The Michael Flynn case just burst open- UPDATED

Posted by Jimmy Minnish on February 18, 2018 under Links | Be the First to Comment

The FBI agents who interviewed Michael Flynn didn’t see that he had done anything wrong.  However, someone else had the juice to order FBI agents to change their 302’s. (It might rhyme with homey or it might be an Acting Attorney General)

By 24 Comments

Michael Flynn spoke with Russian Ambassador Kislyak on December 29, 2016.

You will remember that the conversation Michael Flynn had with Kislyak was leaked to WaPo last January 12 :

According to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking. What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions? The Logan Act (though never enforced) bars U.S. citizens from correspondence intending to influence a foreign government about “disputes” with the United States. Was its spirit violated? The Trump campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

A senior government official. In the obama administration. This was the beginning of the end for Flynn. At The Hill, it was argued that this leak was “illegal but utterly justified.”

Admiral Mike Rogers said that releasing transcripts were harmful to national security. Catherine Herridge said that getting the transcript from the NSA had to come from very high up.

In February 2017 Intelligence officials said that Flynn had done nothing wrong

A current U.S. intelligence official tells NPR’s Mary Louise Kelly that there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing in the transcripts of former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, although the official noted that doesn’t rule out the possibility of illegal actions.

The official also says that there are recordings as well as transcripts of the calls, and that the transcripts don’t suggest Flynn was acting under orders in his conversations.

Flynn resigned late Monday, after allegations that he discussed U.S. sanctions on Russia with Kislyak and then misled Vice President Pence about the nature of those conversations. Flynn initially denied discussing sanctions at all, but in his resignation Flynn said he “inadvertently” gave Pence “incomplete information” about the conversations.

NPR’s Phil Ewing previously reported that it is not in dispute that Flynn spoke with Kislyak in late December. “The issue is what he said,” Phil wrote.

Depending on the content of the conversations, Flynn could have violated a law called the Logan Act, which bars a private individual from conducting foreign policy without the permission of the U.S. government. For instance, if Flynn told the ambassador the Trump administration would drop the sanctions, that would have been illegal.

The intelligence official who has personally seen the transcripts told Mary Louise they contained “no evidence” of criminal wrongdoing, although the official said it can’t be definitively ruled out.

The official also said there was “absolutely nothing” in the transcripts that suggests Flynn was acting under instructions “or that the trail leads higher.”

Today Byron York reports that in March 2017 James Comey briefed Congress and told them that the agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe he had lied:

“The Jan. 24 interview potentially puts Flynn in legal jeopardy,” the Washington Post reportedin February. “Lying to the FBI is a felony offense.”

There was also a lot of concern in Congress, at least among Republicans, about the leak of the wiretapped Flynn-Kislyak conversation. Such intelligence is classified at the highest level of secrecy, yet someone — Republicans suspected Obama appointees in the Justice Department and intelligence community — revealed it to the press.

So in March, lawmakers wanted Comey to tell them what was up. And what they heard from the director did not match what they were hearing in the media.

According to two sources familiar with the meetings, Comey told lawmakers that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe that Flynn had lied to them, or that any inaccuracies in his answers were intentional. As a result, some of those in attendance came away with the impression that Flynn would not be charged with a crime pertaining to the Jan. 24 interview.

And then, boom

Nine months later, with Comey gone and special counsel Robert Mueller in charge of the Trump-Russia investigation, Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the FBI in that Jan. 24 questioning.

What happened? With Flynn awaiting sentencing — that was recently delayed until at least May — some lawmakers are trying to figure out what occurred between the time Comey told Congress the FBI did not believe Flynn lied and the time, several months later, when Flynn pleaded guilty to just that.

Flynn was interviewed by the FBI on January 24. No one seemed to think Flynn had done anything wrong

Indeed, it appears the FBI did not think Flynn had done anything wrong in the calls. On Jan. 23, the Washington Post reported that the FBI had reviewed the Flynn-Kislyak calls and “has not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government.” (The calls had been intercepted by U.S. intelligence because the U.S. monitored the Russian ambassador’s communications — something which Flynn, a former chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, surely knew.)

Someone else was bugged about it. Someone who had the juice to go to the NSA and obtain a transcript of the surveillance.

January 20, 2017

On Jan. 20, Donald Trump became president. On Jan. 22, the Wall Street Journal reported that “U.S. counterintelligence agents have investigated communications” between Flynn and Kislyak. The investigation “aimed to determine the nature of Mr. Flynn’s contact with Russian officials and whether such contacts may have violated laws.”

The same day

Two top Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are questioning former national security adviser Susan Rice about an “unusual” message she sent to herself on Jan 20, 2017 — President Trump‘s Inauguration Day.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) questioned Rice why she sent a note detailing a conversation she observed on Jan. 5 between then-FBI Director James Comey and then-President Barack Obama.

“It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia investigation,” they wrote in a letter to Rice.

January 24, 2016

The Justice Department — the Obama holdover Yates had become the acting attorney general — sent two FBI agents to the White House to question Flynn, who talked to them without a lawyer present.

January 26, 2016:

Two days later, on Jan. 26, Yates and a high-ranking colleague went to the White House to tell counsel Don McGahn about the Flynn situation. “The first thing we did was to explain to Mr. McGahn that the underlying conduct that Gen. Flynn had engaged in was problematic in and of itself,” Yates testified in a May 2017 appearance before a Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee. That was an apparent reference to the Logan Act, although Yates never specifically said so. “We took him [McGahn] through in a fair amount of detail of the underlying conduct, what Gen. Flynn had done.”

January 26, 27, 2016:

Yates went to see McGahn twice, on Jan. 26 and Jan. 27. On Feb. 13, Flynn resigned. That same day, the Washington Post reported that the Justice Department had pursued Flynn on the grounds of a potential Logan Act violation.

No one has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act.

Back to Byron York:

So Comey went to Capitol Hill in March to brief lawmakers privately. That is when he told them that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe Flynn had lied, or that any inaccuracies in Flynn’s answers were intentional. And that is when some lawmakers got the impression that Flynn would not be charged with any crime pertaining to the Jan. 24 interview.

And yet, somehow Flynn was subsequently charged with lying to the FBI and he pleaded guilty in December 2017. It’s as if someone made the agents change their assessments:

Investigative journalist Sara Carter reported on Fox News last night that outgoing FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe may be in serious trouble if the information she had received from FBI sources proves to be true.

“I have been told tonight by a number of sources … that McCabe may have asked FBI agents to actually change their 302s,” Carter told host Sean Hannity.

The 302 form contains information from the notes an FBI agent takes during an interview of a subject. It is used by FBI agents to “report or summarize the interviews that they conduct.”

“So basically every time an FBI agent interviews a witness, they have to go back and file a report,” Carter explained.

We need to determine who had the juice to get the transcript from the NSA and leak it to the WaPo.

This all points right at Sally Yates, who was a senior government official. Let’s not forget that she had it in for Trump and grandstanded bigly:

Democrats are calling it the Monday Night Massacre. On Monday evening, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates announced that under her leadership, the Justice Department would not defend President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration. After acknowledging that the Office of Legal Counsel had reviewed the policy, and noting that the Civil Division could defend it in court, she personally rebuffed the president’s judgment, which she did not find “wise or just.” Yates, a career prosecutor appointed by Barack Obama, is now being hailed for standing up to a supposedly “tyrannical” president, according to a statement blasted out by the Democratic National Committee.

But this has it wrong. If Yates truly felt this way, she should have told the president her conclusions in confidence. If he disagreed, she had one option: resign. Instead, she made herself a political martyr and refused to comply. Trump obliged, and replaced her with the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Dana Boente. While this late-night termination may bring to mind President Richard Nixon’s infamous “Saturday Night Massacre,” the analogy is inapt. This is a textbook case of insubordination, and the president was well within his constitutional powers to fire her. Call it the Monday Night Layoff instead.

Someone else had the juice to order FBI agents to change their 302’s. (It might rhyme with homey or it might be an Acting Attorney General)

That identity we also need to learn. Soon.

UPDATE– and this is important

On January 12, 2017, obama issued new rules allowing the NSA to further violate the privacy of Americans.

Instead, in the last days of his presidency, “the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agenciesbefore applying privacy protections,” Charlie Savage reports in The New York Times. “The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with information gathered by its most powerful operations, which are largely unregulated by wiretapping laws … far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people.”

On the very same day a “senior official in the government” leaked the Flynn transcript to the WaPo. So on that day, obama made it possible for almost anyone in government to get hold of the transcript of the conversation between Flynn and Kislyak and leak it.

Thanks for the reminder, Greg!

School Children in Danger Under Obama’s Fundamentally Transformed FBI

Posted by Jimmy Minnish on under Links | Be the First to Comment

The FBI Story: Defend the DNC, Obama, and Clinton campaign against Russian collusion, Work to convict and not protect Trump for collusion, convict Russians for smoke screen, botch Vegas mass shooter, botch Parkland mass shooter. WHO IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE? NOBODY CONVICTED OR FIRED. Are defended by DOJ as doing good work. We need DOJ and FBI jacked up and drive new leadership in from top to bottom.  Jimmy

The FBI remains the Obama political FBI so tragically, no one’s children will be safe at school as long as things stay that way..

Judi McLeod imageBy —— Bio and ArchivesFebruary 18, 2018

School Children in Danger Under Obama's Fundamentally Transformed FBI
The particulars about protecting innocents from mass murder at schools, concerts, marathons etc. are not part of FBI training.

The horrific Valentine’s Day massacre that took the lives of 17 students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, leaving 14 more injured, proves it.

There are some 35,000 employees (not all agents) working for America’s foremost intel agency and 5,800 working for Sheriff Scott Israel who, in Broward County, heads up one of the largest sheriff departments in the nation.

 Both the FBI and Sheriff Israel missed the boat on catching self-professed school killer Nikolas Cruz—even though his intentions were twice handed to them on a silver platter.

And that’s only twice as far as we know.

In yesterday’s column, this corner lamented: “It is now clear that it’s not what the FBI tells you that matters, it’s what they don’t tell you.” (CFP, Feb. 17, 2018)

It’s true that the whistleblowers who tipped off the FBI about the clear and present danger of Nikolas Cruz were fobbed off.

That’s the role of the FBI and a well-equipped sheriff’s department on the mass murder at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

We should remember how Ryan Saavedra at DailyWire warned on Jan. 18, 2018 that “other suspects” are under investigation in the Oct. 1st massacre in Las Vegas.

“Up until Tuesday, the public has been told that the massacre in Las Vegas on October 1 was perpetrated by a lone gunman, although there have been numerous aspects of the case that have remained unexplained. Sheriff Joe Lombardo and the FBI attested that evidence indicated Stephen Paddock acted alone. (DailyWire, Jan. 18, 2018)

“But on Tuesday, inside a district courtroom, according to Fox 5 Las Vegas, an attorney for various media outlets argued that releasing information relating to the massacre was critical in order for Las Vegas residents to heal from the tragedy.

“The lawyer for Las Vegas Metro Police, Nicholas Crosby, later admitted something that was a bombshell revelation: other suspects are under investigation. Criminal charges may be filed in the coming weeks in the investigation into the Las Vegas massacre, the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

“The Daily Mail reported that Clark County District Court Judge Elissa Cadish asked Crosby, “Without naming names, there are potential charges against others as a result of the ongoing investigation?”

“Yes,” Crosby replied, “There are charges being investigated.”

“A spokesperson for the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department said they are “investigating possible criminal charges related to items discovered during the service of search warrants.”

“Law enforcement officials still have not released any information about a possible motive for the October 1, 2017 massacre that left 58 dead and approximately 500 more injured.”

Important to note that the DailyWire story remains on its news site.

We have a major problem here and it’s not Houston.

Continued below…

In short, the FBI of the current day is Barack Obama’s FBI

The good guys at the FBI (of which there must be some, if not many) are being suppressed while the bad ones don’t act on information that could stop mass murders and terrorists because their working lives are dedicated to having President Donald Trump removed from the office he was duly elected to serve.

Rather than being out on the manhunt for mass murderers, the FBI, like all politically correct driven agents of government are likely spending their time on:

  1. Gender sensitivity training;
  2. Minority sensitivity training;
  3. Sexual Harassment training;
  4. Global Warming/Climate Change training;
  5. Muslim Religious sensitivity training;
  6. ‘Snowflake’ Protection From Fiends training;
  7. Anger management training;
  8. Fill in the Blank for the newest Socialist-tainted cause of the Month.

Ask yourself how many on FBI management are tasked with supervising that training?

How many are liaising and organizing all the meetings and conferences?

Now winnow this down to the actual number of intel agents who are out there tracking down threats presenting a real and present danger to the citizenry.

And like many contemporary organizations, their reports, study groups, committees, sub committees are all set up to pass the file and pass the buck and talk about stuff, never actually DOING stuff.

Barack Hussein Obama, who spends his is passive time preening for digital images sent viral over the ‘Net and his active time fomenting for revolution as a gone-to-ground ‘Resistance Leader’ in a mansion within two short miles of the White House, had eight long years to “fundamentally transform” the FBI.

In short, the FBI of the current day is Barack Obama’s FBI.

Until this agency of which we once could all be so proud is purged and brought back to what it was before his election, it is Obama’s FBI we are seeing in inaction today.

Tragically, no one’s children will be safe at school as long as things stay that way.

Tom Fitton on what indictments mean for collusion narrative

Posted by Jimmy Minnish on under Links | Be the First to Comment

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton isn’t impressed with the conveniently timed announcement by the corrupt Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, of indictments against 13 Russians and 3 Russian companies. There’s more to the sudden release of these indictments than meets the eye, it’s a self-serving act on behalf of the deep state to save themselves and their inquisition.

Fitton, “This indictment, where they found, despite all of the king’s horses and all the king’s men, not one American colluded with the Russians.” Hegseth takes some exception to Fitton’s comments, saying, “Some Americans did collude with the Russians and it looked like it was the Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign.