Thread by @ClimateAudit

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…

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.

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.)

At 7:04 PM, Strzok told his correspondents (OGC, WF and CD/Counterintelligence) that he had already briefed Bill [Priestap], who was trying to reach DD [McCabe]. WF probably Pientka, who had just left Crossfire, but had contacted Danchenko on behalf of Strzok on Jan 13th. At 7:27 PM, Strzok confirmed that Priestap had been contacted and was ready.

At 8:00 PM Jan 19, 2017, Strzok relayed further instructions to his CD/Counterintelligence subordinate to relay to WFO and asked to be updated with "plan for meet and results of same". At 10:17PM, his subordinate responded, also thanking Strzok for "coordination assistance".

On Sunday evening (Jan 22, 2017) at 7:24 PM, Strzok checked with his posse on whether they had any update for the Monday "am meeting //upstairs//". Strzok checked a second time at 8:00 PM.

at 8:11 PM Sunday Jan 22, 2017, Strzok's subordinate emailed WFO "two things" - redacted. Presumably Strzok was on bcc as he replied.

at 8:40 PM, Strzok emailed his posse complaining that he "didn't like this. There is ALWAYS a middle of the night emergency of an ill-defined nature".

then also at 8:40 PM. Strzok forwarded his communications to Lisa Page, adding that he had forwarded the exchange to Priestap. Lisa sympathized back at 9:40 PM.

Does this exchange pertain to the pending January 24, 2017 interview with the Primary Sub-source. Given the timing and context, I think that there is a very high probability that it does.

This is relevant because it indicates that the most senior FBI staff (McCabe, Comey) would have been briefed on the pending interview with the Primary Sub-Source. It doesn't make any sense that they wouldn't have been, but they were never questioned in 2017-2018 about their knowledge of the meeting for the simple reason that the FBI rigorously concealed the existence of the meeting with the Primary Sub-source and were thus not questioned about it by the House or Senate Intel Committees.

Plus, the FBI hid Danchenko by making him a Confidential Human Source and by scrubbing any and all references to the Primary Sub-source in the Strzok-Page texts.

Strzok and Page sued the government for releasing their texts. A reader commented that they "won" their case.

The case is indeed in the news,
but it would be more accurate to say that the Biden DOJ, which is more protective of the bureaucracy than the public, has agreed to settle with Strzok and Page. In a similar manner presumably as the bureaucracy rewarded Andrew McCabe, powderpuffed Kevin Clinesmith, let time limits expire on Hunter Biden while punishing Navarro and Bannon.nbcnews.com/politics/justi…

Strzok and Page claimed that disclosure of their messages violated their "privacy rights". Privacy rights that appear to exist only for Democrats and uniparty bureaucrats, but not for opposition.

typo= missing tranche was Dec 2016 to May 2017 -as is clear from context