![\"\"](\"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Comey-Senate-Intelligence-Committee-hearing-June-8-2017-getty-640x480-1.jpg\")
Chip Somodevilla\/Getty Images<\/p><\/div><\/p>\n
by KRISTINA WONG
\nBreitbart.com<\/p>\n
The Justice Department on Thursday released a summary of its interview of a former FBI special agent who revealed damaging information on the initial FBI counterintelligence and Special Counsel Robert Mueller\u2019s investigations into Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Michael Flynn.<\/h3>\n
The summary, known as a \u201c302,\u201d reveals that the special agent, William Barnett, listed a number of disturbing things that he found while working on both investigations. Here are the top 10:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Barnett believed the predication for the overarching Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign and the Crossfire Razor investigation into Flynn were both unclear and unconvincing.<\/strong>\n
- \n
- Barnett said after he was brought on to Crossfire Razor, he was briefed on the overarching investigation, Crossfire Hurricane. According to the 302, Barnett thought the investigation was \u201c\u2018opaque\u2019 with very little detail concerning specific evidence of criminal events.\u201d He thought the case theory was \u201csupposition on supposition.\u201d<\/li>\n
- Additionally, Barnett thought the predication for Crossfire Razor was \u201cnot great.\u201d He said one fact used for predication was a speech Flynn gave in Russia several years prior, and that he believed the speech may have been ill-advised but not illegal. He said it was not clear what the persons opening the case wanted to \u201clook for\u00a0or\u00a0at.\u201d<\/li>\n
- Even after six weeks of being involved in the Crossfire Razor investigation, he was still unsure of the basis of the investigation concerning Russia and the Trump campaign working together, without a specific criminal allegation. He called at least one theory \u201cgroping.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- Barnett was in the process of closing the Flynn investigation on January 4, 2017, when Peter Strzok intervened on or around the date of an Oval Office meeting where the Flynn investigation was discussed.<\/strong>\n
- \n
- On election day, November 8, 2016, Barnett said he and another analyst had a \u201cvery frank discussion\u201d on closing the Flynn investigation. The analyst believed it was an \u201cexercise in futility.\u201d Barnett said he did not understand the point of the investigation. However, only Strzok was in position to close it.<\/li>\n
- Between Christmas and New Year\u2019s Eve in 2016, a supervisory special agent called Barnett and said Strzok told them to close the Flynn investigation. Barnett then started working on a document to close it on January 3 and 4, 2017. However, on January 4, 2017, he then got a message from a special agent telling them that he not close the investigation, as Strzok had information to add.\n
- \n
- January 4, 2017, was the same date of Strzok\u2019s notes from a White House Oval Office meeting with President Barack Obama, where Vice President Joe Biden suggested that Flynn might have violated the obscure Logan Act by speaking with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- Barnett said after reading the new information \u2014 possibly a transcript of Flynn\u2019s call with Kislyak \u2014 a couple of times, he did not see what the significant issue or \u201crub\u201d was and that it did not change his view that Flynn was not compromised by the Russians. Barnett also said he did not see a potential Logan Act violation as a \u201cmajor issue\u201d concerning the Flynn investigation or a \u201cserious stand-alone charge.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- Barnett believed he was \u201ccut out\u201d of an FBI interview with Flynn on January 24, 2017.<\/strong>\n
- \n
- Barnett said he was not part of any further discussions on the Flynn investigation until January 25, 2017 \u2014 the day after FBI agents Strzok and Pientka interviewed Flynn at the White House. Barnett was not consulted or asked to participate. He was told it was a \u201clast minute\u201d decision. The 302 said: \u201cIn hindsight, BARNETT believed he was was \u2018cut out\u2019 of the interview.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- Barnett says after the Flynn interview, the investigation became \u201ctop down,\u201d directed by Andrew McCabe.<\/strong>\n
- \n
- After Flynn\u2019s interview, there was a \u201creorganization\u201d of the investigation, with Strzok supervising it, along with someone else from the FBI headquarters. Barnett said that the Justice Department and the FBI HQs were having meetings on the investigation that he was not invited to attend. He said the investigation was \u201ctop down\u201d \u2014 meaning direction on the investigation was coming from senior officials.<\/li>\n
- He said that the FBI was reacting to news articles, most notably one that featured a leak that Flynn had talked to Kislyak, and that after that article, the \u201cinvestigative tempo increased\u201d as well as the issuance of national security letters, which are similar to subpoenas. Barnett said he believed that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was directing the investigation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- Barnett said he requested to be removed from the Flynn investigation because he believed it was problematic.<\/strong>\n
- \n
- Barnett had requested to be removed from the Flynn investigation in or about early February 2017, citing the DOJ Inspector General looking at the FBI\u2019s handling of the investigation into the Hillary Clinton email server case and believing that the Flynn investigation could also result in an IG investigation.\n
- \n
- By then, he still did not see any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, or that the Flynn investigation was leading or headed toward prosecution.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- The same FBI lawyer who falsified evidence on a surveillance warrant application on Carter Page also signed off on predication for national security letters on the Flynn investigation.<\/strong>\n
- \n
- Barnett said he sent his national security letters for the Flynn investigation for FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith to review and approve.\u00a0Clinesmith is the same lawyer<\/a>\u00a0who doctored an email to say that former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was \u201cnot\u201d a source for the CIA, when the original email said that Page in fact had been a source. (The information could have made it more difficult for the FBI to obtain another surveillance warrant on Page). Clinesmith recently plead guilty to one count of making a false statement.<\/li>\n
- When Barnett was asked specific questions concerning the predication for investigation information provided in the request for a national security letter, Barnett said he sent an email to Clinesmith asking whether the predication was acceptable. Clinesmith said that it was and could be used for additional national security letters.<\/li>\n
- Barnett said that the information received through the national security letters did not change his mind that Flynn was not working with the Russian government.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- Barnett thought Clinton campaign-donor and Special Counsel Office (SCO) attorney Jeannie Rhee was \u201cobsessed\u201d with Flynn and Russia, and that she had an \u201cagenda.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>\n
- \n
- Barnett was told to brief on the Flynn investigation to a group including Rhee. He said he went over the investigation, including the assessment that there was no evidence of a crime. Barnett said when he tried to move on to what he thought was a more significant investigation, Rhee stopped him and asked more questions about Flynn. Barnett said he thought she was \u201cobsessed with\u201d Flynn and Russia and she had an agenda.<\/li>\n
- Barnett talked about Rhee to an SCO attorney and said he wanted nothing to do with the Flynn investigation. Strzok then contacted him and said he really wanted Barnett to work with the SCO. Barnett said he told Strzook that he \u201cdid not wish to pursue the collusion investigation, as it was \u2018not there.’\u201d After getting assurances that he would not work with Rhee, Barnett agreed to work at the SCO, hoping his perspective would keep them from \u201cgroup think.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- The appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller \u201cchanged everything.\u201d<\/strong>\n
- \n
- Barnett said Crossfire Hurricane seemed to be winding down, but President Trump firing Comey and the appointment of Mueller \u201ctriggered a significant amount of activity\u201d and \u201cchanged everything.\u201d He said \u201csearch warrants were being drafted and executed on a regular basis\u201d and SCO attorneys \u201cwere very aggressive and were directing things.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- Barnett thought there was a \u201cget TRUMP\u201d attitude by some at the Special Counsel Office.
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n- \n
- Barnett said incidents involving Trump were interpreted in the most negative manner or in some cases \u2014 misinterpreted, and some statements were discounted because they did not already fit the opinions of some at the SCO.\n
- \n
- One example was Trump said that investigators needed to \u201cget to the bottom\u201d of a matter, and one SCO attorney said Trump wanted to \u201ccover it up.\u201d<\/li>\n
- Another example was Trump firing Comey being interpreted as obstruction, when it could have been interpreted as Trump not liking Comey and wanting him replaced.<\/li>\n
- Barnett said some individuals in the SCO \u201cassumed\u201d Flynn was lying to cover up collusion between Trump and Russia, when Barnett said he believed Flynn lied in an interview to save his job.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- Barnett also said Mueller\u2019s \u201call stars\u201d had a conviction that there was \u201csomething criminal there\u201d and there was a competition as to which attorney was going to find it.<\/li>\n
- He said there was a lack of letting the evidence lead the investigation and more of an attitude of \u201cthe evidence is there we just have to find it.\u201d<\/li>\n
- Barnett said SCO attorneys asked witnesses generic questions and did not seem interested in following up to clarify, and when he did so, he was scolded by another attorney for wasting time.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- SCO agents joked about wiping their cell phones \u2014 which actually happened to at least several dozen phones, purportedly by accident.\u00a0<\/b>\n
- \n
- Barnett said he was issued a cell phone by the SCO which he did not \u201cwipe\u201d like some of his colleagues. He said he heard other agents \u201ccomically\u201d talk about wiping their phones, but was not aware of anyone doing it.<\/li>\n
- As revealed last month by Judicial Watch,\u00a0senior members of SCO repeatedly and \u201caccidentally\u201d wiped<\/a>\u00a0data off at least 27 phones assigned to them.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Barnett said he and others on the SCO would actually mock the investigation into collusion, calling it \u201cCollusion Clue.\u201d<\/p>\n
They joked about how the investigation into collusion could be made into a game where investigators are able to choose any character conducting any activity, in any location, and pair that individual with another character and interpret it as evidence of collusion.<\/p>\n
In summary, Barnett believed the prosecution into Flynn by the SCO was used as a means to \u201cget Trump.\u201d<\/p>\n
- Barnett said incidents involving Trump were interpreted in the most negative manner or in some cases \u2014 misinterpreted, and some statements were discounted because they did not already fit the opinions of some at the SCO.\n
- Barnett said he sent his national security letters for the Flynn investigation for FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith to review and approve.\u00a0Clinesmith is the same lawyer<\/a>\u00a0who doctored an email to say that former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was \u201cnot\u201d a source for the CIA, when the original email said that Page in fact had been a source. (The information could have made it more difficult for the FBI to obtain another surveillance warrant on Page). Clinesmith recently plead guilty to one count of making a false statement.<\/li>\n
- Barnett had requested to be removed from the Flynn investigation in or about early February 2017, citing the DOJ Inspector General looking at the FBI\u2019s handling of the investigation into the Hillary Clinton email server case and believing that the Flynn investigation could also result in an IG investigation.\n