Lindsey Graham Responds to News of Potential Ongoing Crime by Promising to Ignore It

As I have been laying out, there is growing evidence that when DOJ added dates (a misleadingly incorrect one in at least one case) to Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe notes, they altered the documents in some other ways. At the very least, they redacted protection order footers in the first documents shared with Sidney Powell, but there appear to be other irregularities in the McCabe notes, irregularities that may be far more serious.

And that’s before you get to DOJ’s claims that:

  • They didn’t know the date of the January 5, 2017 meeting (even though documents in the docket make that date clear)
  • The Bill Barnett “report” was a 302
  • Lawyers for Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe had affirmed there were no (other) alterations to their clients’ notes

Those are all false, and the last one is fairly demonstrably maliciously false.

I’ve been trying to chase down places where original versions of the Andrew McCabe notes might exist, to compare with what got released in the docket. In addition to DOJ IG (which might have the notes in investigative files relating to the Carter Page investigation), I figured the Senate Judiciary Committee should have a copy.

After all, McCabe had been scheduled to testify on October 6, before he canceled on account of the GOP COVID cluster.

So I called the committee spox, Taylor Reidy, asking if they had copies of McCabe’s notes, since I wanted to use them to see whether FBI had committed a crime. She (credibly) claimed not to know about DOJ altering official documents, given the mad rush to confirm Amy Coney Barrett. So I sent her information to help her out.

Thanks for seeing if you can chase down the copies of these documents the Committee has received.

Basically, in some documents shared with Sidney Powell and then loaded to the docket in the Mike Flynn case, FBI had added (incorrect, in at least one case) dates to some Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe notes, which they subsequently admitted to the court, stating that the alteration was unintentional.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/07/doj-altered-flynn-document-427280

But it’s now clear that the FBI also removed the “protection order” footers in those documents as well (and have restored them in the re-altered documents).

There are a number of other irregularities with the McCabe notes, including that it doesn’t have a declassification stamp, even though the notes talk about Worldwide Threats hearing prep.

So I’m wondering if SJC could release the version of the notes the Committee received so we can understand what those notes originally looked like.

As I know from following the Crossfire Hurricane investigation closely, I’m know the Committee takes alterations of official documents very seriously.

I appreciate any help you can offer to clarify why these documents were altered.

I got no answer yesterday. I pinged her again today, mentioning that I thought Lindsey Graham’s disinterest in what might be a crime in progress newsworthy:

I’m circling back for comment on this.

I’m considering a post reporting on Chairman Graham’s disinterest in evidence that FBI has tampered with evidence to help Mike Flynn and would post it later today.

Thanks in advance.

Reidy responded to my question about DOJ’s current actions by stating that her boss is totally committed to continuing to review events that happened four years ago.

Thanks for your patience, Marcy.

The matter relates to pending litigation and is not something the committee would have access to.

Graham continues to pursue oversight related to the FBI’s handling of Crossfire Hurricane.

And while I followed up to clarify the seemingly shocking detail — that SJC intended to call McCabe as a witness without obtaining any of his records! — it appears to be the case that DOJ didn’t even share those documents with SJC.

I tried again, noting that she hadn’t answered the question I asked.

To clarify, even though you had prepared to have Andrew McCabe testify this month, you intended to do so without his records?

Also, would you like to issue a statement about FBI’s altering documents in the month of September 2020, which is entirely unrelated to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and what I asked about? Or does Chairman Graham not intend to exercise oversight over ongoing misconduct happening right now? To clarify, because this will be clear in any post, I’m asking whether Chairman Graham, having been informed of a potential crime happening as we speak on a matter that he has direct oversight over, is going to do anything about it?

I’ve had no response, from which I guess it is fair to conclude that former JAG Officer Lindsey Graham is going to do nothing about what might be a crime in progress.

FBI, for what it’s worth, yesterday referred my questions about why Executive Assistant Director John Brown certified what was almost certainly a classified document for release that lacked any declassification stamp as authentic to DC’s US Attorney’s Office.

I asked again if FBI had comment about the further alterations exhibited in the McCabe document, but got no answer there, either (I’m wondering what will happen if I report that FBI is doctoring documents to the FBI tip line).

It’s really weird that all these people who are supposed to guard the rule of law in this country are so disinterested in what might be a crime in progress.

Update: After I posted, the FBI reiterated that they still want me to ask DOJ why their EAD certified what appears to be a formerly classified document that lacks a declassification stamp.

We are still referring you to DOJ since this pertains to ongoing litigation.

I’m asking again for reference to what policies in question EAD Brown just certified to.

Trump’s Slow-Motion Cover-Up of Erdogan Corruption and Jeff Sessions’ Meeting with Mike Flynn’s Clients

The NYT has a thoroughly damning story about Donald Trump’s serial effort to undermine the sanctions violation case against Halkbank. It describes how after Trump fired Preet Bharara, two of his Attorneys General intervened to limit what Geoffrey Berman’s Southern District of New York could do against the bank. Ultimately, that contributed to Berman’s firing.

These three paragraphs describe the epic corruption laid out in the story.

The president was discussing an active criminal case with the authoritarian leader of a nation in which Mr. Trump does business; he reported receiving at least $2.6 million in net income from operations in Turkey from 2015 through 2018, according to tax records obtained by The New York Times.

And Mr. Trump’s sympathetic response to Mr. Erdogan was especially jarring because it involved accusations that the bank had undercut Mr. Trump’s policy of economically isolating Iran, a centerpiece of his Middle East plan.

Former White House officials said they came to fear that the president was open to swaying the criminal justice system to advance a transactional and ill-defined agenda of his own.

And while the story mentions that Mike Flynn was among those lobbying the President on this topic, along with Rudy Giuliani and Brian Ballard, that’s the only mention of Flynn.

There’s just one mention of Jeff Sessions.

In 2018, Mr. Mnuchin reached out about the scale of a potential fine to Jeff Sessions, the attorney general at the time. Justice Department officials then asked Southern District prosecutors whether the size of the fine they were demanding was negotiable, one lawyer involved in the effort said. The response was affirmative: The amount was less important than securing an admission of wrongdoing.

Both references are rather curious given something that has come out in the Mike Flynn case — ironically, in the documents that DOJ altered and, apparently packaged up for circulation. In a set of Peter Strzok notes describing a meeting talking about the FARA investigation into Flynn, it describes that Attorney General Jeff Sessions met with Flynn’s lobbying clients, including the Turkish Foreign Minister, about Flynn’s case.

Flynn’s supporters take these notes to suggest that DOJ believed that Flynn had complied with the necessary paperwork and didn’t seem to have intentionally represented under the wrong lobbying category.

But the notes make it clear that DOJ still treated Ekim Alptekin as Flynn’s ultimate customer, and not at least one of the ministers the Attorney General had just met with.

It sure seems curious for the Attorney General to chase down a FARA violators’ clients like this.

More Reason to Question the Government’s Treatment of Andrew McCabe’s Notes

In this post, I noted that the three sets of Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe notes to which FBI added dates (in at least one case, inaccurate dates) had had their Protective Order footers redacted, suggesting someone packaged them up for circulation (probably with two other documents shared that same day, one of which was a frivolous repackaging of Strzok’s texts with Lisa Page).

In this post, I pointed out several other irregularities with McCabe’s notes: that there’s an artifact in the left margin by one of the redactions (multiple people have said this is one or two post-it notes which left a shadow and covered up the margin) and there’s no declassification stamp.

Two more readers of the site have provided further reason to question FBI’s treatment of Andrew McCabe’s notes.

First, a tech expert separated out the objects in the PDF with the altered date, which shows what the original scan of McCabe’s notes looks like. It looks like this:

That is, the redaction that covered up where the footer would say, “SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER,” was in the first scan of the document, even though the footer would be applied later (the Bates stamp and the Protective Order footer show up as metadata in the PDF).

Meanwhile, Cannonfire did some more toying with the document in PhotoShop, and shows that the Bates stamp footer and the redaction are of a different quality than everything else on the page.

It makes sense that the Bates stamp footer is–those are added at a later stage to the document along with the Protective Order stamp.

But for this document to have been produced in this way, the Protective Order stamp would have had to have been redacted out at a later date.

Both of those details suggest that the footer was redacted at a later date.

More Irregularities with the Andrew McCabe Notes: Bleg for Graphic Design Analysis

The Andrew McCabe notes just certified on Monday as a regular FBI document have at least four and, I think, more irregularities. This kind of graphic analysis is not my forté, so I’m going to just post what I think the irregularities are, and invite some people who are better at this to test my hypotheses.

Here’s an annotated version of the McCabe notes (here’s the original). Below, I’ll describe what I think I’m seeing.

A: The left-hand rule of the notebook at the top of the page appears not to line up with the left-hand rule at the bottom of the page. To be sure, I’ve just sketched this up, and it’s the observation I’m the least confident in, so please check my work. [Note: This may arise from copying the notebook.] Update: a reader has convinced me I’m wrong about this — see below.

B: There’s a non-horizontal line drawn to the margin to the left of where the first big redaction begins. Below it, the horizontal page rules don’t appear for about nine lines.

C: As noted here, the footer reading, “SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER,” has been redacted. It would be restored in the re-altered version authenticated on Monday.

D: As DOJ has now admitted, someone — and DOJ has not told Judge Emmet Sullivan what government agent it was — added a date. DOJ claimed this was done with a clear sticky with a blue tab, but there’s no sign of the blue tab. Moreover, when the document was re-altered to remove the date, that was accomplished by digitally whiting it out (not the technical term!), leaving a clean white rectangle with no rules.

E: This document has no declassification stamp. The larger redaction here, by topic, must hide notes from a prep session for the World Wide Global Threats hearing that would be held on May 11, 2017. It is, by definition, classified (indeed, that’s presumably the claimed reason for the redaction). And yet there is no declassification stamp for the document. The Peter Strzok notes released in the same batch have declassification stamps dated September 17 and 21.

This document got released after a dispute between McCabe and the FBI about whether he can access his own notes. After the Senate Judiciary Committee promised Andrew McCabe he could review his notes before testifying before the committee in early September, and after McCabe’s lawyer Michael Bromwich engaged in what he believed to be a good faith discussion about obtaining those documents on September 15, on September 16, FBI told the Committee that the request was “unmanageably voluminous;” the Committee passed that determination onto McCabe’s team. On September 18, McCabe’s lawyers worked with FBI’s OGC to narrow the request. One thing FBI lawyers were balking at, categorically, was providing McCabe’s calendars. In addition, they complained that if McCabe reviewed his own notes, he would have access to material beyond Crossfire Hurricane materials (as this page has). On September 23 — the day this document was provided to Flynn’s lawyers by DOJ, according to discovery correspondence — FBI for the first time raised a categorical objection, stating that, the FBI “has a policy of generally not providing documents to former employees and does not see a basis to make an exception to that policy under these circumstances.”

If McCabe had access to his own notes and calendar, he would be able to tell whether this document has been altered beyond the date addition. On the day DOJ sent it out, they decided that McCabe could not be provided access to any of his own notes or calendars so he could provide accurate testimony to Congress.

Update: I have a request for comment from FBI’s press office regarding the lack of a declassification stamp.

Update: FBI referred me to DOJ to ask them why FBI’s EAD certified a declassified document that lacked a declassification stamp.

Update: I have asked the Senate Judiciary Committee (which was supposed to have had McCabe testify earlier this month) for their copy of this set of McCabe notes, to see if we can make sense of the document. I am awaiting a response.

Update: A reader with expertise in the area provides these notes anonymously:

A. yes, the tilt with the line (to the left) at top left, normally would be compensated for with less visible binder rings at bottom right. (to which there is more showing) so its backwards.

B. Yes, agree. The line looks like it was hand drawn. And if you zoom in at 400% in the middle of the red box B) you can see an additional line, very faint. Whited out some way.

C. if you zoom in at 400% at the redaction box, it may have been redacted twice. There are two corners at top left, that are not lined up and same issue at lower right. If they were, it would look like one, clean cornered box.

D. the lines on each side of the date are fainter and in the same distance from each other implying that there was some kind of clear sticker put on top with a handwritten date in the center. When scanning light bounces off the sides of any clear plastic tab, mylar etc. and reflects and fades out whatever is next to it.

E. No opinion.

Other observations:

If you zoom in at 400% in between each of the 3 lines at the lower left (just above the redaction box) there are other faint lines, which make no sense.

At the 3 lines above the handwritten text “possible”, it looks like there was some handwritten text there before, the dot patterns resemble writing that was there once upon a time. Can’t prove it. I don’t have iText redaction software to see if that would show editing (it may be capable or may not), but the scanner would also have to have extra dirt on that area, and doesn’t have the same intensity of dot/dirt scatter as the rest of the white spaces on the rest of the page. Same issue under the 3-6 lines under the text “not the strongest”.

Update: A different reader, who also asks to remain anonymous, sends this screencap of the document pulled into Photoshop and darkened, which (the person explains) can show things that aren’t otherwise readily apparent. The person added a ruler which, I think, shows I’m wrong about the left margin. I’ve crossed out that observation above accordingly.

The Altered Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok Documents Were Packaged for Circulation

On September 23, 2020, prosecutor Jocelyn Ballantine sent five documents to Sidney Powell:

  • The altered January 5, 2017 Strzok notes
  • The second set of altered Strzok notes
  • The altered Andrew McCabe notes
  • Texts between FBI analysts
  • A new set of Strzok-Page texts, which included new Privacy Act violations

The letter Ballantine sent accompanying those documents is dated September 23, but it wasn’t loaded to the docket until September 28. Like all her discovery letters, the version of the letter uploaded to the docket informs Powell that, “These materials are covered by the Protective Order entered by the Court on February 21, 2018.”

In her letter providing realtered sets of the notes, the only change Ballantine described to the documents pertained to the removal of the sticky notes — which weren’t actually removed, but instead whited out electronically (and probably weren’t sticky notes in McCabe’s case at all).

But there was another change made to all of them: the “subject to protective order” footnote was restored to the documents.

The altered January 5, 2017 Strzok notes, without the footer:

The realtered January 5, 2017 Strzok notes, with the footer:

The second set of Strzok notes (originally altered to read March 28), without the footer:

The second set of Strzok notes, with the footer.

The altered McCabe notes, with the footer redacted out:

The realtered McCabe notes, with the footer unredacted:

Notably, there’s no declassification stamp on McCabe’s notes.

The Page-Strzok notes don’t have a protective order footer. Nor do the FBI analyst texts.

So all the documents sent to Sidney Powell on September 23 had no protective order stamp, and in the case of McCabe’s notes, they had the protective order stamp covered over.

The altered notes have all since been realtered, and rather than trying to certify the Strzok-Page texts, in today’s declaration, Ballantine just told Judge Emmet Sullivan DOJ wasn’t relying on them — no blood no foul. Presumably, there’s something fishy with the FBI analyst texts, because there’s something fishy with all of these documents.

But given the fact that the protective order footer was redacted in the McCabe notes, it cannot be accidental. These documents — the documents with the “inadvertent” alterations — also were all packaged up such that if Sidney Powell shared them (say, with the President’s campaign lawyer), Powell could claim these were somehow exempt.

DOJ Falsely Claimed that McCabe and Strzok Confirmed that the Content of Their Notes Was Not Altered

I wrote a really long post cataloging all the problems with DOJ’s declaration of authenticity in the Mike Flynn case.

But the most important paragraph in the declaration has an astounding claim: that DOJ — in a declaration signed by Jocelyn Ballantine — affirmed that lawyers for both Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe had confirmed that their clients’ notes were not altered. [Emphasis original]

The government acknowledges its obligation to produce true and accurate copies of documents. The government has fully admitted its administrative error with respect to the failure to remove three reviewer sticky notes containing estimated date notations affixed to three pages of undated notes (two belonging to former Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok, and one page belonging to former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) prior to their disclosure. These dates were derived from surrounding pages’ dates in order to aid secondary reviewers. These three sticky notes were inadvertently not removed when the relevant documents were scanned by the FBI for production in discovery. See ECF 259. The government reiterates, however, that the content of those exhibits was not altered in any way, as confirmed by attorneys for both former FBI employees.

But the declaration and related filings only reflects communication from Aitan Goelman, Strzok’s lawyer.

Indeed, in the letter that McCabe’s lawyer sent to the court on October 2, he pointedly said that DOJ had not asked him to confirm the accuracy of its claims about the notes before filing them.

So I asked Michael Bromwich, McCabe’s lawyer, if he agrees with the assertion Ballantine made in yesterday’s filing. He told me he spoke with Ballantine a few weeks ago and doesn’t recall any such discussion.

But when he got an email from her on Sunday at 4PM, asking for him to let her know by 2PM Monday if her transcription was inaccurate, he pointedly declined to do so.

I have spoken with Mr. McCabe and he declines to provide you with any information in response to your request.

He believes DOJ’s conduct in this case is a shocking betrayal of the traditions of the Department of the Justice and undermines the rule of law that he spent his career defending and upholding. If you share with the Court our decision not to provide you with assistance, we ask that you share the reason.

We would of course respond to any request that comes directly from the Court.

That is, Ballantine claimed that Bromwich had affirmatively confirmed this content.

But Bromwich very pointedly refused to do so.

For what it’s worth, I think the content has not been altered, but the redactions do misrepresent the notes. But according to Bromwich, Ballantine made that claim even though he had pointedly refused to confirm the accuracy of the notes or transcription.

Update: And now Strzok says that they didn’t confirm the content either.

That’s more problematic in his case, because there are so many more transcripts.

Update: The same thing happened with Strzok (though his lawyer did alert Ballantine to her docket/exhibit problems I noted in this post).

Ballantine emailed Goelman at 4:05 on Sunday with the same request. He responded at 3:38 PM on Monday, telling her they could not confirm authenticity of these notes without the originals. He also noted that Ken Kohl misrepresented the meaning of one of Strzok’s texts in the hearing before Judge Sullivan.

Sorry not to get back to you until now.  We have looked at the attachments to the email you sent yesterday (Sunday) afternoon.  We are unable to certify the authenticity of all of the attachments or the accuracy of the transcriptions.  To do so, we would need both more time and access to the original notes, particularly given that U.S. Attorney Jensen’s team has already been caught altering Pete’s notes in two instances.  However, we do want to call your attention to the fact that Exhibit 198-11 is mislabeled, and that these notes are not the notes of Pete “and another agent” taken during the Flynn interview.

Additionally, we want to register our objection to AUSA Ken Kohl’s material misstatements to Judge Sullivan during the September 29, 2020, 2020, telephonic hearing, during which Mr. Kohl inaccurately represented that Pete viewed himself as an “insurance policy” against President Trump’s election.

So basically both of them refused to affirm that the notes were authentic. But she made the claim anyway.

Shorter DOJ: We Made Shit Up … Please Free Mike Flynn

Congratulations to the lawyers who worked all weekend to meet Judge Emmet Sullivan’s deadline to certify all the documents (with just eight explicit caveats and then another slew built in) submitted in the Mike Flynn motion to dismiss proceeding. I doubted you could pull it off time-wise.

In your rush you seem to have provided Judge Sullivan even more evidence that nothing about this proceeding is normal. Indeed, some of this submission almost makes Sidney Powell’s submissions look tidy by comparison.

The slew of caveats

Effectively, the certification (signed by Jocelyn Ballantine, with individual declarations signed by three others, in part because there are things that Ballantine almost certainly knows are inaccurate or include material omissions), says there have been no material alterations to the documents submitted in the proceeding except for:

  1. Redactions done in the name of classification, law enforcement sensitive, or privacy that serve to hide material information pertaining to Brandon Van Grack, Bill Barnett, and the reason a third document was altered by adding a date (at a minimum)
  2. A set of texts where “irrelevant information and excess metadata” was excluded and an error introduced in the process of creating a table showing “corrected date, corrected time,” which raises far more questions about the provenance of the document
  3. The Bill Barnett interview report that DOJ had submitted to Sullivan as “a 302” is instead a “report” that is not being certified in normal fashion, in part, because DOJ is hiding redactions that withhold material information about Brandon Van Grack
  4. An NSL declaration done by Jocelyn Ballantine that may hide the existence of at least one earlier financial NSL served on Mike Flynn that WDMO didn’t ask her to summarize
  5. A new set of text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that DOJ admits they’re not relying on (but nevertheless committed an additional Privacy Act violation in releasing), which was not redacted to hide personal information
  6. Three documents submitted by Sidney Powell that DOJ won’t certify (two of which, however, are probably more accurate than what DOJ has submitted)
  7. “Unintelligible” markings in transcripts of notes where DOJ was unsuccessful at getting the author or their lawyer to conduct a last minute review over a matter of hours on a Sunday (DOJ does not specify how many of their transcripts this includes); some of these appear significant
  8. Inconsistencies on how redactions and unintelligible text were marked in transcriptions which, in some cases, is affirmatively misleading
  9. Lots of documents where the certification doesn’t list the Bates numbers, with some hilarious results
  10. Inconsistencies on whether DOJ certifies all copies of a particular document that got submitted multiple times, which in one case would raise questions about the production of these documents
  11. An admission that, for some reason, the motion to dismiss didn’t rely on the final 302 of Flynn’s January 24, 2017 interview
  12. A new inaccurate date, ironically describing a Kevin Clinesmith email
  13. A claim that both Strzok and McCabe’s lawyers have confirmed their clients’ notes were not altered, but only Strzok’s lawyer is quoted

For all of the exhibits that accompanied the motion to dismiss, DOJ uses the docket number, not the exhibit number, even though Sullivan is supposed to be ruling on that MTD that uses exhibit numbers. That’ll make it a lot harder for him to use the transcriptions, which otherwise would make it more obvious that DOJ misrepresented what some of these documents say, including their “smoking gun,” the Bill Priestap notes.

In addition, in a lot of the documents with problems (including all undated notes to which dates were added), DOJ doesn’t include Bates numbers in its certification, even though it does elsewhere. There’s good reason for this. In the case of the re-altered altered documents, those new exhibits should have new Bates stamps, but don’t. In other cases, DOJ submitted multiple versions of the same document with different Bates stamps, in others, when they resubmitted exhibits they retained the Bates stamp. That’s … not a legal process reflecting any regularity.

DOJ still pretends to have no fucking clue about documents they relied on in the motion to dismiss

Perhaps the most pathetic (and by that I mean, I would hate to be the lawyer banking my bar membership on this ploy) detail in this package is the way they try to deal with the fact they’ve made false misrepresentations about Strzok’s January 5, 2017 notes. In one place in the table of documents, they describe the date of the notes this way:

In another, they describe it — the very same notes, just repackaged so they could submit them with the wrong date — this way:

Above both transcriptions, DOJ includes the following note.

I understand why DOJ is still claiming to be unsure about the date. It’s an attempt to minimize the damage from previously providing false dates so as to avoid being punished for knowing misrepresentations in their alterations (they’re still at risk though, because they’re incorrect dates kept changing). But this will just make it very easy for Sullivan to point out that the people making this representation are therefore confessing to being completely unfamiliar with documents on which the MTD heavily relies, which means he shouldn’t take the MTD all that seriously.

The shell game behind the actual declarations

As noted, this declaration is a filing signed by Jocelyn Ballantine, submitting declarations from three other people:

  • Executive Assistant Director John Brown, whose job it is to submit declarations like this
  • EDMO AUSA Sayler Fleming, one of the AUSAs conducting this irregular investigation
  • Keith Kohne, one of the FBI Agents conducting the investigation

Brown starts by excluding three documents from his general certification (these are the ones that Fleming and Kohne will be on the hook for):

5. To the best of my knowledge, and based on the information provided to me, the Government Exhibits described in Exhibit A, 9 with the exception of ECF Nos. 198-8 and 249-1, are true and correct copies of documents and records, including copies of select pages of a larger record, maintained by the FBI pursuant to the applicable records retention policy. See ECF Nos. 198-2, 198-3, 198-4, 198-5, 198-6, 198-7, 198-9, 198-10, 198-11, 198-12, 198-13, and 198-14 9 9

6 To the best of my knowledge, and based on the information provided to me, the Discovery Documents described in Exhibit B, with the exception of ECF Nos. 228-3, are true and correct copies of documents and records maintained by the FBI pursuant to the applicable records retention policy. See ECF Nos. 231-1, 237-1. 251-1, 9 257-1. 259-1, 9 259-2, 259-3, and 264-1

Effectively, he is saying these documents are real and that Ballantine’s claims about the reasons for classification are valid.

He then says this about Ballantine’s own summary, which purports to be a summary of all the NSLs used against Mike Flynn, but which may not include one or more financial NSLs obtained in 2016.

One of the Discovery Documents is a summary substitution of classified materials that were provided to DC-USAO by the FBI. See ECF 257-2. This summary substitution was prepared by AUSA Jocelyn Ballantine, and was reviewed, approved, and declassified by the FBI To the best of my knowledge, and based on the information provided to me, the information contained therein truly and correctly summarizes the underlying classified information provided by the FBI and maintained by the FBI pursuant to the applicable records retention policy.

He’s saying that her summary accurately summarizes what she says it does, but he’s not saying that her description of it is accurate (which it wouldn’t be if EDMO told her to leave out 2016 NSLs).

Then it’s Fleming’s turn. After reviewing her role in this shoddy review and asserting that she has no reason to believe that the documents she got from FBI were irregular, she then explains why she did a summary of the texts that Strzok and a bunch of other people sent in early 2017: Just to get rid of unnecessary metadata, she says.

3. Among the documents and records that I reviewed were spreadsheets of electronic messages exchanged between FBI personnel involved in the Michael T. Flynn investigation and prosecution. The spreadsheets produced to EDMO contained messages and metadata that were not relevant to my review.

4. I created Government Exhibit ECF 198-8 and Discovery Document ECF 228-3. These exhibits truly and correctly reflect excerpts from documents and record maintained by the FBI pursuant to the applicable records retention policy that were provided to EDMO/DC-USAO for review.1

Then she admits someone — she doesn’t say who — made an error.

1 There is a single typographical error in these exhibits. A single message (“Will do.”) from DAD Peter Strzok, sent on 4-Jan-17, is incorrectly identified as having been sent at 2:17PM; the message was actually sent at 2:18PM.

What she doesn’t explain, though, is why her table has two headings that show she or someone else had to “correct” the dates and times in the spreadsheet (which may be where the typo got introduced, or retained).

Given that heading, she has no business treating the data she got as reliable, because either she or someone upstream from her had to fix it.

Then Keith Kohne steps in, the guy who conducted an incompetent interview (and possibly one of the guys who altered dates on government exhibits). He doesn’t provide any explanation of why he’s making the declaration — not even the standard boilerplate you’d find in an affidavit. He says only,

 I, Keith Kohne, hereby declare, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the document attached as Exhibit 1 to the Government’s Supplemental Filing in Support of Motion to Dismiss … is a true and correct copy of the report of the interview of William J. Barnett conducted on September 17, 2020.

Understand that this declaration lacks the certification afforded by the rules of FBI record-keeping. It lacks Brown’s certification that the data in was redacted properly (this was not). And it doesn’t explain why it wasn’t finalized as a 302 and submitted into FBI record-keeping systems.

Collectively, then, these declarations stop well short of certifying those texts, Ballantine’s summary, or the Barnett’s interview.

We already know that the Barnett interview is withholding material information. I guess we should assume there are problems with the other two documents as well.

Documents and comments

Here are the documents:

Draft closing communication (198-2) [Docket 2, Exhibit 1]

In the certification but not the exhibit referenced, DOJ redacts Bill Barnett’s name, who wrote the document, as well as that of Joe Pientka, who approved it. That serves to make it harder to figure out that the closing EC materially conflicts with unredacted claims Barnett made in his interview, particularly with regards to Barnett’s awareness that the investigation was a counterintelligence investigation considering 18 USC 951 charges.

It’s all the more problematic given that DOJ has submitted two versions of this document with the same Bates numbers; the earlier one does have the names redacted.

Opening Electronic Communication (198-3) [Docket 3, Exhibit 2]

This doesn’t include Bates numbers.

Mary McCord 302 (198-4) [Docket 4, Exhibit 3]

As with other documents, this one was specially declassified for this release. Another copy has been released under BuzzFeed’s FOIA.

Sally Yates 302 (198-5) [Docket 5, Exhibit 4]

Flynn got a summary of this before he allocuted his guilty plea before Sullivan.

170302 Jim Comey Transcript (198-6) [Docket 6, Exhibit 5]

As DOJ notes, HPSCI used a court reporter on this, so they didn’t have to certify it.

170214 Draft Flynn 302 (198-7) [Docket 7, Exhibit 6]

For some reason (I’ll return to this), DOJ submitted a draft version of the 302, rather than the final one (both have previously been submitted in this docket, and a less-redacted version of the 302 was released prior to this in BuzzFeed’s FOIA). Nowhere in the motion to dismiss does Timothy Shea acknowledge that he wasn’t relying on the final 302.

Text massages and electronic messages (198-8) [Docket 8, Exhibit 7]

The certification doesn’t include Bates stamps.

This is the document that has an admittedly minor error in one of the time stamps, saying that Strzok texted “Will do” at 2:18 instead of 2:17. But the error is interesting given that the table’s headings read, “Corrected Date, Corrected Time,” meaning these aren’t just copied, the times (and dates) were “corrected” (which is presumably where the error was introduced), raising questions about what they were corrected from. [My annotation.]

This is one of the documents that FBI EAD John Brown did not certify, which ought to raise questions about how these dates and times got “corrected.” Instead, the authentication reads:

Truly and correctly reflects information contained in documents and records maintained by the FBI, pursuant to the applicable records retention policy that were provided to EDMO.

Without an explanation of how why this data needed to be corrected, I think there are real questions whether this fulfills the requirement here.

Emails about the Logan Act (198-9) [Docket 9, Exhibit 8]

The certification doesn’t include Bates numbers.

170121-22 Emails about providing briefings (198-10) [Docket 10, Exhibit 9]

This certification doesn’t include Bates numbers.

170124 Emails of questions Flynn might ask (198-10) [Docket 10, Exhibit 9]

This certification doesn’t include Bates numbers. This matters both because they’re mixing docket number and exhibit number, but also because there are two copies of the identical document with a different Bates number in the docket.

Emails about 1001 warnings (198-10) [Docket 10, Exhibit 9]

This certification doesn’t include Bates numbers. This matters both because they’re mixing docket number and exhibit number, but also because there are two copies of the identical document with a different Bates number in the docket.

170124 Bill Priestap Notes (198-11) [Docket 11, Exhibit 10]

This certification doesn’t include Bates numbers. This matters both because they’re mixing docket number and exhibit number, but also because there are two copies of the same document with a different Bates number in the docket, yet both have the blue sticky that is hidden in later documents (raising questions about why there are two separate direct scans).

170124 Andrew McCabe write-up (198-12) [Docket 12, Exhibit 11]

This document doesn’t have a Bates stamp on it at all, which is especially problematic given that another less redacted version of the document is in this docket, with a Bates stamp of the same series as other documents submitted with the motion to dismiss.

The May version, with the Bates stamp, makes it clear that McCabe agreed with Flynn that leaks were a problem. [My annotations.]

The motion to dismiss version redacts that.

McCabe’s comment about leaks in no way qualifies under any claimed basis for redaction stated in certification.

It also appears to redact the prior declassification stamp.

One thing DOJ did by submitting this without a Bates stamp is avoided admitting that the document is not at all new, as the Motion to Dismiss suggested.

170124 Strzok and Pientka Notes of Flynn interview (198-13) [Docket 13, Exhibit 12]

These were released as the same exhibit, which given that they don’t use Bates numbers to identify which is which, effectively means they haven’t told Judge Sullivan which Agent’s notes are which, something that Sidney Powell wailed mightily about the last time it happened. They do, however, get it right in the transcript.

In the Pientka notes, however, there are numerous examples of things that are clear, at least from the context, that don’t get transcribed properly.

170822 Strzok 302 (198-14) [Docket 14, Exhibit 13]

This had already been produced in this docket.

200917 “Report” of Bill Barnett’s interview (249-1)

In the Government Supplemental Filing accompanying this interview, they claim that this is, “The FBI 302” of the Barnett interview. Here, they’re correctly noting that it’s not actually a 302, which makes it even more problematic than it already was.

The certification makes it clear that this “report” is maintained differently than normal 302s. Rather than certifying it as,

True and correct copy of a document or record maintained by the FBI pursuant to the applicable records retention policy.

It is instead certified as,

True and correct copy of the report of that interview.

I’m not sure Sullivan is going to be that thrilled that FBI itself is not treating this interview with the regularity of other investigative documents.

This “report” is probably one of the reasons why DOJ included this language in the filing.

There have been no material alterations made to any of the 14 Government Exhibits filed in support of the motion to dismiss and the supplement to the motion to dismiss. Several of the documents contain routine redactions made by the FBI to protect classified information, and/or law enforcement sensitive information, and/or made to comply with the Local Rule to remove Privacy Act information.

As I have laid out, DOJ withheld material information — most notably, all the nice things Barnett said about Brandon Van Grack — by redacting information that would otherwise be unsealed.

This is one of the documents that EAD John Brown did not certify; instead, one of the agents who did the interview did, which suggests it could not be certified properly. It also suggests that Ballantine, who knows it is withholding material information, doesn’t want to be in a position where she can see it (even though she sent an unredacted copy to Flynn).

Text messages (228-3)

The certification notes these are identical to the 198-8 text messages, with the error under heading, “corrected time.” It’s unclear why, in this one case, DOJ admitted to the same exhibit being filed multiple times, since in other cases they don’t note it.

170105 Strzok Notes (231-1)

The transcription of these notes don’t note the redactions. That’s significant because the only difference between this set of notes and the later, altered ones, is that they declassified a bit more information in the latter case.

170125 Gauhar Notes (237-1)

The transcription is inconsistent about whether it treats cross-outs as unintelligible or not, in one place treating a heading “Intro” as intelligible, but not references to “Thanksgiving” and “He said.”

170125 Strzok Notes (237-1)

By labeling these notes as Strzok’s, DOJ makes it more clear that they redacted information that must match other sets of notes from the same meeting.

170130 [Draft] Executive Summary of Flynn investigation (237-1)

The certification doesn’t reveal that this is a draft document, not a finalized one.

170330 Dana Boente Notes (237-1)

Undated McCabe Notes (248-2/259-1)

The transcription doesn’t note that McCabe crossed off his notes on Flynn. Nor does it admit that it redacted what appears to be a continuation of the discussion of Flynn.

The authentication notes that it is,

True and correct copy of a document or record maintained by the FBI pursuant to the applicable records retention policy (ECF 259-1)

That means they’re only certifying that this is something in FBI records (which it shouldn’t be, since it’s a re-altered altered document).

They also leave out Bates numbers, which is problematic because the re-altered document is technically a new document, but it retains the same Bates stamp.

170105 Strzok Notes (248-3/259-2)

The transcription reveals that two of the three new things revealed in the new copy were unintelligible to DOJ, which raises real questions about why they left it unredacted.

The authentication notes that it is,

True and correct copy of a document or record maintained by the FBI pursuant to the applicable records retention policy (ECF 259-2)

That means they’re only certifying that this is something in FBI records (which it shouldn’t be, since it’s a re-altered altered document).

They also leave out Bates numbers, which is problematic because the re-altered document is technically a new document, but it retains the same Bates stamp.

Undated Strzok Notes (248-4/259-3)

As with some others, the transcription doesn’t note all the redactions, which in this case raises questions about why they included notes from the day before.

In addition, they leave out a scribble in front of the word “willfullness” meaning Strzok switched what they were measuring with regards to whether Flynn’s lies about Turkey were deliberate.

The authentication notes that it is,

True and correct copy of a document or record maintained by the FBI pursuant to the applicable records retention policy (ECF 259-3)

That means they’re only certifying that this is something in FBI records (which it shouldn’t be, since it’s a re-altered altered document).

They also leave out Bates numbers, which is problematic because the re-altered document is technically a new document, but it retains the same Bates stamp.

170306 Jim Crowell Notes (251-1)

As expected, DOJ was thoroughly dishonest with this document. They don’t reveal that they’ve redacted something — either a date, or names — where they indicate that they’ve added a date. One way or another, this transcription is false.

Plus, if they’ve redacted the names of non-senior people in the meeting (which is the non-suspect excuse for the redaction), then they need to note that in the transcription. The alternative, of course, is worse, that they knowingly altered the date.

This is one instance where not revealing whether DOJ consulted with the author is especially problematic. But since Crowell is now a DC judge just next door to Sullivan’s courthouse, maybe he can just go ask.

170329 Gauhar Notes (251-1)

180119 Schools Notes (251-1)

161226 Clinesmith NSL Email (257-1)

The certification provides the wrong date for this email, labeling it 12/26/16. [My annotations.]

it was 12/23/16.

Unlike some of the other things here, I think this is just a sloppy error, not an affirmative misrepresentation. But it is ironic that they made the error with Clinesmith.

200924 Ballantine Summary Substitution of NSLs issued in Crossfire Razor (257-2)

In her notice of discovery correspondence accompanying this, Ballantine doesn’t note that she wrote this summary for EDMO to review for them to, in turn, give back to her to give to Flynn. That’s important, because it’s unclear whether the summary shows all NSLs, or only NSLs for the period in question. Both Barnett’s testimony and the Kevin Clinesmith email included suggest the latter.

170125 OGC Notes (264-1)

This doesn’t include Bates numbers, which is interesting because an older 2019 Bates stamp not seen elsewhere is included (possibly indicating that this was previously shared with DOJ IG).

(Part of) What I Shared with the FBI

On July 28, 2016, something happened that would eventually lead me to the FBI.

I’m going to explain part of that story now. I’m explaining it for several reasons. I had promised myself I wouldn’t let another election pass without sharing what happened. Even now, I can’t entirely make sense of it — that was part of the point, confusion. But the release of documents in the wake of the Mueller investigation has provided a great number of public details (some of which I laid out in my Rat-Fucker Rashomon series) with which this story might be consistent. I can’t prove that this story explains the unanswered questions about the Roger Stone story (and Bill Barr’s intervention in the Stone sentencing seems to have shut down some parts of any ongoing investigation to do so). But at least I can share details that may provide an explanation.

It started with a several-day dispute about attribution, starting on July 26, 2016, which included discussions about Guccifer and Crowdstrike. A guy I will refer to by the pseudonym Phil and I were texting on Signal debating that attribution. On the 27th, Phil disputed the Crowdstrike report that APT 28, which had done the hack, was GRU, “Russia didn’t write this APT damnit.”

I told him, vaguely, that I knew that entities external to both the DNC and Crowdstrike had evidence confirming the GRU attribution. I had a well-placed source who knew Phil was wrong. He seemed not only sure he could convince me otherwise, but intent on learning what I knew, which I didn’t share.

The next day, July 28, 2016, Phil made up an excuse for wanting me to tell him what his IP address was–it was a bullshit excuse and doesn’t matter for the purpose of this story. “Can you see an ip on your website,” he asked. “Yeah I can get logs.” I said, “Easiest obviously is fr a comment.” (I was wrong about my ability to see the IP address, and he may have known that, because he had been testing how requests to my site worked for months.) “Now,” he said, as he left a comment. 

I forgot about the request until the next day, July 29, when another of the people who can approve first-time comments at the site emailed me with the comment, which had been posted moments after he had told me, “Now.” “I debated about approving that comment by icelanderia in DNC Hack sourcing post,” the person said. “But didn’t because of the email addy attached to it.” To readers of the public site, the comment read, “Just one phrase. Show me the metadata.” It was signed “Icelanderia.” Visible only to those of us with backstage access, however, it was signed [email protected]

Much later, Phil told me he liked leaving comments at my site as a, “Great outlet to talk to my usg pals.” Until late 2017, we kept getting comments at the site which were consistent with disinformation deliberately left in the first Guccifer 2.0 releases, but which might or might not have been him.

But I knew that first one, [email protected] was Phil, purportedly left to find out what IP address his comments would show up as. He never did follow up to ask me whether I could see his IP address. And so I was left trying to figure out why the hell he signed a comment with the name of the persona who was trying to obfuscate what really happened with the DNC hack.

Normally, I don’t think twice about comments left at my site under obviously fake names. Lots of people choose not to use their real email addresses when leaving comments at this site. Unsurprisingly, we’ve had a ton of comments claiming to use NSA email addresses. And from time to time — though, given how chummy and long-established emptywheel’s comments section is and how closely we moderate obvious trolls, not all that often — people try to get funny with their log-in names. 

In this case I did take notice. I did so, partly, because of how he had left it, giving me a heads up that it was him, but doing so in such a way that only I would know it was him (as noted, he never did ask me what IP he had come in under and, as I said, I was never able to determine that). But it also made me rethink stuff that had happened between us going back to fall 2015 and earlier, especially because of what had happened starting on June 14, 2016, the day that the Democrats publicly announced they had been hacked by the Russians, when he tried to get me to change my operational security even as he seemed to be debating about going forward with something, which he referred to in terms of “tapping out.”

On June 14, 2016, the same day the Washington Post reported that the DNC had been hacked by Russia, Phil called me up and asked me to delete notes of conversations we had had going back to December 2015, notes telling a story about his life and motivations for being angry with the government that he had wanted me to tell after he died, which he claimed — starting in December 2015 — was going to be imminent. The next day, he claimed he believed he was being investigated by the FBI for the way he had narced out some people in April, which was his explanation for escalating levels of paranoia. That same day, he asked me to shift our comms to the Silent Circle text service, which would have put the texts beyond the reach of US law enforcement. This was at least the fourth effort he had made to shift to more secure comms than Signal and PGP email with me, including a highly inappropriate suggestion earlier that spring; each time, including this one, I blew off the request, because I didn’t believe these conversations were that sensitive or interesting. 

Starting at 3:12PM on June 21, the weirdness resumed. He asked me to change my PGP key, inventing a bullshit excuse, while explaining he was flipping his own keys. He showed me a traceroute on my site he had done, reflecting my recent addition of Cloudflare to protect the site (he had concocted an earlier traceroute in May 2016 that–I’m certain–was designed to make me paranoid). He advised me that when using a VPN, one should always choose a Swiss or even a Russian server. He told me he worked for a company owned by FSB’s founding fathers. 

Around 8:12PM on June 21, he claimed, “I am getting DDOSed like a motherfucker–is it you or ‘Gucifer’?” 

As far as I knew, he had no website to be DDOSed. As he surely knew, I didn’t have the capability to DDOS anything. It was just word salad invoking the newly unveiled GRU persona, but amid the other weirdness I didn’t make too much of it.

He then called me and repeated much of the story he had told me over the past six months, the story the notes of which he had, just a week earlier, asked me to destroy. In that retelling of the story, he would include several details about Russia (on top of the FSB founding fathers comment). He described a meeting he attended months before, overseas, one that (he claimed) members of Russian intelligence had also attended, where he had been physically beat up. Before that June 21 conversation, he had told me a version of that overseas meeting story at least 6 times, including telling me about the meeting in real time (in just two of those tellings do I remember him mentioning Russian intelligence, and precisely who in Russian intelligence he said attended was inconsistent). I’m not attesting that his claims about the meeting were true, I’m describing that he kept telling me about the meeting over the course of more than six months. 

Another detail in that June 21 conversation was the way he insisted to me, as he had at least once before June 14, almost plaintively, that he hates Russia. Phil told me that two of his most cherished possessions were trophies from interactions with Russia. At the time, I didn’t understand why he felt it was so urgent to convince me he really did hate Russia, but after the fact it seemed to be an effort to excuse himself, like emphasizing that he had been physically beaten.

There was a third story, too, another story about an interaction with Russia more alarming than the others, another one he had told me once prior to June 14. The story involved a moment when Russians held “a gun to [his] head.” I believe the story, as he told it to me, was a well-rehearsed lie, one he had told others. But if the lie served to explain away something else, it would be the kind of thing that might mean his comment might not be a joke, that he might have a role in the Guccifer 2.0 operation. 

In June, this felt somewhat stalkerish. I still had no idea why he was telling me this, aside from the fact he wanted me to tell the story of his grievances with the government, but he was also in a bad place and I was trying to make sense of it. The next day, June 22, between 12 and 5PM ET, we spoke again on and off. When I suggested I might be under surveillance to see how he’d react, he said there were no rules, saying that no one could back out of a deal (I had no idea what deal he was talking about). “360 degress of no rules, tap out is not an option unless (Apparently) you are a politician. But even then…”

The next day, June 23, just after 5PM, he told me he had been contemplating a line from a Cormac McCarthy screenplay: “The world in which you seek to undo the mistakes that you make, is different from the world where the mistakes were made.” He added, within that same hour, “I’m done. I don’t re-decide.” Phil was, obviously, a mess, but he was also done talking about ways out of whatever mess he was in. 

I broke off communication at that point for a period, but a week later, at 6:51PM on June 30, he was back. He told me he had “unfucked his problems.”

As weird as all this was, in those days in June, I was just observing, trying to figure out what had caused the sudden bout of paranoia, and honestly trying to figure out what he wanted out of me. I sure as hell didn’t think, at the time, there was a tie between all that and the DNC hack (remember, he was claiming — probably another lie — that the FBI was investigating him, which I assumed was what all the weirdness was about). 

But when I remembered all this on July 29, it made me reconsider whether there was a tie. As I’ve alluded to publicly in the past, it is why I spent six months on my part to test the Russian attribution for myself, to decide for myself whether the IC and Crowdstrike, along with people in tech companies and individuals who fought this hack personally with whom I’d spoken — were correct, that it had been the Russians, or whether what I took to be Phil’s suggestion that he or people he knew, without the Russians, may have been involved. Absent such an effort, I assume that certain other people who’ve interacted with Phil have, instead, taken the existence of an American body claiming to have been involved as enough to deny Russian involvement. That may be what happened with Roger Stone.

Once I was convinced about the Russian attribution in December 2016 and given a growing certainty I couldn’t test key parts of this story myself, I began to consider sharing it with the government in a way that protected both my identity and Phil’s. 

As I noted in the title, these events were just one part of the reason I went to the FBI in 2017, and not actually the most urgent reason at the time, nor the one I had most confidence in. There’s another part of the election year attack — one few people know is related — that I believed (and still believe) he may have had a role in, too. Those other parts of this story were, in 2017, an escalating, ongoing threat, which is part of why I ultimately chose to meet with two FBI cyber agents and a prosecutor from DOJ’s National Security Division, to stop ongoing damage if I was right. 

Now, four years later, it’s clear the details Phil shared with me in 2016 might be consistent with several details discovered in the Roger Stone investigation. Indeed, starting in August 2018, Mueller’s team appears to have investigated whether Stone had been co-present, in the US, with someone involved in this operation, and they also appear to have confirmed, after the Mueller team shut down, that Stone met with someone face-to-face at the RNC who gave Stone advance warning of the DNC drop. On July 15, 2016, Phil described to me flying east from the West Coast. 

More interesting still is the way that Phil’s activities over a key weekend in August 2016 overlap with Roger Stone’s. I won’t yet lay out how this timeline looks (I’ll return to it). For now, compare the one I did in this post to the timeline I lay out here. 

On August 12, 2016, the night that Guccifer 2.0 released DCCC documents the timing of which Jerome Corsi had predicted, Phil texted me at 11:32PM and told me he was thinking of going to the Trump rally that was scheduled — inexplicably, from a campaign strategy standpoint — in Roger Stone and Paul Manafort’s home state of Connecticut the next day. “Should I stay or should I go…” he said, but he already had a ticket. At 9:46 AM the next morning, he said it again. “Trump rally [in CT] tonight, thinking of swinging by.”

He did go, and made sure I had abundant contemporaneous record of it. At 4:21PM he told me he was close to the protest venue. At 4:33PM he told me he had put together an IMSI catcher for the event to track where the Secret Service had Stingrays.

Amid those texts, I told him that I had freed up the Guccifer comment at my site; I wanted to see how he’d react. “Haha-the mouthpiece,” he responded. “‘they’ are clueless as I’m fond of saying…” he added, which I took not only as confirmation that he did leave the comment, but also to mean that he believed the authorities misunderstood the Guccifer persona. 

It was an hour, though, before the calls started. From 5:57PM to 6:58PM, he kept calling me and sharing video of what he was doing at a protest close to the rally (as well as a screenshot of the IMSI catcher).

At the time, I thought he was hoping to film himself picking a confrontation with the cops that would go viral. I thought it was really stupid and started ignoring his calls. It was actually years before I reviewed all these videos. When I did, I realized that he was not interacting with any of the protestors. He was, instead, just badgering the cops, in really controlled fashion. He was filming the confrontations so as to catch their name badges. And then, each of several times he did this, he would back off and thank the cops for what they were doing. Those interactions would have left a handful of cops, whose names I’d have, who would have remembered him as the obnoxious guy at an event protesting Donald Trump. 

At 9:59PM, he told me the rally itself was done, he was not in jail, and his phone was intact. He showed me a document that he had picked up at the rally.

The next morning, August 14, at 7:22AM, he texted me a picture to let me know he was in NYC. That was the day Jerome Corsi claims he started a file named “Podesta,” that would eventually become posts that integrated documents publicly released in October. 

Again, I didn’t make much of this, as I didn’t make much of earlier events. 

Except that just over a week later, as part of a conversation from 7:56 to 8:28PM on August 21 (and so hours after Stone’s famous “time in the barrel” comment), he emphasized to me that I was the only one whom he had sent videos from the August 13 protest. Then he said there were more. “I have like 20 more vids before and after no one gets,” he told me. Something was interesting enough, both from before and after he attended the protest of the Trump rally, that was not only worth filming, but that was more sensitive than these protest videos.

Even as Stone and the persona Guccifer 2.0 were chatting away on Twitter over the weekend of August 12, a guy who’d just covertly signed his name “Guccifer2” on my site was at the Trump rally, taking videos of … something.

 Not immediately, but over time, I’ve wondered what might be on those videos.

On January 1, 2017, in the wake of Trump boasting that, “I also know things that other people don’t know,” about the Russian hack, I did a post wondering if what Trump thought he knew was the same thing that Craig Murray believed — that there was an American involved in this operation. I wrote, “I have a suspicion that Trump’s campaign did meet with such a person (I even have a guess about when it would have happened).” I had the rally in mind. Within 30 minutes after I published the post, after having not spoken to me in weeks (he later told me he had been overseas), Phil called me, but hung up before we spoke. 

Indeed, events that the investigation have since made public — including the confirmation that Roger Stone set about getting Julian Assange a pardon no later than 7 days after Trump won the election — made me revisit additional texts from July 29, ones I hadn’t even paid attention to in real time. 

On July 29, 2016 — the same day I was trying to figure out why this guy had just made a big deal of signing a comment guccifer2 — we had another conversation, one I believed at the time was unrelated, a discussion about what motivated Julian Assange. Revenge, I argued: the guy hates Hillary, going back to 2010. “Yes” Phil conceded, “but he has a puppeteer too — IDK who and maybe it’s just $ but.” Again, I was sure this was “sheer retaliation for him.” “You might be right,” Phil responded, “but there’s a political or $ way to get him out — please don’t lose sight of that…” I still didn’t buy it, and asked again why. “B/C if ‘I’ wanted badly enough for him to release that data in a manner that benefitted me, I could get him out and he’s damn sure in prison — where people do desperate things.”

On that day in July 2016, no one in public knew there’d be a second dump. Certainly, no one knew that, on that day and the next, Roger Stone was in conversations with Trump’s campaign manager planning how to optimize the next dump. “Good shit happening,” Stone told Manafort just over an hour before this exchange, before the old friends spent 67 minutes on the phone together on July 30, their longest conversation of the year. No one knew that Stone would turn immediately to getting Assange out of the Embassy at least as early as November 15, probably even before. 

But Phil, who had just made sure I knew he signed a comment Guccifer2, seemed to be sure of it before it all started. 

The Government Agent Who Altered Andrew McCabe’s Notes Remains Unnamed

The frothers have convinced themselves that the sticky notes via which misleading dates were added to Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe’s handwritten notes do not amount to “altering” those notes. That’s nonsense. Not only did the date added to Strzok’s notes suggest they could have been written on January 4, 2017 when several documents that had already been submitted in the docket (as well as other public documents) made it clear the notes had to have been written on January 5, 2017. But the added date — indicating that whoever wrote it thought the notes could be January 4 or 5 — don’t match the notice DOJ originally gave Sidney Powell about the notes, which suggested the could have been written on January 3.

There are further problems with the alterations, not least that DOJ claims that these documents were “scanned.” A comparison of the original set of notes with the altered one, along with the blue sticky visible on Bill Priestap’s notes with how the same kind of blue sticky appeared on McCabe’s altered notes make it clear these were copied, along with being scanned, a step that made the alterations far less visible.

Worse still, rather than providing unaltered versions of the notes, DOJ instead provided altered versions of the altered notes. That’s easiest to see by comparing the original, altered McCabe notes, where you can see the lined page underneath the added date.

With the altered altered notes.

It’s clear that rather than simply taking the sticky off, DOJ instead simply whited out the date, along with the lines of the page beneath it.

But you can see this by comparing the three versions of the Strzok notes. Unaltered:

First alteration:

Second alteration:

The sticky is still visible in the second alteration, which suggests they’ve done the same thing they did with McCabe’s altered notes, just edit out the alteration, rather than scan the original document. I suspect the reason they doubled down on altering documents is because doing otherwise would make it clear that the McCabe notes, in particular, could not have been “scanned,” because it would have made the blue sticky visible.

So tomorrow they’re going to have to certify that their re-altered notes are “authentic.”

There may be a far more interesting reason why DOJ chose to re-alter the altered documents rather than providing the originals.

In both Jocelyn Ballantine’s notice of discovery correspondence about the Strzok notes:

During the review, agents for EDMO placed a single yellow sticky note on each page of the notes with estimated dates (the notes themselves are undated). Those two sticky notes were inadvertently not removed when the notes were scanned.

I am providing replacement versions of these documents, and ask that you destroy the prior versions provided to you. We have determined, and confirmed with counsel for Peter Strzok, that the content of the notes was not otherwise altered.

And her notice of compliance, falsely claiming to comply with Judge Emmet Sullivan’s order to authenticate all the documents submitted in this case, she blamed WDMO FBI Agents for the alteration to Strzok’s notes.

In response to the Court and counsel’s questions, the government has learned that, during the review of the Strzok notes, FBI agents assigned to the EDMO review placed a single yellow sticky note on each page of the Strzok notes with estimated dates (the notes themselves are undated). Those two sticky notes were inadvertently not removed when the notes were scanned by FBI Headquarters, before they were forwarded to our office for production.

But her notice of discovery correspondence accompanying the newly altered McCabe notes:

At some point during the course of the review of this page of notes, government agents placed a clear sticky notes (with a colored tab) on this page of notes. On the clear portion of this tab was written the date of 5/10/2017. This sticky note was inadvertently not removed when the notes were scanned.

I am providing a replacement version of this document, and ask that you destroy the prior version provided to you. The content of the notes was not otherwise altered.

And her notice of compliance, she didn’t reveal who had altered McCabe’s notes.

Similarly, the government has learned that, at some point during the review of the McCabe notes, someone placed a blue “flag” with clear adhesive to the McCabe notes with an estimated date (the notes themselves are also undated). Again, the flag was inadvertently not removed when the notes were scanned by FBI Headquarters, before they were forwarded to our office for production.

In one case, she blames, “government agents,” in the other case, she blames “someone.” Blaming “someone” is not a very good way to convince a judge you’re not pulling a fast one.

Realtering the altered notes is not either.

Note, too, that while Ballantine says she has reviewed the contents of Strzok’s notes with his lawyer, she only claims that the content of the McCabe notes has not been altered. If the redactions change the meaning of the notes, falsely tying a SSCI briefing to the notes about Flynn, I can see why she might do that.

By realtering the notes, DOJ is hiding that the altered notes were not, in fact, scans (because if they had been scanned the alteration would have been obvious because the stickies in both cases were colored, and FBI’s scans pick up color).

But I suspect they’re also hiding who that “government agent” is who altered McCabe’s notes.

Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson Produce a 285-Page Confession They’re Unfamiliar with the Public Record

Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson recently released a 285-page report relitigating a story made public in 2017 about how Mueller’s team obtained records from General Services Administration. The report adopts an entirely opposite stance as the SSCI Russia Report did. The latter discussed how unheard of it was for an Administration to claim an expansive Transition privilege. Chuck and Ron are outraged that a criminal investigation have access to such files, and similarly outraged that the subjects of an investigation did not get notice that their files had been obtained.

The report also makes clear that, at first, Mueller relied on SSCI’s request for its records request, and only later in the summer made their own. In other words, Chuck and Ron have a complaint, in part, with SSCI (though they don’t say that).

The report is most useful for revealing which Transition officials Mueller’s team was interested in. On August 23, Mueller’s team sent a records request for these nine officials closely interacting with Flynn while he was secretly undermining sanctions and other Obama policies in “collusion” with Russia.

The nine Trump for America officials identified by the FBI were Daniel Gelbinovich, Sarah Flaherty, Michael G. Flynn, Michael T. Flynn, Keith Kellogg, Jared Kushner, K.T. McFarland, Jason Miller, and Michael Pompeo.114

Then Mueller’s team asked for the records of four more people — which appears to be the people who were at Mar-a-Lago when Flynn was secretly undermining sanctions with Russia.

The four Trump for America officials identified by the FBI were Sean Spicer, Reince Priebus, Stephen Bannon, and Marshall Billingslea.125 In the cover email, the FBI explained:

We have an additional four individuals we are currently interested it [sic]. … If possible, can you at least have their emails downloaded by tomorrow when I pick up the other information? . . . [W]e want to have it available when they swear out a warrant before then.126

Note, there’s a reference to the DC US Attorney’s office, too, so it’s possible they also needed these records as part of their investigation into the suspected bribe from Egypt that kept Trump afloat in August 2016.

But the craziest thing is how the report confesses that they are unaware of any legal process for these files.

Although the FBI’s August 30, 2017 cover email referenced applying for a search warrant, the Committees are aware of only one court-ordered disclosure of records, specifically, information related to the transition records of Lt. Gen. Flynn, K.T. McFarland, Michael Flynn’s son, and Daniel Gelbinovich.128

128 Order, In re Application of the U.S. for an Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) Directed at Google Related to [the transition email accounts for those four individuals], 1:17-mc-2005 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2017) [GSA004400- 4404] (ordering the disclosure of customer/subscriber information but not content).

At one level, they’re being coy in that they claim to be interested in court-ordered disclosure. A document recently released via the Jeffrey Jensen review reveals that in February 2017, star witness and pro-Trump FBI Agent was obtaining some of this information using NSLs. Another document explains why, too: because one of the first things FBI had to do to understand why Flynn had lied to them was to determine if he was coordinating his story with those at Mar-a-Lago.

The lie that he didn’t even know Obama had imposed sanctions was not one of Flynn’s charged lies, but it was his most damning. He lied to hide that he had consulted with Mar-a-Lago before picking up a phone and secretly undermining sanctions in “collusion” with Russia.

Crazier still, Chuck and Ron didn’t go to the first place one should go to understand how legal process worked, the publicly released Mueller warrants. The warrant to access the devices and email of at least the original nine (plus one other person) is right there in the docket.

GSA transferred the requested records to the FBI, but FBI didn’t access them until it had a warrant.

In other words, this 285-page report is effectively a confession from Chuck and Ron that two Committee Chairs and a whole slew of staffers can’t figure out how to read the public record.

Maybe that’s a hazard of conducting investigations with no Democrats? It makes it harder to read accurately?

image_print