05-01-2020- Flynn FBI Setup
“Don’t Close RAZOR”: Flynn FBI Setup Continues To Unravel As Texts Reveal Strzok Went Off The Rails
After a US District Court Judge unsealed four pages of FBI emails and handwritten notes which provided the strongest evidence of a perjury trap, attorney and journalist @Techno_Fog has just connected two more damning dots.
According to a new filing in Flynn’s case, the FBI investigation into Trump’s former National Security Adviser was called “Crossfire Razor.”
Notably, on January 1, 2017, the FBI’s Washington DC field office recommended closing the case against Flynn after finding “no derogatory information” against him.
“The goal of the investigation was to determine whether [Flynn], associated with the Trump campaign, was directed and controlled by and/or coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security and/or possibly a violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act,” reads an FBI memorandum.
“Following the initiation of captioned case, the [Crossfire Hurricane] team conducted a check of logical databases for any derogatory information on [Flynn],” it continues, concluding: “No derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.”
Text messages sent by former FBI official Peter Strzok the same day reveal his intent to continue his pursuit of Flynn.
The operation that targeted Flynn: CROSSFIRE RAZOR
1/4/17: FBI field office found “No derogatory information” on Flynn and decided to close RAZOR.
1/4/17: FBI leadership (STRZOK) went off the rails and targeted Flynn: “Don’t close RAZOR”
7,847 people are talking about this
FBI Washington Field Office Report:
FBI and US Govt (CIA?) databases showed “no derogatory information” on Flynn.
Flynn determined to be “no longer a viable candidate” as part of the Crossfire Hurricane case.
Peter Strzok texts to the FBI Case Manager handling the Crossfire Razor (Flynn) case.
Strzok: “If you haven’t closed RAZOR, don’t do so yet”
Strzok: “7th floor involved” (FBI Leadership)
(Possible use of Logan Act “violations” to keep investigation open)
2,298 people are talking about this
To review, as Sara Carter detailed last night, the FBI emails and handwritten notes revealed that the retired three-star general was being targeted for prosecution according to Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell.
Also, per Strzok’s texts, that the case was even still open was an accident due to FBI “incompetence.” https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1255962738565754880 …
#FLYNN newly unsealed docs include texts indicating Agent Strzok intervened to keep open Flynn case “Crossfire Razor” after recommendation to close 1/4/2107. Timing: 20 days later Strzok interviewed Flynn at WH. Strzok “if you havent closed RAZOR, don’t do so yet.” @CBSNews
300 people are talking about this
As we noted earlier Thursday:
In one of the emails dated Jan. 23, 2017, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who at the time was having an affair with Strzok and who worked closely with him on the case discussed the charges the bureau would bring on Flynn before the actual interview at the White House took place. Those email exchanges were prepared for former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who was fired by the DOJ for lying multiple times to investigators with DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s office.
Former FBI Director James Comey, who was fired by President Trump for his conduct, revealed during an interview with Nicolle Wallace last year that he sent the FBI agents to interview Flynn at the White House under circumstances he would have never done to another administration.
“I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation, a more organized administration,” Comey said. “In the George W. Bush administration … or the Obama administration, two men that all of us, perhaps, have increased appreciation for over the last two years.”
In the Jan 23, email Page asks Strzok the day before he interviews Flynn at the White House:
“I have a question for you. Could the admonition re 1001 be given at the beginning at the interview? Or does it have to come following a statement which agents believe to be false? Does the policy speak to that? (I feel bad that I don’t know this but I don’t remember ever having to do this! Plus I’ve only charged it once in the context of lying to a federal probation officer). It seems to be if the former, then it would be an easy way to just casually slip that in.
“Of course as you know sir, federal law makes it a crime to…”
I haven’t read the policy lately, but if I recall correctly, you can say it at any time. I’m 90 percent sure about that, but I can check in the am.
In the motion filed earlier this week, Powell stated “since August 2016 at the latest, partisan FBI and DOJ leaders conspired to destroy Mr. Flynn. These documents show in their own handwriting and emails that they intended either to create an offense they could prosecute or at least get him fired. Then came the incredible malfeasance of Mr. Van Grack’s and the SCO’s prosecution despite their knowledge there was no crime by Mr. Flynn.”
Attached to the email is handwritten notes regarding Flynn that are stunning on their face. It is lists of how the agents will guide him in an effort to get him to trip up on his answers during their questioning and what charges they could bring against him.
“If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide,” state the handwritten notes.
“Or if he initially lies, then we present him (not legible) & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address it.”
The next two points reveal that the agents were concerned about how their interview with Flynn would be perceived saying “if we’re seen as playing games, WH (White House) will be furious.”
“Protect our institution by not playing games,” the last point on the first half of the hand written notes state.
From the handwritten note:
- I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn (redacted) if he didn’t admit
- I thought @ it last night, I believe we should rethink this
- What is (not legible) ? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?
- we regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit their wrongdoing
- I don’t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him
- If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide
- Or if he initially lies, then we present him (not legible) & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address it
- If we’re seen as playing games, WH will be furious
- Protect our institution by not playing games
- we have case on Flynn & Russians
- Our goal is to (not legible)
- Our goal is to determine if Mike Flynn is going to tell the truth or if he lies @ relationship w/ Russians
- can quote (redacted)
- Shouldn’t (redacted
Review (not legible) stand alone
It appears evident from an email from former FBI agent Strzok, who interviewed Flynn at the White House to then FBI General Counsel James Baker, who is no longer with the FBI and was himself under investigation for leaking alleged national security information to the media.