1. This was no run-of-the-mill leak. The day after Sally Yates told McGahn about Flynn, the White House pushed out the first Muslim ban to insure that the only person who could out Mike Flynn would have to resign. In three day she was gone and their secret was safe.
2. Then 13 days later the @washingtonpost published the story about the Flynn-Kislyak calls and in two days Flynn was gone. At the time I reported that I suspected the leak came from a certain non-FVEY intelligence service. I suspected an investigation would go nowhere.
3. The FISA leak I'm waiting to see is Giuliani's. He exposed the Cross Fire Hurrican FISA right before the election. The DOJ National Security Division career people will be able to say what happened on their watch on Flynn. Leaking a FISA can get you a long jail term.
4. Yates must have briefed the intel committee before she was fired.
The reason they call it Special "Compartmented" Information is they limit and record who has access to it. They know which @washingtonpost reporter was on the Flynn Kislyak story and they would want
5. to match the meta data. It's not surprising that they did it. That they are making this public is what is surprising to me. They may have gone outside of a FISA and used Stored Communications Act order. I think that has a provision for eventual notice. Not FISA.
6. And if you don't think Congress gets caught up in our spy hunts, you might want to review Lindsey Graham's epiphany in the 2017 FISA Section 702 reauthorization hearing where he leaned that the leaders get to know what the spooks have on him, but not poor old Lindsey.
7. It was clever they way this story was pushed out, immediately amplified by @maddow who already called Merrick Galand out for what Sessions and Barr did even though he likely authorized the disclosure. Is she being manipulated by clever muckrakers who want to
8. torpedo the Galand DOJ? I wonder who would do such a thing?
9. I'll predict that the lefty posse hell bent on the investigation that will likely distract the DOJ from pursuing the Jan 6 attackers but may come up with the source of the leak. The person who got rid of Mike Flynn. Nice work nitwits.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. @maddow says: "Nothing like this has ever happened before." I'm guessing recent privacy intrusions were SCA meta data orders. IMO that's not protected under the 4th Amendment.
Here is @LindseyGrahamSC learning that his phone calls were being recorded.
2. Graham starts at 1:10.
Senator Graham Enraged at Intelligence Officers if His Conversations wer... via @YouTube
3. And to be clear, I won't be surprised to find out TFG #45 & Barr were up to no good. Surveillance and privacy rights in meta data are topics for discussion and legislation. But the fact is we spy on good people
1. I missed start of Schmidt interview on @MSNBC. Did he say where he got the story? Who was his source or even if he had one? I see @MSNBC is having him interviewed by someone alleged to be in a personal relationship with him. Not a good look if that is true. @maddow@Lawrence
2. I agree with @AWeissmann_ that the IG will be a bad way to go. If I were Garland I'd do what Reno did in the similar circumstances. Use someone close to Garland. Perhaps a former law clerk at DC circuit with a prosecution background to dig in fast and find out what happened.
3. My fear is that it may expose a real CI investigation that is being impacted and would damage National Security. Again, it appears wrong and may be actionable but it's not worth destroying a real investigation by moving without appropriate care.
For all the folks wondering how common pen registers and/or Stored Communications Act orders are, here are the ones issued in DC in the past 7 days.
95 in a week. @maddow@MaddowBlog
1. Chris Wray on Jan 6: "This is a very ongoing investigation and there's a lot more to come." "I would expect to see more charges — some of them maybe more serious charges."
2. If there are presently dozens of people charged with violations of 18 USC 1512(c) (Obstructing Congress) that carries up to 20 years in prison, what could FBI Director Wray be thinking of when he says, "more serious charges?" What other crumbs were in his testimony?
3. The US Criminal Code Title 18 USC. Chapter 115 addresses what I refer to as disloyalty crimes, including crimes like treason, insurrection, seditious conspiracy and advocating overthrow. Thus far, I've seen no charges for any of disloyalty crimes related to Jan 6.
Anyone know who Merrick Garland's chief of staff is?
2. I don't think Matt Klapper has never been a prosecutor. My guess is that this appointment came from the @WhiteHouse and not Garland's choice. I remember when Janet Reno wanted to move my brother to chief of staff after he completed the Iraq-gate investigation.
3. He and I spoke of it and the political dynamics of the job. It looked like Klapper was with the AG today. Unclear what level of involvement he will have on prosecutions. I expect that the prosecutorial decisions will be left to Lisa Monaco who coincidentally took the
1. There is an early phase in law school where if you can't disregard your personal views and analyze a fact pattern you may not make to 2L. We all want @ejeancarroll to prevail over TFG. And we don't want to be told that the law is not on her side. Let the process go forward.
2. @TheJusticeDept defends the "presidency" not the "president" along with all federal employees who may become a target for defamation litigation if the lower court decision stands. Presidents' power is vast but this law applies equally to a guard standing watch.
3. It a bright line test. The validity of the claim is not relevant. It's the status of the speaker. 2nd Circuit may affirm but the #SCOTUS will make short work of the case. That's my opinion. But that's where the issue should be addressed. In court. Not by ad homonym attacks.