Save The Date!

Some brief Russia Hoax updates.

Toward the end of an interview yesterday (May 3, 2020) with Breitbart News Sunday, Sidney Powell was asked when this injustice against Michael Flynn would finally end. Joel Pollak did the interview and Powell's response was unambiguously straightforward:

BREITBART: So, why are they still prosecuting this man? Why is the Department of Justice not simply saying: You know what? We don't have a case any more. Your honor, we're just gonna throw this one away. 

POWELL: I think they're gonna hafta do that. I think they're gonna hafta do that by May 11th at noon at the latest. 

BREITBART: What makes that date particularly special? And that would be next Monday. 

POWELL: Because Judge Sullivan ordered them to respond to our supplement to the motion to dismiss by that day.

Save the date!

BTW, while the Breitbart web site transcribes much of the interview, that part is not included.

Another bombshell that is transcribed is this one:

UPDATED: Specifics On Brennan's Fraudulent ICA Production

Fred Fleitz will be doing an interview in which he states that CIA has been concealing a House Intelligence report that provides evidence that Putin and Russia wanted Hillary to win. This evidence was considered "strong" by CIA analysts but was excluded from the ICA over their objections by John Brennan. "Weak" evidence that maybe Russia wanted Trump to win was included by Brennan over the objections of the same CIA analysts:

TONIGHT 8pm ET 📺👉https://t.co/nT5simhWyH

Former NSC chief-of-staff: There’s an unpublished @HouseIntel report stuck at @CIA since 2018 which contradicts the intelligence community assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election.
@FredFleitz on @AmThoughtLeader🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/b9eDgg3h4t

— Jan Jekielek 😷 (@JanJekielek) May 3, 2020

 UPDATE: I really should have added an explanation for why I find this important. The point of this is that the ICA was the justification for everything that came afterwards, it was the "proof" of what "everybody" claimed to know: That Trump had to be investigated for colluding with the Russians who had tried to help him win the election. It was behind the DNC hack narrative, the Wikileaks narrative, the Roger Stone persecution. But most of all it was behind the Mueller Witchhunt.

By revealing Brennan's dishonesty in overriding the CIA analysts Durham can use that as evidence of conspiratorial intent. It's an element of proving intent--not the whole ball of wax--but it's important in that respect. This explains why Durham has apparently spent so much time interviewing analysts who were part of the ICA team, and also why he wants to talk to Gina Haspel--if he hasn't done so already. Has she been concealing that report? She and Chris Wray may find themselves in the same or similar boats, very soon.

Due Process And The Flynn Case

According to the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution appears in two places of that document. Both instances are in Amendments to the text itself. The first is in the "Bill of Rights"--the first Ten Amendments that were added within a year of ratification of the Constitution. It's a measure of the importance of the principles enshrined in those first ten amendments that there was enough concern about the failure of the Constitution to expressly affirm these principles that James Madison himself took the leading role in amending the Constitution. And so, in the Fifth Amendment we read:

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Likewise, in the wake of the Civil War, protection of civil liberties was regarded as so fundamental for the the union of states that is the United States that it was regarded as necessary to explicitly extend that same principle to the states, in the Fourteenth Amendment:

... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Typically, in a law school course on what's termed "criminal procedure", the idea of due process of law is traced back to the beginning of actions that include some infringement on individual liberty or privacy--a search, seizure of property or person, arrest, etc.

With regard to the Flynn case we often hear the complaint that Flynn was given no warnings that he was under investigation, that his answers to the agents' questions might be used against him, etc. Sometimes the famous Miranda warnings are even cited. The idea behind these complaints is that in the governments handling of the Flynn investigation there was a lack of what legal scholars refer to as "fundamental fairness."

The fly in this ointment is that for "due process" and "fundamental fairness" to apply, there is a threshhold issue: these concepts normally only arise when there is some government process in motion that would deprive a person of "life, liberty, or property." The process may be judicial, administrative, or executive, but some process or proceeding is normally required before a court will consider fundamental fairness. Thus, obtaining a search or seizure warrant (seizure of property or person) is typically the beginning of a due process examination.

The reason Flynn was not provided with any warnings was because the Miranda rules only apply when the person being questioned is either already in custody--has been deprived of liberty to that extent--or the law enforcement questioners intend to take that person into custody upon completion of their questioning. Neither of those conditions applied to Flynn. Flynn was free to show the agents the door at any time during the interview, or to have refused to be interviewed at all. He wasn't in custody of any sort. Nor was Flynn about to be taken into custody. Even had Flynn confessed to being a Russian agent the agents would not have handcuffed Flynn and led him out of the White House. I guarantee you that. Therefore, the agents were under no legal obligation to inform Flynn that they intended--if possible, and subject to the opinion of DoJ prosecutors--to use any statements Flynn made against him. That understanding of due process and fundamental fairness is, to this day, settled law. You may think that that situation offended fundamental fairness, but the courts have the last word and they disagree with you. Or have up to this point.

Two Important Reads Re Covid Treatments

The other day commenter Ray So-Cal sent me a link to a fascinating article by George Parry regarding several drugs, including HCQ, that appear to be very effective against Covid19. Parry is a former prosecutor whom I've cited several times for his incisive commentary on the Russia Hoax. Unfortunately, although I intended to write about this I've been tied up with the Russia Hoax and have let the pandemic slide. Well, maybe that's good. Anyway ...

I just now saw at Zerohedge an article that sparked my interest and fits right in with Parry's article. I don't have time to do more than link the articles for those who are interested.

At Zerohedge:

"Remdesivir Is Probably Worthless" - A Trauma Surgeon Exposes "Drug Company's Shenanigans"

I've been waiting for this. This whole buildup of Remdesivir--because Trump didn't recommend it--has always seemed like a huge con to me.

And here's George Parry's article:

A Report From the Front

Positive, life-saving news from the trenches that’s going unreported by those fearful of ending the lockdown.                     

What does "CR cuts" Mean?

Commenter EZ points to a September, 2018, John Solomon article that is resurrected on Twitter by Thunderstrzok. Here's the key passage from Solomon's article:

“[Priestap], like us, is concerned with over sharing. Doesn’t want Clapper giving CR cuts to WH. All political, just shows our hand and potentially makes enemies,” Strzok wrote to FBI lawyer Lisa Page on Jan. 3, 2017, relating a conversation he apparently had with then-Assistant Director William Priestap, the top counterintelligence official in the bureau. 

Investigators aren’t certain yet what “CR cuts” refers to. Some, though, think it could be a reference to “classified raw” intelligence, such as the unverified Steele dossier or possible intercepts. Others wonder whether it could refer to budget cuts in a "continuing resolution" though no such budget was pending at the time. Whatever the case, the political distrust of colleagues is clear. “WH,” of course, refers to the White House.  

This is very easily explained. Obviously, based on what we've learned this past week, "CR" means Crossfire Razor, which = Michael Flynn.

Cuts? In FBI parlance a FISA order is referred to as "technical coverage". Or, simply, a "tech." E.g., Do we have a tech on so-and-so? Can we get a tech on so-and-so? The typed up summaries of telephone conversations captured in that way are referred to as "tech cuts."

Now, the existence of "CR cuts" may indicate that the FBI had a FISA on Flynn himself, as they did on Carter Page. However, it may also merely indicate that Flynn's conversations were captured through some other FISA coverage. For example, his conversations may have been through coverage of foreign powers with whom Flynn was doing business in his consulting firm. For example, Flynn's conversations with Russian officials might have been captured in that way. But they might not have been preserved in the form of "tech cuts" but for the fact that the FBI had an open case on Flynn.

FISA minimization procedures require that only material considered relevant is written up in the form of "tech cuts." Thus, reference to "CR cuts" is an indication that conversations in which Flynn participated--even if the FISA involved was not specifically directed against Flynn--were probably kept in a separate "tech subfile" pertaining to the Flynn case, however they were obtained. Naturally, the FBI would not want the White House--and certainly not Flynn!--to be aware of just how intense the focus on Flynn had been.

Here's where that concern arose:

7.  Here’s the other money quote.  Lisa Page noted that the “CR cuts” were to be included in a doc--the ICA on Russian interference--to be released Friday, Jan 6, 2017. Strzok’s concerns relate to fears of PARTISAN AXES TO GRIND in the IC

Rich, isn’t it?



8:15 PM · May 1, 2020

Save Joe's Voice!

Among the newly released documents relating to the Flynn case are previously unreleased text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok. Among those messages is an exchange dated February 10, 2017.

The part you want to focus on is the blue part beneath the yellow. In that exchange we see that Lisa Page has been asked by Strzok to review his work on a document. Page gets back to Strzok and accuses him of "lazy work," producing a document that isn't "cogent and readable."

Strzok defends his work by saying,

Lisa, you didn't see my edits that went into what I sent you. I was 1) trying [not]* to completely re-write the thing so as to save [Joe's]** voice and 2) get it out to you for general review and comment in anticipation of needing it soon. I greatly appreciate your time in reviewing and your edits. I incorporated them. Thank you.

* The "not", as you can see, is Strzok's correction in a follow-up text.
** I inserted "Joe's" for the short redacted space because it's logical and it fits. More below.

What's going on here?

Mark Penn Pretty Much Gets It

Former Clinton adviser and pollster Mark Penn is an incisive thinker and writer on political and legal topics. His current article at The Hill--Flynn documents are the 'smoking gun' on Comey's FBI--cuts to the chase regarding the persecution of Michael Flynn. Again, however, I must take exception to Penn's use of the term "perjury trap," which we see so widely misapplied to the Flynn case.

Perjury has a very specific meaning:

Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.

None of this applies to Flynn's interview with the FBI. That interview was in the most proper sense a "false statement trap," an attempt to get Flynn to make some statement that would appear to be at variance with the transcript of Flynn's telephone conversation with Russian ambassodor Kislyak. That variance could then be used to prosecute Flynn for making a false statement to the US government (18 USC 1001) in the person of two FBI agents--who had no official business with Flynn in the first place.

Had the Department of Justice (DOJ) released the newly disclosed documents related to Gen. Michael Flynn three years ago, instead of fired FBI director James Comey improperly leaking his “memos” on President Trump, there definitely would have been a special counsel — only it would have been investigating the FBI for gross abuse of power, not the Trump administration. 

"Had the DoJ released the newly disclosed documents ..." To be strictly accurate, the DoJ or FBI don't do a thing. Both are impersonal institutions. Actions, or failure to act, that are loosely attributed to such institutions are in fact the responsibilites of officials within those institutions, and their names should be used. In this case, the officials behind this egregious failure to do justice--or, more likely, the egregious obstruction of justice--are ultimately: Rod Rosenstein and Chris Wray. These two undoubtedly had enablers--Dana Boente in particular--but they bear the ultimate responsibility. But clearly these criminals were not acting alone--they were responding to the wishes of a political Establishment against those perceived by that Establishment as detrimental to their interests.

The new documents are in effect the “smoking gun” proving that a cabal at the FBI acted above the law and with extreme political bias, targeting people for prosecution rather than investigating crimes. 

Well, in fairness, the FBI couldn't and didn't act alone. The cabal, as we see more clearly every day, extended throughout the upper reaches of the Obama administration, especially in the USIC agencies, the State Department, and the National Security Council.

... Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report found no evidence of any Trump-Russia collusion. And yet, much of the media coverage of all this has been so riddled with bias that, in a recent poll, 53 percent still believe Trump colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election. 

... 

Michael Flynn was targeted for investigation not on the basis of any evidence but simply because he had contacts with the Russian government — something that I would hope would be true of any incoming national security adviser. ... 

... 

Let’s be candid — Flynn had been cleared of being a Russian agent on Jan. 4, 2017; there was never any evidence he should have been investigated in the first place. Yet now, because the investigation had not been officially closed, FBI officials cooked up a plan to try to create a crime that did not exist. They unmasked the private conversations of Flynn with the Russian ambassador that contained nothing illegal, so the only chance to “get” Flynn was by setting a perjury trap. This was then all picked up by special counsel Mueller’s team, who threatened Flynn with the possible lobbying transgressions of his son. 

Why were they desperate to get Flynn fired or prosecuted when there was no evidence whatsoever that he committed a crime? Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy suggests they needed to get him out of the way of their investigation. I think it is more likely that they simply wanted to get their targets at all costs and sustain their investigation to bring down the administration. Clear prosecutorial abuses were committed against all of the defendants, none of whom were ever charged with colluding with the Russians. ... 

This was an investigation without foundation that systematically persecuted people at all costs. And the Mueller investigation was honorable only in the sense that the investigators had to admit there never was any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.

"An investigation without foundation." Does that reality not strike at the very heart of the fundamental concept of Due Process that is the foundation of our constitutional order? An investigation undertaken strictly for political reasons, largely at the behest of a political party acting at the desire of its chosen candidate and an influential political cabal running the Executive Branch of government--what could be more clearly violative of Due Process and of our entire constitutional order?

UPDATED: Why The Deep State Needed Flynn Gone So Bad

The reason Flynn had to go was because if he once settled in as NSA he would soon discover the whole operation against Trump--not only against the campaign but the continuing operation, centered in the NSC with Obama holdovers. Flynn would have been just about the only fully professional intel specialist, and at the top of the heap he'd see it all. With Flynn gone, in point of fact, the Obama holdovers at NSC and USIC were actually able to engineer the fake impeachment.

J. E. Dyer offers three brilliant tweets to explain this:

J.E. Dyer
@OptimisticCon

They had to intercept @GenFlynn quickly, b/c *the NSC was ground central for the anti-Trump op.* That's what I'm not sure everyone gets yet. It had to be executed at a level above auditability. Neither CIA nor DOJ qualifies...

  1/3
Quote Tweet

Brian Cates //Flynn & Breitbart's Army!
@drawandstrike

And once they had to brief him about all ongoing counterintelligence cases, and Flynn dug into this, he was going to INSTANTLY see what they had done. 
He would’ve quickly determined they’d BLUFFED their way to a surveillance warrant approval on Carter Page by using FRAUD.

2:03 PM · May 1, 2020·Twitter Web App


J.E. Dyer
@OptimisticCon

Replying to
@OptimisticCon
Only level effectively unaudited over time is *NSC.* NSC is where only real check is what POTUS will either protect or weed out. And it wasn't just records of what HAD been done. They wanted to keep it going under new admin. We know they tried w/extensions of Page FISA.... 2/3


J.E. Dyer
@OptimisticCon

Mueller SCO was same effort. Flynn wd have detected whole ball of wax; he had to go. In retrospect, planning decision on that made right around 25 Dec 2016-4 Jan 2017. Hence keeping Flynn case open & moving to (1) ICA/dossier maneuvers (2) "leak" to Ignatius & follow-ons. 3/3

Now, listen to Andy McCarthy explain it at a bit more length--best thing he's done in ages:

Durham is going for the whole ball of wax. So much more than what most people think. "Sprawling"? God help us!

UPDATE: I just finished listening to the Lou Dobbs interview of Sidney Powell. It was an extraordinary, powerful, emotionally charged presentation by Powell--speaking as forcefully and openly as she has to date. Toward the end of the interview she sets out the key dates in January, 2017:

January 4: Strzok intervenes to keep the unpredicated Flynn case open, despite the fact that the Washington Field Office has found nothing against Flynn.

January 5: Obama summons the coup plotters to the Oval Office--Susan Rice, James Comey, James Clapper, John Brennan, Sally Yates--to strategize on the way forward, specifically discussing Flynn.

January 6: Comey is dispatched to New York to intimidate Trump by telling Trump that they have dirt on him--an attempt at blackmail that Trump angrily rejected.

January 10: Clapper tells "journalist" David Ignatius at the WaPo to "take the kill shot" on Flynn.

January 12: Yates and Comey sign off on the first Carter Page FISA renewal, to continue the spying on Trump.

What I'm Sayin'

Fox is reporting:

Flynn bombshell puts renewed attention on Durham probe, source says Barr talking to him ‘every day’Flynn bombshell puts renewed attention on Durham probe, source says Barr talking to him ‘every day’

I understand the need for good, catchy, headlines, but for goodness sake! Renewed attention? Who thinks Durham and Barr haven't been following the Flynn case like a pair of hawks from the moment they took their present positions? Of course Durham has reviewed all the files--the Flynn case is central to the conspiracy case Durham is trying to make.

“Durham has seen all of this already,” one source told Fox News, adding that they “could be sufficient for some charges against agents.”

Agents? Who thinks Durham isn't looking at the prosecutors, too, who had most of the same information that the agents had? The only real difference might be the Priestap notes, but the substance of that was available in other ways, such as that closing EC that we've been focused on.

Another source also told Fox News that the files have been reviewed by Durham and Jeff Jensen, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri who was tapped by the Justice Department in February to review the Flynn case specifically.

“They’re building a very serious case,” the second source told Fox News in reference to Durham's team. 

... 

The source added that it is “disturbing to Durham” that “there weren’t any whistleblowers” that came forward in the FBI and Justice Department at the onset of the Russia probe.

Have you ever noticed that whenever the FBI goes out of its way to frame someone, it's always a Republican? Why is that? It's because the FBI has basically been run by former prosecutors for the past two decades. Those prosecutors are overwhelmingly liberal, and overwhelmingly desirous of advancing a liberal agenda through any means at their disposal. That's part of why the integrity of the FBI has crumbled to the point that it would participate in a lawfare style coup.

The solution is obvious. Exclude anyone with any hint of a liberal attitude from employment at the FBI. You think I'm joking? That just shows how intractable the nation's political and constitutional crisis is. Durham is disturbed? As well he should be, but nothing will change until the people are changed. They'll lie low until the country elects another Dem, and then the takeover will resume in real earnest.

“Barr talks to Durham every day,” a source told Fox News. “The president has been briefed that the case is being pursued, and it’s serious.”

Who doubted that? This is the biggest scandal, the biggest crime, in American history. You bet your ass they talk every day.

The source added: “They’ve asked the president to say nothing about it and not screw it up. He is laying back for a change.”

That's reasonable enough.

“They would prefer that [Flynn] be exonerated [rather than pardoned] because then it’s an exoneration by judicial process and not a pardon from a friend, or a coconspirator as some would allege,” the source said. “It would have more value from a public policy standpoint if the courts do it.”

Absolutely. It's an indictment of our Judicial Branch that the persecution of Flynn, Stone, and others has been allowed. The corruption is deep. But there's hope:

Multiple sources have also told Fox News that Durham is expected to wrap up his investigation by the end of the summer. 

One source suggested the investigation could end as soon as July, while another said it could be closer to September, based on Durham's progress, which could be hindered by the coronavirus pandemic rocking the nation and the globe. 

“If they don’t have it, they’re not going to bring it,” another source told Fox News. “But they think they’ve got it.”

Kim Strassell Gets Just About Everything Right

Kim Strassell has an excellent Twitter thread that appeared at Real Clear Politics this morning. It provides a nice, concise picture of what was done to Michael Flynn by the FBI. Importantly, and this is the part that Strassell leaves out, it was also done to Flynn by Team Mueller. In fact, all of the FBI's bad behavior would have gone unnoticed but for Team Mueller taking that ball and running with it. While being aided and abetted by Rod Rosenstein and Chris Wray.

That's not an excuse for the FBI's bad behavior, for which the entire organization deserves to be turned inside out. It's simply a recognition that this attempted coup was never just about the FBI--no matter how essential and central the FBI's role was for the past four years.

Two additional things to keep in mind going forward:

1) The FBI did not "create a crime," as Strassell and so many others like to repeat. What they did was create the appearance of a crime. Flynn did not commit a crime. To keep this illusion or appearance moving forward, the FBI and Team Mueller had to engage in repeated criminal acts of their own--lies and misrepresentations.

2) Not only did the FBI have no reason to interview Flynn, they never had any reason to have an open case on Flynn in the first place. It's in the documentation for the case opening that you'll find the false statements that they FBI later relied on to interview Flynn.

If you keep these two facts firmly in mind, you'll be able to follow where Durham is trying to go: A big picture conspiracy to deprive multiple persons--to include Donald J. Trump--of their constitutional rights. The list of bad actors varies at different stages of the conspiracy--from the 2016 Russia Hoax, to the 2017 frame job on Flynn, to setting up Team Mueller on false pretenses, to the fake impeachment. Nevertheless, there is a real continuity of actors as well. The Flynn case overlaps several of these stages and includes bad actors from all of those stages. It is a door into the heart of the conspiracy that Durham is trying to exploit.

That said, here's Strassell:

Predication, Lying, And The Flynn Case, Part 2

In Part 1 I reviewed all the reasons why the interview of Michael Flynn was not official FBI business, and so should never have been conducted. In fact, I maintained, conducting such an interview was itself a criminal act--an abuse of official powers under the color of law--because it lack any underlying predication.

I also pointed out the pernicious double standard that operates in our justice system. Federal prosecutors and investigators are almost never held to account for their lies and misrepresentations in official proceedings, but citizens like Flynn and Scooter Libby are punished for "lying" when they may never have lied at all or, at worst, provided an account of facts from their own point of view.

I submit that criminalizing misstatements that in no way hinder the government--because the truth is known--is immoral and abusive. I use the word immoral because laws that disregard fundamentals of human nature entirely are immoral. And what could be more human than for a person to color--consciously or, very possibly, unconsciously--their recollections of their conduct to put the best possible light on it?

To illustrate what I mean, in an earlier post--Russia Hysteria, False Statements, And The Michael Flynn Affair--I quoted Professor Jonathan Turley on the subject:

Predication, Lying, And The Flynn Case, Part 1

Yesterday I did a long post in which I demonstrated that the FBI never, ever, had a reason to investigate Michael Flynn. Or, to hedge just a tiny bit, if they did have a reason to investigate Flynn they certainly never articulated that reason--Opening And Closing The Flynn Case. The reason Peter Strzok wanted to be sure, on 1/4/17, that the FBI's Washington Field Office (WFO) still had a case open on Flynn--despite the lack of any reason for opening that case to begin with--was to cover the Bureau's behind when they went to interview Flynn. The FBI and DoJ knew they had no reason to interview Flynn, but they could cover their behinds by claiming that it was the conclusion of the WFO investigation (for which there never was a reason). They knew the Logan Act ploy would never fly.

Think of all this in terms of what AG Bill Barr told Laura Ingraham with regard to the entire Russia Hoax: "there was no basis." In other words, more legalese type words, NO PREDICATION for any investigation. In our constitutional order the government is not supposed to simply investigate random persons. The government is supposed to have a reason--predication--for doing that. It is against the law to misuse government powers and conduct a pretext of an investigation--one lacking predication--for the simple purpose of destroying someone you dislike or disagree with. Ask Scooter Libby about that. Or read Sidney Powell's Licensed To Lie. The title of Powell's book is sadly accurate in the real world. Is it true, you ask, that becoming a prosecutor or investigator gives you a license to lie. Well, those words don't actually appear on their official credentials, but just ask yourself: When was the last time a prosecutor or FBI agent was prosecuted for lying in the conduct of their official business? You don't think they do lie? Please.

However, to return to the point. The FBI had--literally--no business opening a case on Flynn, and so they also had no business interviewing him. To try to make this perfectly clear, I'm going to paste in most of a post I ran back in December, 2018, when Flynn made his plea deal. And after that we can get back to what a bad idea the current license to prosecute "false statements" under 18 USC 1001 is.