New Documents Show Strzok Countermanded Closure Of Flynn Case For Lack Of Crime

peter-strzok-and-lisa-pageYesterday, I discussed the release of new FBI documents in a column and on the blog.  Much of the discussion yesterday concerned the disclosure of documents showing FBI officials debating how they could trap Flynn in a crime.  They focused on the Logan Act, a flagrantly unconstitutional law that has never been used to convict a single U.S. citizen.  These documents do not show prosecutors finding a way to arrest someone suspecting of a crime. They show prosecutors trying to create a crime.  However, there is also other evidence that is equally troubling over the role of one of the most controversial figures in the Russian investigation, fired former Special Agent Peter Strzok.  It now seems that it was Strzok who reached out to stop investigators from closing the Flynn case for lack of a crime. He then manufactured a crime. The response of media and legal experts to excuse this thuggish and abusive record is nothing short of breathtaking.

Strzok’s bias and violation of FBI rules led to career Justice Department investigators referring his case to prosecutors and led to his firing from the FBI. His emails showed intense bias against Donald Trump and highly concerning statements about having an “insurance policy” in place if Trump were to win the election.

It was previously known that the investigators who interviewed Flynn did not believe that he intentionally lied.  That made sense.  Flynn did not deny the conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Moreover, Flynn told the investigators that he knew that the call was inevitably monitored and that a transcript existed.  However, he did not recall discussing sanctions with Kislyak. There was no reason to hide such a discussion. Trump had publicly stated an intent to reframe Russian relations and seek to develop a more positive posture with them.

It  now appears that, on January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” — the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn.  That is when Strzok intervened.

Keep in mind CROSSFIRE RAZOR was formed to determine whether Flynn “was directed and controlled by” or “coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security” of the United States or a violation of federal foreign agent laws.  The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”

On that same day, however, Strzok instructed the FBI case manager handling CROSSFIRE RAZOR to keep the investigation open, telling him “Hey don’t close RAZOR.”  The FBI official replied, “Okay.” Strzok then confirmed again, “Still open right? And you’re the case agent? Going to send you [REDACTED] for the file.” The FBI official confirmed: “I have not closed it … Still open.” Strzok responded “Rgr. I couldn’t raise [REDACTED] earlier. Pls keep it open for now.”

Strzok also wrote FBI lawyer Lisa Page, the same person Strzok had referenced his “insurance policy” to in emails. Strzok texted Page: “Razor still open. :@ but serendipitously good, I guess. You want those chips and Oreos?” Page replied “Phew. But yeah that’s amazing that he is still open. Good, I guess.” Strzok replied “Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time, I’m guessing :)”

That exchange is not disconcerting as Strzok’s actions.  After a finding of “no derogatory information,” Strzok reached for the Logan Act and sent a research paper on the notoriously unconstitutional law.  Thus, faced with a lack of evidence of any crime, Strzok’s response was to order the investigation be kept open and then focused attention on an unconstitutional law never used to convict a single person.  Its use against the incoming national security advisor to say it is a crime to discuss foreign relations with a Russian official during the transition would have been utterly absurd.

The same officials then sent two investigators into the White House, knowingly evading the long-standing rules of contacting the White House Counsel’s office in advance — something former FBI Director James Comey later bragged about and said that he “got away with it.”

So what happened then? We know that the investigators did not believe that Flynn intentionally lied to them about the sanctions discussion and told their superiors that they did not see evidence of a crime.  Later Robert Mueller and his staff proceeded to charge Flynn with the single count. They then drained Flynn of millions and threatened to prosecute his son. He proceeded to take the plea.

This is a record that should be an outrage to anyone who values the rule of law. Instead, various news outlets found experts to say that this is all standard stuff and even that courts have “blessed” such tactics.  So prosecutors, faced with reports that there is no crime by an individual, routinely create crimes in order to prosecute?  Apparently that happens all the time. 

National security lawyer Bradley P. Moss, stated that “These tactics, while maybe unseemly to the public, are largely consistent with the very type of deceptive interrogation techniques law enforcement has been permitted to use for at least 50 years.” Such responses avoid a discussion of whether such “unseemly” tactics are right or whether this case was abusive. It simply notes that courts have not intervened in cases where past abuses have been raised.  It is true that abuses occur and courts narrowly define their roles in the review of such conduct.  However, that is not license for such abuses and certainly not a reason not to address whether the conduct was right.

Renato Mariotti, a CNN legal analyst said that “If critics want to criticize what the FBI did to Flynn, they need to change the law more generally, because he was treated like many others the FBI has interviewed over the years.”  I have been a criminal defense attorney for decades and I have never seen a record like this where investigators find no evidence of a crime but prosecutors sit around to create a crime.  These experts simply ignore that Strzok prevented the closure of a criminal case for lack of any evidence of a crimes and suggested that they use a clearly unconstitutional law to charge the incoming National Security Adviser.  Moreover, none are asking why such an extraordinary effort would be made.

Journalist Ben Wittes, one of James Comey’s most vocal defenders, went even further:

“If you’re outraged by the FBI’s tactics with Flynn, keep in mind that they do these things every day against drug dealers, gang members, and terrorists. Except those people are black, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern—not “lock ‘er up” lily white.”

This is a variation of “they all do it” with a weird twist.  Many of us have spent our careers fighting such abuses for people who are not “lily white.”  That does not excuse abuses of people who are white.  Principle means fighting abuses against everyone.

There was no crime committed by Flynn before prosecutors manufactured a case under 18 U.S.C. 1001.  The reaction from the media is “well everyone does it” and some even noted that innocent people are charged all the time. The moral and ethical relativism is astonishing.  Many of these experts are the same lawyers who have said for three years that a long list of crimes were established against Trump from treason to bribery. None of those crimes were the basis for a single count of impeachment by the House of Representatives, which proceeded on two narrow counts connected to the Ukraine controversy.

What is so disconcerting is that it would take little effort to acknowledge that this record is highly disturbing and wrong, but not enough to throw out the plea. As I said last year, it is unlikely that Judge Sullivan will toss out the plea.  Yet, because such analysis would seem to benefit a Trump associate, the media has aligned itself with an outrageous record of bias and abuse.  There was a time when MSNBC, CNN, the Washington Post and other outlets were voices against such prosecutorial abuse. However, in this age of rage, even this record is dismissed as “routine” to avoid undermining a crushingly consistent narrative that the Russian investigation was based on real crimes, albeit collateral crimes.  The “nothing to see here” coverage sacrifices both legal and journalistic values to to maintain a transparently biased narrative.

 

 

 

120 thoughts on “New Documents Show Strzok Countermanded Closure Of Flynn Case For Lack Of Crime”

  1. The FBI does what the FBI does and there is no real accountability. After the Church Committee hearings what happened? Did anyone go to jail? Nope. Most Americans have no idea what goes on… And most Americans don’t care, IMO.

    1. Yes the Church committee was very revealing and troubling.

      There were some reforms.

      But then there was 9/11. And now we have this.

  2. Strzok and Page continuing work for Obama days before the inauguration of President Trump.

    “OBAMA WANTS TO KNOW EVERYTHING WE’RE DOING.”

    – Lisa Page to FBI paramour, Peter Strzok
    _________________________________

    “…UNLESS WH DIRECTS US NOT TO.”

    – Peter Strzok to FBI paramour, Lisa Page

    *** Strzok added, “I think it will be very difficult not to do some sort of overt step with him, a defensive briefing or interview under light ‘defensive briefing’ pretext unless WH specifically directs us not to.”
    _____________________________________________________

    “We will stop him.”

    Peter Strzok to FBI paramour, Lisa Page
    ________________________________

    “POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing.”

    Lisa Page to FBI paramour, Peter Strzok
    ________________________________

    Peter Strzok blocked FBI from closing Flynn investigation after it found no ‘derogatory information’
    by Jerry Dunleavy April 30, 2020 03:50 PM Washington Examiner

    Now-fired agent Peter Strzok stopped the FBI from closing its investigation into retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn in early January 2017 after uncovering “no derogatory information” on the incoming White House national security adviser, according to newly released records.
    Emails from later that month show Strzok, along with then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page and several others, sought out ways to continue investigating Flynn, including an email from Strzok admitting that he wanted to use a defensive debriefing of Flynn as a “pretext” after the bureau moved to shut down the case. A draft FBI electronic communication from the Washington field office dated Jan. 4, 2017, was made public with heavy redactions, revealing the Trump-Russia Crossfire Hurricane team made “Crossfire Razor” the code name for Flynn. The draft stated that the FBI had “opened captioned case based on an articulable factual basis that CROSSFIRE RAZOR may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.” The FBI document repeatedly stated that the bureau turned up “no derogatory information” on Flynn since the inquiry began in the summer of 2016. “The CH team determined that CROSSFIRE RAZOR was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case. A review of logical [REDACTED] databases did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts. While a CHS [confidential human source] provided some information on CR’s interaction with [REDACTED] the absence of derogatory information on [REDACTED] limited the investigative value of the information,” the FBI’s closing document stated, adding, “Per the direction of FBI management, CROSSFIRE RAZOR was not interviewed as part of the case closing procedure. The FBI is closing this investigation.” But the same day that the FBI was closing the Flynn case, texts from Strzok reveal he intervened to keep it open. Strzok sent a text to an unidentified FBI official, saying, “Hey if you haven’t closed RAZOR, don’t do it yet.” The FBI official replied, “Okay.” Strzok asked, “Still open right? And you’re the case agent? Going to send you [REDACTED] for the file.” The FBI official confirmed: “I have not closed it … Still open.” “Rgr. I couldn’t raise [REDACTED] earlier. Pls keep it open for now,” Strzok told the FBI case agent.

    Earlier that day, as records obtained by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch show, Strzok forwarded Page a 14-page research paper on the Logan Act, likely explaining the novel legal theory that Strzok employed to keep the Flynn case open.

    After learning the Flynn case had not been closed yet, the records show Strzok gleefully texted Page:

    “Razor still open. :@ but serendipitously good, I guess. You want those chips and Oreos?”

    “Phew,” Page replied. “But yeah that’s amazing that he is still open. Good, I guess.”

    Strzok wrote: “Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time, I’m guessing :)”

    When an FBI official, who has not been publicly identified, texted Strzok to ask if they could help with anything, Strzok said, “Just need to relay to him not to close RAZOR yet. I talked with [REDACTED].” Strzok added, “Need to decide what to do with him with regard to the [REDACTED]. 7th floor involved.”

    The “7th floor” refers to the FBI’s top brass, which at the time was led by FBI Director James Comey and FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

    The FBI official told Strzok, “I heard that might be the case yesterday,” and asked, “Did DD send that material over?” in a likely reference to McCabe.

    An email from Strzok to Crossfire Hurricane team leader Bill Priestap and others on Jan. 21, 2017, provided insight into Strzok’s thought process for continuing to look into Flynn.

    Strzok suggested they “provide a defensive briefing to him about CROSS WIND” — an FBI target whose identity has not been confirmed.

    “I think my preference would be to provide him a defensive briefing about [REDACTED], put him on notice, and see what he does with that. If that’s not possible, then continue to monitor,” Strzok said. “We need to discuss what happens if DOJ directs us, or directly tells, VPOTUS or anyone else about the [REDACTED] specifically with regard to hat we do directly with him.”

    *** Strzok added, “I think it will be very difficult not to do some sort of overt step with him, a defensive briefing or interview under light ‘defensive briefing’ pretext unless WH specifically directs us not to.”

    – Washington Examiner

  3. So let me see if I get Turley right – the president asking foreign leaders to manufacture dirt against political opponent – reprehensible but can be defended. FBI counter-espionage investigator investigating Putin’s friend Flynn on Logan Act – which by last check still exists on book – gross abuse of power.

    Listen – this sham will be over in November. Get used to it. Here’s something to amuse yourself with:
    https://twitter.com/sarahcpr/status/1253474772702429189

    Enjoy!

  4. The right-wing and Turley’s summary of the evidence is like Barr’s summary of the Mueller report.

  5. So prosecutors, faced with reports that there is no crime by an individual, routinely create crimes in order to prosecute? Apparently that happens all the time.
    ___________________________________________________________________

    Of course this happens all the time. The prisons are filled with individuals prosecuted in this manner, but it generally happens to individuals that have little or no adequate counsel. It does not happen to someone spending millions on attorneys ( as Turley claims is the case here). That should tell you something about this particular plea deal which was always intended to throw red meat to the media lions to fuel a phony narrative but never intended to actually penalize Flynn.

  6. You are a smart man but you need to educate yourself. Here’s a reading list to start: “Plot Against the President “, Lee Smith; and “”Witch Hunt” and “The Russia Hoax” by Greg Jarrett. This is real reporting. Your shock there is really fake news and a media conspiracy against the President makes you look foolish.

    1. You are a smart man but you need to educate yourself. Here’s a reading list to start: “Plot Against the President “, Lee Smith; and “”Witch Hunt” and “The Russia Hoax”

      ______________________________________________________________
      The witch hunt and Russia hoax narrative was created by Trump

      The evidence is clear that the FBI’s Russia collusion investigation was dead and buried, But trump brought it back to life by firing Comey and appointing Mueller carry out a phony investigation.

      Mueller had nothing at all to investigate so it took a continuous series of tweets and leaks from the WH to keep that dead ball in the air for 2 more years. And of course the news media was delighted to keep this fiction alive and do their part to make it look like Mueller really had something to investigate when in fact there never was anything to investigate.

      Time and time again after each WH tweet or leak we were told that the walls were closing in on Trump, but it was all a steaming pile of BS

      https://youtu.be/rLEchPZm318

      1. Hang onto your britches, Honey. You are going to be on the wrong side of history. The truth is being revealed as we speak. If you are afraid of the truth don’t read the books I referenced. If you aren’t afraid of the truth, then I suggest you educate yourself.

        1. You are going to be on the wrong side of history.
          ______________________________________________

          History may have “sides” but the truth does not…

          There is no doubt that Mueller investigation is intended to appear as if it is a witch hunt and a coup attempt against the president. It is intended to appear exactly as the books you love describe it. The problem is Trump himself wrote the script for the Mueller investigation and Trump hired Mueller to act out that script. Every single thing Mueller investigated and every person investigated first had to be approved by Trump.

          Any fool could see that there was no truth to the Russia collusion story, which is exactly why the Trump administration hired a senile Mueller to investigate what Trump knew was always going to end up a nothing-burger.
          Trump says to himself: “Imagine how stupid the Democrats and media will look after cheering for a doddering idiot chasing after nothing for years.”
          And as we all know that is exactly how it all turned out.

          And every single one of the obstruction charges that are alluded to in the Mueller report were not discovered by Mueller. They were all things leaked to the media by the WH and they are all designed to fall apart if they are ever examined closely.

          The Flynn case is a perfect example of an accusation by Mueller that was designed to fall apart when examined closely.

          The Mueller report does not ever say that Flynn lied to the FBI. Instead it cleverly states that Flynn agreed to plead guilty to lying to the FBI.

          According to his report Mueller learned about Flynn’s talking to Kislyak about sanctions and his denial of those discussions from the newspapers which of course had been given that information by the White House. We all now know that Flynn did not lie to the FBI but we also know that Trump is on the record saying he fired Flynn for lying to the FBI even though the FBI at that point in time had never made any such charge or made any statement at all in regard to Flynn. The whole fake story of lying to the FBI had been created by the WH and then Mueller and Flynn acted it out.

          And then we have Comey testifying to Congress that Trump had applied pressure to “go easy” on Flynn and “let him go” but we now know that Flynn had not lied and both Comey and Trump knew that Flynn was innocent. That is just the first in a long series of alleged obstructive acts that Mueller recounts that when examined closely turn out to be fake.

          Those fake obstructive acts were created one after the other and leaked to the public to titillate the useful idiots in the press and the Democratic party who were thoroughly convinced that with each new revelation of obstruction the “walls were closing in” on Trump but it was always a mirage.

          https://youtu.be/rLEchPZm318

    2. Phyllis, put down the Kool Aid. Trump is a proven liar, as if that is not clear from watching him for 5 minutes. There should be a plot against him by the majority of voters who didn’t buy the BS.

        1. Phyllis, I don’t care about your opinions. I hope we are discussing facts.

          The facts are Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russians who interfered in our 2016 election to his benefit, and by failing to do anything about their continued efforts toward 2020, he is still colluding with them. Mueller documents the many ways in his report, though he could not charge criminal conspiracy based on the evidence. He pointedly did not address collusion because it is not a legal term and he did not clear the campaign of criminal conspiracy, limiting his conclusion to their inability to prove the criminal charge, and partly due to stonewalling. He did cite 10 instances of possibly chargeable obstruction of justice charges.

          1. and by failing to do anything about their continued efforts toward 2020, he is still colluding with them.
            ___________________________________________________
            Your positions are ridiculous.
            If Biden wins in 2020 because the corona virus killed the economy does that mean Biden should be prosecuted and jailed for colluding with China?

            Trump might have gained some votes from something Russia did or Trump might have lost votes because he was painted as being helped by Russia.
            Who knows how voters reacted to what Russia did in 2016?
            But there is no evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia or any other foreign power.

          2. He did cite 10 instances of possibly chargeable obstruction of justice charges.

            And yet none of those possibilities found there way into the House articles of impeachment. There’s a reason for that. It’s because even Schiff knew Mueller’s investigation concluded there was no evidence to support an actual impeachable offense. Mueller ended in a worse position than where he began. Schiff and the Democrats ended in a worse position than where they began. On the front end, they had their truth and no facts. On the back end, they had President Trump’s truth and his facts. So in the end, all you have is what you and Biden declare is a belief in truth not facts.

            And President Trump is stronger today because of that. Thank you.

          3. He did cite 10 instances of possibly chargeable obstruction of justice charges.

            IOW, charging him for (1) firing an employee for cause and (2) obstructing Andrew Weissman’s obstruction investigation.

        2. Phyllis, I am sure you know by now that this boob bythebook started under the name Jan F. that he had to leave and find a new name, Anon. He had to leave that name as well and has had multiple other aliases along with using anonymous at times. He is an uneducated nut who lies and has practiced abusive behavior. Don’t feel singled out as he can act this way with anyone though the abuse seems to more against one sex than the other.

          1. Well, you know the saying: “Sticks and stones….” I think it is healthy we have different opinions. The people (like this one) who put on the armor of ignorance and cling to it until it rusts around them rather than read reliable investigative reporting who present hard, documented facts, are too shallow to argue with. I love a good debate, but I’m not fond of rolling in the mud with the looney.

  7. Prof. Turley,
    Whatever you may have thought a year ago, I have to wonder what in your mind would constitute a good reason to discard the plea if prosecutors manufacturing a crime and extorting a plea with (apparently) the assistance of the defendant’s lawyers is not such.

    I look forward to your reply as I have considerable respect for your thoughts. (Placed at the end to avoid the “but” 🙂

  8. This makes me think of the FBI’s special relationship with Whitey Bulger. Oh, I forgot, Whitey’s brother Billy was the state senate president in Massachusetts. Those democrats stick together. Nothing to see here folks just move along.

    1. JH

      That article accurately summarizes my views. It is a good write up. Thanks for the link.

    2. I realize the Flynn is holy and such a “patriot” but I think the material you will find at this site is worth reading.
      _______________________________________________________________

      The false premise that site is operating under is that it assumes that Flynn did lie to the FBI.

      On its face the charge that Flynn lied has always been ridiculous. There is lots of evidence that Flynn understood that his conversation with The Russian ambassador was monitored by both the US and Russia. In other words, Flynn knew he was answering questions that the FBI could easily verify, but more important there was no good reason for him to lie. He had nothing to lie about.

      The fact is it was obvious back 2-1/2 years ago when he was plead guilty that Flynn was either an idiot or there was some other explanation why he was pleading guilty.

      As for Strzok and Page it was their understanding that the whole Russia-Trump-Collusion investigation was over shortly after Trump was inaugurated. But then the Trump administration fired Comey and hired Mueller to reopen the Russia/trump investigation and had Strzok and Page transferred to the Mueller team and then shortly thereafter Mueller fired them.

      Strzok and Page are the victims in this sordid affair. Their careers were destroyed because of the private conversations they had about Trump.
      Strzok and Page were fired because (the Trump administration claims) the words they had spoken in private caused harm to the FBI when they were made public. The problem with that is that it was Trump and his DOJ that made the private conversations public and then they turn around and blame Strzok and Page for the damage that revelation caused.

      The DOJ act of releasing the private communications of Strzok and Page was itself deliberate and unlawful disclosure to the media of conversations, intended to be private, from an FBI systems of records, in violation of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C.
      But of course, there is no one to enforce the law when the violator is the chief executive and his DOJ.

      Horowitz, the inspector general, has established that Strzok and Page did nothing wrong in carrying out their duties. What they said in private is nobody’s business and had no impact on the execution of their FBI duties.

      The firing of Strzok and Page was a gross violation of their First Amendment rights and they were summarily fired without any due process.

        1. You will be found complicit in the most egregious crimes in history
          _______________________________________________________

          I have violated no laws, but the Trump DOJ did most certainly violate the law by giving the private records of FBI employees to the news media.
          And then to make it even more evil they turned around and fired those FBI employees because, the DOJ said, the private communications that the DOJ illegally made public made the FBI look bad in the eyes of the public.

        2. “Poor soul. You will be found complicit in the most egregious crimes in history.”

          Phyllis, 2 words: no soul. They have no soul. How else to explain how they abort babies, then selling her body parts for cash?

          1. They have no soul. How else to explain how they abort babies, then selling her body parts for cash?
            ______________________________________________________

            Please produce some evidence I have done that.

            What? you don’t have evidence?

            OK, then you admit that you are a liar.

            1. What? you don’t have evidence?

              OK, then you admit that you are a liar.

              You demanding evidence is rich. Produce the evidence that proves your theory President Trump concocted the Trump-Russia conspiracy investigation and was the mastermind of getting Bob Mueller the SC slot.

              What? You don’t have evidence?

              Then you are precisely a jinn.. And for those that don’t know what that means, they can read about who you are here.
              https://www.islamreligion.com/articles/669/viewall/world-of-jinn/

              1. President Trump concocted the Trump-Russia conspiracy investigation and was the mastermind of getting Bob Mueller the SC slot.
                ______________________________________________________
                Here is some evidence of who invented the Russiagate narrative.
                Trump and Rosenstein had a secret oval office meeting with Trump May16, 2017
                On May 17 Rosenstein announces Mueller’s appointment to Special Counsel.
                6 hours later Trump tweets its a hoax and a witch hunt and a coup attempt.
                And that is all it takes to convince the knuckle-dragging goobers that it is real.

                When Congress asked Mueller what he and Trump discussed at that May 16 meeting Mueller said he couldn’t remember. You believe that? Right?

                1. That’s not evidence, that’s building a theory out of box of legos. Takes an imagination and a jinn’s motivation.

                  1. That’s not evidence
                    _____________________________________________

                    It is evidence that Trump took a dead FBI investigation and blew it up so big that it was just about the only thing news media talked about for 2 years. There never was anything to the Trump-Russia collusion story and of course after years of hearing little else but that Trump was going to be indicted by Mueller for consorting with Russians and then suddenly it was over. The outcome revealed to be a giant nothing-burger and after all the phony hype that outcome was a huge victory for Trump.

                    The whole phony kayfabe spectacle was manufactured by Trump and for Trump.

              2. “Then you are precisely a jinn.. And for those that don’t know what that means…”

                yawn. we know who jinn is. ain’t that right gainesville?

                1. Is gainesville somebody who believes that Russia colusion story is a made up fantasy?
                  If this guy has written about that I would appreciate a link so that I can see what he has to say.

                  1. The Mueller Report documents the Trump/Russian collusion, most of which we knew about from excellent reporting and did not exonerate Trump of collusion – not a legal term – though it stated there was not sufficient evidence to charge criminal conspiracy – a legal term. It did not exonerate him of anything and listed 10 instances of probably chargeable obstruction of justice. Given DOJ guidelines on charging a sitting president, it left it at that.

                    This is not rocket science – it is the facts – but the general public and of course the kind of Trump stooges who mostly populate this site, are easily swayed by the oft repeated big lies of “no collusion” and “exonerated”.

                    1. The Mueller Report documents the Trump/Russian collusion, most of which we knew about from excellent reporting and did not exonerate Trump of collusion
                      _______________________________________________
                      What nonsense. It states in plain English that they found zero evidence of trump conspiring with Russia.

                      The Trump Russia collusion story was created by Trump when he publicly invited Russia “if you are listening” to find Hillary’s missing emails. Then shortly afterwards the FBI got word from a foreign diplomat that someone in the Trump campaign had a connection to Russians who might have those emails. That obviously triggered a FBI investigation, but it all turned out to be BS. And all the BS was created by and coming from the Trump camp. There was no evidence other than evidence that the trump camp was filled with people who are prone to BS.

                      The Mueller Report states that after trump was elected the trump campaign did not even know how to get in contact with the Russian govt.

                    2. Jinn:

                      “Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.

                      While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”…”

                      https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/

                      “…“We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,” Mueller added. “Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”…”

                      https://www.politico.eu/article/mueller-refutes-trumps-no-collusion-no-obstruction-line/

                      Or you could read the report.

                    3. The Mueller Report documents the Trump/Russian collusion, most of which we knew about from excellent reporting and did not exonerate Trump of collusion
                      _______________________________________________

                      There was no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion in the Mueller report. Even the evidence of Russian interference in the election is turning out to be pretty lame. The last i heard the DOJ has dropped the one case that was challenged in court and probably would drop the other if it were challenged.

                      From the Mueller report:

                      “the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

                      “Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.”

                  2. Jinn asks the incredulous question: ‘who is gainesville’?

                    “I’m innocent, none of those witnesses saw me do it and if they did they are all liars, all the cameras have been altered and someone else is using my fingerprints and …..

                    1. Jinn asks the incredulous question: ‘who is gainesville’?
                      ______________________________________________
                      Stop with the lying.
                      I don’t care who the heck gainesville is.
                      Only pea brained idiots like yourself care who commenters are.

                      I asked what did this guy say that has got you guys spinning in circles for many many months after he said it. I want to know what he said.

                      But I don’t expect an answer to my question. I might as well asked the question to a chimpanzee at the zoo.

                    2. “Stop with the lying.” … ‘I’m innocent, none of those witnesses saw me do it and if they did they are all liars, all the cameras have been altered and someone else is using my fingerprints and …..’

                      You can abuse people and lie but the dirt sticks to you.

          2. Peggy, I understand your sentiment. I’m pretty harsh on them as well. But I do believe they all have a soul, the problem is that the devil has a hold on them. I, too, have disdain for their total lack of respect for life. My heart has been heavy for a long time knowing the abominations committed for ” a woman’s right to choose.” It gives me chills.

    1. You have probably noticed that they take [steal] a lot of credit from the work of local law enforcement.

      I remember an incident years ago when a teen girl had run off with an adult male and the whole country was on the alert.

      A sheriff’s deputy spotted both of them on a beach in Florida and was able to arrest the suspect and recover the girl. In early news clips the girl was seen wearing a borrowed sheriff’s office jacket. Then for the rest of the next several news cycles an FBI jacket was draped over her shoulders and the feds claimed credit for the rescue. I have seen other instances of the like and I suspect it happens often. “See Something, Say Something?” I would go to local law enforcement. I no longer trust the feds to handle it competently and I wouldn’t want to get Richard Jeweled.

      1. The last time I had a client report an interstate crime to FBI it took forever to get through, and then the phone operator made a note of it and told the client to call the local sheriff. Well ha, see, client already had called the sheriff who did what they could, but for the interstate part of the problem the sheriff rightly said call the FBI. And so we did. Obviously, they did nothing.

        See, the FBI is too busy. Doing important stuff, you know, like entrapping 3 star generals, spying on political campaigns they don’t like, really busy, so they can be bothered with the peasants small stuff.

        Now if the local fed prosecutors get a bee in their bonnet, then the FBI will go on the march. They like to keep up appearances. Especially with the low hanging fruit easy cases.

        Otherwise, Im not sure what keeps them so busy., Ya know, other than stuff like “Crossfire Hurricane.” and chasing nonexistent Russian spies.

  9. I posted this on the wrong thread earlier, so now I am putting it where it belongs:
    —————–

    J H Kunstler, a Democrat, wrote a great article this morning on this. I can’t link it here because of the wordpress filter. I tried earlier to post the whole thing but it wouldn’t go thru. So here is a shorter excerpt:
    ————-
    Slouching Toward Resolution

    General Flynn had been an irritant to the Obama administration in his role as chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency. He disagreed with a lot going on around him and he said so, especially the nuclear deal that was percolating with Iran. Mr. Obama canned General Flynn in 2014. Afterward, CIA chief John Brennan and DNI James Clapper put him under surveillance and played entrapment games with him, using some of the same shady characters (Stefan Halper, Richard Dearlove) who later showed up as RussiaGate players.

    In early 2016, Gen. Flynn joined the Trump campaign as a foreign affairs advisor and that summer made the mistake of leading the “Lock her up,” chant to a delirious crowd at the Republican Convention. Perhaps he knew a thing or two about the activities of the Clinton Foundation. Perhaps he also knew what Jeffrey Epstein was up to. Then Mr. Trump shocked the world and won the election. Gen. Flynn was soon appointed incoming National Security Advisor. One can imagine the anxiety crackling through a Democrat-controlled Deep State on the verge of surrendering power to its enemies. The alarm bells that went off through the vast US Intel underground must have been deafening.

    In a panic, the Intel Community set in motion a suite of operations to get rid of both Flynn and Trump. On December 29, late in the transition-of-power, President Obama lit up a diplomatic flare by confiscating country retreat properties in Maryland and Long Island owned by the Russian embassy and expelling 35 embassy employees, supposedly as payback for Russia “interfering in the 2016 election.” This prompted a conversation between incoming National Security Advisor Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. That cued the FBI to entrap General Flynn. The news media played along with the preposterous falsehood that high American officials should not communicate with diplomats posted to the USA. The shady gotcha interview about that with Flynn, conducted by FBI officers Peter Strzok and Joseph Pientka, has been dissected to death, so I’ll spare you that, except to say that it was carried out in obvious bad faith.

    The court case over all that has dragged out for more than three years now, though anyone could see from the get-go that it was a malicious prosecution. (I said as much more than once in this blog years ago.) Presiding Judge Emmet Sullivan has overlooked flagrant misconduct by DOJ prosecutors, led by Brandon Van Grack. FBI Director Christopher Wray has concealed exculpatory evidence of FBI and DOJ misconduct that favored General Flynn for three years. General Flynn’s previous attorneys from the DC law firm of Covington and Burling ­­­­­­­­— where Mr. Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder is a partner — represented Gen. Flynn poorly, and did so apparently on-purpose. In spite of all that, the case is unraveling thanks to the diligence of Gen. Flynn’s new attorney, Sidney Powell, who cuts through government bullsh!t like a samurai sword through tofu.
    ————-
    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

Leave a Reply