(Correction: our editor wishes to apologize for pulling a "Joe Biden" with Agent BARNETT's name in this piece when it ran originally, adding that 3AM might have been the time for performance-enhancing drugs. Also, Amy Coney Barrett had been in the news all day. We promise never to refer to her as Amy Comey Barrett. Please enjoy the corrected version in its entirety.)

I don’t know if Maria Bartiromo had something in her eye during this weekend's edition of SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES, but it sure looked like a small tear running down her cheek as she reported that, according to her sources, John Durham’s report on the “Trump/Russia” investigation would not be out until after the election.

Durham’s office reportedly had concerns that delivering his conclusions this close to the election would be considered too politicizing, but I strongly disagree. I’m with Sen. Ron Johnson, who appeared on her show later in the hour. We’ve long been saying that it’s the withholding of information until after the election that should be seen as politicizing, not the releasing, as voters deserve all the information they can get before casting their ballots. Sen. Johnson said essentially the same thing on Sunday.

One of Bartiromo’s guests, Sen. Lindsay Graham, did have encouraging news: the Senate Judiciary Committee intends to call William Barnett, the FBI agent who opened the Michael Flynn case –- after being personally selected by Joe Pientka, who supervised “Crossfire Hurricane” –- and learned over time that it was all about “getting Trump.” Sean Davis and Mollie Hemingway have a new report on the interview with Barnett conducted just under two weeks ago by U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen, who was appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr to review the special counsel’s handling of the Michael Flynn case.

One thing that stood out to me in reading this was that Barnett said special counsel agents would actually joke about it being a game of “Collusion ‘CLUE.’” In this game, he said, investigators choose any character, in any location, conducting any activity, and pair this person with another character and interpret it as evidence of collusion. Hilarious.

Barnett is essentially a whistleblower now –- not the kind Democrats like –- and the transcript of his interview with Jensen, or at least the summary, was obtained by Flynn lawyer Sidney Powell and filed with Judge Emmet Sullivan. (If Durham isn’t going to release any report before the election, we’re dependent on this sort of process to get the facts out.)

Barnett said in his interview that there was never any basis for the Trump/Russia “collusion” theory. He told DOJ investigators that “the handling of the probes [Flynn and Paul Manafort] troubled him so much that he threatened to quit working on it in one case, and threatened to go to the Inspector General in another."

In 2016, when Barnett was first assigned to the case, he thought that reading through the evidence would give him a better understanding of why the investigation into Trump’s “collusion” with Russia was launched. But after about six weeks, he still couldn’t figure it out. He characterized their theory as “groping.”

Barnett is the agent who moved to close the Flynn case due to lack of evidence. He’s the one who was told by Peter Strzok that the “7th Floor” wanted to keep it open and that Flynn should be investigated for a Logan Act violation. (Recall that then-Vice President Joe Biden was present at the January 5 Oval Office meeting during which this was discussed and, according to Sally Yates, was the one to bring up the Logan Act.) Barnett was not familiar with the Logan Act –- who was? –- but after researching it, knew that it didn’t apply to Flynn, who was not a private citizen but the incoming national security adviser.

Read the Davis/Hemingway piece for details of how Barnett was cut out of Strzok and Pientka’s “ambush” interview with Flynn. Apparently, Barnett was left out of other meetings as well, as the Flynn probe was directed “from the top down,” meaning all the direction was coming from senior officials. (My speculation is that by then, they would've liked to have him off the case but were worried about what he might say publicly.)

By February, 2017, Barnett had had his fill and asked to be removed from the case. In his interview, he said that the Flynn investigation “was problematic and could result in an IG investigation.” (He didn’t need a crystal ball for that one!)

Ironically, it was the supervision by top officials that had made him think it must be legal, as uncomfortable as it made him. Barnett added that one analyst who was “very skeptical of the Flynn collusion investigation” ---name not provided, but it wasn’t Barnett --- was indeed removed from the Flynn investigation. (Surely Jensen has interviewed that person.)

When the Flynn investigation was made part of Robert Mueller’s special counsel probe in May, 2017, Barnett told team member Jeannie Rhee that there was “no evidence of a crime” committed by Flynn. She dismissed his concerns. He said he didn’t want to be involved in the special counsel, but Peter Strzok urged him to move over there. Davis and Hemingway report that Barnett “decided to work at the special counsel office in the hope his perspective would keep them from ‘group think.’”

Once Barnett was working with the special counsel, he could see the “group think” in action --- what he characterized as “GET TRUMP.” The investigation was run in the opposite way of how an FBI investigation would be. He said, “There was always someone at SCO (special counsel’s office) who claimed to have a lead on information that would prove the collusion, only to have the information be a dead end.” It happened over and over.

Incidentally, Barnett never wiped his phone, though he testified that other members of the special counsel would joke about wiping theirs.

The notes from Barnett’s interview ended with this: “Barnett believed the prosecution of Flynn by SCO was used as a means to “get TRUMP.”

It seems there might be much more behind Durham’s delay than we even imagined. RedState.com has some interesting observations on that.

This report came in after Maria Bartiromo’s show, and I hope she’s had a chance to read it. This writer doesn’t think that Jensen and Barr were prepared for what has been revealed by Barnett about the political calculations involved in the Russia Hoax investigation. There is speculation that Barr is extremely upset that Mueller, now aging and perhaps fading a bit mentally, was being used as cover by Andrew Weissmann and others to overstep wildly in their desire to “get Trump.”

Something had to trigger Barr’s decision to have Barnett interviewed by Jensen. It’s possible that this has to do with Judge Emmet Sullivan’s (mis)handling of the Michael Flynn case, as it shows the case to be even more obviously politically motivated than we knew. The message to Sullivan: “Sure, you idiot, go ahead and keep this case open. The longer you keep it open, the more we’ll reveal.”

And apparently there is more. What we’ve seen has to do with “Crossfire Razor,” the investigation into Flynn. The rest is known only to investigators. It seems that the information that Jensen got from Agent Barnett may indeed be a game-changer. Even so, it’s wrong to keep it under wraps, for whatever reason, until after the election. Two words: interim report.

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

Comments 1-25 of 100

  • Victoria Blake

    10/12/2020 11:58 AM

    Mike. It's Oct 12 but this was the only way I saw to contact you. Sorry but I'm very concerned about an email I received from Patriot Pulse this morning. It's about a Soros approved and paid for takeover of the USA before the election. I want to send it to you. I know you can check this out to see if it's real.

  • M.P.Carroll

    10/01/2020 02:30 PM

    As a long time POTUS Trump supporter, I must give a "tip of the hat" to Biden's debate preparation. His handlers were able to use a 9th grade debate ploy to swerve POTUS off his game -- that is: just find a raw nerve "button" and keep pushing it. Once you do that, your opponent addresses you and not the subject point.
    My recommendation for the second debate is for POTUS to have a defined and specific list by category of his accomplishments to date and how he will continue on those positive paths throughout his second term. POTUS should look directly at the camera -- IGNORE BIDEN -- Biden is irrelevant to POTUS delivering his important message to the American people.

  • Brenda Fitzpatrick

    09/29/2020 04:39 PM

    Thank you for your coverage of the important events. You provide one of my most trusted sources of information. Keep up the good work.

  • Patricia Varhol

    09/29/2020 12:52 PM

    I just read someone else’s comment where he says your article says, Bartlett, Barnett and Barrett. Which is it? That’s very disappointing. Need a proofreader!

  • Patricia Varhol

    09/29/2020 12:45 PM

    It makes me very angry that Durham is waiting until after the Election to give his report. Haven’t we waited long enough? Hasn’t our President’s hands been tied up long enough? Almost 4 years of time and money consuming foolish attacks on our duly elected President and Durham’s letting them get away with more?!! Makes one wonder whose side he is on. If we can get another Supreme Court Justice before the election, surely he can release his report. Or will his report be meaningless if, God forbid, President Trump isn’t re-elected? I’m tired of being treated like a lesser citizen of this great country. God bless America, please!

  • Connie Kehoe-Purcell

    09/29/2020 11:22 AM

    I'm in total agreement with Sen. Ron Johnson. This has "drug" on far too long. We the people deserve to know the truth no matter when it comes out. Pres. Trump needs to know that we know and are with him, no matter what. Let's get the truth told - it will set us ALL free!

  • chloe erkenbrecher

    09/29/2020 10:03 AM

    I think it's pretty obvious that nothing is ever going to come of this. People worldwide hate their politicians, and this is a good example of why. It is so frustrating to know that laws are being broken but nobody wants to rock the political boat. A 'pox on both their houses.'

  • David Leineweber

    09/29/2020 09:08 AM

    I totally agree that Durham findings need to be released upon discovery. Holding back is Political Biased that Americans do not want.
    Please get this information released

  • Dorothy Gilder

    09/29/2020 07:52 AM

    Am I hearing things ? I just heard a Biden ad this morning (on Fox) where he said "I am going to work just as hard for those THAT VOTED FOR ME as I am those that didn't"

  • Todd leitte

    09/29/2020 05:30 AM

    All this waiting makes a person feel like justice will never prevail. Is the F.B.I. any better today than it was during the obama years? Does the DOJ really even care? With the recent events unfolding about Omar and voter fraud does anyone other than maybe you and I care? All this is really frustrating! I am losing faith in the so called Good guys. God bless you and yours sincerely Todd R. Leitte

  • michel wechsler

    09/29/2020 05:18 AM

    BEFORE TONIGHT'S. DEBATE, HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE: Just days ago, One America News broadcast it's report of an African country of 45 million people having a ridiculously low number of covid-19 mortalities, like ONE PER MILLION! They use the antimalarial Hydroxychloroquine, the one that got endorsed by Trump. It got banned, but Trump got blamed for all the senseless deaths that resulted. Vindicate Trump, as he had it right. I believe that Ohio and Minnesota, have reversed their bans on this life saving cure! See if you can squeeze this trinket of a fact into tonight's. DEBATE! Good Luck & God's Speed................I have more to offer, Mike, just call me. 561 302-9595

  • Bruce Deming

    09/29/2020 01:44 AM

    Barrett? Bartlett? Barnett? I haven't seen this many different spellings of one name in the same article since I dug the Kavalac, Kevelac, Kavalec document that Wray classified on 4/25/2019. Bongino has 4 different spellings of Kavalock in his blogs. I'm thinking that James 8 Corney pioneered a new way of receiving documents at the FBI, we already know Corney did it in the archives.

  • Derold L Davis

    09/29/2020 01:35 AM

    I am NOT surprised at all with delaying the Durham report until after the election. Very apparent to me that this was just another SWAMP attempt to fool Conservative voters into believing that Barr, Dunham, Wray and the rest of them were DIFFERENT and HONEST and TRUSTWORTHY. Everyone with a FUNCTIONING BRAIN Knows that after President Pelosi is sworn in, all such investigations are DEAD. That was the PLAN ALL ALONG. STUPID ME FOR THINKING THAT BARR WAS DIFFERENT THAN ALL THE OTHER SWAMP ANIMALS AND THAT DUNHAM WAS GOING TO FINALLY BRING JUSTICE TO OVER 4 YEARS OF OUTRIGHT TREASON. Well, I for one am done believing anything that comes out of the mouths of anyone (Democrat or Republican, all one and the same corrupt LIARS) that promises that they are different and that all will be OK with them in charge, BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Charles Hunt

    09/29/2020 12:22 AM

    I am confused. Three similar surnames (Barrett, Barnett, and Bartlett) appear in this story. It is unclear whether there are three individuals being referenced or this is incredibly sloppy editing. So not up to your usual standards.

  • Donald Davidson

    09/28/2020 09:53 PM

    The Durham Report will be a travesty just like the Mueller report. Nothing will come of it. These people are all in bed together. They are incestuous and will do nothing to disrupt their power grip on the internal workings of government.

  • Martha Schafer

    09/28/2020 09:41 PM

    Barnett? Barrett? Bartlett? What is the agent's name ? Proofread?

  • Dianne Padgett

    09/28/2020 09:34 PM

    Are there really three (3) different people being quoted?
    Barnett, Barrett, Bartlett?
    Isn't the source actually FBI Special Agent William Barnett?

  • Carol Konits

    09/28/2020 08:59 PM

    Maria is a great person. I noticed that she started the program with a dewy face. She Quickly assumed her serious work face and continued the program. Fabulous style. And you, Mike, are so perceptive and caring. Thank you for your thoughtful and positive messages that lifts up everyone.

  • Dow Hurst

    09/28/2020 08:12 PM

    I don't believe any information from the Durham investigation should be delayed until after the election, unless required to protect the investigation itself from being compromised. Doesn't that make sense? We want maximum effect on the perpetrators don't we? I don't think any American paying attention to all the corruption being revealed/hinted at through the emails and texts that have come out is interested in having to vote without knowing as much as possible about what went on throughout this sordid scandal/coup attempt.

  • Linda Williams

    09/28/2020 08:01 PM

    Does anyone proof read?!?! You have Barnett - Barrett - and Bartlett! Seriously? As far as Durham goes - it PISSES ME OFF BIG TIME. NONE of these people are going to pay for their deeds except for a few (VERY few) low levels like Clinestine

  • Edward F Gehringer

    09/28/2020 07:44 PM

    You referred to Amy Barrett's church as "People of Praise." But People of Praise is a charismatic community, not a church. Typically, community members in the charismatic revival belong to other churches. Sometimes, as in the Word of God (Ann Arbor), Catholics and non-Catholics were (are?) in the same community. They attend churches in their own denomination.

    -Ed

  • Joyce Barone

    09/28/2020 07:26 PM

    The article was very confusing. The names Barnett, Barrett, and Bartlett seem to all be the same person. Is it? Very confusing! It’s the first time I have seen this happen.

  • Hazel M Siebrecht

    09/28/2020 07:06 PM

    There is much confusion in the spelling of names in this article!
    Barrett
    Barnett
    Bartlett

    I could add:
    Barr
    Bartiroma

    Is it me?

  • Deborah Lemons

    09/28/2020 06:52 PM

    I'm confused here. Is the guy's name Barnett, Barrett or Bartlett. In this article it seems to continually change, or you are covering different people with out diffentiation.

  • Kathy Moore

    09/28/2020 06:45 PM

    Dear Governor Huckabee,

    The very interesting "Colusion 'CLUE'" article left me somewhat confused. In paragraph three, the source is identified as William Barnett. Paragraph four refers to "Barrett." Five, we're back to "Barnett" but six and seven reference "Barrett" again.

    Paragraphs eight-eleven has "Bartlett" as the source, while twelve cites both "Barrett" and "Bartlett." 13, 14, 15, 17 all use the name "Bartlett," but paragraphs 18 and 19 refer to "Barrett" once again.

    Somewhat confusing, but maybe you're playing your own version of "CLUE?"

    ?? Respectfully,
    Kathy Moore