Hack WashPost Reporter Carries FBI Dirty Water in Lame Attack on Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson

Larry Johnson-5x7

The Deep State, in a desperate attempt to try to mitigate the damage from the revelation that 39 different members of the Obama Administration unmasked Michael Flynn’s name in at least 15 separate NSA intelligence reports, turned to Washington Post stenographer, Ellen Nakashima, to insist that Michael Flynn was really not unmasked.

Nakashima is a longstanding go-to-tool for the CIA and FBI coup plotters eager to sow propaganda and disinformation among the American people. It was her June 14, 2016 article that pushed the contrived fantasy that Russia hacked the DNC. Now that we have the testimony of Shawn Henry, President of Crowdstrike, on the record and under oath before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, we know that his company never found any evidence that the DNC emails were exfiltrated by Russians.

Here are some key snippets from Nakashima’s latest propaganda missive:

A Republican effort to determine who may have leaked the name of Michael Flynn in connection to his 2016 contact with the Russian ambassador has centered on the question of which Obama administration officials requested his identity be “unmasked” in intelligence documents.

But in the FBI report about the communications between the two men, Flynn’s name was never redacted, former U.S. officials said. . . .

Unmasking is a routine practice used to identify U.S. individuals who are referred to anonymously in an intelligence document, and it is meant to help government officials better understand what they are reading. But conservatives have long seized on Flynn’s unmasking to imply that he was treated unfairly by U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials. . . .

The unmasking issue appears to be part of an effort by the president and his allies to tar former president Barack Obama with what Trump says was an unfounded criminal investigation into potential conspiracy between Russia and Trump associates — or what he now calls “Obamagate.” Obama is expected to be one of the most effective advocates for his former vice president, Joe Biden, in his bid to unseat Trump this fall.

The president’s allies are casting the unmasking requests as evidence of a malign effort to damage Trump through leaks to the media.

Nothing to see here. Move along. This was just routine sedition. Nakashima is lying by insisting that what was done to Michael Flynn was normal and routine. She is pushing the fantasy that the only way the FBI learned about Flynn’s conversation with the Russian Ambassador was because the FBI was routinely monitoring Kislyak’s conversations and just happened to capture Trump’s incoming National Security Advisor.

Nakashima’s FBI sources want you to believe that they had a Gomer Pyle moment–Shazam Sgt. Carter, Michael Flynn is talking to a Roosky.

Nakashima does not mention the following indisputable facts:

  1. The FBI opened a counter intelligence case on General Flynn with no just cause in August 2016 and relentlessly searched FBI, CIA and NSA files for evidence that Flynn was a traitor beholden to Russia.
  2. The FBI agent leading the effort concluded that there was no evidence to support continuing a counter intelligence case against Flynn and wrote the memo to close the case. The memo is dated January 4, 2017.
  3. Jim Comey and Andy McCabe were looking for a pretext to keep the case against Flynn open and seized on his December 29, 2016 chat with Ambassador Kislyak.

Nakashima’s FBI sources are not reliable and I do not believe they are telling the truth. They are trying to create an alternative explanation for inexcusable conduct by the FBI.

This new Nakashima account still has some big holes.

For starters, why was the FBI agent in charge of investigating Michael Flynn cut out of this loop? If the FBI agent investigating Michael Flynn as Crossfire Razor was privy to the Flynn call with Ambassador Kislyak, why would he then submit a draft memo to drop the case?

Perhaps he was witting of the call and realized that nothing justifying a counter-intelligence investigation transpired during the call. According to Robert Mueller’s prosecutors, Flynn said the following (see Statement of Offense):

FLYNN called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.

If the Mueller team is reporting accurately what Flynn said to the Russian, then we are left wondering what the hell was the beef? Asking the Russians to not escalate a situation is in America’s national security interest.

The other thing most folks are ignoring is that it appears the conversation between Michael Flynn, who was in the Dominican Republic, and the Trump Transition team in Mar-a-Lago, Florida. It certainly appears that someone was listening in on this phone call. Here is the account in the Statement of Offense:

FLYNN called a senior official of the Presidential Transition Team (“PTT official”), who was with other senior
·members of the Presidential Transition Team at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to the Russian Ambassador about the U.S. Sanctions. On that call, FLYNN and the PTT official discussed the U.S. Sanctions, including the potential impact of those sanctions on the incoming administration’s foreign policy goals. The PIT official and FLYNN also discussed that the members of the Presidential Transition Team at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the situation.

Some have suggested that the Mueller team learned about the substance of the call on the 28th of December with the transition team from the FBI interview with KT McFarland. She was first interviewed on the 27th of August 2017–eight months after that phone call. And she did not have a clear recollection:

“Throughout the interview, I pointed out that I was working entirely from memory about events that happened months before, when a lot of other things were going on in my life. My recollections were not precise or clear, especially about timing of calls and emails and the topics covered in them. I prefaced most of my responses with those same caveats.”

The specificity in the Statement of Offense about Flynn’s conversation with the President’s Transition Team indicates that a transcript exists. Who recorded that conversation? Under what authority was that conversation recorded.

None of this is being done “BY THE BOOK.” There is no evidence yet that a FISA was in place to permit spying on Michael Flynn. There is no indication in the FBI agent’s memo to close the case to indicate that Flynn had been monitored or had said incriminating things to Russians. Just the opposite–no evidence to justify continuing the investigation of General Flynn.

This was nothing more than a planned hit job. So far the CIA and DNI are being ignored as players in this tawdry episode. But I think Senator Graham understands something is fishy:

he [Graham] sent a letter to acting director of national intelligence Richard Grenell asking why a declassified list of Obama administration officials who had made requests that revealed Flynn’s name in intelligence documents “did not contain a record showing who unmasked” Flynn’s identity in relation to “his phone call with” the Russian diplomat, Sergey Kislyak.

Nakashima’s pathetic piece is a great illustration of the delusion and perfidy of those who tried to destroy Donald Trump and his administration. Legitimate actions by acting DNI Grenell or Attorney General Barr are greeted with howls of outrage and indignation. But Nakashima and her crowd are like cockroaches. They run from the light.

This entry was posted in Larry Johnson, Russiagate. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Hack WashPost Reporter Carries FBI Dirty Water in Lame Attack on Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson

  1. TV says:

    Washington Post – voice of the swamp.

  2. Deap says:

    Only card carrying Democrats are lulled by media excuses. Most others sense something very dirty and self-serving had been going on in the Obama Whitehouse – as much a result of Obama’s leadership neglect, as by any partciularly evil intent.
    Obama had a dark view of America, rightly or wrongly based on his own unique experiences. But that dark tinge undermined everything he did or said for 8 year. Even hope and change really meant my way or the highway.
    Trump’s 20i6 election was more a vote against this oppressive aura that had engulfed America, more than it was about any particular experience Trump would bring to the job. Supporters were buying Trump’s body language and his swagger, that they wanted unleashed against this vague but deep malaise many were feeling at that time.
    Now we learn that vague malaise had real underpinnings. It was real and it needed lancing. Trump is a slugger and just what was needed. A blunt force object.
    Somewhat like the “disease with no name” in the 1960’s that Betty Freidan uncovered among her former college classmates when she wrote Feminine Mystique, that foreshadowed the “women’s liberation movement” of the 1970s’. A generalized malaise that something had gone wrong and change was necessary.

  3. FakeBot says:

    It’s not just WaPo, it’s Fox News is independently making this claim too:
    They cite a congressional source on this. What are the odds it’s Adam Schiff? 1:1?

  4. BillWade says:

    My nickname for President Trump has always been “President in the nick of time”.

  5. Deap says:

    From Judicial Watch – who wants to have fun speculating about the identities of “redacted” in this initiating document for CROSSFIRE HURRICAINE
    Re: [Redacted] 07/31/2016
    (U/ /) Legat [Redacted] information from [Redacted] Deputy Chief of Mission
    (U/ /) Legat [Redacted] received information from the [Redacted] Deputy Chief of Mission related to the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s website/server.
    (S/ /[Redacted] On Wednesday, July 27, 2016, Legal Attaché (Legat) [Redacted] was summoned to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) for the [Redacted] who will be leaving [Redacted] post Saturday July 30, 2016 and set to soon thereafter retire from government service, advised [Redacted] was called by [Redacted] about an urgent matter requiring an in person meeting with the U.S. Ambassador. [Note: [Redacted]. The [Redacted] was scheduled to be away from post until mid-August, therefore [Redacted] attended the meeting.
    (S/ [Redacted]) [Redacted] advised that [Redacted] government had been seeking prominent members of the Donald Trump campaign in which to engage to prepare for potential post-election relations should Trump be elected U.S. President. One of the people identified was George Papadopolous (although public media sources provide a spelling of Papadopoulos), who was believed to be one of Donald Trump’s foreign policy advisers. Mr. Papdopoulos was located in [Redacted] so the [Redacted] met with him on several occasions, with [Redacted] attending at least one of the meetings.
    (S/ [Redacted]) [Redacted] recalled [Redacted] of the meetings between Mr. Papdopolous and [Redacted] concerning statements Mr. Papadopolous made about suggestions from the Russians that they (the Russians) could assist the Trump campaign with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton. [Redacted] provided a copy of the reporting that was provided to [Redacted] from [Redacted] to Legal [Redacted]. The text is exactly as follows:
    (Begin Text)
    (S/ [Redacted]) 5. Mr. Papadopolous [Redacted] also suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton (and President Obama). It was unclear whether he or the Russians were referring to material acquired publicly of through other means. It was also unclear how Mr. Trump’s team reacted to the offer. We note the Trump team’s reaction could, in the end, have little bearing of what Russia decides to do, with or without Mr. Trump’s cooperation.
    (End Text)
    (s/ [Redacted]
    (s/ [Redacted] Legat requests that further action on this information should consider the sensitivity that this information was provided through informal diplomatic channels from [Redacted] to the U.S. Embassy’s DCM. It was clear from the conversation Legal [Redacted]
    had with DCM that [Redacted] knew follow-up by the U.S. government would be necessary, but extraordinary efforts should be made to protect the source of this information until such a time that a request from our organization can be made to [Redacted] to obtain this information through formal channels.
    (S/ / ) Based on the information provided by Legat [Redacted] this investigation is being opened to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign are witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia.
    END QUOTE (Judicial Watch – donations to this organizaiton well deserved)

  6. Deap says:

    Some follow-up questions to the predicate for spying on the Trump campaign:
    1. Why not spy on the Russians instead? Unless they really wanted to spy and entrap Trump.
    2. Why not ask Hilary Clinton, is there anything you have done that could be exposed by the Russians that would be negative to your campaign? And when she answers nothing at all, then case is closed. No exposure.
    (Ha, ha, ha)

  7. Richard Grenell agreed with the WaPo reporter. The IC doesn’t have the Flynn-Kislyak transcripts. He stated today that, “The IC doesn’t have all the transcripts/summaries….it wasn’t our product.” But he does agree “They [transcripts/summaries] should be released in full, though. The public deserves to see it.” BTW, Judge Sullivan also wanted to see those transcripts. DOJ wouldn’t release them saying they weren’t material. However in their motion to dismiss, those transcripts were central to their argument. Still the transcripts were not included in the motion. We should see those transcripts along with those 15+ NSA reports that spurred those unmasking requests and with the justifications for those unmaskings.

  8. blue peacock says:

    “We should see those transcripts along with those 15+ NSA reports that spurred those unmasking requests and with the justifications for those unmasking.”
    Yes, indeed! And also all the FISA applications as well as all the communications among the top echelon at the FBI, DOJ, CIA, NSA, DNI and State in both the Obama & Trump administrations relating to Russia Collusion. And all the communications and memos among the Mueller team. We should also see Rosenstein’s communications and memos relating to the appointment of Mueller.
    We need to also ask Trump why he hasn’t declassified it all.

  9. JP Billen says:

    I believe Crowdstrike’s Shawn Henry testified that they had some evidence of Russian/DNC exfiltration, but they never found “concrete” evidence.
    Note that Crowdstrike’s 2020 Global Threat Report still lists Russian Federation supported threat actors to be the most active and destructive among adversaries. Those threat actors include not just Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, but also Voodoo Bear (focuses on energy sector) and Venonmous Bear (focuses on embassies, NGOs, & education).
    Crowdstrike also lists China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Vietnam, and both North & South Korea as sponsoring hacking on adversaries or economic targets.

  10. Teakwoodkite says:

    LJ Grenell in saying “it wasn’t our product” as to who had the recording. Under oath Peter S said the CIA “had the pen” so perhaps Brennan knows but by now that item is swimming with the fishies…
    Who knows maybe it show up….Makes me wonder why Shitty Shift was dogging DNI Grenell to release all the calls…..

  11. turcopolier says:

    It seems likely to me that the actual collection was done by GCHQ at the request of Brennan and Clapper and given to these characters as the fruit of foreign collection against the Russians. Why Schiff wanted them released is beyond my ken.

Comments are closed.