Should We Prepare to Discover The FBI Never Officially Used The Kislyak-Flynn Transcript?…

You may have recently noticed that Susan Rice has called for the release of the transcript of the conversation between Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak:

(Source and Full Statement)

However, what many people do not realize is the motive for Susan Rice to call for the release of this transcript.  This aspect of the intercepted communication is very interesting.

First, there is nothing damaging in the content of the Flynn-Kislyak call.  We know there is nothing damaging in the transcript because the call was made on December 29, 2016; and the FBI investigators who intercepted the call reviewed the call content; and five days later on January 4, 2017, the same Washington DC field office of the FBI wanted to close the investigation of Michael Flynn having “found no derogatory information.”

If there had been something damaging within the call to either the incoming Trump administration, or Michael Flynn himself, the FBI would not be saying they have found nothing derogatory and they were closing the Flynn investigation five days after the call.

Additionally, we also know there was nothing damaging or inappropriate within the call because Robert Mueller’s investigators outlined the content:

Flynn requesting that “Russia not escalate the situation” or get into a “tit for tat” is not inappropriate, impolite, undermining of Obama foreign policy, or violating any norm of diplomatic political standards during a presidential transition.  Incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn simply said don’t “escalate” beyond standard reciprocity.

So the “transcript” of a call that was already reviewed by FBI investigative monitors -who found no issue- and reviewed by the special counsel -who found nothing of issue-  isn’t going to all of a sudden present damaging optics for the Trump administration three years later.  [I put “transcript” in quotation marks for a reason; I will explain below.]

The bottom line is any transcript released today, if there is one, is a nothing-burger.

So why is Susan Rice advocating for the release of the transcript?

Here’s where things get interesting…

Remember, the objective of Susan Rice and her lawyer, former White House counsel and Obama ‘fixer’ Kathryn Ruemmler, is to protect President Obama and the former administration.   Obama, Rice and Ruemmler know the transcript angle is a nothing-burger; however, the transcript does one thing very clearly…. It puts the burden of consequence for the use of the transcript squarely on former FBI Director James Comey.

I suspect, very heavily, Susan Rice is requesting release of full transcript because she knows it was non-existent to the Obama White House.  That fact puts more distance between Obama and Comey; and that paints the FBI operation against Flynn as rogue. The distance here was/is ongoing goal.

This gets a little nuanced; but the REAL story is in the weeds.

In early January 2017 DNI James Clapper was asked by the White House to find out why the Russians were not escalating the issue over sanctions by reacting with more ferocity to the action of President Obama.  As James Comey testified, the intelligence community was tasked to “review all intelligence for an answer.”

FBI Director Comey reviewed the content of the Kislyak-Flynn interception and briefed DNI James Clapper on the “Flynn cuts.”  The “cuts” are essentially raw intelligence summaries of the intercept.

DNI Clapper requested “copies” (plural) of the intercepted raw intelligence summaries known as “CR cuts” (Flynn is Crossfire Razor “CR”); and using the copies of the intercept summaries DNI Clapper briefed President Obama on January 4, 2017, thereby answering the question about why the Russian’s were not reacting more severely.

However, the outcome of DNI Clapper briefing President Obama, with what Deputy Director Andrew McCabe described as “a summary document” that wasn’t an official “intelligence product”, was the White House now being officially informed of an open FBI investigation against incoming NSA Michael Flynn.  The White House was now infected with knowledge of the investigation…. and that could be a potential problem later on.

The knowledge of an investigation into the incoming administration; and the document trail created by Clapper/Comey; created a need for President Obama to have the pull-aside meeting with FBI Director James Comey the next day, January 5, 2017.

The purpose of the meeting was to create distance from an explosive & political issue.  The outgoing administration needed distance from James Comey.  Everything written in Susan Rice’s memo about the meeting is specifically worded to create that distance.

Susan Rice writes: “The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective”, adding three times that President Obama instructed Comey to handle everything “by the book.”   In essence the way Susan Rice framed the conversation was to place James Comey as specifically responsible for anything that happens.

Now, FBI Director James Comey isn’t stupid, and he would have immediately picked up on how he was being positioned outside the protective wire and completely on his own.  Being a very political FBI Director, Comey would know exactly what the purpose of these specific words and instructions from the President implied.

Rice’s memo, written with the advice of White House counsel, is specifically worded to create distance.  You might say the White House was leaving Comey holding the proverbial bag; and setting him up to be the ‘fall guy‘ if things went sideways.

This is the point where we need to put ourselves in Comey’s very political shoes.  Comey knows the purpose of that meeting.  Comey also knows essentially Obama is saying he didn’t authorize an investigation of Flynn and Obama is not going to protect Comey.

So what exactly was Comey tasked to do on behalf of the White House?

The only thing (provable) the FBI was specifically tasked to do was find out the reason for Russia’s behavior or lack thereof.  That’s it.  Comey carried authority to produce the intercepted “tech cuts”; and as an outcome of the task share them with DNI Clapper. But that’s the end of the White House/DNI tasking authority to the FBI against Flynn.

Director Comey was not tasked, authorized or requested to produce a transcript of the intercepted phone call; and he was not tasked to do anything else with it.  From the perspective of Obama, Comey’s task was complete January 5th, anything more is on him.

The lack of investigative authority toward Flynn is a key point to consider as we look at the internal FBI debate.  Remember, the day before the Obama/Comey conversation the FBI investigators had already determined there was “no derogatory information” and they were going to close the investigation.  Additionally, there was nothing of issue within the Flynn-Kislyak call content itself.

Anything, including legal risk from an abuse of power, after that January 5th meeting was now completely on Director Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s shoulders.

With that in mind, the debate with FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap, and the January 23/24, 2017, meetings where Priestap is taking notes of conversations with Comey and McCabe, take on a new and narrow focus.

As Priestap took notes about his original concerns: “what is our goal?”

The FBI small group (Comey, McCabe, Baker, Page, Priestap, Strzok, Pientka) together with the DOJ small group (Yates, McCord, Guahar, Moffa) had proposed a wild theory about accusing Flynn of Logan Act violations.  Somehow, despite their own investigators saying there was nothing derogatory, the group was determined to eliminate Flynn.

The crew was leaking to the media for support; but even with the severe echo chamber Bill Priestap had reservations writing in his notes during their meeting “I believe we should rethink this.”

The FBI team led mostly by Comey, McCabe, Page and Strzok never even told the main justice crew about the decision to interview Flynn until after it was over, according to Deputy AG Sally Yates.

The FBI wasn’t tasked by anyone else to interview Flynn four days after the inauguration.  The content of the Flynn-Kislyak call was fine according to the DC FBI investigators; and the controversy was generated by their own ‘small group’ media leaks and narrative engineering.   So ultimately what was the authority to interview Flynn?

According to the outside review by Missouri U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen there wasn’t any legal reason or justified authority to conduct the interview.  Hence, Jensen recommended to AG Bill Barr that the DOJ just drop the case; and they did.

The only FBI “pre-authorized” evidence was the gathering of the tech summary or “cuts” from the intercept.  There was no task or authorization to generate a transcript or do anything further.  James Comey would know that, and he would definitely know from the earlier conversation with President Obama that he was all alone.

With that in mind, do you think Comey would assemble an actual transcript for use in the Flynn interview that Main Justice was never informed was going to happen?  Or, would it be safer to stick with the “CR Cuts” and summaries that FBI Agent Strzok and FBI Agent Pientka saw, reviewed and knew about?

In the aftermath of the interview; and amid six months where nothing was done as a result of the interview; and amid all of the subsequent congressional requests for the transcript with no results; and amid all of the special counsel indictment filings against Flynn; and amid all of the legal proceedings against Flynn where the transcripts were requested (defense) and later ordered (judge) over two years; and not produced by prosecutor (Van Grack et al) there is zero evidence the Flynn-Kislyak transcript(s) even exist.

The reality is: there is 100 percent evidence the Flynn transcripts were never used in any proceedings, including legal proceedings; and zero percent evidence they even exist.

When we consider there is nothing derogatory within the Flynn-Kislyak conversation; and the only Flynn issue is how the FBI framed the content of answers to questions about a transcript the FBI has never admitted to exist, or presented to prove their case…Well, is it possible all of the efforts against Flynn were constructed from the use of “tech cuts” or “CR cuts” or summaries of the intercept?

That possibility is only real because the transcripts have never been identified.

The FBI, the DOJ, the special counsel, and the specific prosecutors have never stated they ever held an official transcript beyond the evidence of the call summaries identified above.

Could it be the DOJ bluffed Flynn into a guilty plea with: (1) threats against Mike Flynn Jr, (2) a fabricated 302 written/edited/shaped AFTER the interview, and (3) a non-existent transcript?  

We know 1 and 2 did happen… should we prepare for 3?

.

… A few more days:

This entry was posted in 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, Abusive Cops, Activist Judges, AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Cold Anger, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Election 2020, FBI, IG Report Comey, IG Report FISA Abuse, IG Report McCabe, media bias, Notorious Liars, NSA, President Trump, Spygate, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

715 Responses to Should We Prepare to Discover The FBI Never Officially Used The Kislyak-Flynn Transcript?…

  1. cronus titan says:

    Why did Obama want Russia to react strongly to the expulsion of the diplomats?

    Like

    • jay says:

      IMHO – because they were building a case for conspiracy/collusion. It was not only what the Russians said or did – its how the incoming administration would react to the sanctions and say, while still on OBAMA’s clock. They were all monitored. The clock had not run out yet on the BHO WH.

      When Jan 20 come, and they did not get the STATEMENT THEY WANTED IN FLYNN TRANSCRIPT – they fabricated a narrative, BY NOT GIVING UP THE FLYNN TRANSCRIPT.

      Think about this – The idea that one member of the administration would not be 100% truthful to another member of the administration was a fabrication and blown out of proportion (by Yates) for a reason. Yates comes across as delusional in the transcript. The question is brought up – is this a crime? a misstatement between two government officials – and her reaction is to persist and insist it is a major problem. It make no sense.

      In the end, it entrapped both Flynn and Pence. (We know Rice lied on TV about Benghazi and yet here Yates is freaking out over whether the word sanction was said, or discussed by Flynn, or they misstated information among themselves, or that Pence lied to the people of the USA because he said one thing and Flynn said another).

      The OBJECT was and ALWAYS WILL BE POWER.
      How do the RATS get POWER
      How do the RATS KEEP POWER.
      How do the RATS get POWER BACK.

      Liked by 2 people

      • vladdy says:

        Wasn’t he also trying to assure that PDT was coming into a presidency in which he would immediately have “trouble” with the Russians, so their media friends could
        helpfully “point out” that O had no such problems?…and then they could speculate (as “news”) that “if this continues, it could mean that” blah blah blah?

        Her “personal” memo sure does contain a lot of “bureaucratese,” doesn’t it? All those “as relates to” and “as concerns.” Didn’t Orwell write that when you do that, it means you are using a vague term earlier in the sentence that now “needs” to be explained, didn’t he?

        Then there’s that awkward “Coming from a national security perspective, Comey—-” Ah, the syntax nazi comes out in me at times like these.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Robert Timsah says:

    ‘POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing’

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Suzanne Eastman says:

    Which participant in all of this said: “first we f—Flynn, then we f—Trump”? That line seems to point to the perpetrators!

    Liked by 3 people

    • Does anybody have a list of the agents names that were in the room when that was said? I bet Sidney and PDJT would like to know who they were……………..

      Liked by 2 people

    • railer says:

      McCabe said that (reportedly).

      And reading that, it was tough to believe that Barr would let him skate without prosecution, but he has. The guy said the above, like to the IG who recommended he be prosecuted, and Barr lets him skate?

      Barr’s covering up.

      Liked by 3 people

      • lftpm says:

        I disagree. Barr is a moral man. He does not like Commu-Socialism. He knows that if the coup plotters are not punished, the Commu-Socialist plan will move ahead unhindered.

        Barr also knows that convicting coup plotters in D.C. District Court is impossible. Ninety-one percent of D.C. residents voted for Obama in 2012, and 90% for HRC in 2016. Only 4% voted for Trump. Getting 100% of jurors to unanimously vote to convict anti-Trump “resisters” is a pipe-dream.

        Only military tribunals will bring justice, as Barr is surely aware.

        (The Constitution requires trials to be held in states in which crimes are committed. Elsewhere, Congress determines trial locations. There is almost certainly a statute providing for D.C. crimes to be tried in D.C. Could it be overcome, in the name of justice, with trials being convened in districts like Northern Florida, Southern Georgia, Western Missouri, Eastern Washington, Idaho, Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah…? If there is any chance, Barr and Durham have surely studied the possibility.)

        Liked by 3 people

        • hagarthorrible says:

          Indict, arrest, and try…the final verdict will be irrelevent; is there any thinking American who thinks OJ didn’t kill his wife? he was acquitted but America holds him as guilty to this day. so it should be with McCabe, Comey, Clapper, Brennan, and Barack H Obama…and their gang of theives…they worked long and hard to STEAL OUR SUCCESSFUL VOTES. Bring out the handcuffs…fire up the “Ttrials of the Centuries”

          Liked by 3 people

        • railer says:

          If Barr has absolved McCabe of a crime, then he is not a moral man, sorry.

          He specifically ignored a recommendation from the IG that McCabe should be prosecuted.

          Barr is dirty as sin.

          Liked by 2 people

        • exactly….only MILITARY TRIBUNALS…..can bring justice for some f those beauties…

          Liked by 1 person

      • tacocat43 says:

        That was then. This is now. There is a lot coming.

        Like

    • dwpender says:

      This comment has been oft-repeated. Not one person has come forward to say he was present when McCabe made any such comment. No document has surfaced reflecting any such statement.

      I think we have to classify this as “internet rumor” until and unless some supporting evidence appears.

      Liked by 1 person

      • lftpm says:

        If McCabe said it, no one would admit it.

        IG Horowitz said he could not prove political bias affected people’s decision-making, because everyone assured him it did not. LMFAO.

        As for a taped or written statement, the FBI has proven its ability to “disappear” incriminating evidence, e.g. Pientka’s original Flynn interview 302.

        For that matter, why do you think that the FBI tapes lots of stuff, but refuses to audiotape or videotape suspect interviews, in flagrant contravention to otherwise universal law enforcement practice? They do it to create a he said-she said situation at trial with the benefit of juror doubt going to the “good guys”, or more often to issue that threat when extracting plea deals: “We took notes at the table, did you?” If a Flynn or Martha Stewart did not have a lawyer at interview, the defendant possesses no contemporaneous notes.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Smack says:

          Which is why you never, NEVER, agree to be interviewed by any manner of law enforcement without the presence of your lawyer and a court reporter. Pricey? Yes. An order of magnitude or two cheaper than defending against made-up charges? Also, yes.

          The first question(s) your lawyer should ask at such an interview before allowing it to proceed: (1) Are there any pending charges against my client? (2) Is my client the subject of any current law enforcement investigations? (3) Will my client’s responses today be used to support any charges or law enforcement investigations against my client?

          Until Wray starts turning over the goods on the dirty cops in the FBI and clearing them out, this is how ALL interactions with the FBI should take place.

          Liked by 2 people

          • acenypd says:

            As a NYC Transit cop from the early 1980’s, let me say that is how I knew if the person I arrested was a repeat offender. After giving them there rights, the last question you ask is do they want to answer questions. The ones that said ‘yes’, were first time offenders, those that said ‘no’, almost always had long records.

            Like

      • BitterC says:

        Sidney included the first we f Flynn thing in one of her filings

        Liked by 1 person

    • Lillie Belle says:

      Mccabe

      Like

    • TrickleUpPolitics says:

      And Clapper is the person who told McCabe to “take the kill shot” against Flynn, right?

      Like

  4. berniekopell says:

    This excerpt is taken from the DOJ Motion to Dismiss in the Flynn case:

    “The FBI had in their possession transcripts of the relevant calls. See Ex. 5 at 3; Ex. 13 at 3, FBI FD-302, Interview of Peter Strzok, July 19, 2017 (Date of Entry: Aug. 22, 2017).”

    Priestrap’s notes also mention a transcript. More FBI lies, this time to Jensen? I would love to see the memo from the Priestrap interview under seal.

    It seems to me that DOJ would not represent there are “transcripts” without first verfying that information.

    I have another theory. Perhaps there is more than one transcript — one that is accurate and another one that was altered to bolster the Flynn set up like the altered 302. Falsifying documents was par for the course with this group.

    Liked by 8 people

    • jnr2d2 says:

      I am sorry, Bill Clinton has made me a “word” cynic. NOTE the WORD “HAD.” As in past tense! Implying they do not have it NOW! At the time of the Motion to Dismiss.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Rachel Guess says:

      I absolutely agree. The page/strzok texts prove that the 302 was edited to meet with the requirements for their agenda, yet the original 302 has *magically* vanished.

      As a retired LEO, I know that SOP is that original reports cannot be edited, they can only be ordered to be rewritten for clarification purposes (ie the report indicated that the victim was wounded with a firearm owned by the suspect, but lacks any indication that the firearm was wielded by the suspect at the time of the incident, etc.). Anytime additional information is found after an original report has been filed, an addendum is filed and attached to the original report, but the original report remains unchanged.

      Another big question is the timing of the report filed. Generally speaking reports are filed by end of shift, or sometimes by the end of the work week, so everything is still fresh in the mind of the investigator. This 302 was not filed for THREE WEEKS which means there was a LOT of time for *editing* by strzok and page. So, once again, it goes back to the question of where is the original 302 that should have been filed by pientka?

      Liked by 5 people

      • As a Man Thinkth says:

        They were working ” by the book”…it appears that Comey, McCabe nor Strock did anything “by the book”

        Liked by 1 person

        • vladdy says:

          Note how she said they were doing it by the book “as relates to law enforcement.” Although we know she just put that in there because bureaucratese impresses other bureaucrats, the end result is, it looks like she is indicating that in other areas, not related to law enforcement, they were NOT acting “by the book.” That’s what happens when a bureaucrat thinks government style is more important than plain, ol’ clarity.

          Like

      • dilonsfo says:

        I too am a retired LEO. No way an original report is just torn up. It is kept because when a case goes to court you had better have the original and the rewritten report (know as a follow up or amended report) to show what was added or subtracted. If you can’t produce it then all of your testimony could be thrown out by the judge.,

        Liked by 6 people

        • republicanvet91 says:

          Well, that certainly would depend on the judge and what their political affiliation was.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Rachel Guess says:

            republicanvet91,

            It is certainly not supposed to and in my experience that is generally not the case. Partisanship does not belong in the judicial system or law enforcement, although sadly there are always bad apples in any crop. The same rules have to apply as a requirement in every investigation and every trial, otherwise it is not a system of justice.

            Thank you for your service.

            Liked by 1 person

            • republicanvet91 says:

              I appreciate your response Rachel, and I was honored to serve.

              I was being sarcastic in that it appears clear from Sullivan’s actions that anything goes as long as it furthers the leftist agenda.

              Truth be told, I am incredibly disgusted by not only this judge, but the many other politicians and LEO’s across the country who swore an oath and are blatantly ignoring that oath.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Yeoman says:

              Rachel Guess, I appreciate your perspective on this. However, the overwhelming evidence before us in the Flynn case suggests otherwise.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Rachel Guess says:

                Yeoman,

                As I said earlier, sadly, there are always some bad apples in every crop. In General Flynn’s case it is abundantly clear that many participated in committing numerous crimes against him, including abuse of authority under color of law, and I personally hope that each and every one of them is held accountable to the fullest extent of the law, including the judge.

                When both teams exit the field the umpire goes home, he doesn’t get to call in replacement teams of his choosing to play the game in order to arrive at an outcome that he has predetermined.

                And thank you for your service as well.

                Like

      • dilonsfo says:

        I should add, (after working on task forces with the FBI, DEA, ATF), that federal agencies lie all the time. In my experience, the feds quite often bend the law if not out right ignore the law and lie about it. Have spend a lot of time testifying in court about my observations while working on the task forces trying to explain what the feds did or didn’t do. In cases that were held in State courts the feds were held accountable. In cases that were heard in federal courts the judges just ignored what the feds did and went on with the trial as if their omissions didn’t occur. This is one reason the feds are the only agency that claim they do not tape or video record planned interviews ( some interview occur spontaneously in the field and are unable to be recorded). The majority of feds play dirty and that includes the prosecutors.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Joemama says:

          I was an alternate juror on a trial where a man was sent to jail for the rest of his life (3 strikes law in CA) by two police officers that clearly had a personal vendetta against the man. They planted evidence (bag of cocaine) in a neighbors house, raided the house when he was visiting socially and framed him for the cocaine they supposedly found in a bedroom closet. Several people testified that he had only been at the neighbors house for a short time and had never left the living room.

          I would have never voted to convict. The officer’s stories were not consistent, the body language and silent mouthing of curses at the defendant, when the judge wasn’t looking, etc. showed that they were lying and hated the man.

          It was really hard to see a father of 3 go to jail for the rest of his life for something that he almost certainly hadn’t done. I could do nothing but get sick, being an alternate juror.

          BTW – the other two “strikes” were not serious or violent crimes

          Like

        • acenypd says:

          Is the interviewee allowed to record the interview? As a retired LEO with over 150 arrests, I was never asked if they could. Of course I was making arrests in the 1980’s, so not too many people have recorders on them like they do today.

          Like

    • lftpm says:

      Great points. I surmise that in order to generate a transcript, whether human or AI composed, there had to be a recorded voice-communication source, no? If I called you, and an AI machine made a simultaneous transcript with no voice-recording done that would be borderline Skynet.

      Like

  5. islandpalmtrees says:

    Should We Prepare to Discover The FBI Never Officially Used The Kislyak-Flynn Transcript?

    What would you do, if you realized that the information you used to create the Transcript was illegally obtained. Hide the Tech Cuts and the Transcript?

    The White House ordered Clapper. This is a Presidential Order to monitor Flynn’s phone calls. Presidential Orders, have to go through AG Yates. Clearly this Presidential Order did not.

    Obama knew the Law, but he broke it anyway.

    Liked by 4 people

    • jnr2d2 says:

      This is all and good as to unmaskings (or summary cuts, whatever) after Dec 29th. But please explain ALL the unmaskings prior to the 29th.

      Liked by 2 people

      • islandpalmtrees says:

        My information is nothing more than speculation. For example: what are the rules in regard to a Presidential Order, if the order was made prior to Dec 29th initially. Is the president still required to go through the AG on Dec 29, if the first Presidential Order on Flynn was in July of 2016 for example.

        Like

        • As a Man Thinkth says:

          It would be informative to have an entire listing of All Presidential Orders issued by Obama, along with dates issued and specific departments authorized to take action…A guy with a “pen and a phone” can get out of control very quickly…

          Like

    • lftpm says:

      “Obama knew the law” assumes facts not in evidence. He accused Flynn of perjury, not for pleading innocent in court under oath, but for lying to FBI agents. Lying to the FBI without taking an oath is a crime, but it is assuredly not perjury.

      Obama had a great chance to show his knowledge of the law by writing law reviews while serving as president at Harvard Law Review, in the tradition of all previous presidents. He became the first, and still only one not to do so. Nor did he ever write any subsequent scholarly law articles.

      He never did a court clerkship where his legal acumen and research skills would be tested.

      He taught some mickey mouse elective classes on the civil rights movement and race law as a part-time lecturer at U Chicago. These were initially popular, but after year 3, student reviews flagged. While teaching there he had a reputation for arriving at class, giving his lectures, then immediately departing while not interacting with (law-knowledgeable) UC faculty.

      He did graduate magna cum laude at Harvard, like Mitt Romney, but, in the modern era, exam cheating was widespread, and his backers could easily have given him an earbud and answers provided by legal eagles. (Exams were stored on floppy discs then printed out. Easy pickings for “night janitors”.) Report papers written by others were commonly available as well.

      Liked by 3 people

      • islandpalmtrees says:

        What was the name of the White House lawyer at the time, Neil Eggleston. Hay Neil, what’s the law on this. I can by-pass the AG anytime, I wont too – thanks.

        Like

  6. muckeyduck says:

    I have a couple questions:
    1) Clapper was asked by the White House to find out why the Russians were not escalating the issue over sanctions by reacting with more ferocity to the action of President Obama.

    This seems to be saying that Obama’s actions had a specific purpose, if Obama was looking for a result that did not occur. Was that purpose to drive Russia to retaliate in a way that would hurt Trumps relationship with Russian? IOW,- Why was Obama so interested that Russia act with more ferocity?

    2) When you allude to “cuts” or “summary”, this necessarily implies a “whole”. You can’t take a cut out of a non-existent steak, and a summary can not exist without some content to summarize.

    You often post Trump speeches by posting the video, and the Transcript. How can you say there is no transcript for which there is a summary. Seems like were getting into some contorted version of Russel’s Paradox.

    Liked by 2 people

    • jnr2d2 says:

      You are correct about number 1. But considering the whole Russia Russia BS — Obama wanted a big Russian reaction, so when Trump did nothing, it would be evidence that he was a Russian pawn.

      Like

      • jaggggg says:

        That would assume that Obama actually had a REASON to believe Trump was a pawn. There was no evidence of that (but for the dossier which Obama likely knew was a Clinton creation). The conclusion would be that the only reason Obama did it then was to mess with Trump. He wanted a brouhaha, thought he played the best card and was disappointed when Flynn managed it effectively…..making it all the more maddening for Obama as he obviously had no fondness for Flynn. Obama was jerking Trump around, stupidly and without a whit of regard for US interests. He’s a special kind of jerk that dude.

        Liked by 1 person

        • LEM says:

          Obama wanted Flynn gone because Flynn had been in the intelligence business for 30+ years, and had publically said that the CIA had become “political” and that as NSC director, he intended to “audit” our intelligence agencies. The last thing Obama wanted was for someone to pull the covers off John Brennan’s work for the last few years.

          Liked by 1 person

      • muckeyduck says:

        Make sense. Thanks for the reply.

        Like

    • lftpm says:

      “Sanctions” has gotten very muddled.

      There were 2012 Magnitsky Act sanctions which included rejections of many Russians’ applications for American-travel visas. Natalia Veselnitskaya talked to Don, Jr. about these in July 2016.

      But what is of relevance regarding the Dec. 29, 2016 Flynn-Kislyak phone call was not these actual sanctions, but the earlier-in-the-day order of expulsion by 0bama of 35 Russian diplomats. This occurred pretextually in response to DOJ/FBI “findings” of Russian cyberhacking, and in particular the hoax July 2016 Russian theft of DNC emails to aid Trump (Seth Rich leakage). Essentially, the 0 admin wanted to use the diplomats’ expulsions to trigger Russia and Flynn to communicate, and then the DOJ would entrap Flynn in a bogus “Logan Act Violation” charge, or at least threaten to charge him for a Logan violation.

      This whole thing was a farce, but DAG Sally Yates is on record as having promoted it. Logan only applied to citizen actors who acted in a private capacity–George Logan was a rich gentleman farmer, recently elected to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth legislature, who initiated “diplomatic negotiations” with the French government. Logan never was intended to apply to Presidents-elect and their staffs who were already on the federal payroll.

      Apparently incoming NSA Director Flynn urged restrained reciprocation, and avoidance of retaliatory escalation. I don’t know, but this is what I have heard. For example Dan Bongino says sanctions were not even discussed. If the expulsions were a phony pretext to entrap Flynn, they were not valid sanctions, in the sense of punishment for bad behavior. They were just nitwits’ idea of casting tainted bait for Flynn to bite on.

      Like

    • Pew-Anon says:

      I echo your second question. Certainly the raw NSA audio recording of the call exists. Whether the so-called CR cuts passed through the intermediate step of a written transcript seems irrelevant. If it is relevant, no doubt SD will explain why in due time. But for now, we know the call was accessed by the IC, and whether the CR cuts were produced from the raw audio or a transcript seems to be a distinction without a difference, unless we suspect the transcript was altered, as someone suggested above.

      Like

    • Jerry Small says:

      What if based upon a IC requirement from POTUS, a conversation between the Russian Ambassador was recorded and stored by the FBI? What if a request was made by POTUS to find that conversation.
      What if the conversation (raw data) was retrieved,
      then summarized. The conversation contained info unrelated to the search. The relevant cuts were provided to blank who shared them with blank and blank.
      There would be no transcript just the raw data and a summary of relevant information.
      But, the raw data would inform one who did the collection, when, where, by whom, how, where and why. That raw data would be archived by the FBI.
      The entire conversation from the search, intercept, collection, analysis, reporting and storage would be available somewhere. NSA, CIA, FBI, contractor.

      Like

  7. atomichillbilly says:

    Hey Sundance,

    How about you dig into what was going on in Italy when all this got started?

    The fbi wasn’t the only deep state traitors involved….
    The state department was in it up to their eyeballs.

    Like

  8. atomichillbilly says:

    Hey Sundance,

    How about you dig into what was going on in Italy when all this got started?

    The fbi wasn’t the only deep state traitors involved….
    The state department was in it up to their eyeballs.

    Like

  9. Mr e man says:

    They are only 5 months from reaching the goal they have doggedly pursued for 4 years. They have gone to the mattresses to destroy Trump or at lease negate his effectiveness in destroying the socialist utopia they were building in the last 8 years. An unstoppable transition to socialist/marxist government, utilizing the power of the surveillance state and the power of media propaganda to control the masses.

    They must have abortion, universal health care, redistribution of wealth, control of finance and industry, social justice, economic equality, etc. They must have it.

    They have fought for it, they are fighting for it, and they will fight for it. And not by using Queensburys rules. This is no holds barred. See Mueller, Flynn, Kavanaugh, FISA, Shampeachment, Obamagate, ballot harvesting, etc for examples.

    It will require a Herculean effort to overcome that in November.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. Scott M says:

    All I can say is “Thank you, Sundance”.
    I’ve followed along for 3+ years now, trying to stay informed. Article after article clearly indicates the issues (assumed, later proven to be correct) by expert research and diligent overlay of the timelines when new information is released. I pass CTH information to fellow patriots, but THIS article so completely summarizes the entire corrupt behavior exhibited by Team Obama and Team FBI.
    Again, thank you Sundance. I would be just as in the dark as your average CNN (even Fox) viewer if it wasn’t for you.

    Liked by 4 people

    • jay says:

      Ric Grenell needs to remain in Washington so he can continue to act on behave of the tax payer.

      Liked by 3 people

      • jay says:

        That said, The TAPES and TRANSCRIPTS must both be released. As Sidney said recently, we cannot trust the government did not doctor the transcripts. Especially in light of Adam Shifty asking for their release.

        Liked by 2 people

        • zimbalistjunior says:

          the obvious problem to releasing transcript is same as releasing mueller grand jury info.
          the black hats will spin everything to flynns detriment that they can…you’ll have article after article seizing on one word or another, taking them out of context, misinterpreting them etc

          Like

      • Benedict Comey says:

        I hear the State Department IG position is currently vacant. Seems as good a place as any for hand gernade Grenell’s next assignment…

        Like

  11. David R. Graham says:

    Grenell drove holes through the wall holding the Aegean at bay outside the USIC. Ratcliffe’s remit is to remove the wall.

    Liked by 3 people

  12. DesertRain says:

    Why are people assuming Rice is being truthful in her Jan 20 email?

    Mueller SC interviewed Sally Yates. Transcript of the interview is an exhibit on a filing in the Flynn case. See Exhibit 4 in link below. Yates lists who was at the Jan 5, 2017 meetings at the White House. Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Obama, Rice, and others from the NSC.
    Missing: VP Joe Biden

    She then says Obama asked she and Comey to stay and he dismissed the others.
    She does not say that Rice and Biden were in the follow up meeting.

    Yet…. the email Rice wrote on Jan 20 says she and Biden were in the follow up meeting?

    Liked by 1 person

    • anthohmy says:

      Yeah so Obama asked Susan Rice to leave the room so she couldn’t hear what was said and then called her back in and told her what he said, right from the opening lines of the conversation. Nice…

      Like

  13. Pegon Zellschmidt says:

    That “Comey said he does have some concerns that incoming NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador Kislyak. Comey said that could be an issue as it relates to sharing sensitive information,” is so transparent, juvenile, and reeks bigly of a nothingburger. So after listening multiple times by multiple personnel throughout intel, all they are going on is “speaking frequently.” No collusion, no untoward intentions, no nothing other than normal diplomatic business. All the more damning. Good thing they have Barr and Durham. I doubt any of them are biting their nails awaiting the dreaded strongly worded report.
    The best to hope for is that Rice and Obama shame, humiliate and run Comey out of town.

    Like

  14. adam says:

    No need to unmask and now maybe no transcripts …

    It seems like they got the intel from some foreign agency, Brennan scrubbed it and gave the cuts to Clapper and Comey. That would be a very unfortunate situation I think they would be quick to cover up.

    Like

  15. deplorable says:

    Is it true that McCabe said “First we f## Flynn and then we f## Trump”? Are there really witnesses to this statement? But if true, then that in and of itself should be enough to open an inquiry or investigation into possible bias and entrapment of the incoming Trump administration.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. So, here is a question. Was Comey and the FBI working for Obama…or were they really following direction from Madame Pantsuit Von Sociopath and her team of operatives desperate to paint her election loss as a Russian operation? Could all this BS be a set up to paint her as a victim? Is all this corruption and investigations merely to allow her another opportunity? Look at the people involved, Weissman and all the Mueller team are Clinton people. McCabe and his group all Clinton people. The dossier group mostly Clinton people(Fusion Mary Jacoby) is longtime Arkansas operative). Is this Obama’s people getting sucked into another one of Hillary’s dirty tricks. I wondered this because Sullivan is a Clinton appointee and Lawfare is a Clinton proxy, these guys aren’t taking orders from DC, they are taking them from Chappaqua…

    Liked by 2 people

  17. railer says:

    Rice would be aware that the FBI originally rejected a Flynn prosecution, until Strzok propped it back up frantically. Comey and McCabe would be involved in that decision, and I bet Obama wasn’t.

    I’m coming around to this being a rogue FBI thing with the WH having plausible deniability. Rice is a lying snake, but she’s playing her cards as I’d expect if she had plausible deniability.

    Barr can jail some of these bastards now. There’s no excuse.

    Like

    • Pac says:

      Quit Protecting Obama !!!!
      Obama wanted Flynn eliminated
      Because I Flynn publicity disagreed with Obama

      Like

      • railer says:

        Probably, but they’d have to prove it. So far, we may be seeing a clumsy late attempt by Comey and Clapper to rope Obama and Rice into their plot. Obama might have verbally encouraged all this, but is he directly connected to lawbreaking?

        McCabe and Comey directly went after Flynn and Trump, there is no doubt, and it appears they broke law. Those FISA warrant apps didn’t write themselves.

        Like

      • vladdy says:

        Then there is the fact that Flynn knew about various “side deals” in the Iran deal, when the public (due to corporate media corruption) did not even realize there WERE side deals. I agree that O had too much to lose and too much emotionally, as well as politically, invested, to have been “pulled into” an HRC trick.

        Ever since the first inkling I had (post-election) that O had no intention of following the rules, I have found it hard to believe he was “innocent” of any of these schemes (I know that’s a bias). But the first I knew about his lawlessness was when he ignored the court’s ruling that the Gulf must be reopened for drilling. O paid no attention — except for alowing Brazil and Mexico to go back to drilling. I remember thinking, “He is going to just ignore the court ruling? Wait till people hear about this…”.

        Of course, it was never mentioned. And he went on his merry way from then on, paying no mind to what the law said. Not much surprising after that, as he escalated time after time.

        Like

    • lftpm says:

      Speaking of snakes. Throw Susan in the hole at Gitmo. Let her have water but no food for three weeks. Then take away the water for a day. Give her some sweetened ayahuaska tea. Wait an hour. Then drop in a sackful of diamondback rattlers. She’ll come to Jesus pronto.

      Like

  18. Russ says:

    All the wrong people are banging the drum to get these transcripts declassified and out there. What’s prompting this? What’s your read on this ?

    Like

  19. Bert Darrell says:

    Isn’t it RICH for Susan Rice to demand “transparency” now, after shamelessly blaming a YouTube video for the assault on the Benghazi consulate and the death of four Americans, including our ambassador to Libya?

    Obama and Crooked HiLIARy chose to keep secret an arms deal with terrorist and sacrifice American personnel in Libya and refused to authorize desperately-requested military help.

    Like

  20. WeThePeople2016 says:

    Hmmmmm.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Yep – just read this: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-director-wray-opens-internal-investigation-into-how-bureau-handled-michael-flynn-case

    How in the name of the Good Lord can the FBI investigate itself?
    BULL CRAP.
    Okay AG Barr – its last of the ninth, the game is tied and you are going to let the coach bring in a relief pitcher from the MINORS?
    Give me a GD break.

    Liked by 1 person

    • jay says:

      “The review will be handled by the bureau’s Inspection Division, the FBI said. That division is similar to an internal affairs office in a police department.”

      Internal cops – honey badgers

      Liked by 1 person

      • mr.piddles says:

        What good is “Internal Affairs” when everybody and their grandmother’s second cousin’s niece must have known all along about what’s been going, and yet NOBODY in the FBI… including everybody working in the “Inspection Division”… has come forward as a whistleblower? Like the whole FBI Seventh Floor gets demoted or fired, but nobody’s really sure why any of that went down? So nobody seen nuthin’, but now… ALL OF A SUDDEN… AS IF BY FAIRY MAGIC… everybody’s suspicious and “we’ll get our top guys on it”? Is that the story now?

        “Who? Andy who? McCabe? Yeah… name rings a bell. He’s outta Portland, right? No? D.C.? Huh. I musta been thinking of some other guy. No, I don’t know no ‘Andy McCabe’. Did he do something wrong?”

        Sorry, I don’t buy it. This is a PR stunt to protect the brand. Or rehabilitate it. Or WHATEVER. The time for

        Like

    • Bogeyfree says:

      Yep, every day that goes by this suggestion is looking better and better.

      1) Slide Eugene Scalia over from Sec. of Labor to AG

      2) Because Sec. Scalia has already gone through the Senate confirmation process for the Sec of Labor position, no additional Senate approvals are needed.

      3) To help AG Scalia, appoint Sidney Powell as WH Justice Czar. (Note Obama appointed 45 Czars during his presidency)

      4) WH Appointees / Czars DO NOT Require Senate Confirmation so both Mr. Scalia and Ms. Powell can start tomorrow if necessary.

      5) In her role as Justice Czar, Sidney works daily with Durham and the US Attorney’s from St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Brooklyn to allow a second set of eyes and to ensure all stones are being turned over.

      6) You provide Mr. Scalia, Ms. Powell, Mr. Grenell and now Mr. Ratcliffe all with full declass authority to read and review all unredacted documents related to both coups on your Presidency.

      7) Because of Sidney’s past experience and knowledge of the DOJ and how it should work vs how it has been working, she is perfect to help AG Scalia bring about equal justice and ensure real change within the DOJ and FBI.

      8) Fire Wray and immediately after swearing in Ratcliffe as ODNI Director, move him to FBI Director and because he has been Senate approved already the Senate can’t do a damn thing and Ratcliffe serves for the next 210 which gets us to the election.

      9) Then re-appoint Grenell as Acting ODNI Director Where he gets a new 210 days to serve.

      10) Then when DC Appellate Court tosses the Flynn case, fire Haspel and appoint Flynn as Acting CIA Director.

      Now PT has his best five hitters all playing key roles…. Meadows COS, Grenell DNI, Ratcliffe FBI, Powell Justice Czar, Flynn CIA.

      Liked by 1 person

  22. dilonsfo says:

    It doesn’t really matter in a sense: Transcripts cannot be used as evidence unless there is a recording to the conversation to compare it with. Any one can make up the contents of a transcript. People who transcribe recorded conversations make mistakes. That is why the recording is needed to compare what was transcribed and the actual words and context of the recording. So where is the recorded conversation?

    Liked by 1 person

  23. sundance says:

    Liked by 2 people

  24. NJ Transplant says:

    The DNC mouthpieces, the press, will spin the Flynn/Kislyak calls to claim – Logan Act Violations or Flynn lied to the FBI about the content.

    If Susan Rice wants it, it can’t be good.

    Like

    • railer says:

      I wouldn’t be too sure about that. We’re finally at the stage where all the rats are in the sack clawing and biting each other. Notice that Muh Russia has disappeared, and even a couple months ago the hardcores were still preaching it. We’re dealing with the conspirators now, not Trump.

      The government agencies are openly assaulting each other over this. So far, FISC has made mild attacks on DoJ, Rice has basically attacked Comey and Clapper, CIA has mildly attacked others, DoJ has lashed out mildly. And we’re just getting started. These bureaucracies want to protect themselves.

      Rice is fighting a proxy rat war to protect Obama and herself. She doesn’t care if she bites Comey or Clapper.

      Liked by 2 people

      • trnathens says:

        Not only is it going be “fun” to watch, as each successive declass/release is the proverbial cat swatting at its prey, licking his paws, getting ready for when he’s ready to eat, and the mouse just sniffs around, getting hit on the head every once in a while…until….

        But kinda makes ya feel silly wanting to rush out and indict for leaking to the press, right?

        Right?

        Cause it should

        THIS is how you get them!
        THIS is how you compel others to believe the unbelievable!
        THIS is how you bring down the system!

        THIS IS HOW WE WIN!

        Like

    • PS says:

      Either it
      1. Never existed, or it
      2. Protects WH legal, or it
      3. Supports Obama’s defence that Flynn was going against his sanctions after all

      So it’s put up or shut up time for FBI. Were you a rogue agency, or were you working under Obama’s orders and “by the book” was CYA?

      My guess is that the transcript will show mild language, Flynn does mention the sanction, but like “wait a couple of weeks”. It will not show anything out of the ordinary for a new presidential transition. AND I bet it does not match the summary. Comey will be painted as leading a rogue investigation, overreacting, and mischaracterizing the summary to Brennan and to the WH. It will be “oh dear, we were so duped, but we did tell him go by the book”.

      Comey and Strozk will get light sentences, but everyone else goes free. Maybe even in a Southern CA prison, with time off for good behavior.

      Like

  25. trapper says:

    Exactly. Comey was set up to take the fall if things went sideways.

    Comey should have been prepared to take the hit for the team. Problem is, Comey was not a “made” Obama guy. So the Obama team didn’t trust Comey to do the right thing and take the rap in silence. That fact, that they didn’t trust Comey, is the reason for the Rice memo, to cut Comey out and leave him standing naked and alone.

    But let’s rewind it a bit. FTA: “In early January 2017 DNI James Clapper was asked by the White House to find out why the Russians were not escalating the issue over sanctions by reacting with more ferocity to the action of President Obama.”

    Why? Why was Clapper asked to do that?

    Let me suggest that the Obama team had tried to set a diplomatic dumpster fire in back of the Russian gas station to divert attention AWAY from the ongoing sellout of America at the Chinese restaurant on the other side of town. The new administration would be so busy trying to put out the Russian dumpster fire that it would be too busy to notice the China treachery.

    Remember, the TPP kill shot was still on track to implementation, and Kerry was bragging that he had already invited China into TPP. Russia was a diversion from the takeover of America by China.

    But the diversion was a total failure, and the Obama team wanted to know why. What they discovered was that Flynn had quietly shut the dumpster lid, extinguishing the fire. And they were pissed.

    So, why did Comey’s FBI continue to go after Flynn after the Kislyak call briefings? I suspect to get in the good graces of the “in crowd” at the White House. Remember, the Chicago Way requires individual initiative, and that’s what Comey was trying to do. But the Obama crime crew is now gone, and Comey’s on his own with that phase too.

    Alone in the woods looking up at the trees. Poor bastard.

    Liked by 3 people

    • thedoc00 says:

      Acting AG sally Yates has be added to those set up to take the fall, no matter if that was the intention or not. She failed to supervise Comey after learning of the intercept of Flynn in order to ensure the (cough cough) “by the book” order in the Rice CYA memo was followed.

      She may actually prove to be the unwitting key and not Comey.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ninja7 says:

      trapper, An interesting perspective, especially the Chicago Way. Never thought about it that way but it is something to consider. Thanks

      Like

    • As a Man Thinkth says:

      Trapper…I Totally agree with your observations concerning Russia being a diversion from the Chinese takeover …The Chinese exhibit controling interest
      In our government, our supply chains, humanities and universities …

      Like

  26. Troublemaker10 says:

    Liked by 1 person

    • Bogeyfree says:

      Yep, the same people who have refused to turn over to the many Congressional requests of specific document.

      So, now after nearly 3 years of nothing they want to conduct an investigation to see what improvements can be made.

      An absolute joke.

      Who lets the Fox in the hen house to conduct an investigation??

      Don’t get snookered again Mr. President.

      The sweepers are everywhere.

      Liked by 1 person

  27. Pac says:

    So Susan Rice wants a non existent transcript released ?
    Or are is it an edited version of original used to Trap Flynn & scare him to plea guilty to protect his son of something he’s not guilty of because Top FBI agents wanted to blackball him !!

    Like

  28. Troublemaker10 says:

    Liked by 5 people

    • CharterOakie says:

      Boom. Back atcha, Swallowwell.

      (He’s probably another one up to his chin in corruption, thus more than a bit “touchy” right now.)

      Like

      • TheWanderingStar says:

        Swallowswell is a true believer; he believes all that dimm crap right down to his bones. Not too bright though.

        Liked by 1 person

        • “President” Swallowsfarts is just “biden” his time until he gets to be president and can nuke us gun owners…

          He’s a sick POS.

          Liked by 1 person

          • suburbanwoman says:

            When I see him on TV I have to laugh because he sounds SOOOO immature and ill-informed every time he opens his mouth. Yes, I know it’s all rehearsed lies spewing from his mouth, but there’s just something else about him that makes me think, “Wonder what his high school classmates thought about him? What do they think about him now? Did he win the ‘Most Likely to Lie or look/sound like a fool’ award?”

            Like

  29. republicanvet91 says:

    “However, what many people do not realize is the motive for Susan Rice to call for the release of this transcript. This aspect of the intercepted communication is very interesting.”

    Just as interesting as Warner making the same call. As if they coordinated their plan of defense.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Pac says:

    Obama is definitely guilty of Trapping Flynn
    That’s why Obama recently made opposing comments of Flynn’s case being dropped !!!!
    The Obamas are right in the middle of it & Guilty

    Like

  31. trnathens says:

    Why?

    Isn’t the timing amazing that ALL OF THIS fount of information, that we’ve been BEGGING for, is coming out NOW?

    Almost… ALMOST like it was a coincidence that Grenell happens to be in a position to further expose the Flynn fraud for what it really was.

    And BECAUSE it’s coming out THIS way, it APPEARS to be organic, and free from PDJT/Barr political taint. Makes it MUCH MORE compelling to those who care about principles, but are turned off by PDJT/Barr.

    We’ve only heard ONE side of what happened in Flynn’s office, or in the Oval after, or the Situation Room after, or any other meetings. Flynn is no dummy. He knows what’s up when 2 FBI agents show up for a”friendly chat”, but take notes.

    He’s a spy, too. Pls, he knew what was going on. So he KNEW he would be a target. He’s no dummy, him.

    We don’t know what plan, if any, was formulated to “fire” Flynn, cast him to the wolves, when in reality he was on a military mission.

    And no one can say I’m nuts for thinking this way, because it’s a whole new world, baby! ANYTHING is possible!

    Liked by 2 people

    • CharterOakie says:

      I agree. Flynn knew all along he would have a target painted on him once he assumed a prominent role in the Trump campaign, let alone once he was named to become NSA.

      Liked by 1 person

  32. Troublemaker10 says:

    There may a second reason for Dems requesting transcript be released besides protecting Obama WH and throwing Comey under the bus.

    They seem to be still determined to destroy Flynn. Flynn said he did not remember discussing sanctions (at least in any significant manner). Not remembering is not a lie. However, if there was some insignificant mention….the Dems will continue the hoax to paint Flynn as a liar and continue to push for Flynn to be prosecuted or paint the dismissal as “political” move by Barr.

    Like

    • deplorable says:

      Fine then we can get talk about the trick interview techniques. Why did the FBI surprise him? Why didn’t the FBI tell him he was under investigation? Why didn’t the FBI let him have a lawyer present – you know as in Miranda rights – “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you in a court of law …”. Where is the original 302 written by the original interviewers? The whole thing screams E-N-T-R-A-P-M-E-N-T.

      Liked by 1 person

      • lftpm says:

        Methinks Flynn went in, noticed the FBI guys weren’t talking about FBI/WH coordination, but instead got into the phone call. They were taking notes. He could have called for the WH counsel to join in, but didn’t. I think the fox outsmarted the rats. When they go to trial, they can plead, “Flynn entrapped us!”

        Trump has always been a preparations maven. His organization needed intel, so he hired some savvy operators. I wouldn’t be surprised if he learned about Chris Steele early on and snuck a couple moles into Orbis. It’s a pretty good bet that Sidney has had insider sources at DOJ and FBI who have clued her in to what documents to request.

        Like

    • Brutalus says:

      It’s still not MATERIAL to lying to the FBI if he discussed the sanctions or not

      Liked by 1 person

    • lftpm says:

      The current DOJ is not going after Flynn. At the end of PDJT’s presidency, he can issue a preemptive pardon, so nobody can open a case on any grounds, real or fabricated.

      Like

  33. Linda Wood says:

    Peaceful co-existence with Russia is the death knell of the Military Industrial Complex. Reducing tensions between the United States and Russia therefore appears as treason to the Military Industrial Complex and to its lawyers and political mouthpieces. Clearly, the administration saw Russia’s lack of retaliation as a bad thing, as a real threat, and they assume we would agree and see Gen. Flynn as a traitor for encouraging world peace.

    It’s hard to get your mind around this insanity, but people like Comey, formerly General Counsel for Lockheed, and the Obama administration, committed to provoking war with Russia in Syria and Ukraine, have been so overloaded with power for so long, they believe we approve of what they are doing, even if it puts us on the brink of annihilation.

    Obama officials openly state that they would plan to subvert the NSC’s sharing of information with Flynn as National Security Advisor because he encouraged the Russian government not to retaliate against our sanctions. This open admission is staggering, and I am at a loss to know how the Mainstream Media are going to explain it. But I think the conservative community also misunderstands the problem if it believes this is simply a problem between Democrats and Republicans. This is a problem between even partial nationalization of resources, as in Russia, Syria, and Norway, and total control of resources by terrorist cartels. Michael Flynn has been outspoken and courageous in opposing bad policy. As a leftist, a socialist, and a lifelong pacifist, I consider him to be a heroic figure, and I respect the research and commentary at this site in support of his case. Let’s hope the law will back him up.

    Like

  34. Alternative Joe says:

    Why are we putting in Ratcliffe when Grenell has done more the past 2 months than anyone else beside POTUS has done in 3 + years?

    Do we really believe Ratcliffe is going to match or surpass Grenell in utter awesomeness? Seems like a mistake…

    Like

    • railer says:

      Ratcliffe can now take over as AG after Trump fires Barr, which he’ll do the day after the election if Barr doesn’t start taking down these conspirators.

      I think McConnell saw that coming, too, but he had no choice because Grennell was rocking his world with declassified releases. So after initially opposing Ratcliffe, he’s stuck with this ex-US attorney, who can slide right into the AG job. You don’t often see McConnell snookered, but it happened here.

      Like

  35. SuzyAZ says:

    So if the transcript doesn’t exist, and only the cuts, will anyone be able to produce the transcript from which the cuts were made ? Maybe susan Rice wants them to show up empty handed to be able to say they are hiding it.

    Like

    • PS says:

      If they come up No Transcript was ever made, the it adds to the argument WH was Duped, and FBI takes all the blame. I think Rice knows this, and wants to shove it in Comeys face.

      Before, there was solidarity among thieves. Now it’s finger pointing time.

      This means Flynn case is in the endgame (T minus 9 days), and everything is going to come out. That means get ahead of declass as much as the Obama WH can.

      Like

  36. gsonFIT says:

    Hillary Clinton quote:

    Hillary Clinton
    stated on October 19, 2016 in the third 2016 presidential debate:
    “We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election.”

    END QUOTE:

    Wonder how she knew to spin this crazy and INACCURATE narrative 2 months before Obama signed off on it?

    Like

  37. 4wardcomm says:

    When Susan Rice stressed that “Obama instructed Comey to handle everything “by the book.”
    What book is she referring to? Chairman Mao’s “Little Red Book”? or “Rules For Radicals” By Saul Alynski? Most likely a little of both!

    Like

    • vladdy says:

      Heh, not “everything” by the book. She clarified that word by adding “as relates to law enforcement.” Not the smartest move, as it allows for other behavior in other areas.

      Like

  38. jeans2nd says:

    By the book, huh?
    Three times, By the Book.

    “Kirk: By the book! Regulation 46A: “If transmissions are being monitored during battle –”
    Saavik: [astonished] “- no uncoded messages on an open channel.” [looking at Spock] You lied!
    Spock: I exaggerated.”

    The Wrath of Khan.
    Has no one really not thought of this?
    First thing i thought, and that thought has never changed.
    They never let me down. They are just too predictable.

    Like

  39. Theo says:

    Don McGahn supposedly saw the Flynn-Kislayk call transcript a day or two after Sally Yates was fired. He asked to see it and she said yes. What did he see? CR Cuts or transcript?

    Like

  40. nimrodman says:

    The only thing (provable) the FBI was specifically tasked to do was find out the reason for Russia’s behavior or lack thereof …

    What the hell?
    We don’t have a CIA that does that?

    You know – with Russia experts, their own surveillance capabilities, etc?

    Like

  41. john another says:

    Remember Lisa’s “POTUS wants to know everything”.
    But seriously, who is ever going to buy into Obama’s ‘concern’ over Russia’s
    lack of response over sanctions after his administration ignored Russia’s cyber efforts,
    no missiles in Eastern Europe, no arms for Ukraine, Uranium One, Obama’s advice to Trump to fire Flynn and so much more.
    No, Obama was after Flynn before Obama fired him. And everyone will see why once Flynn is able to open up about all he knows.
    The attack on Flynn is the least of Obama’s concerns.

    Like

  42. Captain_Ahab says:

    Can we get som treeper eyes on that johnheretohelp twitter thread regards judge Sullivan? May explain his irrational behavior…

    Like

  43. BitterC says:

    All I can say is I am tired of lost emails, texts and phone calls when we all know they reside in Utah

    Like

  44. anthohmy says:

    “Now, FBI Director James Comey isn’t stupid, and he would have immediately picked up on how he was being positioned outside the protective wire and completely on his own. Being a very political FBI Director, Comey would know exactly what the purpose of these specific words and instructions from the President implied.”

    So the next day Comey travels to Trump Tower and tells the President-elect about the Steele Dossier.

    Like

    • As a Man Thinkth says:

      IMO, Comey was working for Hillary…trying to shake down Trump at the Tower meeting…I would suspect that he was wearing a wire in order to record PDJT’s response, hoping for some incriminating statement and get it into the system prior to his inauguration …

      Like

      • anthohmy says:

        Comey trashed Hillary at that news conference in the middle of an election. Then he opened the can of worms back up. I wonder if Brennan, Clapper, and Obama were giving him a departing gift?

        Like

  45. anthohmy says:

    It took from December 17 to December 29 for Obama to react to the election meddling – 12 days.

    Why was Obama convinced by January 3 – 6 days, that Russia wasn’t going to react, so much so that he had the whole intelligence apparatus scrambled?

    Kinda jumping the gun a little, eh?

    Also, what did he want Putin to do, blow something up?

    Like

  46. anthohmy says:

    “Could it be the DOJ bluffed Flynn into a guilty plea with: (1) threats against Mike Flynn Jr, (2) a fabricated 302 written/edited/shaped AFTER the interview, and (3) a non-existent transcript? ”

    So during the interview, Flynn told them as much as he could remember that he said during the conversation with Kislyak, which the fellas then turned into a narrative of the transcript.

    Now what would be funny as hell is if Flynn called their bluff and made up the conversation.

    Is there any information about whether the FBI agents had top secret security clearance of any need to know about that conversation such that Flynn could or should reveal the contents during a casual meeting about Pence’s TV performance?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s