Since the New York Times ran their article about the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s operation ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ which targeted the Donald Trump campaign, it seems like scarcely an hour has passed without more information coming forward.
Now, an FBI agent is itching to tell his story, which could implicate FBI leadership. This agent’s testimony against the deep state could provide a better understanding of how Comey, McCabe, and Strzok may have had a role in forcing out members of the Trump campaign, and it seems like Senator Chuck Grassley is serious about hearing that testimony.
General Michael Flynn, formerly of the U.S. Army, was one of the first members of President Donald J. Trump’s cabinet that the ‘deep state’ assailed. Less than a month after being appointed as the United States National Security Advisor, Flynn, who spent two years in the Barack Obama administration as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, resigned from his position due to claims of impropriety.
Those claims arose from an interview with two FBI agents who, according to multiple accounts, ‘ambushed’ the advisor on January 24, 2017, four days after he took his position.
Regular readers will recognize one of the agents, Peter Strzok, as the man who ‘assisted’ in Robert Mueller’s special investigation, made numerous anti-Trump statements, and even had an extramarital affair with a female co-worker.
The other agent, Joe Pientka, is the one who seems interested in telling his story.
Agent Pientka appears to be the proverbial ‘good cop’ who wants to undermine the ‘dirty’ cops he works with. It was he who went to the Inspector General to complain about McCabe and Strzok’s conduct, after all. Now, thanks to Senator Chuck Grassley, a republican from Iowa, he might get his chance to testify against them.
Senator Grassley, who is currently the Senate Judiciary Chairman, sent a letter to the FBI’s current director, Christopher Wray, making a number of demands last week.
He also demanded that they turn over all 302 forms related to the ‘ambush’ interview with Flynn.
A recent house intelligence report pointed out that, according to what is currently known, neither agent Strzok or Pientka believed that the former Army General was lying when they talked with him, and James Comey’s testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee made the same claim.
According to the report from the HIC, the FBI and DOJ relied on an illegal leak of one of Flynn’s phone calls with Kisyak to justify their ongoing counterintelligence operation against the decorated military officer.
Joe DiGenova, a former special investigator, suggested that all this information, as well as Pientka’s testimony, may reveal that he was set up by the former FBI Director, James Comey, and his accomplice, Andrew McCabe.
Flynn lost his job due to claims that he had met with Kisyak and improperly promised to ‘do something’ about Barack Obama’s Russian sanctions.
Many political observers speculated that Obama’s sanctions targeting Russia, like many things the former president did after Hillary Clinton lost the election, were designed to create chaos that the Trump administration would have to deal with when they took control of the government.
What he ACTUALLY did was meet with Kisyak, and ask him to keep the Russian government calm. He met with the Ambassador on December 29, 2016, well after the President trounced Hillary Clinton in the presidential election.
As part of the incoming administration, he had every right to have that conversation. There was nothing illegal about it. There wasn’t anything unethical about it.
The discussion was simply an attempt to defuse a foreign policy time bomb that Obama seemed to hope would blow up in Donald Trump’s face, and that could have had a disastrous outcome for Americans abroad.
The fact that Robert Mueller’s special investigation threatened to indict National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, even though Strzok and Pientka, the two who investigated him, said that they didn’t feel like he was attempting to deceive them, suggests an agenda at play.
It suggests that Mueller, Comey, and Andrew McCabe may have been hoping that they could force the general out, not due to any wrongdoing, but simply due to their desire to see him go.
Pientka’s testimony could very well provide important information about how Flynn went from an ambush interview with two agents who both thought he was being truthful (or, at least not purposefully deceptive) to being threatened with charges by Mueller, eventually copping a ‘plea deal’ out of fear that his son would be charged.