Sunday Morning in Russiagate

A surprising dearth after the last couple of bountiful days. First, Andy McCarthy's actual article on the motives to get Flynn, which he thinks was to clear the way for the investigation of Russiagate, and eventually the Mueller mess. NR, The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the Trump–Russia Probe

But why did they do it? That has been the baffling question. Oh, there have been plenty of indications that the Obama administration could not abide Flynn. The White House and the intelligence agencies had their reasons, mostly vindictive. But while that may explain their gleefulness over his fall from grace, it has never been a satisfying explanation for the extraordinary measures the FBI took to orchestrate that fall.

To understand what happened here, you have to understand what the FBI’s objective was, first formed in collaboration with Obama-administration officials. That includes President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Flynn’s predecessor, national-security adviser Susan Rice, with whom then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and then-FBI director James Comey met at the White House on January 5, 2017 — smack in the middle of the chain-of-events that led to Flynn’s ouster. Recall Rice’s CYA memo about the meeting: “President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia” (emphasis added). Rice wrote those words on January 20, at the very time the FBI was making its plan to push Flynn out.

The objective of the Obama administration and its FBI hierarchy was to continue the Trump–Russia investigation, even after President Trump took office, and even though President Trump was the quarry. The investigation would hamstring Trump’s capacity to govern and reverse Obama policies. Continuing it would allow the FBI to keep digging until it finally came up with a crime or impeachable offense that they were then confident they would find. Remember, even then, the bureau was telling the FISA court that Trump’s campaign was suspected of collaborating in Russia’s election interference. FBI brass had also pushed for the intelligence community to include the Steele dossier — the bogus compendium of Trump–Russia collusion allegations — in its report assessing Russia’s meddling in the campaign.

But how could the FBI sustain an investigation targeting the president when the president would have the power to shut the investigation down?

The only way the bureau could pull that off would be to conceal from the president the fullness of the Russia investigation — in particular, the fact that Trump was the target.

That is why Flynn had to go.

Via Weasel Zippers, McCarthy explains to Tucker:

PLEASE WATCH @AndrewCMcCarthy @TuckerCarlson
"Flynn was not the objective he was the obstacle.
He’s going to find out that we investigated the Trump campaign; if you tell him about the investigation it is over.
The perjury trap is what has the chance of getting him removed." https://t.co/mrxI3pfs5Z pic.twitter.com/3eriejFT72

— Heather Champion (@winningatmylife) May 1, 2020

I'm still convinced McCabe was more than happy to put out a hit on his old nemesis. Embrace the healing power of "and".

For a counterpoint, former conservative commentator, now never-Trumper Patterico, a California prosecutor, Why Flynn Is Not Vindicated, Part Two: The Evidence Does Not Suggest a Plot to Get Flynn Fired. You can always find a lawyer to take any side. For the most part, the people involved were all high powered lawyers, and for the most part they were smart enough not to put their true motives on paper, and have a least some rationalization for their actions. That doesn't mean those actions aren't actionable, but it's going to be a tough case with a DC jury.

And a bit of non-Flynn-sense, the eyeball worries that Acting Intelligence Chief says he's "increasingly concerned" over handling of sensitive U.S. person information among agencies and orders broad review

The acting Director of National Intelligence has ordered all 17 of the intelligence community agencies to immediately review whether their handling and sharing of information that identifies U.S. persons — such as citizens and those with permanent residency — are in compliance with strict privacy policies and procedures, according to a memorandum exclusively reviewed by CBS News.

Richard Grenell, who became the acting intelligence chief in February, signed the memorandum with the subject, "Protecting the Privacy and Civil Liberties of U.S. Persons," on April 29. It directs agencies including the CIA, the NSA, military intelligence and Homeland Security to report back findings, and identify specific actions that will ensure the rules are followed, within 30 days.

The memo does not make clear the catalyst for the broad review. But Grenell wrote, "As the Acting Director of National Intelligence, I serve as the approving official for dissemination of unmasked congressional identity information...I have become increasingly concerned with intelligence reports that inconsistently apply the policies and procedures governing how U.S. person identities are masked."

Grenell continued, "To that end, I am directing all IC (Intelligence Community) elements to review their implementation of the applicable standard for disseminating U.S. person identifying information and, as necessary, modify internal procedures to ensure the rules..are consistently applied."

A senior administration official said the goal is to set uniform standards across the 17 agencies for identifying or "unmasking" U.S. person information, eliminating varying standards to protect privacy. The official added that the review reflects ongoing concern over the handling of such information during the last election cycle.

In the course of intelligence collection, an agency may conduct surveillance on a target or gather their communications. In the process, the intelligence may also incidentally capture an American citizen's name or job title, and there is an obligation to "minimize" or hide it.

Grenell wrote that while the "guidelines might use slightly different words and phases, the rules generally provide that our disseminated intelligence products should only include U.S. person identifying information if it is necessary, or reasonably believed to become necessary, for the recipient to understand, assess or act on the information."

In 2017, the House Intelligence Committee, then led by Republican Devin Nunes, launched an investigation into these identifications or so-called "unmasking." Among witnesses called were former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and former UN Ambassador Samantha Power. All transcripts from the closed door sessions have not been publicly released by the committee's current Democratic Chairman Adam Schiff.

Gosh, I wonder why. Anything damaging to Trump leaks out of Schiff's committee like water through a sieve.