Bleeding Edge

SpyGate
This book details the evidence and the reasons behind the recently failed Coup D’Etat against the American Democracy.
============
“This is the most important existential threat that our country has faced since the inception of this Republic” —Dr Churchill
============
This Book was written by Dr Pano Churchill
Copyright 2018
=========
Chapter Twenty Six
“Investigating the investigators.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) revealed Tuesday during the House Judiciary and Oversight committee’s hearing regarding the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton investigation that the FBI may have altered or manipulated the witness interviews compiled by investigators during both the Clinton and Russia investigations.

The information, if proven true, could have significant implications in the case brought against former National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office, where conflicting testimony and statements made by Former FBI Director James Comey, would call into question whether the agents who interviewed Flynn believed he was either lying or telling the truth.

Meadows was questioning Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, saying “there is growing evidence that the 302s those FBI interview reports, were edited, significantly altered, and changed. Those 302s, it is suggested — were changed to either prosecute, or not prosecute, individuals. And that is very troubling.”

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) believes that there is strong evidence to suggest that some of the Russia/Clinton investigation FBI interview reports (known as 302s) were “changed to either prosecute or not prosecute” certain individuals.

This raises many concerns and questions. Among them, what does this mean for former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn? Former FBI Director James Comey provided conflicting testimony and statements regarding whether or not the FBI agents who conducted the Flynn interview believed he was lying during the questioning.

So, what is an FBI 302 report?

A former senior FBI official familiar with the case of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was asked what the FBI interview process might have been like, when the Team of tainted and biased agent Strzok interviewed General Flynn and then changed the transcript reports (302s) of that interview.

So, explain the process of putting together a 302 witness report…

“They wanted to get him. All he had to do was misremember one time that he talked to the guy. Then they would automatically bring him up on that one charge.”

“And then, indeed, the 302s were changed to make sure that they would prosecute him.”

“Typically, FBI procedures say that two agents are supposed to do the interview. The rationale behind it is so that you get two people, so there’s redundancy. For example, if one agent is unable to testify, there’s another person there who witnessed it. An interview of a subject usually comes at the very end of an investigation.”

What happens next?

“You may perform interviews of victims of crimes, not just the subject. So in the form of a bank robbery, you might have multiple 302s from the people who were there, the teller, somebody who saw the getaway car, or associates of the subject.”

When you first go into an interview what is the process?
“You identify yourself. I’m “so and so,” a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. You state the day, time, and you state the location of where the interview occurs. Once you’ve got that out of the way, then you delve into the actual process of the interview. Now an interview can be wide-ranging and it can go all over the place. You can typically go [to an interview] with an outline of what you want to talk about. You go in there full of knowledge of the investigation and of what has transpired so far. And you typically try and get the person to talk about those things without revealing all of that information that you have, without showing your cards, without tipping your hand.”

What are you looking for?

“As you’re performing that interview you get the person to talk about what you want them to talk about. Remember, the interview is strictly based on factual observations and statements that are made. There is no room for conjecture. There’s no room for opining and there is really no room for hypotheses to be put in [the 302 form]. It’s strictly observation. You can make personal observations about the person’s demeanor… If I suspected that somebody was drunk or under the influence of a substance during the interview, I could say something to the effect, “upon walking into the room to interview X, the interviewing agent noted that he smelled heavily of alcohol. X was slurring their words and…having trouble making coherent sentences.” I could not say that I believe X was completely drunk because I did not know that for a fact and that’s not something that I was able to verify while there.”

What is the other agent doing?

“Typically one agent will be doing interviewing, another agent will be taking notes. Sometimes both agents will take notes. You usually only want to have one agent take notes because if it goes to court, both sets of notes could present a problem if they are not in agreement.”

Regarding Flynn’s particular interview, what would the process be once it’s completed?

“Both agents would physically sign that initial copy. In the case of Flynn…you know both FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, and FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka both would digitally sign the 302. You know there’s a system and the FBI agents put in a card that identifies them. There’s a specific pin that is known only to you. You look at the documents. You say that everything looks good, then you click sign and…enter your pin. It’s digitally signed for you. Only they could do that. If somebody had their log-in information, which is highly unlikely, then, of course, they could do that. That’s really what a 302 is. It is a capture of facts and it is a capture of observations. It’s not a total report of an investigation. It’s not a summation of everything that’s happening. It’s just what transpired that snapshot in time for when they interview the person.”

So, they didn’t have to show Mike Flynn the transcripts of his conversation with the Russian ambassador or anyone else?

“No not at all. There’s no obligation to doing that sometimes because of the sensitivities of what you collected and how you collected the information. Sometimes you show people some of the evidence; it’s basically called the strategic use of evidence. Sometimes you will show people information that you have collected, not only help jog their memory but to maybe guide them into making the right decision. It’s not an obligation but if you’re trying to get them to specifically admit to something that you have, you can do that.”

But, now with all the new evidence on former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and Special Agent Peter Strzok, how does that affect the case? Would the agents have shared their findings with superiors?

“As you know, there are all sorts of lies that have been discovered on what has transpired with regard to McCabe…Comey possibly as well here, as well as other people that were involved in that sort of special investigation. McCabe was caught lying, Comey [was caught] lying, and others. For example, with Flynn’s 302s and notes, the agents would take those documents back to headquarters and then share what they observed with people. McCabe and Comey may be two of those people. The agents are going to talk about it and people are going to ask how the interview went. They are going to read that document and then ask for the opinions of the investigators, in this case, Strzok and Pientka. And that is where this idea that you know one agent or possibly both agents said, “look we don’t think that he was lying or maybe he wasn’t forthcoming.””

““It’s a dangerous charge and easy to use.” because as I was told that McCabe was upset after hearing from the agents that they didn’t think Flynn was lying, he went into a raging tirade…”

“Given what we’ve learned of McCabe so far and given what we know about McCabe’s previous actions of purposely trying to undermine the Trump administration, that’s what happened.”

Was there a difference between the way the FBI handled Flynn’s case and the way the bureau handled McCabe’s case?

“Flynn was only interviewed once and was never under oath. McCabe was interviewed twice and was under oath during both instances. Further, Flynn was never told that he was being formally interviewed. McCabe was advised of the nature of his interviews on both occasions. Third, Flynn was never told what they suspected him of lying about and given the chance to explain. McCabe was asked, through the OPR process, on two occasions and through a formal document, whether he needed to clarify anything or change any information. He did not, which makes his lying intentional and with his full knowledge of his actions. And finally, Flynn has been charged with 18 USC 1001, making false official statements. McCabe has not.”

Is it a conflict of interest now that the congressional committees and the IG have found that Strzok had such anti-Trump bias based on the fact that he was conducting the interview with Flynn and so involved in both investigations?

“It would, absolutely. Any judge would pick that apart in a court of law, any judge. He is tainted at that point. And you do have issues of taint in a court law… One of the things that you have issues with is [that] you have all this highly sensitive…top secret, tight reporting that occurs and you don’t want to have people who have been tainted by that material performing that interview. Now, you do it for a lot of reasons. One, you do it because sometimes you can’t give up that information. You want to get what’s called a clean team to do the interviews…people who haven’t had access to any of this highly sensitive information to perform the interview and you give them sort rough guidelines of what you want them to talk about and then hopefully they’ll get the person to admit to it.”

“That is, you won’t have to divulge where they received this extremely sensitive information. When you get very sensitive information from other governments…things that are within the arsenal of the U.S. government that you don’t want coming out, in the court of law.”

What about now?

“Now we know that even before the interview with Flynn, Strzok was so vehemently anti-Trump that he had every reason to want to pursue charges against him.”

Could Strzok have suggested later down the line that Flynn was lying?

“Obviously this information would taint the interview they had with Flynn. I would say that lawyer should absolutely have a field day with him being able to say that it was a biased interview because of the bias that Strzok had felt towards the Trump administration. I would be interested to see what McCabe’s text messages are that sent him to the next point. But, you know it also looks like they were kind of smart enough to do a lot of in-person meetings in Andy’s office and not put anything into texts. I think McCabe has been pretty shrewd in handling all communications and letting, you know, [Former FBI Attorney Lisa] Page be a conduit for it. Regardless of that, Flynn’s lawyer should absolutely have a field day with saying that…Flynn was a representative of the Trump administration and Strzok and McCabe had set their sights squarely on him as a member of the administration. They interviewed him and then they put this case together against him and presented those facts to the Special Counsel.”

So, if they didn’t think he lied, how did they get him to admit guilt and accuse him of lying in the end?

“It could be anything during the questioning that doesn’t exactly line up. They would question Flynn on the number of times he had contact with a Russian representative. They could have said, “Mr. Flynn how many times have you spoken with the Russian officials?” In good conscience, he may have said, “to the best of my recollection it was four to five times that I spoke with him.” Or, ” You know X amount of time.” That answer got that captured in the 302 document. The agents can go back and say, “we have technical collection says that he spoke with the Russians six or seven times.” And so, what you have is, you have Flynn saying “I suppose x amount of times” and then the government knowing he spoke this amount time. From a small inaccurate recollection, you have your a 18 USC 1001 charge, providing false information to federal agents. Now, it’s pretty damn flimsy. And I think if it were taken to court… it would have a hard time making it stand upright.”

What do we know about the Flynn interview?

“Flynn was very forthcoming about the things that they really didn’t even ask him about or about things that…there’s no way he could have suspected that they knew information about. For example, other meetings that he had, or about people with whom he met and was very forthcoming about that. Even though he was very forthcoming about 99 percent of things that happened, if he misremembered, or if he was exhausted because the guy probably had about four hours of sleep a night during that time, it didn’t matter in the end. They wanted to get him. All he had to do was misremember one time that he talked to the guy. Then they could automatically brought him up on that one charge.”

Doesn’t this seem like an easy way to entrap someone or get them on a charge that really is weak?

“It’s a long tried and true technique that the FBI uses in investigations where they don’t have the very concrete charges to stick to somebody and they want to nail them. He got the charge that is usually filed against friends and families of suspects when you’re trying to break the suspect. And I gotta be honest with you, there have probably been times where the FBI has really overreached and might have overstepped the boundaries in using that 1001 charge. It’s a dangerous charge and easy to use.”

So, if Flynn didn’t lie, why did he plead guilty to the charge?

“I would really like to know what the implications are for Mueller in this situation, because Strzrok’s bias is clear and obvious at this point. Mueller knew this as of July 2017 or thereabouts when the IG showed him the texts that forced Strzrok’s removal from the team. The indictment happened months later, in November 2017. So, at best, Mueller indicted Flynn with full knowledge that his primary witness was hopelessly biased against the defendant. That alone would have probably sunk the case had Flynn been able to hold out and go to trial, and had Mueller not blackmailed him with threats of indicting his son.
It also raises the question of what Mueller knew and when he knew it. It’s already established from the fact surrounding Strzrok’s removal from the Mueller team that Mueller knew of his bias. Mueller also would have known that Strzrok was involved in generating the 302s used as evidence against Flynn. Knowing of Strzrok’s bias, it would have been extremely negligent of Mueller to not question the veracity of the 302 at that point. So at best, giving Mueller the benefit of the doubt, all you can say is that he didn’t know that the 302 was altered (should the 302 alteration be proven). If the 302 was altered, given what Mueller knew about Strzrok at the time of the indictment, there is no excuse for Mueller to have not known. If he did know that th 302 was altered … that’s even worse.
Certainly by now Mueller has to be aware that Comey and McCabe both testified that the agents who interviewed Flynn didn’t believe he had lied. That’s exculpatory right there, and should have made Mueller re-think the whole indictment and perhaps withdraw it. But Mueller’s reputation is that he is a very inflexible thinker and once he makes up his mind, he does not change it even when new facts emerge.
I really want to see what happens with this case. I think, even without knowing whether the 302s were altered, the judge already has enough to throw out the indictment, with prejudice, based on Strzrok’s well documented bias alone. But if the 302 was altered, the judge has justification for doing a lot more, like holding Mueller in contempt, and possibly even in criminal contempt, as well as referring him to the bar for possible disbarment.
Politically, if Flynn’s indictment is thrown out, especially on the basis of tainted evidence, the whole Russia probe blows up and it becomes an albatross around the necks of those who are pushing the narrative. It may be difficult to understand all of the machinations of the whole Russia-collusion case, but understanding the framing of a guy – and coercing a guilty plea based on tainted evidence and blackmail – is easily understandable, and will absolutely destroy the credibility of the Mueller team and probe.
Either way, it’s time to put the cards on the table and get this adjudicated.”

“And from what I understand is that the McCabe/Strzok team basically tarnished his name overnight and then they hold out until he’s really he’s at his wit’s end. Flynn’s financially in a hole. He’s already sold his house. He’s completely destitute. The bureau starts going after his family and they say, “Hey Mike Flynn, we’re going to go after your family.” Maybe there’s something they think they can get on his son or anyone close to him. Flynn is a true patriot and stand-up guy. So he takes the 1001 charge to get the Special Counsel off his back. The FBI and Special Counsel clap their hands and pat themselves on the back and then there it is. That’s how it all happens.”

“I would think there is some legal precedent for something like this; some kind of grounds just based on the fact that Strzok and McCabe appear to be so biased against Trump.”

Here’s the legal definition of Giglio information or material: “It refers to material tending to impeach the character or testimony of the prosecution witness in a criminal trial. I’d say there’s something here based on all the evidence that’s already come forward.”

“Behind closed doors, in March 2017 Comey told Congress that the agents who interviewed Flynn on Jan. 24, 2017 did not believe that Flynn was lying. Comey later appeared to walk back his statement during an interview with Brett Baier on Fox News, suggesting that he didn’t recall making those statements to Congress, as previously reported. However, an unredacted section of the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia report specifically stated: “Director Comey testified to the committee that ‘the agents discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.”

“If Flynn’s 302s were altered, or if the information in them was manipulated, that would be significant. For some time, several sources have made that suggestion. They also stated that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was irate and wanted to find some way to prove Flynn lied to them during the interview. Ironically, McCabe was fired this year days before his official retirement and is now facing possible charges for lying under oath based on evidence discovered by Horowitz.”

Meadows did not say which interviews may have been tampered with or which agents may have been involved.

Meadows also suggested that the FBI was not forthright with Horowitz, whose office released a scathing 568-page report on the bureau’s handling of the Clinton matter last week. He said the FBI’s reasons for redacting the names of two anonymous FBI employees identified in the report were based on the false premise that they were working in the counterintelligence division of the bureau.

“They don’t work in counterintelligence,” Meadows told Horowitz. “If that’s the reason the FBI is giving, they’re giving you false information, because they work for the [FBI] general counsel.”

Meanwhile, Representative Meadows named FBI attorneys, Kevin Clinesmith, and Sally Moyer, during the hearing, and asked Horowitz if he could confirm that they were two of the unnamed agents in his report. Horowitz declined to confirm or deny the names out of concern, and at the request of the bureau.

Michael Horowitz is the Department of Justice’s Inspector General, but he is no God…

He testified on June 18th before the Senate Judiciary Committee about his report concerning the Hillary Clinton national security breach investigation. The revelation came to light during questioning by Senator John Kennedy. (@7:36)

Horowitz testified that “most” of the investigative decisions in that investigation were made not by the FBI but by prosecutors within the Department of Justice.

One might be tempted to conclude that much of the criticism of the FBI for its decisions in the aforesaid Clinton investigation would have to be discounted or re-examined. Perhaps. But that is not the most important conclusion.

“For whatever reason, it is clear from the report that the structure of the FBI/DOJ’s Clinton investigation was all off color, and the FBI was reduced to providing a set of runners, perhaps willing and even avid, because of their demonstrated bias, runners, but runners just the same, for DOJ attorneys.”

“Now, in our system of justice, this is not entirely unlawful, yet it is highly unusual.”

“Skipping over, for a bit, reflections on the incidence of the DOJ calling the shots in investigations, what should be stressed is that if there is a need for an FBI, and not for just a set of runners and errand boys for geekish DOJ clerks, perhaps it might be logical to posit that if so, then the FBI should actually handle its investigations itself.”

“Now, simply, it is very rare for criminal investigations to be handled directly from FBI at the HQ level. But it may have been unprecedented in the history of the FBI to have run the Hillary Clinton investigation, an intelligence/espionage investigation, out of FBI — HQ.”

“It probably behooves us to pause here in order to remember that the FBI is organized in what to many may appear to be an upside-down fashion. Ordinarily cases are either assigned to or are developed by “case” agents. Case agents work out of offices scattered across the country.”

“We might find this remarkable, but it is the case agents who make investigative decisions, although ostensibly they are on the lowest rung of the organizational chart. For this reason, many agents have fought to stay at the case-agent level. One cannot be “prince of the city” sitting in an office.”

“Of course, if a particular investigative step is of a sensitive nature, prior to taking it authority is secured from the requisite supervisory level, which is often at the level of FBIHQ. There is nothing wrong with that, in principle. No one – no case agent – wants to embarrass the Bureau. If there is a “conformity bias” in the field office it is to take the case wherever the facts lead, and not in an overzealous fashion.”

“Thus, in the ordinary course, it is only once an investigation is complete (!) that the work product is given to the DOJ. Decisions as to discretionary investigative steps are taken in the relatively insulated environment of the field office; they are taken by case agents who are not really beholden to anyone, as they have no need or intention to promote themselves.”

“All of this militates against bias.”

“The reverse is true concerning the Clinton espionage investigation. There the structure of the investigation militated towards bias. Indeed, the reins of the investigation were handed over to the DOJ. If there had been real leadership at the Bureau, this would never have happened.”

“For this reason, in order to lessen the chance for such shenanigans to take place, the president, or at the least the FBI director, should ensure that no investigations be conducted out of headquarters. Ever. That would go for Robert Mueller’s “special counsel” probe, which is an FBI/DOJ to itself.”

“An agent doing intelligence work is an intelligence officer; an IO in Bureau parlance. Such people develop not only expertise but also a sense of the importance of the subject matter, after all, “national security” concerns the very security – and existence – of the nation, and yet the same sense does not appear to be manifested, judging from recent events and the IG’s report, in the DOJ, despite the latter’s having a division dedicated to national security.”

“For instance, it is almost never stated that one of the great blows that our national security was dealt by Mrs. Clinton was that to our reputation for trustworthiness and professionalism. Consider a CIA officer or FBI agent dealing with a potential highly placed foreign intelligence officer. In order to betray their own country, the foreign intelligence officer has to believe that the U.S. government will safeguard their identity. Yet now visions of Mrs. Clinton’s homebrew server (and, because of her, Anthony Weiner’s laptop computer) must flash before that foreign intelligence officer’s eyes as he considers making a leap of faith. Not to mention the psychological blow to our CIA and FBI intelligence officers: they too have to believe in the integrity of the system.”

“When one takes considerations such as this away from the table, one is left with what appears the case in the IG report: either feigned or no real understanding of the gravity of the offense on the part of the investigators and prosecutors.”

“But there is more to be said regarding FBI/DOJ bias in the IG’s report. Former judge Jeanine Pirro castigated IG Horowitz on her Fox News show. She said in essence that in a murder case one proves the state of mind of the perpetrator by indirect evidence, and that therefore the IG could not reasonably find, as he did, that no investigative decisions were made because of bias. Especially because the report is full of evidence of a biased state of mind.”

“Mrs. Pirro forgets that in a murder trial there is a body. It is clear, obviously, that a crime has been committed.”

“But there is no crime as such committed by the players in the IG report. As the IG concluded, every investigative decision was made upon an arguably reasonable foundation.”

“This is not at all to say that the investigation was properly handled. But what we are dealing with is prosecutorial and investigative under-zealousness in regard to Mrs Clinton and rabid jihadic over-zealousness with regard to Mr Trump. Neither of these are crimes, and neither of these are, ordinarily, “prosecutable” ethical violations.”

“In this regard we should remember that what Andrew McCabe was alleged to have done was pretty darn bad: he leaked information to the press. But that’s not a crime, and the criminal referral made by the IG in McCabe’s case is on the basis of his allegedly lying to the FBI, a violation of 18 USC 1001.”

“That is why the IG did not pass judgment upon the players in the Clinton espionage investigation. The IG is not the tool for this. We may desperately wish it to be, but in truth, it is the height of asininity to insist that a screwdriver will function the same as a hammer.”

“Indeed, we cannot expect the system to police itself on using a paradigm of rules-violations in the situation we are dealing with. (It would be much easier were that the case.) That is because often the problem is that discretion is misused, which is not something that can be policed by the system itself.”

“This should be obvious: after all, the IG said the DOJ/FBI followed the rules, but were biased.”

We might do well to recall that this is the general case with the Deep State and has been for some time.

It is not news that the Deep State is biased against Christian Conservatives, that just happen to be in the majority within one of the two main political parties of the United States.

It just proves that they have made an alliance of evil with the other one…

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

The historian Victor Davis Hanson in a recent article describes the same phenomena and goes on to state he believes that “For all the investigations and IG reports, for all the revelations of scandals and wrongdoing, there will probably in the end be little consequence.”

Hanson may be correct.

But he need not be.

We have a unitary executive (at para.13). If the president can act to level the playing field and ensure fairness, then the matter is salvageable. If not, the outlook is grim.

Maybe it’s high time to impeach Robert Mueller and end this travesty of Justice, here and now.

That is a much needed action of impeachment…

Let’s do it.