Michael Flynn lawyers receive Peter Strzok notes from US attorney

A court filing Tuesday said U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Jensen of Missouri, who was picked by Attorney General William Barr to review the government's case against Flynn, "obtained and analyzed" the document. "While the page itself is undated; we believe that the notes were taken in early January 2017, possibly between January 3 and January 5," acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin for the District of Columbia wrote to Flynn's team. "These materials are covered by the Protective Order entered by the Court on February 21, 2018; additional documents may be forthcoming." The one-page letter was submitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia as part of the discovery process.

Susan Rice, the national security adviser under President Barack Obama, wrote an email to herself detailing a Jan. 5, 2017, Oval Office discussion about the Flynn inquiry, which was part of the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. Flynn, who was President Trump's first national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to FBI investigators about his December 2016 conversations with a Russian envoy about a United Nations resolution on Israel and sanctions. But Flynn now claims he was set up by the FBI, and the Justice Department is seeking to drop the case. Judge Emmet Sullivan, a President Bill Clinton appointee who has been handling the Flynn case since December 2017, has so far resisted dismissing the case right away.

Strzok took part in the Russia and Hillary Clinton email investigations. Documents declassified in April indicate Strzok abruptly stopped the FBI from closing its investigation into Flynn in early January 2017 at the insistence of the FBI’s “7th floor” leadership after the bureau had uncovered “no derogatory information” on the incoming national security adviser. Emails from later that month showed Strzok, along with FBI lawyer Lisa Page and several others, sought out ways to continue investigating Flynn, including by deploying the Logan Act. Strzok also authored the “opening electronic communication" that initiated the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. After DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz uncovered anti-Trump text messages between Strzok and Page, Republicans accused them of being part of a plot to undermine Trump.

The FBI intercepted Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador, after which Strzok and another agent, believed to be Joseph Pientka, grilled him on the contents of the conversation on Jan. 24, 2017. Former FBI Director James Comey admitted last year he took advantage of the chaos in the early days of Trump's administration when he sent Strzok and Pientka to talk to Flynn. Notes from the FBI's head of counterintelligence, Bill Priestap, seem to show him casting doubt on the plan to interview Flynn, asking: “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” Strzok was fired in August 2018 and a year later filed a wrongful termination lawsuit. In the face of repeated insults by Trump, Strzok warned in February that he will "have a great deal more to say about the president’s attacks on those with responsibility for holding him accountable." Former Rep. Trey Gowdy recently told Fox News that Strzok may very likely be a target of U.S. Attorney John Durham's inquiry into the Russia investigation after Barr said "some" of the people his hand-picked federal prosecutor is scrutinizing would be familiar to the public. There is a two-tier battle ongoing in the Flynn case.

At the district court level, Sullivan appointed a retired New York federal judge, John Gleeson, in May to serve as an amicus curiae to present arguments in opposition to the Justice Department’s motion to drop the false statement charges against Flynn, even asking Gleeson to look into possible perjury or contempt charges against the former Trump national security adviser.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/michael-flynn-lawyers-receive-peter-strzok-notes-from-us-attorney

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6955053/Notice-Other.pdf

FBI’s FISA review suggests Carter Page investigation was uniquely flawed

The FBI released more details related to its ongoing review of more than two dozen Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications, arguing the findings so far should “instill confidence” in the veracity of the claims made in those filings. The bureau, whose FISA process has come under heavy scrutiny following a Justice Department watchdog report pointing out 17 “significant errors and omissions” in the surveillance of Trump campaign associate Carter Page, responded to a follow-up DOJ audit which unearthed problems with other spy applications and led to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to order a deeper review. “On June 15th, the FBI and DOJ responded to an April 3 rd FISC order requiring additional assessments of the 29 FISA applications reviewed by the OIG as part of its ongoing audit of the FBI’s Woods Procedures,” the FBI said on Monday. “14 of the 29 applications have been thoroughly reviewed, and the results should instill confidence in the reliability of the information contained in those applications as well as in the authorities the FISC granted by approving them.”

The audit released in late March by Horowitz focuse d on the FBI’s requirement to maintain an accuracy subfile known as a “Woods File." Investigators found serious problems in each of the 29 FISA applications they examined, and Horowitz said his team believed "a deficiency in the FBI’s efforts to support the factual statements in FISA applications through its Woods Procedures undermines the FBI’s ability to achieve its ‘scrupulously accurate’ standard for FISA applications.”

The FISA court's assessment was harsher than the one released by Horowitz. “It would be an understatement to note that such lack of confidence appears well-founded. None of the 29 cases reviewed had a Woods File that did what it is supposed to do: support each fact proffered to the Court. For four of the 29 applications, the FBI cannot even find the Woods File,” presiding Judge James Boasberg said in early April. “For three of those four, the FBI could not say whether a Woods File ever existed. The OIG, moreover, ‘identified apparent errors or inadequately supported facts’ in all 25 applications for which the Woods Files could be produced." Boasberg said the wide-ranging problems “provide further reason for systemic concern” about the FBI’s process for obtaining FISA warrants. The FBI told the FISA court earlier this month that of the 14 applications more deeply reviewed by the Justice Department and FBI so far, there were approximately 2,651 total factual assertions, with 64 factual assertions being “flagged” for not having corresponding support in the Woods File. Of those 64 assertions, the bureau said 29 were “minor spelling or date discrepancies” between an assertion made in the FISA application versus the supporting documentation in the Woods File. And the FBI said only 1 out of the 64 assertions that were flagged was assessed to be “material” — meaning it could be significant or relevant to the case. But the FBI stressed that “most importantly” that one flawed assertion “was assessed to not have impacted the FISC’s probable cause determination.”

The bureau stressed this week that the applications being audited “predate the 40-plus corrective actions” ordered by FBI Director Christopher Wray in December 2019 to “reform” the FISA process. The FBI said it “remains confident these actions will fully address the findings and recommendations” made by Horowitz. The FBI added that it is “dedicated to the continued, ongoing improvement of the FISA process to ensure all factual assertions contained in FISA applications are accurate and complete.” The FBI provided more details to the FISA court in May on how it planned to implement Wray’s proposed reforms, stressing the bureau “remains confident” that its steps will address all of the concerns raised by the DOJ watchdog. Horowitz’s audit memo released in March was a follow-up to his much larger report in December, in which the watchdog criticized the Justice Department and the FBI for at least 17 “significant errors and omissions” related to the FISA warrants for Page and for the bureau's reliance on British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s flawed and unverified dossier. Steele put his research together at the behest of the opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which was funded by Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee through the Perkins Coie law firm.

Declassified footnotes from Horowitz’s report indicate that the bureau became aware that Steele’s dossier may have been compromised by Russian disinformation yet continued to use it to justify surveillance.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fbis-fisa-review-suggests-carter-page-investigation-was-uniquely-flawed

>>9721632

Baker Cap

>https://thehill.com/policy/defense/504161-pentagons-top-technology-officials-resign

BREAKING: Did @Facebook

CEO Mark Zuckerberg lie to Senator @TedCruz

under oath in 2018? You decide.

https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1275483276434706433

REVEALED: Facebook Oversight Board – Responsible for Reviewing Censorship – Is 95% Anti-Trump AND Three Quarters Are Non-U.S. Citizens

Facebook Oversight’s Board – a new body that can overrule founder Mark Zuckerberg – is drastically, disproportionately stacked with foreign, left-wing activists including individuals on the payroll of progressive mega-donor George Soros, The National Pulse can reveal. The recently constituted board is comprised of activists who’ve compared President Trump to Adolf Hitler, former Obama officials, and hailed efforts to remove President Trump from Twitter as “awesome.” Facebook describes the board as wielding “judgment over some of the most difficult and significant content decisions.” The idea for the board itself came from Noah Feldman, the Harvard law professor and Democrat-selected Trump impeachment witness who in 2018 insisted the West “needs Shariah and Islam.” The overwhelmingly left-leaning composition is just the latest testament to Big Tech’s leftist bias. Whether Facebook and its oversight board are leveraged to influence elections, culture, or political discussion, the oversight board’s purported neutrality and nonpartisanship appears to be a ruse.

The individuals listed below serve are the last stand between Facebook’s censor-prone left-wing bias and user’s ability to share content, and it doesn’t bode well for conservatives. The National Pulse reached out to Facebook for comment, but former Obama campaign and administration staffer Jeffrey Gelman – now a communications manager for Facebook – refused to answer the questions.

https://thenationalpulse.com/politics/facebook-oversight-board-anti-trump-foreign/