When news broke back on April 24th that the Special Counsel working inside the Washington DC’s US Attorney’s office had given several documents under seal to Sidney Powell, alarm bells went off throughout the Swamp.
Jeffrey Jensen is the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri [USA EDMO] who last January was quietly appointed behind the scenes by Attorney General William Barr to thoroughly investigate how both the FBI and the Mueller Special Counsel handled their criminal case against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
Sidney Powell is the lawyer leading Flynn’s defense team, who has alleged gross government misconduct and suppression of exculpatory evidence ever since she took this case in June of last year.
Since that original announcement on April 24th, Jensen has given the Flynn defense team even more documents, and several of them have been unsealed by the court. Every unsealed document thus far has led to a bombshell revelation. Here’s what came out just in the last week:
The Strzok Revelation
Back in early January 2017 when the case agent in the FBI field office announced the file on the Flynn case dubbed “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” should be closed due to lack of evidence, Strzok quickly moved to keep the case open while he furiously brainstormed with others about possibly using the Logan Act to find a pretext to continue investigating Flynn.
During a later meeting of top FBI officials that included Bill Priestap, then head of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division (which had been running the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign since late July of 2016) they discussed how they might go about entrapping Flynn in a crime.
During this brainstorming session, Priestap hand writes a very revealing note summarizing the discussion: the purpose of the forthcoming interview with Flynn would be to see if the agency could trap him in a lie and then get him fired from his job as the incoming President’s National Security Advisor [NSA].
Every law enforcement agent knows there is a huge difference between:
- Investigating a crime that already happened and trying to find the person responsible.
- Investigating someone in the hopes of either causing a crime to be committed or creating the impression a crime has been committed.
Conservative author and radio host Dan Bongino was apoplectic while reading these newly unsealed notes. As someone with an extensive law enforcement background he found it extremely upsetting to read about FBI officials casually discussing how they’d use blatant police state tactics to ensure Flynn was charged with something...once they figured out what that something could be.
After reading the unsealed documents containing Preistap’s notes, the former member of the New York Police Department and former Secret Service agent tweeted:
Dear Police-State Liberals & Media Hacks, We investigate crimes in search of the people who committed them. We DO NOT investigate people in search of crimes to charge them with. Thanks, America
Bongino elaborated in another tweet:
I spent most of my adult life in law enforcement. We investigate crimes in search of the people who committed them. We DO NOT investigate people in search of crimes to charge them with. I wish police-state liberals were able to understand this.
That’s a clear explanation of how US law enforcement is supposed to work. This is in stark contrast to what these newly unsealed documents reveal about Comey’s FBI. Two top former FBI officials were also greatly troubled by what these unsealed documents are revealing about how the FBI went about its business on the Flynn case.
Gagliano began his column in the Examiner by writing:
The time has come to cease affording the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team generous benefit of the doubt. A steady stream of unflattering revelations, beginning with a report by the Justice Department's inspector general into egregious FISA abuses last December, has relentlessly pounded the reputation of my former agency. Now, further irrefutable proof emerges that a small cabal of FBI headquarters decision-makers was hellbent on undoing a presidency.
It is now apparent that Flynn was targeted and entrapped, and that the interview with Strzok and Peintka should never have taken place. Judge Emmet Sullivan has yet to rule on whether he will allow the General to withdraw his guilty plea. Judge Sullivan’s decision is likely to also be impacted by another development over the past week.
The Covington & Burling Revelation
When a defendant changes legal representation, the old counsel is required by law to turn over the entire case file to the defendant’s new counsel. This is what occurred in the Flynn case a year ago in June of 2019, when Flynn fired his former longtime lawyers at the firm of Covington & Burling and retained lawyer Sidney Powell to lead his new defense team.
Just four days after the news broke that Special Counsel Jensen was giving the Flynn defense team sealed documents found inside the DC US Attorney’s office, Flynn’s former lawyers at Covington & Burling rushed to Judge Sullivan’s court to make a new filing.
In this new filing, Robert Kelner of Covington & Burling breathlessly announces, that for no particular reason whatsoever they had just performed another search of their files and were stunned to realize they were still holding onto more than 6,800 documents from the Flynn case that should have been turned over a year ago. In early April Covington & Burling had alerted the court to their discovery of additional documents. They made it sound like they found a few emails and handwritten notes; nothing they communicated at the time made it sound like almost 7,000 new documents had been found.
Did the news that Jensen had found documents inside the DC US Attorney’s office that he’d just turned over to Powell light a fire under Covington & Burling to suddenly make their own troubling disclosure? It sure looks like it.
Found in the newly unsealed documents, and especially troubling, are allegations that Flynn’s former lawyers had entered into a conspiracy with the Mueller prosecutors to strong-arm their own client into pleading guilty in a secret side deal that was hidden from the court.
The Halper Revelation
Back in early 2017 news stories began circulating in places like The Wall Street Journal and the UK Guardian about Lt. General Michael T. Flynn, President Trump’s former NSA advisor, supposedly having had some very unusual public contact with an alleged Russian agent. These stories, seemingly planted in the media about General Flynn, were supposed to help drive the media narrative that Flynn was ‘compromised’ by Russia, a way to sort of retroactively make his being investigated by the FBI look justified.
One problem that immediately cropped up about these anonymously sourced stories, is that the person unwittingly cast to play the Russian agent role in this fiction began speaking up to try to correct the record. Cambridge graduate student and Russian intelligence researcher Svetlana Lokhova has been giving interviews for three years now trying to clear her name.
To its credit, the UK Guardian did give Lokhova a chance to answer the anonymous claims in an interview she gave the news outlet back in May 2017. At that time, Lokhova was mum about who she suspected was the anonymous source feeding this fake story to the news media.
Since the same smear continued to be repeated and circulated, Ms. Lokhova soon named who she believed to be the anonymous source; a former professor at Cambridge with an unusual background named Stefan Halper.
Halper is a chameleon who has managed to reinvent himself several times. Originally, he was known as a CIA operative and son-in-law of the legendary CIA official Ray S. Cline. Halper then recast himself as a political operative working in various Republican administrations and political campaigns during the 1970’s and early 1980’s. Halper then morphed into a newspaper columnist in the mid-1980’s, spending a decade writing on national security and foreign policy issues for various publications.
Around the year 2000, Halper suddenly showed up at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom and again recast himself, this time as an academic, throwing around large amounts of cash according to rumors, and being rewarded with a professorship. For three years Halper has loudly insisted he played no role in these stories and has threatened to sue anyone who publicly claimed he was the source. Lokhova is not only suing Halper in court for defaming her, she also has a forthcoming book this August entitled “The Spider: Stefan A. Halper & The Dark Web Of A Coup”.
Now, newly unsealed federal documents in the General Flynn case directly implicate Halper as the anonymous source and vindicate everything Lokhova has been alleging.
The CHS (confidential human source), who we know is Halper, is shown in this document repeating the exact same false Flynn/Lokhova story to the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team. Even in relating this false story to the FBI, Halper is lying about his own role by claiming to be an eyewitness who supposedly saw Lokhova jump into Flynn’s cab and leave with him. Halper was not present for the 2014 Cambridge seminar dinner. Every single person who was actually there knows this. Many of them know Halper quite well.
Now that documentary evidence has revealed an established FBI CHS (that we know is Halper himself) telling the exact same story to the Crossfire Hurricane team, it remains to be seen if Halper continues loudly threatening to sue anyone who brings this story to the forefront.
It was revealed some time ago that US Attorney John Durham has been leading an investigative team looking at certain generous contracts that were awarded to Halper out of the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment. Why was a Cambridge professor being given these contracts? What exactly was this ‘research’ that Halper was supposedly using this money for?
A report by the Pentagon’s Inspector General revealed that nobody seems to know what this roughly $1,000,000 of taxpayer’s money was spent on.
In August, a Pentagon Inspector General report revealed that the office failed to document the research Halper had conducted for the Pentagon in four separate studies worth roughly $1 million. The inspector general’s report revealed that loose contracting practices at the office and failed oversight was to blame.
Durham’s investigation of how the Russiagate hoaxes were launched is supposed to wrap up by the end of the summer, which would be around late August.
Given what’s been revealed in just the past week, I’m certain we’re going to see a lot more regarding this ever-growing SpyGate scandal come out before then.
Brian Cates entered the political arena in March 2012, following the death of Andrew Breitbart. He is currently a political columnist for The Epoch Times and UncoverDC. Brian is based in South Texas and is the author of: “Nobody Asked For My Opinion … But Here It Is Anyway!”