Thread by @SethAbramson

In this interview with Seth Hettena, who acknowledges Byrne's oddness as I do, Byrne confirms that he told the FBI about Butina in July of 2015; they ignored him because they were working on the Clinton case; and in July *2016* they began paying attention. trump-russia.com/2019/08/18/the…

1/ Strzok, Comey and McCabe greenlighting having agents ask Byrne to re-engage with Butina in July '16 is consistent with them receiving in spring 2016—from at least 7 allied intel agencies—reports of unusual Trump-Russia activity. Byrne had previously volunteered to assist them.

2/ It's striking that Byrne says he was trying to feed the FBI intel a long time—but they were ignoring it. Given the Louisville NRA conference was in May 2016, and Butina told Byrne of Torshin meeting Trump/Don Jr. there, Byrne is saying even *that* intel was ignored until July.

3/ If true, this conclusively establishes that the FBI had no interest in *any* information suggesting foreign infiltration of Trump's campaign until July 2016—by which time they'd received so much intel from trusted intel agencies that they went back and reviewed prior call-ins.

4/ It *also* means that when they reviewed that prior intelligence from Byrne, they found it credible enough to want to use him as an asset (as they had, with success, twice before on wholly unrelated matters). That intelligence would *include* a secret Kremlin-Trump Jr. meeting.

5/ It also means that this information—about Trump Jr. (or possibly Trump) meeting off-site with Torshin at an NRA conference in 2015 or 2016 and then lying about it to Congress (Jr.) or allowing Jr. to lie to Congress (Trump)—was among the intel passed off by Mueller to the FBI.

6/ Mueller clearly put Butina/Torshin in a separate intelligence-evidence bin, hence their absence from his Report. That'd also explain him farming out Butina's case and giving no indication to anyone outside the FBI Counterintelligence Division that he had intel on Byrne-Butina.

7/ Do I think Buffet convinced Byrne to come forward? I don't know. It's bizarre that Byrne went to far-right activist Carter first; it makes me wonder if a Trump ally steered him there. But I don't pretend to know. It's just troubling, *especially* as his story was first framed.

8/ Byrne told FNC that Attorney General William Barr has all the evidence he (Byrne) has, which is odd—why wouldn't Byrne's evidence go to IG Horowitz? Why would Barr have access to it? Why would FNC be Byrne's first TV interview? I think someone misread Byrne's evidence *badly*.

9/ I think what we have here is someone on the right, who knows who—whether tied to Trump or not—wrongly thinking Byrne's story inculpated Strzok, Comey and McCabe, when in fact it *exculpates* them. But this backfire is even worse—as Byrne's story *incriminates* Donald Trump Jr.

10/ Just wait until tomorrow or the next day—you'll see. As has happened each time the far-right tries to push its Strzok conspiracy theory, it's backfired—with the "new" evidence *exculpating* the FBI and *inculpating* Trump pals. And this is the worst example of that ever. /end

PS/ Another mystery—from his FNC interview now—that Byrne is going to have to unravel is, who was the "bigtime Republican attorney" who he told his tale to in 2018, who in response told him to "go home and shut up"? My money is on Joe DiGenova, but to be clear, we don't know yet.

PS2/ As an attorney, I feel compelled to add that Byrne tells Hettena he deliberately lied to federal agents he knew were in the midst of a criminal investigation—and that's a crime. So Byrne—by all rights—should face federal charges here. If Barr does nothing, it tells us a lot.