Stephen McIntyre Profile picture
Dec 20, 2018 26 tweets 9 min read Read on X
1/ Flynn 302 contains interest nugget showing total insolence of outgoing Obama admin to incoming administration. Obama notified Russia of expulsions on Dec 28, but not in press until Dec 29 ~2:15 pm Eastern (e.g. NYT nytimes.com/2016/12/29/us/…)
2/ On Dec 28, the day that Russia learned of expulsions, Kislyak sent text to Flynn asking to talk. Flynn, on holiday, didn't reply until next day. (Flynn had not been notified by Obama administration of its Dec 28 actions against Russia.)
3/ Flynn learned of Obama administration actions against Russia from media reports on afternoon of Dec 29.
4/ it sounds like Flynn's discussion with Kislyak was in the morning of Dec 28 (not stated by Mueller) since Flynn 302 says he was "unaware of the then-upcoming actions" [at the time that he was talking to Kislyak on Dec 29].
5/ this chronology indicates that Obama admin was so intent on ambushing Trump transition team that they didn't give Trump team any information. During Dec 29 call, Flynn's only information on expulsions appears to have been from Kislyak's side of story.
6/ people looking back can easily mis-apprehend events. One assumes that Flynn KNEW details of expulsions when he talked to Kislyak on Dec 29, but that does not appear to have been the case.
7/ watch the pea as Mueller Indictment recites chronology. It began with Obama's Dec 28 Executive Order. Mueller stated that the executive order "announced sanctions against Russia." But the order wasn't "announced" on Dec 28. It appears to have been announced ~2:15 pm Dec 29.
8/ Obama announcement made Dec 29 2:12 pm obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-offi…. It announced expulsion of 35 persona non grata, seizure of 2 Russian compounds and sanctions on nine Russian institutions and 4 individuals. If words are important, "sanctions" and expulsions may be distinguished
9/ Mueller indictment says tht Flynn called [Kushner] on Dec 29 prior to calling Kislyak. Transition team (reasonably) didn't want "escalation" as Obama admin laying down poison pills. If call prior to 2 pm (as appears likely), necessarily general only, as they didnt know details
10/ Mueller chronology implies that they knew contents of Obama executive order the previous day, but they didn't.
11/ Mueller indictment said that Flynn then called Kislyak and asked that they "not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner." As noted above, if before 2 pm, Flynn didn't know details, except as Kislyak may have told him.
12/ Flynn 302 say tht agents asked Flynn if discussed "expulsion of Russian diplomats or closing of Russian properties". Kislyak may have told him about these still unannounced actions. But Flynn didn't know about it, had no instructions, not likely that he free-lanced on this.
13/ Agents asked Flynn about discussion of the "expulsions". Flynn said that he "didn't remember. It wasn't 'Don't do anything'". Flynn said that he didn't know about Persona Non Grata (expulsions) until "in media" i.e. afternoon Dec 29.
14/ another nugget from Flynn 302 courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…: the word "sanctions" does NOT occur anywhere in 302. The 302 mentions "expulsions" and "closures", two legs of Obama exec order but didnt mention "sanctions", the technique used by Treasury.
15/ a reminder from Obama executive order obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-offi…: "sanctions" are not the same thing in the order as "expulsions" or "closures". Sanctions were what everyone was used to and expected. The expulsions and closures were unexpected and what FBI asked about.
16/ after clause on Kislyak-Flynn conversation, Mueller indictment stated that Flynn called [Kushner] to report on Kislyak call, including their "discussion of the U.S. Sanctions", though, as noted above, the word "sanctions" does not occur in the 302.
17/ my own interpretation (without huge confidence) is that Flynn, as instructed (and quite reasonably) asked Kislyak to let new admin look at things and, in a general sense, not to escalate, but expected some sore of reciprocal action. On specifics of expulsion + closures, Flynn
18/ would, without question, have wanted to see what Obama admin had done (rather than rely on Kislyak) and to get instructions before commenting to Kislyak on the issues of expulsion and closure which the FBI agents later asked him about.
19/ from the 302 - and this is counterintuitive and requires watching the pea very closely - it doesn't appear that FBI agents actually asked Flynn about "sanctions" (which they might not have distinguished from "expulsions" and "closures".)
20/ Dec 30: Putin saucily decided not to reciprocate with expulsions, but to invite US representatives in Moscow to a party (or similar). Kislyak, trying to build bridges with new admin, called Flynn to say that Russian restraint was due to Flynn's call. Flynn called transition.
21/ 302: agents asked Flynn about Kislyak's follow up call to say that Russia had decided not to escalate. In his best imitation of Hillary (or Comey), Flynn implausibly said that "it was possible but he didn't remember".
22/ Hillary and Comey each said they "did not remember" for hundreds of questions and FBI/DOJ just shrugged their shoulders. However, when Flynn (implausibly) said the same, FBI charged that he "falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation", one of 2 counts.
23/ on Jan 12, someone in Resistance cabal told David Ignatius that Flynn had talked to Kislyak on Dec 29 archive.is/IFfZl - a huge sensation since Steele Dossier had been published on Jan 10 following leaks from Comey-Brennan-Clapper cabal.
24/ Ignatius speculated on possible violation of Logan Act - a ludicrous conceit concocted by Sally Yates. Ignatius' mention of Logan Act is thus slight (but only slight) pointer towards DOJ or FBI origin of leak.
25/ on Jan 14, WH spox John Earnest didn't see any problem in principle, that "incoming national security adviser may have need to contact representative of foreign government" despite lurid headline: "WH: We Didn’t Coordinate Flynn Call to RussAmbassador
cnbc.com/2017/01/14/whi…
26/ Obama had obligation to notify incoming admin of expulsions or even to consult. But maybe Obama didn't notify Trump team because they planned to surveille how Russia contacted transition. Would untoward backchannel be revealed? In fact, Russia contacted Flynn, proper channel.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Stephen McIntyre

Stephen McIntyre Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ClimateAudit

Jun 8
in 2019 and 2020, there was a huge amount of interest in the Strzok-Page texts, but almost no attention was paid to the fact that the texts had been heavily "curated" before reaching the public and that some key topics were missing.

One of the key topics that was missing from the Strzok-Page texts (as curated) was any mention of the interview of Steele's Primary Sub-Source in late January 2017. Given that the FBI had insisted on inclusion of Steele dossier allegations in the Intelligence Community Assessment dated January 6, 2017, this was a central FBI issue at the time and the lack of any reference in the Strzok-Page texts as originally presented is noteworthy.

Readers may recall that the very first tranche of Strzok-Page texts, released in Feb 2018, contained a long gap from mid-December 2017 to mid-May 2018 - from the ICA to appointment of Mueller. This is the very period in which the Crossfire investigation metastasized into the lawfare that undermined the incoming administration. The fact that this period was separately missing from both Strzok and Lisa Page has never been adequately explained. As an aside, it seems odd that the FBI can retrieve emails and texts from targets, but not from their own employees.

Subsequently, a tranche of texts from the missing period was released, but these were also heavily curated and contained no texts that relate to the Primary Subsource.

However, from an an exhibit in the Flynn case , we //KNOW// that, in the late evening of January 13, 2017, Strzok and Page texted about the Primary Subsource, less than two weeks prior to the interview (which began on January 24, 2017). The message wasn't interpretable in real time, but we (Hans Mahncke) were subsequently able to connect it to the Danchenko interview via the reference to the "Womble" law firm, with which Danchenko's lawyer, Mark Schamel, was then associated. We also learned that Schamel was friends with and namedropped Lisa Monaco.

But other than this single excerpt from the Flynn exhibits, I haven't located anything in any of the other Strzok texts than can be plausibly connected to the critical interviews of the Primary Subsource.

I think that there are some Strzok emails from Jan 19 and Jan 22, 2017 that may refer to the pending Primary Subsource interview, that I'll discuss next.

One useful thing that the Weaponization Committee could do would be to publish a complete and unexpurgated set of Strzok-Page texts. Given the interest created by the highly expurgated version, one wonders what an expurgated and unbowdlerized version might yield.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142…Image
In the volume of Strzok emails released on October 31, 2019, there was an almost entirely redacted thread dated January 19 and January 22, 2017, a couple of days before the Primary Subsource interview on January 24, 2017, which look to me like they have a good chance of relating to the PSS interview.

The thread began with an email from FBI Office of General Council (OGC) - Sally Anne Moyer or Kevin Clinesmith - to Strzok and a CD subordinate, with a very short subject line.

We know that the PSS interview was lawyered up and carried out under a sweetheart queen-for-a-day deal that was usually only available to highly placed Democrats (Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills etc.) So involvement of OGC in negotiation of the PSS interview is expected.Image
at 6:47 pm on Thursday, Jan 19, 2017, Strzok's CD subordinate wrote back that "here's what we have to decide ASAP". The issue is totally redacted, naturally. (This is one day before inauguration.) Image
Read 12 tweets
May 12
in April 2022, Mark Steyn, on his GB News show
,
commented on recently released UK COVID data, claiming "the third booster shots so zealously promoted by the British state, and its groupthink media has failed, and in fact exposed you to significantly greater risk of infection, hospitalization and death."
Steyn showed images of five tables from official statistical publications to support his claims.
In April 2023, Ofcom, which, in addition to its ordinary regulatory role, had taken a special interest in vaccine advocacy, ruled that Steyn's "presentation of UK Health Security Agency data
and their use to draw conclusions materially misled the audience. In breach of Rule 2.2 of the Broadcasting Code" - a very damaging finding that Steyn has appealed.


I haven't followed this case. However, as it happens, I had taken an interest in UK COVID data about 3 months earlier, as it was one of the few jurisdictions that published case and hospitalization rates by vaccination status.


Also, to refresh readers on the contemporary context, early 2022 was the period in which COVID lockdowns and overall alarm began to decline.

At the time, I observed that the UK data showed that the case rate for triple vax was //higher// than among unvax. Three months later, Steyn (as discussed below) made a similar claim, for which he was censured.

Although the UK authorities conspicuously refrained from including this result in their summary or conclusions, they were obviously aware of the conundrum, since their publication included a curious disclaimer by UK authorities that actual case data "should not be used" to estimate vaccine effectiveness. I pointed this odd disclaimer out in this earlier thread, also noting that health authorities in Ontario and elsewhere had previously used such data to promote vaccine uptake and that the reasoning behind this disclaimer needed to be closely examined and parsed.

All of these issues turned up later in the Ofcom decision re Steyn.

Ofcom ruled that Steyn's presentation was "materially misleading" because
(1) he failed to take account of "fundamental biases" in age structure of vax and unvax groups i.e. unvax group was skewed younger, vax group skewed older; and
(2) he failed to include the disclaimer that "This raw data should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness as the data does not take into account inherent biases present such as differences in risk, behaviour and testing in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations”.steynonline.com/mark-steyn-sho…
ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/…
Image
in this thread, I'll re-examine Steyn's analysis. I've transcribed all the numbers in the tables and done further calculations to check his claims.

First, case rates. Steyn first showed an important table showing the population by 5-year age group and vax status, observing that the total population of triply vax (boosted) was approximately equal to the population of unboosted, observing that this facilitated comparison. Steyn: "Let's take a look at this, as you can see from a pool of 63 million down at the bottom there, 63 million, there are 32 million who are triple vaccinated. That leaves just under 31 million, who are either double single or unvaccinated. So we have two groups of similar size, 31, 32 million. So it's relatively easy to weigh the merits of the third shot upon Group A versus group B."

He then showed a table of cases by age group and vax status, pointing out that the total number of boosted cases was approximately double the number of unboosted cases: "So the triple vaccinated in March were responsible for just over a million COVID cases and everybody else 475,000 COVID cases. So the triple vaccinated are contracting COVID at approximately twice the rate of the double, single and unvaccinated. Got that? If you get the booster shot, you've got twice as high a chance of getting the COVID. In the United Kingdom, there's twice as many people with the third booster shot who got the COVID, as the people who never had the booster shot."Image
Image
Ofcom purported to rebut Steyn's analysis as shown in excerpt below. They observed that proportion of unvax in younger age groups was much higher than in older age groups and that the "simple comparison between the two groups made by Mark Steyn failed to take into account these inherent biases".

However, Ofcom failed to show that there would be a different outcome in the more complex analysis in which age groups were allowed for.

As it turns out, in regard to case rates, Steyn's conclusions, if anything, under-stated the phenomenon, as shown next.Image
Read 11 tweets
Apr 19
here is a thread from 2023 in which Eric Ciaramella's "yikes" is placed in a more detailed context.

In this thread, I suggested that the linkage was connected to Jan 21, 2016 meeting of Ukrainian prosecutors with State Dept officials, noting that Jamie Gusack (reporting to Bridget Brink) had distributing the first demand for Shokin's head (Nov 22 TPs)Image
Image
as pointed out in that thread, Gusack (State Dept) had been coordinating with Ciaramella (NSC) prior to arrival of Ukr prosecutors in Jan 2016, referring to Shokin replacement.

State Dept cited "diamond prosecutors case" as big deal. But what happened to it next? A long story. Image
Bridget Brink, Jamie Gusack's boss, reported to Victoria Nuland. Brink was appointed Ambassador to Ukraine in April 2022. Unanimous approval by Senate in early days of war at the exact time that US and UK were sabotaging the peace deal negotiated in Istanbul Image
Read 4 tweets
Mar 17
as observed yesterday, , after 2014 US coup, the tsunami of billion dollar US/IMF loans was associated with unprecedented embezzlement by Ukr oligarchs thru corrupt Ukr banking system. Rescues of failed banks (mostly unnoticed in west) were markers
in today's thread, I'll provide a short bibliography of articles (mostly Ukrainian language via google translate) on the Ukr banking corruption crisis that began and exploded after the 2014 US coup, while Biden, Blinken, Nuland et al were running Ukraine
once one searches specifically for the topic, there are interesting references, but the topic has received essentially next to zero coverage in the west. I'll take myself as an example. Despite following Ukr affairs quite closely, my prior knowledge was three vignettes.
Read 15 tweets
Mar 16
May 25, 2021: US DOJ announced indictment & arrest of Austrian banker Peter Weinzierl


Mar 13, 2024: we learn that Alexander Smirnov was an FBI informant against Weinzierl and had lured Weinzierl to UK on behalf of FBI for arrest justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/t…
archive.is/zO1rt

Image
Image
the DOJ charges against Austrian banker Weinzierl, filed during first six months of Biden admin, pertained to allegations that payments made via Meinl Bank in Austria by Brazilian construction company Odebrecht were connected to evasion of taxes in Brazil. Image
if the concern of US DOJ and FBI with administration of Brazilian tax collection seems somewhat quirky, there may be an ulterior motive: Meinl Bank had a central role in the looting of Ukrainian banks during the 2014-2016 Biden administration of Ukraine. Image
Read 11 tweets
Mar 3
Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, named by NYT as architect of 2014 post-Maidan takeover of Ukrainian intelligence by CIA, is former head of Ukrainian SBU. His comments on Biden corruption deserve attention, but have been ignored.archive.is/zXXQV
on October 10, 2019, early in the Trump impeachment saga, Nalyvaichenko published an op ed in Wall St Journal saying "alliance with US depends on answering questions about Bidens and election interference" [by Ukraine] archive.is/wsrjP
Image
in that editorial, Naluvaichenko, the former SBU hear, stated that Ukraine had responsibility to investigate allegations that Ukraine interfered in 2016 election (a separate issue from Russian interference) and whether Burisma hired Hunter Biden for "cynical purposes". Image
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(