, I would have seen it!"

    He could have said this. Because it would have been true.

    So many questions...

    Oh, and did I mention that Mike Rogers is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Atlantic Council? Or that his wikipedia biography makes no reference to his service on the 2016 Trump campaign?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So is the Atlantic Council BiPartisan? It comes up over and over and over again with Bongino, and Treehouse and here -- maybe we should just start the creation of a new political party with the criteria -- anyone NOT a member of the Atlantic Council can join our party!

      Delete
    2. Rogers is just as useless. When the 4 CIA contractors spoke up about Benghazi, Rogers and Schiff both called them liars.

      Rob S

      Delete
    3. @Mark A
      "So is the Atlantic Council BiPartisan?"

      I'm not sure I know any longer (if I ever did) what bipartisan means in the language of DC.

      What I'm pretty sure of, though, is that the Atlantic Council is a front organization for the Uniparty.

      Delete
    4. At least as far as the MSM is concerned:

      Partisan = Republicans disagreeing with Democrats.

      Bipartisan= Republicans agreeing with Democrats.

      Delete
    5. Partisan = Republicans PUBLICLY disagreeing with Democrats.

      Bipartisan= Republicans PUBLICLY agreeing with Democrats.

      Either form of the word is agitprop theater.

      Delete
  14. O/T, but wanted to call MW's attention to this FBI text message drop of Strzok text messages:

    >> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Epc4KzYUwAMV9jQ?format=jpg&name=large <<

    Wondering what the protect the "career dip XXXXXX who met with PapaD" refers to? Could the redaction be "Aussie" -- referring to Alexander Downer?

    Also lots of chatter in some of the text messages about investigations related to Trump -- Russia, dated a few days before CH was opened. Unclear if these simply refer to the Manafort investigation or the Carter Page investigation that was ongoing in NYFO, before it was incorporated under CH a few weeks later.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Manafort, Carter Page, Michael Flynn, possibly Papadopoulos. I wasn't as impressed with this as some. I think we knew that those investigations existed before CH. Re the redaction, I was wondering about that. Seems to be not enough space for "Downer" or "Aussie" although that's clearly who they're talking about.

      Delete
    2. Who is "DCM" they keep referring to?

      Is it Deputy Chief of Mission -- a diplomat?

      Whose? US, or Aussie?

      Delete
    3. I believe Deputy Chief of Mission is correct and that it refers to Aussie. Oz contacted State directly re PapaD, as I recall, and State contacted FBI. That fits with one of the texts. And another talks about LEGAT (at FBI London) contacting DCM. It fits.

      Delete
    4. Another one, this time about Flynn:

      >> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EpdbvPjXMAAa2Fw?format=jpg&name=large

      Strzok, on 3 Jan 2017, says: "I'm worried when Flynn blabs himself into a legit 65."

      This appears to refer to Flynn' transition conversations with foreigners (like Kislyak?) with whom he is coordinating for the new administration.

      What intrigues me is the adjective "legit" appended to "65," which as I understand it is FBI/DOJ lingo for a Espionage investigation/crime.

      One interpretation of this is the existing Flynn investigation (premised on the idea he was acting as a Foreign agent of Russia) was, in fact NOT A LEGIT CI investigation!

      Am I reading too much into Strzok's choice of adjectives?

      Does it also sound like he expressing an expectation that Flynn will blab classified info while his conversations are being monitored??

      IOW, in the absence of any evidence that Flynn had been leaking classified material, why would Strzok worry that he might do so?

      Goes to bias.

      Delete
    5. 65 is the case classification for Espionage. It's certainly an odd thing to say: A "legit" 65. As opposed, as you suggest, to a not so legit 65? It's also pretty absurd, to suggest that the incoming NSA talking to the Russian Amb could somehow be a legit 65 case--it really shows the mentality at the top of the FBI. Yes, bias.

      Delete
    6. Steve McIntyre's long tweet thread starts here:

      >> https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1339594337710051332 <<

      Lots of fascinating info.

      One thing he speculates about is why haven't these text messages been made public sooner. he concludes it makes no sense.

      I have a different interpretation: the text have been incommunicado until now because Durham needed potential targets to not see them, else they use them to coordinate their alibis.

      If so, and the texts are now being released, it means Durham has finished investigating the things related to these texts.

      I do think Friday would be a lovely day for indictments/plea deals to drop, just before the Christmas Season ...

      ;-)

      Delete
    7. Another Steve McIntyre tweet:

      >> Stephen McIntyre
      @ClimateAudit
      Replying to
      @ClimateAudit

      52/ one big MISSING topic in these new texts: NOTHING about blockbuster Danchenko evidence on Jan 24, 2017. Not a single syllable thus far in any releases. Why??? <<

      My guess: "ongoing investigative matter" under Durham.

      This is consistent with Durham exploring what the interviewing agents and whoever saw the Danchenko 302s claimed to know/not know about Danchenko disowning the Dossier material attributed to him and his rag-tag pals.

      The text messages on this subject may contradict answers Durham's investigators got from those they interviewed.

      Durham's not done. Watch for plea deals or indictments; if that were not the case, the text messages on this topic would have been released.

      Delete
    8. US A Jensen to resign.

      Delete
    9. Yes, good point re Danchenko. McIntyre is hopefully right about the ongoing investigation, but really--is there any reason this stuff couldn't have been released unredacted months ago? At some point the balance between the public's right to know and plea bargaining has to tip to the public.

      Delete
    10. The two points in the article that go beyond legitimate medical issues remain:

      1) The dubious science of forcing such a vaccine on the entire population without real testing--the suspicion is that this, like other Covid related measures that make no medical sense, are intended to habituate the populace to obeying such orders.

      2) The highly suspect motives of those behind this push--as expressed in public statements.

      Delete
  15. OT re Barr

    I imagine 'Judge' Sullivan's subversive antics must have been deeply disappointing to AG Barr.

    Barr asked USA Jensen to review the case against Flynn. Jensen found prosecutorial wrongdoing and exculpatory evidence favoring Flynn. Barr's DoJ then sought to have the case dismissed in the interests of 'justice'.

    Notwithstanding DoJ's best efforts to have the case dismissed and Flynn therefore 'exonerated', Barr couldn't make it happen and Flynn ultimately fell back to accepting Trump's pardon. Sidney Powell has called it a 'pardon of innocence'.

    At the end of the day a massive failure of 'justice' that Bill Barr couldn't prevent.

    (I have commented elsewhere that it might well have been former AG Holder whispering in Sullivan's ear that prevented the dismissal.)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Holder, or one of SparkleFarts' other minions.

    ReplyDelete