« The Michael Flynn case heats up: security clearances and a hearing to be set on exculpatory material | Main | Peacemaker Bolton Quits by Walrus. »

10 September 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Larry Johnson

No lack of confidence here. Just frustration over your preference for outdated, unverified press articles vice the actual findings by Mueller.
Here's a couple of relevant paragraphs:
On June 9, 2016, senior representatives of the Trump Campaign met in Trump Tower with
a Russian attorney expecting to receive derogatory information about Hillary Clinton from the
Russian government. The meeting was proposed to Donald Trump Jr. in an email from Robert
Goldstone, at the request of his then-client Emin Agalarov, the son of Russian real-estate developer
Aras Agalarov . Goldstone relayed to Trump Jr. that the "Crown prosecutor of Russia ... offered
to provide the Trump Campaign with some official documents and information that would
incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia" as "part of Russia and its government 's support
for Mr. Trump." Trump Jr. immediately responded that "if it 's what you say I love it," and arranged
the meeting through a series of emails and telephone calls.
Trump Jr. invited campaign chairman Paul Manafort and senior advisor Jared Kushner to
attend the meeting, and both attended. Members of the Campaign discussed the meeting before it
occurred, and Michael Cohen recalled that Trump Jr. may have told candidate Trump about an
upcoming meeting to receive adverse information about Clinton , without linking the meeting to
Russia. According to written answers submitted by President Trump, he has no recollection of
learning of the meeting at the time, and the Office found no documentary evidence showing that he
was made aware of the meeting--or its Russian connection-before it occurred.

Your continued refusal to acknowledge the actual findings of Mueller and your insistence of repeating media memes raises questions in my mind about your real intentions. Trolling?

The Twisted Genius

Larry, surely you're not surprised that USI was listening to the Russian Ambassador's conversations. Flynn should have also realized this and just admitted to what he discussed. I don't think his talking with Kislyak was inappropriate at all. It makes it all the more perplexing that he would lie about the nature of those conversations. As for Flynn's ability to project sincerity to the FBI agents, kudos to him. All those years as a GO prepared him well. Too bad his sincere answers didn't match up with the transcripts of his conversations with Kislyak.

Larry Johnson

And USI has NO RIGHT to listen in on the Flynn part of the conversation. There was nothing illegal, immoral or unethical about it. I find it sickening that you so cavalierly accept this kind of breach of an American citizen's constitutional right. And you don't know what the "transcripts" say. Have not been released. But it is telling that his lawyer wants them released and the FBI is balking. You're a keen analyst. What does that tell you?

Mark Logan

I believe you haven't grasped my point, which was that LE will surely say they were justified in conducting an investigation on the Trumps because the Trumps (and by that I include the Trump campaign) lied about their foreign contacts. They did so both publicly and privately to authorities.

Here's a synopsis of some of the items in the Mueller report which documents some of the misleading statements the Trump campaign made to authorities.


Cohen, et al.



So it was legal to speak with the ambassador however when speaking to the FBI weeks later his words did not match word for word with the transcript of the conversation - accroding to the FBI, or at least those who overrulled the agents' interpretation of the conversation. Therefor "he lied". What was the probable cause for this investigation of Flynn? Who "unmaked" Flynn since he wasn't a target of the USI listening to the Russian ambassador? What was the lawfull reason for that unmasking? Was that directed by President Obama (since he warned Trump against making him National Security Advisor) or something done by someone in the administration like Samantha Power, who didn't always follow instructions, as noted in her vote at the UN (or is that all just a campaign of plausable deniability with her as the fall girl):

Larry Johnson

I fully grasp that you are opining about things you really lack substantive knowledge of. If you've actually read the Mueller report (which I doubt), you would note that the initiative for the Trump Tower Moscow came from Felix Sater. Sater was an FBI informant. In other words, it was the FBI trying to entrap Trump over a Moscow Deal. You clearly are okay with that kind of law enforcement misconduct. I'm not. It is wrong.
When you total up the number of Confidential Informants that were used by the FBI and other elements of intelligence communities in the UK and the US, there is no doubt that an illegal covert op to destroy Trump was attempted. Thank God the clown show at the FBI and CIA were staffed by people of limited talent and smarts.

William McQuaid

WaPo repeats falsehoods:

...intelligence agencies were “confident that the Russian Government directed” the hacking campaign. . .

Confident because DNC servers were destroyed allowing (confidence) falsehoods from CIA, etc.

But Bill Binney, NSA top expert and whistle blower proves their "confidence" was a lie:

Thanks, Bill. Thanks, Jimmy.

The Twisted Genius

Here's the DOJ statement of offenses which Flynn signed as being accurate under penalty of perjury. He wasn't talking about buying a set of used tires. I can see why the FBI was interested in whoever was talking to the Russian Ambassador about policy actions. The most alerting thing I see in this document is the account of Flynn talking with members of Trump's transition team. What authorized that? He must have been the target of an investigation by that time for that to occur.




Did it escape your notice that Flynn was on the transition team, that's fact #1 on the statement? Who forbade the president elect from indicating to other nations that Trump was opposed to the Egyptian UNSC resolution, which is item 4? Best of all is the reference to the investigation into Russian interference in the election. I believe Mueller proved there was none.

The Twisted Genius

Fred, I wasn’t clear in my last comment. I meant what authorized the collection of Flynn’s conversations with other members of the transition team. That certainly isn’t a routine collection target. That’s why I assume he must have been the target of an active investigation at that time. The prudent thing for Flynn to do was to wait a month when when he would have been fully authorized to conduct foreign policy on behalf of the USG. Or he could have just not lied about his conversations to the FBI agents.

As for the Mueller report, it made emphatically clear that Russia engaged in “multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.” Volume I of his report focused exclusively on that point. His indictments of the IRA and GRU 12 did the same.

Larry Johnson

TTG, no offense intended, but you're an intel guy. What was the predicate crime? There was not one. This was a political hit job manufactured by the Obama Administration. Take a good look at the discovery Flynn's lawyer is demanding. FBI is holding that back because it will torch their crooked ass. Why are you so willing to give those lying assholes the benefit of the doubt?

There was no legal reason to target and unmask Flynn. Every thing he was doing with the Russians and other countries on the UNSC was entirely legal. Obama is a goddamn traitor and should be in jail for this abuse of power.

The Twisted Genius

Larry, Flynn was under a counterintelligence investigation until late December 2016. I don't know what triggered it or if it even had anything to do with the broader Russia investigation. It was not a criminal investigation.

David Habakkuk


About the complexity, you are I think in large measure right.

As to how it was organised, what I suspect happened was a bizarre mixture of the ‘orchestrated’ and ‘organic.’ It would seem likely that the central driving force was Brennan.

However, this was not simply centrally directed.

And it seems to me clear that when the discovery that materials from the DNC had been leaked to ‘WikiLeaks’ caused the conspiracy to move into higher gear, in the late spring/early summer of 2016, the need to respond quickly led to failures of co-ordination and sloppy errors.

The limited interested of today’s MSM in investigating complexity has made it easier for the conspirators to cover-up some of the vulnerabilities this created.

However, the complexity problem is not really material in relation to the lawsuits which Biss and Clevenger have filed on behalf of Butowsky in response to the smear campaigns used to frustrate his efforts to bring the actual truth about the life and death of Seth Rich to light.

This means that, as it were, the obfuscations designed to obscure the fact that he provided the materials from the DNC to ‘WikiLeaks’ may be a relatively weak point in the fortifications set up by the conspirators.

If it can be successfully attacked, then the use of complexity to obfuscate may no longer work so successfully elsewhere.

In addition to the cases I mentioned, there is the most recent suit filed by Clevenger and Biss on behalf of Butowsky, against Douglas Wigdor and Rod Wheeler.

A mass of materials on all these suits is available on the invaluable ‘CourtListener’ site, and although one needs a PACER subscription to access many of them, key documents are freely available.

(See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7244731/butowsky-v-folkenflik/ ; https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14681570/butowsky-v-gottlieb/ ; https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15999245/butowsky-v-wigdor/ .)

At the time when Larry posted on Magistrate Judge Caroline M. Craven’s denial of the Motion to Dismiss filed by Folkenflik and NPR back in April, the full text of her ruling was not openly available.

It now is – see entry 58, dated 17 April 2019. The ‘Amended Complaint’, entry 54 dated 5 March, is also well worth reading.

On the most recent case, against Wigdor and Wheeler, the ‘Complaint’ is entry 1, dated 31 July 2019.

Those whoever who do not have the time to delve in any detail but want to see how potentially explosive these cases are should read the ‘Second Amended Complaint’ in Butowsky v Gottlieb, which was filed on that same day, and is entry 105 in the ‘CourtListener’ materials.

In this, which followed the attempt by Michael Isikoff to renew the smear campaign, Butowsky ‘outs’ two key sources, Ellen Ratner and Seymour Hersh, who he appears to think have not given him the support they might have.

The audio of the conversation between Butowsky and Hersh has been in the public domain for a long time.

Unfortunately, the only transcripts I can find are grossly inadequate.

It would help if, in addition to the edited excerpts including in their filings, Biss and Clevenger, or someone else, could arrange for as accurate as possible a transcript of the full fascinating 20-minute conversation to be prepared and made readily available.

This conversation, moreover, now needs to be read in the context of a key claim in the ‘Second Amended Complaint’, that ‘In a separate phone call with Mr. Butowsky, Mr. Hersh said he obtained his information about Seth Rich from Mr. McCabe, the deputy FBI director.’

What is not clear to me, having both read the transcript and listened to the audio, is whether Hersh had actually seen the FBI report to which he refers, or whether he relied upon his source’s account of it.

If indeed the source was McCabe, then we have to 1. to wonder why he should have talked to Hersh at all, and 2. whether what he was providing was a ‘limited hangout.’

This is particularly important, because the dating both of the original contact between Rich and ‘WikiLeaks’, and of the discovery of this by Western intelligence/law enforcement agencies, may be critical to making sense of all kinds of elements of this story.

Among these is the history of Smolenkov, about whom Scott Ritter has published some interesting reflections on the ‘Consortium News’ site.

(See https://consortiumnews.com/2019/09/14/the-spy-who-failed/ .)

I see that one hypothesis he takes seriously is that put forward by ‘J’.

My own inclination had been to suspect that, as Larry’s friend suggested, this may have been a version of an ‘Our Man in Havana’ situation, with Brennan in the role of the ludicrous ‘Chief’ in Greene’s novel, who clearly reflected his creator’s experience in the wartime MI6.

However, one does need to keep an open mind, as making premature decisions as to what one can rule out as absolutely unthinkable is the route to getting things comprehensively wrong in matters like this.

That said, Hersh's suggestion to Butowsky that this was ‘a Brennan operation’ obviously needs to be put together with Ritter's claim that that ‘intelligence’ from Smolenkov which claimed to vindicate the claim that the DNC materials were hacked, not leaked was presented to the White House in August 2016.

If both are right, it would seem that this tends to narrow the available range of interpretations of what various actors were doing.

I do find myself wondering whether, when the smoke has finally clearly – if it ever does – we will find that Ed Butowsky has played a kind of Colonel Picquart role in all this.



Flynn was not conducting foreign policy on behalf of the USG. Just like John Kerry and his meetings with Iran after Trump was elected. Thanks for repeating the "Russia, Russia, Russia" Line. On to impeachment!

Jim Cunningham

I actually have a different take than yours.

Smolenkov is Brennan's ticket out of jail. Smolenkov was Brennan's source which led him to "suspect" Trump was colluding with Putin. We need to know where Smolenkov is, probably in protective custody somewhere in Virginia.

SEO Dubai

Essential to concentrate on the reality they are recounting to various and even opposing stories.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad