Three Days in December 2016: Sanctions, Nukes, Syria, and Russia

In this post, I described how badly much of the press had misrepresented the unmasking report released by Ric Grenell yesterday. The transcripts of the calls Mike Flynn had with Sergey Kislyak were identified by the FBI, FBI never put them into a finalized intelligence product, and Jim Comey told James Clapper about them.

The unmaskings described on the list released yesterday, by contrast, were finalized NSA products, not unfinished FBI ones, and none of the dates correlate with the discovery of Flynn’s calls.

In other words, the masking report released yesterday does not include the calls in question. These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.

Indeed, there is no evidence in the public record that any of these calls reflected any suspicion of wrong-doing.

That said, there were a flurry of requests to unmask Flynn’s name around mid-December 2016 that experts have highlighted both publicly and privately. While we can’t speak to the content of the intercepts in question, it is certain that Flynn was involved or mentioned in some communications in the days before December 14, 2016 that attracted an interesting set of people around the US government.

I’d like to look at what that flurry looks like. Before I start, let me lay out some assumptions. First, there may be a delay between the time NSA obtained communications themselves and the time it finalized a report on them, so the December 14 start date for this flurry may have happened days or more later after the communications were collected (though given how some of the most senior people in government reviewed these, that’s not necessarily true). Second, while there’s reason to believe this flurry is all related, we can’t be certain. Finally, remember that Flynn may not be the only American on this list; there could be any number of others, and their names might have gotten unmasked as well. To reiterate: Flynn wouldn’t necessarily have been a party to these communications; rather, he could have been discussed in them.

On the first day of this flurry, a significant group of people at Treasury — up to and including Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew — asked to unmask Flynn’s identity. This would suggest sanctions might be involved. Note, by that time Adam Szubin had moved to head Terrorism and Financial Crimes, so the issue might have more directly concerned money laundering than sanctions (though he appears to have still been in charge of OFAC as well).

In addition, John Brennan unmasked his identity, which suggests the intelligence immediately got briefed to the top of CIA.

Also that day, UN Ambassador Samatha Power unmasked Flynn’s identity twice that day, which (if this is part of the flurry) suggests someone in New York may have been involved.

The next day, December 15, Jim Comey got this intelligence and unmasked Flynn’s identity. Importantly, given the draft EC closing the Flynn investigation on January 4, 2017, nothing about this seems to have triggered notice to the Crossfire Hurricane team, which either suggests it involved an entirely different topic or proves that the FBI didn’t have it in for Flynn and treated some communications involving Flynn and Russia as routine.

John Brennan got something — either the same or a follow-on report, or something else entirely different — on December 15. That seems to have filtered down to CIA officials working on the Middle East, including Syria. But there’s not evidence that counterterrorism experts got it or were very interested, which is interesting given that Flynn always pitched cooperation with Russia in terms of cooperating against ISIS.

The same day, a whole bunch of people at NATO got it, including the Policy Advisor for Russia (Scott Parrish, too, seems to focus on Russia or Eastern Europe).

In addition, a senior person at Department of Energy and someone on the intelligence side there got it. This suggests nuclear power or proliferation is involved.

Finally, on December 16, four people at CIA whose location and portfolio are unknown got it, as well as the Ambassador to Russia (it would be unsurprising if those CIA people were also in Russia).

December 14, 2016

CIA Director John Brennan

UN Ambassador Samantha Power (twice)

Treasury

Secretary of Treasury Jacob Lew

Deputy Secretary of Treasury Sarah Raskin

Under Secretary of Treasury Nathan Sheets

Acting Under Secretary of Treasury Adam Szubin

Acting Assistant Secretary of Treasury, Office of Intelligence & Analysis Danny McGlynn

Acting Assistant Secretary of Treasury, Office of Intelligence & Analysis Mike Neufeld

Office of Intelligence & Analysis Patrick Conlan

December 15, 2016

FBI Director Jim Comey

CIA

CIA Director John Brennan

Deputy Assistant Director of Near East Mission Center [redacted]

Chief Syria Group [Redacted]

NATO

US Ambassador to NATO Douglas Lute

US Deputy Chief of US Mission to NATO Lee Litzenberger

US NATO [CIA?] Advisor to Ambassador Douglas Lute

US NATO Defense Advisor (DEFAD) Robert Bell

US NATO Deputy DEFAD James Hursh

US Representative to NATO Military Vice Admiral John Christenson

US NATO Office of the Defense Advisor (ODA) Policy Advisor for Russia Lieutenant Colonel Paul Geehreng

US NATO Political Officer [redacted] Scott Parrish

US NATO Political Advisor [POLAD] Tamir Waser

Department of Energy

US Department of Energy Deputy Secretary Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall

US Department of Energy Intelligence and Analysis, Executive Briefer

December 16

State

US Ambassador to Russia John Tefft

CIA

Chief of Station [Redacted]

Deputy Chief of Station [Redacted]

Collection Management Officer [Redacted]

Collection Management Officer [Redacted]

The most credible explanation I’ve seen for this flurry is that it relates to Flynn’s scheme to sell nuclear energy to Saudi Arabia (because it would involve sanctions, so Treasury, and proliferation, so Energy, and partnership with Russia), but that explanation doesn’t account for some of these readers, most notably someone with a Syria portfolio (the entire nuclear plan was a scheme to lure Russia away from Iran). Plus, unless those CIA people are tied to Saudi Arabia, these readers don’t include the key target of this scheme.

Moreover, it’s unclear why so many people at NATO would focus on this so quickly.

Whatever this flurry (or flurries), what Ric Grenell has done by releasing the list is given whatever adversary is involved, along with Mike Flynn, a picture of how this information flowed within the federal government.

Maybe that — and not any disclosure about who unmasked Flynn’s call with Sergey Kislyak — was the point.

Update: Here’s the first story on Jared Kushner’s request for a back channel, which Kislyak reported back to Moscow. It would have triggered Power (the meeting was in NY), Russia, Syria (Kushner said he wanted to cooperate on Syria). But it’s not clear why Treasury got this first, unless the message included set-up to the meeting with Sergei Gorkov, which took place on December 13. This being a report on Gorkov would explain the response at Treasury, but not other elements, such as the involvement of Energy (unless the Gorkov meeting was significantly different than has been reported).

image_print
67 replies
  1. tryggth says:

    You don’t think this was fallout from Kislyak’s reporting back on the meeting with Kushner and Flynn at Trump Tower?

  2. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    It feels as if we are finally getting close to the heart of at least one of the labyrinths in the larger Trump-Russia puzzle. This explanation, or something close, would also help explain Sullivan’s view of Flynn as a traitor.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      Sorry, not seeing Edit button on Safari…

      If this explanation is accurate, and Marcy has a phenomenal track record, then it’s more than a little eyebrow-raising that Barr wanted to back off on prosecuting Flynn.

      And it also speaks to the stakes involved for Trump: if he pardons a man who tried to sell/pass nuclear secrets to the Saudi’s and cut a deal for building power plants, then…. I doubt the evangelicals honestly want Armagedon badly enough to ignore this level of malevolence.

      Again, something like this would help explain why Judge Sullivan is colossally pissed about Flynn.

      • ernesto1581 says:

        I forget who, but someone here offered a timeline for Kushner-Barrack-UAE-Saudi nuke connections a couple months ago which spanned a period from spring 2016 to summer 2019.
        It began with:
        “May 2016 — Tom Barrack approaches Middle East princes for ‘feedback’ on a Trump energy speech, specifically related to ‘nuclear energy.’”
        And was followed, in order, by Kushner trying to sell 666 5th Ave to Anbang shortly after the inauguration and being rebuffed; the sale of Westinghouse nuke division by Toshiba to Brookfield Assets, who, days after completing that purchase, bought a very large chunk of 666 5th Ave, thereby saving Kushner’s keester; Westinghouse annoucing plans to build nukes in Ukraine; Shavlakov mentions plans of a plant to be built in southern Ukraine to produce certain nuke components; Ukraine receiving permission to use Westinghouse nuclear fuel; and finally, Tom Barrack trying “…to buy nuclear reactor maker Westinghouse…using Saudi and Emirati money” (FT)
        Barrack’s attempt to buy Westinghouse was reported four or five days after Trump made his “perfect” call to Zelensky.

    • Salt of the Earth says:

      It seems Treasury was accessing Flynn’s financial records as early as 2015, according to a Treasury whistleblower.
      ht tps://theohiostar.com/2020/05/18/exclusive-the-treasury-department-spied-on-flynn-manafort-and-the-trump-family-says-whistleblower/
      The “ill-informed” American sees it this way: DOJ dropped the case against Flynn. The judge decides he doesn’t like that and asks another prosecutor to step in. Then he decides the fired former law firm should come back. In short, the judge is picking new representation and new prosecutors. It appears to be politically biased.

      [FYI, link ‘broken’ to prevent accidental clickthrough by community members. /~Rayne]

      • bmaz says:

        This is some to the dumbest bunk I have ever seen. Thank you for dropping by Conservative Treehouse!

      • LaNita Jones says:

        three-day visit to Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan from December 13-15, 2016

        The unmarked quote is from Leviticus.

      • Rayne says:

        Since you’ve forgotten that Flynn was pointedly warned on his departure from the military that certain acts were prohibited, here’s page one of a copy the House Oversight Committee received in April 2017 of a letter from the Defense Intelligence Agency to Michael Flynn.

        Treasury and other agencies had ample reason to investigate Flynn in 2015 if they learned Flynn had violated military regulations and U.S. law especially after being pointedly cautioned not to do so.

        I’d like to know if it’s standard practice to warn federal employees leaving the DIA in such a manner or if Flynn had already given the DIA reason to make a exceptional effort to do so.

        I’d also like to know why you are defending a man who violated regulations and the law after being warned not to do so. Sharing a link from a cluster of “news” entities who employ persons with ties to Breitbart doesn’t look like you’re pushing back.

  3. Oxcart says:

    Great work, Marcy. I wonder if Turkey was also a flake in the flurry. NATO would need to know in a big way. Stay safe.

  4. Peterr says:

    it’s unclear why so many people at NATO would focus on this so quickly.

    Given that the NATO folks were on the Day 2 list of people, it strikes me that they would have done so after being tipped by someone on the Day 1 list about something. Hmmm . . .

    Three things strike me as possible context here. (1) If the US is preparing to do something against Russia, like the (later) Dec 29 expulsion of Russian diplomats, you make sure that the US NATO folks are ready for it — because Russia will likely retaliate in some way. (2) Similarly, if you are come across something fishy related to someone with ties to Turkey — a NATO member — you alert the NATO folks. (3) Then there’s the “both” answer. Starting in the summer of 2016, Putin and Erdogan were publicly rebuilding their relationship after Turkey shot down a Russian military jet in Nov 2015. Putin backed Erdogan after the July coup attempt, and in August Putin agreed to eliminate some sanctions and restore some badly needed tourism trips.

    With Treasury being such a big part of the Day 1 list, my guess would be that there was something in the money that Turkey paid Flynn for his lobbying that tripped some kind of flag and got someone’s attention.

    Let’s see . . .

    Well this is interesting. From Politico on May 31, 2019:

    A foreign client paying retired Gen. Michael Flynn more than $500,000 to mount a campaign to advance Turkish government interests during the 2016 presidential campaign explicitly complained to a Flynn aide that then-candidate Donald Trump was not being supportive enough, newly released documents show.

    A set of talking points prepared in October 2016 by Mike Boston, a former U.S. intelligence officer working with Flynn, indicate that “the client” backing the lobbying project complained that the GOP nominee had not gone to bat for Turkey. At the time, Flynn was also serving as a top foreign policy adviser to Trump.

    Following the embedded link in that piece brings you to the documents and talking points. The bulk of the discussion in the formal October 14 talking points presentation had to do with the initial Phase 1 of the three phase project that the “Flynn Intel Group” would do for Turkey, but at the end (p 21 of the pdf) there was a little timeline indicating that Phase three was to run from Nov 15 to Dec 15.

    Maybe that’s nothing but a coincidence. But maybe it is something. For instance, if the project came to a conclusion on Dec 15th or a day or two earlier, it is quite possible that a final payment — perhaps a large one — was made at that time, and that’s what caught someone’s attention at Treasury, or at CIA and they sent it to Treasury. At that point, with Flynn being a potential link with both Russia and Turkey, it’s easy to imagine the NATO folks getting brought up to speed.

    • drouse says:

      Since there were 16 individuals making these requests on behalf of 40 principals, I think what we’re seeing is not tipping off but who was deemed to have a need to know. I am assuming that these requests are timestamped on receipt and the ones with the same date are arranged in that order. If you gave me a list like that and told me chronological order and a timestamp was available, I’d use that . Whatever the one on the 14th was, it really must of set off alarm bells from the way it spread from the top down through Treasury. Since that one seemed to be limited to the CIA,OIA and Treasury, I’m thinking sanctions.The one on the 15th looks like it went straight from the CIA to spread through our people in NATO and then to some military commands on the 16th. It’s hard to say because redactions. Comey because of counter-intelligence and DOE because of our nukes in Turkey. It’ kind of like watching pachinco balls bouncing.

      • Peterr says:

        The order on the lists above are according to rank and protocol within each organization. In the case of the NATO list, at the top are the US Ambassador as the head of the delegation, followed by the DCM (the top career official). At the bottom of the list are a couple of ordinary political officers, and in between are various mid- to upper-level people.

        • drouse says:

          Are we referring to the same list? I was using the one linked in the first line of the post and the cover page specifically says it is chronological order.

    • orionATL says:

      peterr-

      damn, this is like reading a cable – incisve, informative, demystifying.

      thanks.

  5. Dan_S says:

    Hi everyone, I’m a LTL;FTC: Have you all seen Glenn Greenwald’s coverage of the Flynn matters? What is his actual deal?!

    Also, a sincere thank you to EW/Marcy, Rayne, and all the contributors. As a journalist (financial regulations) and primary-source obsessive, I regularly refer colleagues and friends to Emptywheel as a shining example of thorough, facts-first analysis. Even the commenters are excellent. I really appreciate what you’re doing!

    • emptywheel says:

      Eventually I’ll cover both that and a piece he did several weeks ago on Assange, both of which might as well be written by a Fox News host. It’s just really not a priority since there’s actually stuff to cover.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Glenn drank the anti-Russiagate kool-aid a long time ago. His screed reads like a brief for Mike Flynn. He takes Flynn at his word, except when he pleads guilty, twice.

      GG is sure, for example, that when two FBI agents interviewed Flynn and agreed he did not appear to be lying, that that means Flynn was not lying. He ignores that a special operator would not have had a thirty-year career, if he could not convincingly lie to a couple of gubmint investigators – who had no torture at their disposal. Flynn, however, rose to the top.

      GG also takes at face value that Shea and Barr’s claim that the DoJ reversed its decision on Flynn’s prosecution because of “newly discovered documents.” He should read more about the context of those supposedly new documents. If he got out more, he might be less convinced that Aaron Mate’s analysis is brilliant.

      GG agrees with Shea, Barr, and Powell that there was no legitimate reason for the FBI to have interviewed Flynn in the first place. It was only natural that Flynn talk to Kislyak because he was the incoming NSA. It would have been strange had he not. GG has no need, apparently, to consider the context and substance of those conversations and Flynn’s lies about them, or that Shea and Barr are working assiduously to avoid disclosing those very conversations.

      Glenn is correct that the FBI and other state law enforcement and intelligence agencies have a history of committing grievous abuses. Bill Barr grows his own chain of abuses, which has grown longer than the one Jacob Marley’s ghost so laments at Christmastime. But the prosecution of Mike Flynn is not one of them.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        In the end, I think Glenn commits the sin he accuses Russiagaters of: he takes his position as a matter of faith, not evidence.

      • Dan_S says:

        His rhetoric reads like Sydney Powell’s. It’s like he jumped down a contrarian rabbit hole.

        A lot of people look up to him, and his output on this has been the stuff of frothy Fox News punditry.

      • emptywheel says:

        Glenn has never, ever, read primary documents well himself (and when he tried with Snowden he often made replicated errors or false claims Snowden gave him).
        So his comments are coming from the press — Chuck Ross and Mollie Hemingway — he has come to trust. Ross can selectively read primary documents, Mollie cannot. So effectively Glenn is regurgitating propaganda based off a selective reading of the primary documents.
        Glenn of course used to borrow my primary readings, and as such you might think he’d peruse what I’ve written based off my own reading of them. Alas, no.

        • holdingsteady says:

          I wish he would! If you go on democracy now for a debate with Glenn, give us a heads up please!

        • orionATL says:

          another peek into the emptywheel methodology. very interesting.

          history profs are those whom i knew to be focused on primary docs.

          • P J Evans says:

            The other group I know of that goes for primary documents is genealogists – those docs are what you really want to see; secondary docs are less trustworthy (did someone transcribe “1st month” as January or as March? it matters a lot).

  6. John Langston says:

    I think ol’ Glen has been fighting the last war on the wrong side.

    After Mueller, I haven’t heard much from him on the subject. Now that Barr has given a lifeline to Flynn, I see the guy is at it again. GG seems to be looking for scraps for vindication. I suppose he can explain away Manafort giving polling data to Kilimnik too?

    Flynn was treated unfairly by the FBI? Man, I wouldn’t hang my hat on that rack.

  7. P J Evans says:

    It appears that most media people think these are all about Flynn calling Kislyak and the sanctions on Russia. They haven’t looked at it like this.

  8. Savage Librarian says:

    I wonder if the dates above have anything to do with Reza Zarrab:

    “Did the Feds Flip Turkish Businessman Reza Zarrab—and Could He Bring Down Michael Flynn?” – 11/16/17

    “…SDNY prosecutors alleged a “multi-year scheme” run by high-ranking Iranian and Turkish officials. Zarrab and others traded Turkish gold to Iran in exchange for oil and natural gas, in violation of U.S. sanctions, and a Turkish state-owned bank was used to facilitate the scheme and lie to regulators, the complaint says.”

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/did-the-feds-flip-turkish-businessman-reza-zarraband-could-he-bring-down-michael-flynn

    And then there was this:

    “Turkey, Iran, gold, Giuliani and Trump: A guide to the case of Reza Zarrab” – The Washington Post, 10/10/19

    https://www-washingtonpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/10/turkey-iran-gold-giuliani-trump-guide-case-reza-zarrab/

    Interestingly, Ballard Partners also has a connection:

    “Turkish Bank Tied to Giuliani Client Indicted on Iran Sanctions Bust” – November (?) 2019
    …..
    “Citing Foreign Agents Registration Act records, the watchdog Open Secrets noted that Halkbank, a Turkish government-owned institution, paid more than $2 million to Ballard Partners, a top political fundraiser to the Trump campaign, to lobby the State Department and other U.S. government entities.”

    https://www-courthousenews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.courthousenews.com/turkish-bank-tied-to-giuliani-client-indicted-on-iran-sanctions-scheme/

  9. taluslope says:

    Damn, is Flynn stupid? If I had kicked up this apparent hornet’s nest I’d want to plead guilty as quickly as possible and receive a shiny get out of jail free card for all of the other shit I was part of.

    Question for the lawyers: My sincere belief is that the trumpiverse (kids, inlaws, sister, business acquaintances, Fox hosts, …) all get pardoned December 2020. This would explain Flynn’s action as it means he walks on anything he may have done? Are there blanket pardons for past, present and future sins? But if pardoned can you still be forced to testify of such sins because you lose 5th privileges?

    Question for scientists? I need to contact my DOE colleagues regarding why the DOE might be involved. I know little about DOE’s role in securing nuclear materials.

    Speaking of the DOE, I just checked their website and it sure seems sparse. I swear 10 years ago it had much more information. I can only imagine what happened. But not only is the information sparse but what is there is pure pablum. It’s the DOE for g*ds sakes. They run the NSA and science labs where some of the planets best science has been done. For those interested in science, wander around LBL and you will find a wall literally plastered with Noble laureates who worked there; sent shivers down my spine when I saw it.

    • Peterr says:

      Are there blanket pardons for past, present and future sins?

      Yes, yes, and no.

      See Ford’s pardon of Nixon, or Poppy Bush’s Iran-Contra pardons. In the latter case, here’s the language used (with emphasis added):

      Now, Therefore, I, George Bush, President of the United States of America, pursuant to my powers under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, do hereby grant a full, complete, and unconditional pardon to Elliott Abrams, Duane R. Clarridge, Alan Fiers, Clair George, Robert C. McFarlane, and Caspar W. Weinberger for all offenses charged or prosecuted by Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh or other member of his office, or committed by these individuals and within the jurisdiction of that office.

      That’s a mighty big blanket, covering both things they were charged with by the Independent Counsel and anything else they may have done while in office that hadn’t (yet) been charged.

      • oldoilfieldhand says:

        Worth noting that the pardon was written under the direct supervision of Willam Barr, Attorney General of the USA. The same William Barr, currently serving in the same capacity, is in charge of protecting the current Presindebt’s amply exposed backside.

        • bmaz says:

          Yes. And, frankly, I could write it even more broadly, and if I could, Barr and Trump sure can. Which is why I’ve cautioned Rugger about follow on UCMJ jurisdiction likely not being available if there were to be a “full pardon” for Flynn. The language of the GHW Bush pardon would arguably not cover any potential UCMJ jurisdiction, but could easily be made to do so by adding “within the jurisdiction of that office or any other of the United States”

          • Rugger9 says:

            Suitably chastised, I would note that if Biden wins, and Flynn goes back in front of a proceeding under oath he’ll add something to talk about. He seems to be unaware of when to be quiet.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Yes, and it should have been written more broadly. Bush left it to Barr, and Barr kept the pardon narrow, even though he successfully argued to expand the number of senior officials covered by it. (Was he obscuring whose crimes mattered most?)

          It would have been unremarkable and more reassuring to those pardoned (and Bush) if Barr had parroted Ford’s broad global pardon of Nixon. He didn’t. He narrowed the pardon to what was within the jurisdiction of Lawrence Walsh’s Iran-Contra investigation (which Barr effectively spiked).

          Those six might have committed crimes not covered by that narrow language. Perhaps Barr thought he was threading the needle, covering the most likely legal exposure while avoiding the suggestion there was more there there. Perhaps he wanted to keep presidential courtiers on a short string. Or, perhaps he was just being too clever by half.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      I think it’s a good read of Trump’s personality to say that had Flynn cooperated in any meaningful way with the Feds, Trump would have been less interested in pardoning him (regardless of the consequences to Trump). It’s part of that manly man schtick Trump obsesses over.

      In that regard, I think the old rule applies: If you have to brag about it, you’re not confident you have it, and probably don’t. That would explain Trump’s behavior in a nutshell.

  10. Spencer Dawkins says:

    I’m reading this post and the comments very seriously, but last night I saw a reference to “being in Trump’s brain is like being in a Mel Brooks film” (when you issue shutdown orders and then encourage protests against shutdowns), and you are reminding me that being in the real world is like being in a Tom Clancy novel (with, one prays, a happy ending).

    • holdingsteady says:

      I saw that reference about Mel brooks in the guardian this morning in an article about world leaders looking on in horror about trump response to Coronavirus

      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/15/donald-trump-coronavirus-response-world-leaders

      From the article:
      After Trump’s disinfectant comments, Beppe Severgnini, a columnist for Italy’s Corriere della Sera, said in a TV interview: “Trying to get into Donald Trump’s head is more difficult than finding a vaccine for coronavirus. First he decided on a lockdown and then he encouraged protests against the lockdown that he promoted. It’s like a Mel Brooks film.”

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      Bingo!
      It’s times like this that I really miss commenter Mad Dog. I think that he’s probably tipping his hat to you from heaven. Brilliant link.
      Also, enter Erik Prince, stage hardRightWing.

    • vicks says:

      Seems like Mueller’s team was on to these folks, I think his team interviewed every almost “American” mentioned in this “explainer”?
      Mueller also made deals with Broidy and Nader, who would easily tie into this plan and Manafort name wasn’t mentioned but he was good pals with Tom Barrack.
      Clearly I’m no “explainer” but I do know that Barr-craft was use in his summary/not summary of Mueller’s report to to claim no AMERICANS involved in this corrupt plan or any others could be connected to Russia’s interference in our 2016 election.
      It’s been clear for a while that the amount of resources and energy being spent on clearing Flynn is illogical.
      If there is any truth to the Moscow Project’s description of this particular plot line, Barr (who could have easily shut down any resulting referrals from Mueller) waving his wand over Flynn could just be his last piece of the clean-up.

      *It would also make sense why Trump was so quick to distance himself from Flynn when he was indicted and it may be that Flynn, his new lawyer and eventually Trump & Co started getting cocky once they knew Barr had “taken care” of of any trouble Mueller may have stirred up for the rest of the crew.

  11. orionATL says:

    tryggth –

    i knew these facts, but not this tableau. nor cap’s moscow project. very informative.

    thank you.

  12. LaNita Jones says:

    I am well familiar with the quote – even the cats know they are lying in the same room –

  13. mospeck says:

    Marcy (you, bmaz, Rayne and your expert lawyer bloggers) have got me all way well down with your relentless application of the legal logic. Told my kids today think I just gotta go take my chances with the blimp P2jvf_6wap8 but my over optimist, she said no, Spring 1 – Vivaldi Remastered 10 minutes

Comments are closed.