Thread by @SethAbramson

(THREAD) It's time to separate fact from fiction in the case of Patrick Byrne, Maria Butina, Trump Jr. and a cadre of FBI agents and leaders. This is a still-developing story—but problematic reporting and Byrne's bad framing are muddling events. I hope you'll read on and retweet.

CLAIM1/ Byrne was "directed" to sleep with Butina by the FBI (CNN).

False. The FBI not only had no authority to "direct" Byrne, but Byrne himself says that he was clearly told that he didn't have to do anything. The FBI asked if he was willing to do something and he said he was.

CLAIM2/ Byrne's activities were coordinated by Strzok, McCabe, and Comey (Byrne).

Unclear. Byrne keeps changing his story—at one point saying "federal authorities" told him this was so, at another point saying he figured it out from TV, at another point implying he/Strzok spoke.

CLAIM3/ Byrne isn't credible (many folks).

Unclear. We know he/Butina had a relationship; we know he'd worked with the FBI before; we know—if true—FBI records will confirm his story; we know DOJ found some of his story credible. It's his odd demeanor convincing people otherwise.

CLAIM4/ There was no "second meeting" between Don Jr. and Kremlin agents Butina/Torshin; Don and Torshin had only a chance May 2016 encounter in Louisville.

False—apparently.

In other words, it *does* appear there was such a meeting.

This one will take a few tweets to unwrap.

CLAIM 4-2/ According to Don Jr. and Torshin, all that happened is that they—by chance—were sitting near each other at an NRA dinner and they briefly exchanged inconsequential pleasantries. This bears no relationship/similarity to any meeting Butina has ever told any person about.

CLAIM 4-3/ What Butina told Byrne is that at 2PM on one of the days of the May 2016 Louisville NRA Conference, Butina and her team planned to take Trump Jr. out the back door of his hotel and bring him to her—Butina's—hotel for a 1-hour meeting. The meeting was to be clandestine.

CLAIM 4-4/ Moreover, unlike the story Torshin and Trump Jr. later told—Torshin, who subsequently fled the country; Trump Jr., who subsequently lied to Congress on this and other matters—Butina was, per Butina, slated to be *present* at the meeting between Torshin and Trump's son.

CLAIM 4-5/ Byrne is *unwavering* is saying Butina told him this was her plan, and *unwavering* in saying it was his understanding the meeting *did* happen (leading to his *anger* that the FBI had "let it happen"). When Butina *told* him the meeting had occurred is still in doubt.

CLAIM 4-6/ Byrne says he stopped seeing Butina in April 2016, so they weren't together (or in communication) at the time the planned May 2016 meeting would've occurred. But he reconnected with her after July 2016, and now says the meeting occurred, so she must have told him then.

CLAIM 4-7/ Butina's attorneys are now saying there was no second meeting; as ever, statements made by paid advocates for a Kremlin agent who knows it would be an international scandal if it was revealed that she and others secretly met with Trump Jr. can be and must be *ignored*.

CLAIM 4-8/ Much more reliable are statements made against her own interest—because she was revealing sensitive operational details of a Kremlin operation—Butina made to Byrne in the context of a) a romantic relationship, b) trying to establish a trusting relationship with a mark.

CLAIM 4-9/ Of course, far more reliable than *that* is corroborating evidence: Don Jr., Butina, and Torshin were in the place Butina says they were on the date in question; Don Jr. and Torshin admit to contact; we know from other reporting that Torshin wanted a "second meeting."

CLAIM 4-10/ We know Torshin is under criminal investigation in multiple jurisdictions and was Butina's handler in a course of conduct in which Butina was a covert agent of influence; we know he's fled; we know he took numerous actions to secretly liaison with Trump team members.

CLAIM 5/ Byrne's story is "crazy" (Jim Comey).

First, we *have* to note that the *whole Trump-Russia story* as we now know it—while 100% true, per Mueller—sounds crazy when you first hear it. But Comey isn't, actually, making a *blanket* denial of Byrne's highly unusual claims.

CLAIM 5-1/ It appears what Comey is denying is that *he* oversaw FBI agents' contacts with Byrne—or that *he* in any way directed Byrne to have a relationship with Butina. It's entirely possible for both Comey and Byrne to be right—as Byrne seems to be guessing about some things.

CLAIM 5-2/ Not only did Byrne *only* have contact with field agents—it *doesn't* appear he had contact with FBI leadership—when you actually listen to the facts of his story, rather than his own misguided framing, it's not clear... well... what the field agents *asked* him to do.

CLAIM 5-3/ From July '15 to July '16, Byrne was voluntarily in a relationship with Butina that he voluntarily reported on to FBI field agents. He says when he asked the agents to greenlight the relationship they did—but they were just declining to force him to end a relationship.

CLAIM 5-4/ It *would've* been a scandal if agents *had* told Byrne to end the relationship in late 2015—as it would suggest they saw Butina as dangerous *but* weren't willing to investigate her further. *And* they'd be interceding in Byrne's situation in a way they'd have to own.

CLAIM 5-5/ So the supposed "greenlight" appears to be FBI agents saying, yeah, you can keep us informed if you like, in the event anything untoward happens, but we're not going to stand in the way of your romantic relationship. That appears to be all that happened at that point.

CLAIM 5-6/ What Byrne is *angry* about is that he then kept feeding the FBI agents information—which presumably they memorialized—but that they didn't take any action, which frankly is *exactly* the same reaction Christopher Steele encountered, and actually looks bad for *Trump*.

CLAIM 5-7/ Trump and his allies' conspiracy theory is that there was a massive FBI conspiracy to destroy him—but only if he won the presidency, which they took no action to prevent; follow *that* logic—but Byrne/Steele both suggest the FBI *ignored* evidence of Trump-Russia ties.

CLAIM 5-8/ Coupled with the FBI *lying to the New York Times* in the days before the election about what they knew of Trump-Russia ties, what we're seeing is a *consistent* pattern of the FBI *hiding* what it knows about Trump and Russia rather than weaponizing it in any fashion.

CLAIM 5-9/ Even so, nothing in Byrne's story is even arguably "crazy"—to go back to Comey's claim—until July 2016, when the FBI, inspired by other evidence of Trump-Russia ties, asks Byrne if he's *willing* to not just continue his relationship but continue having it be romantic.

CLAIM 5-10/ But here's the thing: Byrne was already in the relationship—which is confirmed. It'd previously been romantic—which is confirmed. So in what way was the FBI even asking Byrne to do something he wasn't already doing? It's unclear. I think there's an easier explanation:

CLAIM 5-11/ The easier explanation is that in July 2016 the agents communicating with Byrne told him that—in fact—Butina *was* potentially a danger to the US, at which point—presumably—Byrne would've wanted to break things off. The FBI simply asked him to consider not doing that.

CLAIM 5-12/ And that is, I think, the sum total of the far-less-interesting "Strzok-McCabe-Comey" part of the story—Byrne is offended that the FBI even *asked* him to continue seeing Maria Butina after the FBI informed him it was, in fact, worried that she was a foreign agent.

CLAIM 5-13/ But the fact is, the FBI request for Byrne to consider continuing to see Butina came in *July 2016* if it came at all: at a time when—as Byrne says the FBI told him—they were dealing with an extraordinary national security situation. It was *not* some concocted plot.

CLAIM 5-14/ I think, therefore, that Comey can be *correct* that Byrne's framing of events is "crazy" even as his response doesn't do anything to contradict the core facts: the Byrne-Butina relationship; Byrne-FBI contact; Butina's claims—to Byrne—that she and Torshin met Don Jr.

CLAIM 6/ AG Barr intercepted Byrne's evidence, even though it should have gone to the DOJ's IG—Horowitz—and Barr should've had nothing to do with it.

Unclear. Byrne says that Barr knows the entirety of his (Byrne's) story, but it's not clear if he's presuming that or knows that.

CLAIM 7/ Byrne "set up" persons "X, Y, and Z"—who he appears to now identify, respectively, as McCabe, Strzok, and Comey—for federal "felony charges."

False. There's zero evidence any of these men did anything wrong or were even involved in the field agents' contacts with Byrne.

CLAIM 8/ Byrne himself committed federal felonies.

True—apparently. Byrne confessed, to journalist Seth Hettena, that he deliberately and repeatedly lied to federal investigators on the subject of a federal criminal investigation that he knew was ongoing. That's a federal crime.

CLAIM 9/ Byrne was somehow coaxed into telling this story by Trump allies.

Unclear. Byrne says Warren Buffet—a mentor—is the person who finally convinced him to talk, though he also spoke to a "bigtime Republican attorney" who told him *not* to. But that's where things get odd.

CLAIM 9-1/ Byrne also is cagey about who told him (almost certainly falsely) Strzok, McCabe, and Comey were overseeing his situation. These three men happen to be Trump's three biggest enemies—in Trump's view. Byrne also implies that *watching Trump allies on TV* got him to talk.

CLAIM 9-2/ It's also unclear why Barr—who's been acting as Trump's lawyer, not the Attorney General—had access to info that should've been immediately referred to the IG. And it's not clear why, if Byrne confessed to federal felonies in April, he hasn't—it's August—been arrested.

CLAIM 9-3/ It's also unclear why Byrne's first interview was with far-right "journalist" Sara Carter—who's pushed the "Spygate" hoax Trump allies are desperately hoping will eclipse his crimes—and why his second and third interviews went to Trump-allied Fox News and Fox Business.

CLAIM 9-4/ It's also unclear why Byrne has had so much contact with the lawyers for a Kremlin agent (Butina) that his story now seems aimed at advancing a false narrative—aided by Byrne's own bad framing—that would be exculpatory for Butina and, more importantly, for the Kremlin.

CLAIM 9-5/ Byrne also talks like someone who was seduced by—and is still dazzled by—Butina. He offers glowing praise of her character and abilities, even saying she should be Russia's president. So all this feels off—like the broader agenda that pushed Byrne forward is political.

SUMMARY1/ It's possible that, due to Byrne's bad framing—which seems wrapped up in others' political agenda(s)—Byrne is telling the truth about the core facts of his story, many of which dovetail with other evidence, but simply drawing bad conclusions about what those facts mean.

SUMMARY2/ The facts Byrne offers about Butina's Kremlin connections and carried-out plans to secretly collude with the Trump family are what's earth-shattering here; the rest is just noise, confusion, and bad framing. Congress now needs to follow up on *only* the facts here. /end