General Mike Flynn, Rudolph Contreras and The Increasingly Sketchy FISA Application…

For those following the increasingly curious case against General Mike Flynn, events took another unusual turn yesterday as Special Counsel Robert Mueller -with agreement from all parties- filed a motion for a protective order to seal documents. These are documents compelled on behalf of the defense, by Judge Emmet Sullivan, prior to sentencing.

On November 30th, 2017, Mike Flynn signed a guilty plea; ostensibly admitting lying to investigators.  The plea was accepted by Judge Rudolph Contreras; who is also a FISA court judge.  Six days later, December 7th, 2017, Judge Contreras “was recused” from the case without explanation.  The case was reassigned to DC District Judge Emmet Sullivan.

The Contreras recusal always seemed sketchy. If the conflict existed on December 7th, wouldn’t that same conflict have existed on November 30th, 2017?

On December 12th, 2017, Judge Sullivan gave out a rather unusual set of instructions to Robert Mueller.  The instructions included Sullivan telling Mueller to turn over to the Flynn defense anything that could be considered exculpatory:

[…]  if the government has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes is not material, the government shall submit the material to the Court for in camera review. (link)

On January 31st, 2018, Robert Mueller requested a delay of sentencing pushing the sentencing phase into May of this year.  And then yesterday, February 14th, 2018, Mueller asks for the information he is turning over to be sealed.

As Nick Falco points out on Twitter: “We haven’t seen text messages between Strzok-Page mentioning Flynn or around the time of Strzok-Flynn Interview on January 24, 2017. I’m sure Horowitz has the texts & has given them to the Mueller team. Starting today, Flynn will have access to this evidence for his defense.” …  “Today’s Stipulated Motion gives the Flynn team access to ALL evidence, including the FD-302’s, as long as the evidence is kept secret.”

♦Going back to the 30,000 foot overview, the substance behind the application for the FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant is the eventual basis for the FBI’s surveillance of Mike Flynn.

That FISA application is now evidenced to have relied heavily upon the ‘Clinton-Steele Dossier‘; and with discoveries from the Devin Nunes memo, and Chuck Grassley memo, there is strong evidence of gross and intentional misrepresentation within the application.

That puts the spotlight back upon the FISA judge who approved the application despite the transparent flaws, political omissions and factual weaknesses.  If Rudolph Contreras signed off on the Title-1 surveillance warrant, Judge Contreras is now in question.

(L-R) Bob Goodlatte – Chuck Grassley – Devin Nunes

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has requested the FISA Application to be declassified by the DOJ.  House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes has requested transcripts from the application hearing.  House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte -holding statutory oversight over the FISA court- has requested the actual FISA warrant and application (all documents).

Nunes and Goodlatte’s requests were made to presiding FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer.

Judge Collyer was the FISA judge who wrote the eye-opening 99-page opinion of the FISA abuses reported by NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers, DOJ National Security Division head John P Carlin, and FBI Director James Comey.

Coincidentally (or not) Judge Rosemary Collyer might have been the Presiding FISA Judge who -holding concerns over ongoing FISC revelations in late 2017- recused Rudolph Contreras from further contact with the Flynn case. The other option for a forced recusal would the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts.

As Clarice Feldman writes at American Thinker: “As the evidence mounts that the warrant was improperly granted, someone – perhaps the chief judge of the district – removed him from further participation in the case, likely because Contreras approved the warrant and its extension.  If the warrant was improperly issued, all the evidence it garnered is tainted.”

This brightens the spotlight upon Judge Contreras and his involvement in the FISA Title-1 surveillance authority.

Additionally, if you think about when everything began to break out from the headlines it would be intellectually dishonest not to note all of the FBI conspiracy revelations happened immediately after Mike Flynn signed the guilty plea.  The timing appears to show White Hats within the intelligence apparatus hitting back against the DOJ and FBI for perceived injustice against Flynn.

Regardless of how you view events there’s something about the use of the Clinton-Steele Dossier within the FISA application, and the subsequent approval therein, that doesn’t pass the proverbial sniff test.  If Contreras was the authorizing judge; and it seems increasingly likely he was; this puts the judge in the center of the scandal.

What looks even worse for Contreras, amid the backdrop of a conspiracy of intent, is his direct relationship to former Attorney General Eric Holder, President Obama’s wingman:

2012 […] From 2006 until his appointment, Contreras was chief of the civil division in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington. He’s the third person to hold that job before being appointed to the D.C. court, joining Chief Judge Royce Lamberth and Judge John Bates.

Contreras began his career at Jones Day law firm after earning his J.D. in 1991. Gregory Shumaker, partner-in-charge of Jones Day’s Washington office, spoke yesterday about first meeting Contreras when Shumaker was running the firm’s summer associate program. He said Contreras had a gift for connecting with people, a skill that would serve him well on the bench.

In 1994, Contreras was hired by Eric Holder Jr., then the U.S. attorney for D.C., to join that office. Mark Nagle, vice president and general counsel for Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corp. and Contreras’ predecessor as civil division chief, spoke about Contreras’ many victories, including his time leading the city’s Medicaid fraud unit.  (read more)

In essence there’s a possibility Judge Contreras might have granted a little more leeway for the ideological endeavors of the DOJ given his prior personal and professional relationships.  Was he willfully blind to the weakness and politics within the FISA application?

All of this is likely to come out as the outcry to release the FISA warrant gets stronger.  Chairman Devin Nunes and Chairman Bob Goodlatte are directly asking the FISA court for information.

The Department of Justice will likely agree to more releases of investigative documents as IG Horowitz finishes his 14-month-long OIG investigation into the entire enterprise. The inspector general has been looking at the politicization, and subsequent weaponization, of the DOJ and FBI and his report will come out well in advance of the Flynn sentencing.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in AG Jeff Sessions, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Desperately Seeking Hillary, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, Election 2016, Election 2018, FBI, media bias, Notorious Liars, NSA, President Trump, Russia, Spying, Supreme Court, Susan Rice, THE BIG UGLY, Uncategorized, Valerie Jarrett, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

723 Responses to General Mike Flynn, Rudolph Contreras and The Increasingly Sketchy FISA Application…

  1. All Hype says:

    My gut tells me that Judge Contreras is dirty and corrupt as hell. It is no coincidence that he is a Holder crony, gets put on the bench by Obama, finds himself on the FISA court and then approves the bogus dossier. No how, no way this is all by accident.

    An innocent or unsuspecting judge would have called those FBI/DOJ cretins back in to court and stomped the crap out of them.

    Liked by 18 people

  2. fanbeav says:

    New is out that the FBI was warned about the Florida shooter 5 months ago! Maybe our FBI should be using the FISA courts to spy on these type of people instead of politicians?

    Liked by 24 people

  3. prescient11 says:

    Also, just an fyi to Sundance and all here, Jim Comey’s brother works at Jones Day in their real estate department. Small world indeed!! Although that connection is so long ago it probably doesn’t have much relevance, just another tidbit of info.

    Liked by 4 people

    • dagnyshrug says:

      They’re an incestuous bunch where it counts. Remember, Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ brother, Steven Wasserman, is an Assistant US Attorney in DC. I believe he was ‘randomly assigned’ both the Seth Rich murder and Awan brother’s case that have, mysteriously, gone nowhere so far.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Mark McQueen says:

    Looks to me like Mueller’s rush to prosecute “somebody. anybody” for “something, anything” is about to blow up in his face. He’s found himself in a Court of Law in a Criminal proceeding and the “Judge in his pocket” got recused. Oooops!

    Liked by 7 people

    • Mark McQueen says:

      If Contreras was “straight” and he was involved in any way with proceedings surround this entire matter he would have declined to take the Flynn case. Somebody recused him so he obviously isn’t “straight”.

      Liked by 7 people

    • yy4u says:

      The Comey-Mueller tag team has served the Deep State well. They tied up the Bush II admin with the Plame Game, “got” Scooter Libby. I’m sure they thought with eight years of culling out any white hat whistleblowers getting Trump would be a piece of cake. They figured Hillary would win and disappear the spying on Trump. But if she didn’t than any whiff of scandal would send the spineless Republicans into a defensive crouch and they’d give up Trump the way they gave up Goldwater, Nixon Moore and any other “outsider”. SURPRISE

      Liked by 6 people

  5. ForGodandCountry says:

    Didn’t see this posted…

    Liked by 2 people

    • ForGodandCountry says:

      In response to….

      Liked by 4 people

    • PS says:

      Gotta love these non-legislative “choices”. Just as regulations can be created with the Pen (and Phone), they can be undone by the Pen. FISA court can rule that the document must be kept secret? Then the FISA court (or the non-recused judge) can rule that it can become released.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Alligator Gar says:

      Sincere question here. I do not do a lot of federal law and am not a FISC follower (until this fiasco). How does the judge in this case derive constitutional authority for an unconstitutional court?

      Liked by 2 people

      • Armadillo Eggs says:

        It is only a nominally unconstitutional court. I mean, after all, if a secret judge, in a secret hearing, in a secret court, secretly issues a secret warrant, that obviously fulfills the silly requirements of the 4th Amendment. But seriously, the constitutional authority comes the same way the federal agencies get theirs… congress says so… because that’s one of their delegated powers, to defy the constitution.

        Like

  6. PS says:

    Hmmm. I should complain about the amount of bureaucracy in not having a form filled out, but they took Capone down for taxes, not murder.

    EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Official Bruce Ohr Hid Wife’s Fusion GPS Payments From Ethics Officials

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/14/exclusive-doj-official-bruce-ohr-hid-wifes-fusion-gps-payments-from-ethics-officials/

    Liked by 3 people

  7. WSB says:

    Sarah Carter gives background on Weissman and how IG Horowitz met in …2015…about how Weissman skated off old allegations.

    “Mueller’s ‘Pit Bull’ Andrew Weissmann Busted for Withholding Evidence in Previous Case
    “Reprehensible and subject, perhaps, to appropriate disciplinary measures”

    “Civil rights and criminal defense attorney David Schoen, was the lawyer who reported Weissmann. Schoen met with Inspector General Michael Horowitz and several FBI officials to discuss Weismann in 2015. Schoen, who says he has never been a member of a political party, told this reporter his concerns about Weissmann do not stem from politics but from Weissmann’s ‘egregious’ actions in previous cases. He became involved in Colombo crime cases more than 20 years ago after evidence revealed that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence in the case.”

    [SNIP]

    “This new information on Weissmann’s alleged past conduct may shed light on National Review author and attorney Andrew McCarthy’s recent article revealing why the new judge in Michael T. Flynn’s case Judge Emmet G. Sullivan filed “an order directing Mueller to provide Flynn with any evidence in the special counsel’s possession that is favorable to Flynn, whether on the issue of guilt or sentencing.”

    https://saraacarter.com/muellers-pit-bull-andrew-weissmann-busted-withholding-evidence-previous-case/

    Liked by 9 people

    • inquisitorLost says:

      Judge Emmet G. Sullivan filed “an order directing Mueller to provide Flynn with any evidence in the special counsel’s possession that is favorable to Flynn, whether on the issue of guilt or sentencing because – that particular filing is standard practice for this judge.

      ” Finally, I now issue a standing Brady Order in each criminal case on my docket, which I update as the law in the area progresses. I discuss each of these efforts below.”
      (page 4 of PDF)
      http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/denovo/Sullivan.37.symposium.pdf

      Liked by 5 people

      • zimbalistjunior says:

        every strzok-page test has to be revealed to Flynn attorneys. Every FISA application, every 302. For Gods sake, every piece of evidence relating to HRC email investigation has to be revealed— The email investigation is all part of a continuum leading to the current Mueller probe—all connected with the 2016 election. Everything is relevant.

        Basically, every piece of evidence relating to the last 3 years of this idiocy must be revealed to Flynn team. I assume Mueller will not agree. Flynn should make motion to see everything. Fight it to the Supreme Court.

        Of course, if/when IG report comes out, this shall all become moot. This is just a delaying tactic, face-saving measure, probably bruited by Mueller to judge in an off the record way, once the judge hinted at which way he’s leaning. (yes, i’m just theorizing)

        Liked by 1 person

        • PS says:

          It’s almost enough to make you believe that Flynn *wanted* to get caught, so they could legally have access to all this inside information on the previous administration . . . .

          Liked by 2 people

        • dagnyshrug says:

          One of the stated reasons for Flynn’s plea is that he is broke and can’t afford more legal fees. I’m not sure he can afford to fight this very far, something Mueller probably counted on. If it’s true that he is broke, no way this goes to the S.C. Only Leftists get high powered law teams willing to work pro-bono. Even then, someone is probably paying them under the table.

          Like

        • Judge Sullivan, about whom we are now speaking, has distinguished himself many times by insisting on transparency and fairness in the cases he is hearing. Surprising, I know, but there you have it. He is one of my heroes.

          Like

    • Tonawanda says:

      Any prosecutor who withholds Brady evidence or who lies ought to be fired immediately.

      But that rarely happens, and so what message is conveyed?

      Liked by 6 people

      • kroesus says:

        I have advocated that prosecutors and DAs who hide or modify exculpatory evidence SHOULD be sentenced to what time they tried to inflict upon their victim

        Liked by 5 people

        • Tonawanda says:

          It is a big problem, made especially difficult because the appellate courts so rarely make prosecutors pay a price for misconduct.

          If the courts took a year of cracking down it would disappear completely.

          But the courts for years have given prosecutors the message: this is what you can get away with.

          Liked by 4 people

          • Alligator Gar says:

            Look at how many appellate-level judges WERE prosecutors. The problem is that they permeate law enforcement attorneys, the legislature, and the judiciary. In my state, they are only required to sign on for two years at a time, so it’s two and you are able to move right up. I know and ex-prosecutor who is 30 and is already on the bench.

            Liked by 1 person

      • WSB says:

        Lawlessness. You’re right. Has to stop!

        Liked by 2 people

    • Read Licensed to Lie by Sidney Powell – Weissman has his license

      Liked by 3 people

    • rlc970582410 says:

      thanks…wonder if Weissman is on this part of Muellers investigation, and if that’s why some of the release of information must be protected- as if they should have turned something over to Flynn’s defense team earlier, and are now embarrassed the public will find out Weismann pulled another dirty trick…

      Liked by 1 person

      • WSB says:

        How many pieces of evidence have been denied his victims? The man should be behind bars.

        I just got this fascinating vision in my mind…16 Little Indians…

        Maybe this really IS the sting of all time. LOL!

        Like

  8. Oldskool says:

    I’m not a lawyer and don’t understand all the drama around Flynn’s status. He plead guilty, but he can rescind that as nothing changes about his legal status until sentencing as he is still labeled as a defendant until such time. My experience had been the judge starts out the sentencing hearing by asking the defendant if he stands by his plea of guilty before all that ensues. Given he was obviously framed, don’t see why there is any question about whether he should withdraw his plea or not at this time.

    Like

    • Maquis says:

      If he does, the timing will be quite strategic, Trumpian, even.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Love22 says:

      The plea agreement says (I paraphrase) that Flynn must cooperate fully but is still subject to further prosecution (Ha persecution) as conditions demand. Cooperation part of the agreement has 8 sub-sections, I suggest you read it to get an idea of what his constraints are.

      Like

    • mike says:

      Resource limitations in a sea of attacks with fabrications fueled by the planet’s most massive spy apparatus. No practical way to defend yourself or your family.

      Liked by 2 people

      • ladypenquin says:

        Though it would be a great dramatic Perry Mason moment if General Flynn could stand up before Judge Sullivan and say, “Your honor, I withdraw my guilty plea on the grounds that I’ve been framed and the guy who framed me in this court right now. I am also prepared to present proof of this, right now, here in court, Your Honor.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • MattG says:

        Could Flynn countersue under violation of his 4th amendment rights and recoup legal fees?

        Like

    • ladypenquin says:

      If he withdraws his plea, Mueller can go ahead with prosecution. Not sure how much Mueller is trying to drag in Flynn’s son, and also the financial costs – though I think Flynn would have friends willing to help.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Brant says:

    Question regarding Susan Rice’s email to herself. I think several places she notes, by the book. I think one she has the “air fingers quote”, “by the book”. Is that her air fingers quotes or Obamas? Of course can’t tell what was on his mind as he did the air fingers, but “air fingers quote” always means something other than what is said……..

    Liked by 2 people

    • scott467 says:

      And she never identifies what ‘book’ she’s referring to.

      Book of the Dead (The Necronomicon)?

      Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals?

      Elizabeth Warren’s plagiarized contribution to “Pow Wow Chow”?

      We can be sure it was not a reference to any kind of ‘book’ having to do with American Law.

      Liked by 6 people

    • scott467 says:

      I found the text of the Susan Rice email, and I have highlighted the ‘by the book’ references in boldface:

      ………………………………….
      Sen. Grassley: In this email to yourself, you purport to document a meeting that had taken place more than two weeks before, on January 5, 2017. You wrote:

      On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Corney and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also present.

      President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book”. The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.

      From a national security perspective, however, 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.

      Sen. Grassley: The next part of your email remains classified. After that, you wrote:

      The President asked Corney to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Corney said he would.

      https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/12/senator-chuck-grassley-questions-susan-rice-about-unusual-documentary-letter-to-herself/
      ………………………………….

      .

      So in the parts of the email we have access to, it appears that ‘by the book’ was used twice — once in quotes and once without quotes.

      Since it is a written communication, and Rice is recalling words spoken at the meeting, I would interpret the usage of quotes around ‘by the book’ to mean that was a direct quote of the president’s words, as opposed to air quotes.

      It should also be noted (as Sen. Grassley noted above) that a section of the email remains classified, and furthermore, we don’t know what further text of the email may exist which was not mentioned in Sen. Grassley’s letter.

      It would be helpful of course to see a screen-shot of the entire email, even if the classified portion was blacked out.

      Liked by 2 people

      • ladypenquin says:

        It puzzles me as to why anything in her particular type of memo would need to remain classified. Who or what did they talk about that should be secret from the American people? I mean, classified should be for covert operations, operatives, techniques, equipment etc.
        Makes one wonder if the part that is classified is part of an investigation already and therefore can’t be released.

        Liked by 1 person

        • scott467 says:

          “Makes one wonder if the part that is classified is part of an investigation already and therefore can’t be released.”

          _____________________

          Could be.

          Or it could be something politically embarrassing and/or exposing some other corruption, which of course must be hidden from the American People at all costs, which appears to be the reason for roughly 99.9% of everything the gubermint designates as ‘classified’.

          It’s almost never to hide anything from foreign adversaries, in most cases, they already have it; they already know.

          It’s nearly always to hide things from domestic knowledge.

          From us.

          Like

  10. It makes one wonder whether Flynn was confronted with falsified documents in order to induce his plea.

    Liked by 4 people

    • PS says:

      I read an interesting article about the timing of Pence’s public statements vs. Flynn’s prosecution.

      On Dec. 22, 2016, during the transition, Flynn communicates with Kislyak. For whatever reason, it is claimed that he did not communicate that he had this meeting until Dec 31st. But, it has never been an issue for the transition team to reach out to other countries before.

      On Jan 15th, 2017, Pence goes on Fox News Sunday and claims that the Trump transition team had not been in contact with the Russians. Did he not know that Flynn had already told McGahn? Did McGahn not bubble it up to the VP and Pres?

      Jan 20th is inauguration day, and Team Trump is now in power with a lot of Team Obama holdovers. Spicer denies that Flynn talked with the Russians on Jan 23rd, then Jan 24th, Flynn is interviewed by the FBI, and on Jan 26th it’s leaked that Flynn lied. Right out of the gate, the Russia Collusion story launched. Sally Yates and Jim Comey have already prepared their talking points on the Logan Act. By March, Flynn’s conversation is leaked to the NY Times, and we’ve been talking about it ever since.

      Perhaps to “save face” for the transition team, Flynn needed to lie, or else the FBI was going to pounce on Pence? “What else is Pence covering up? What does he know?” I doubt that Flynn knew that his Dec conversations were already wiretapped, but maybe he did through Adm. Rogers. I doubt we have the whole story yet.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Maquis says:

        The call in question was initiated by Flynn, while he was out of Country without any means of secure comms. His call was promoted by Obama’s sudden expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats, a move guaranteed to have been made only to provoke Flynn to call the Russian Ambassador, Kislyak, in order to request that no rash responses be considered until after the transition when cooler heads would be in place.

        Flynn knew full well that call would be recorded. He had no reason though to suspect that the opposition would be able to do anything with with it, though perhaps that they might wish to. Being a Military Spook for 33 years, he knew the call was monitored.

        In any case, the call was legit and necessary, being his job, and it was already acknowledged by the Zero regime that Flynn, as with many incoming leaders, would begin communicating with their counterparts and appropriate officials with governments worldwide.

        Like

      • cozette says:

        As you point out, Flynn was let go because of the very odd answer Pence gave which his buddy Spicer then backed up. BTW both are members of the GOPe who did NOT want Flynn in the WH. Pence is a VERY smooth political operator so there is no way his answer, which forced Flynns removal, was a mistake. Remember, Trump brought Scaramoochi in to the purge the WH of Pence allies, including Spicer and Priebus.

        Like

  11. scott467 says:

    “On December 12th, 2017, Judge Sullivan gave out a rather unusual set of instructions to Robert Mueller. The instructions included Sullivan telling Mueller to turn over to the Flynn defense anything that could be considered exculpatory:

    […] if the government has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes is not material, the government shall submit the material to the Court for in camera review. ”

    ____________________

    Of course the problem there is:

    A) the government (prosecutor) gets to decide what qualifies as ‘favorable’ to the defendant

    and

    B) the government (prosecutor) gets to decide what is not ‘material’

    So the Defendant must rely on the honesty and integrity of the Prosecutor, the same Prosecutor whose honesty and integrity has already been called into question as evidenced by the fact that the Judge has found it necessary to issue an Order to the Prosecutor to turn over exculpatory evidence, something which the Prosecutor already has a duty and obligation to do.

    Liked by 4 people

    • rf121 says:

      But it is a gamble for the Mueller team to play games this time. They know the IG is out there and the two love birds tweets for this time period have not been released. So any attempt to withhold could seriously back fire. Decision time for sure.

      Liked by 6 people

      • scott467 says:

        Yes, agreed, the Prosecutor, Mueller, would be insane to play games in this scenario. Not only does the investigation purport to involve the president, the highest profile individual in the nation (and potentially in the world), but as you said, he knows there is an Investigator on his own tail.

        The tens of thousands of other Americans, who are not the president, and whose prosecutors do not have an investigator on their tail, represent the problem I was referring to.

        It’s great that Flynn (and Trump) have these ‘checks and balances’, but what about the rest of us?

        It seems very biased that the Prosecutor should determine what is ‘exculpatory’ or ‘favorable to the defendant’ or ‘material’ in any case, because the Prosecutor has not only a government interest, but an overwhelming personal self-interest (notches on his belt, in pursuit of higher office) to win cases and get convictions.

        It would seem far more equitable if an independent/neutral/disinterested 3rd party had oversight regarding all documents, and that 3rd party reported directly (and only) to the Judge if any inappropriate activity was observed.

        Like

        • rf121 says:

          The system was designed well but requires moral and just people to use it. Can be too easily abused these days especially when the end justifies the means.

          Liked by 3 people

        • Summer says:

          Ah, reminds me of my beloved Perry Mason novels where District Attorney Ham Burger always withheld evidence, coached witnesses and served nothingburgers to the jury.

          Liked by 2 people

          • ladypenquin says:

            Ah! A Perry Mason fan. I left this comment up above, but worth repeating it to you. 🙂

            Though it would be a great dramatic Perry Mason moment if General Flynn could stand up before Judge Sullivan and say, “Your honor, I withdraw my guilty plea on the grounds that I’ve been framed and the guy who framed me in this court right now. I am also prepared to present proof of this here in court, Your Honor.”

            Liked by 1 person

    • zimbalistjunior says:

      let’s remember the reasonable doubt standard. some have calculated that as a minimum 25 percent chance that the defendant is not guilty. if the entirety of the HRC email probe through until Mueller probe today was revealed to triers of fact, what percent doubt would there be? considering that even today, with only a tiny percentage of evidence available to the public,approximately 50 percent of the public believe the Mueller probe is tainted (and this number grows daily), not to mention that a higher percentage believes the HRC email probe to have been tainted— what percentage doubt is there as to Flynn’s guilt, today?

      Liked by 1 person

  12. bitterlyclinging says:

    From powerlineblog’s “Echo Chamber Music”

    [” “The reason the media will not report on the scandal now unfolding before the country, how the Obama administration and Clinton campaign used the resources of the federal government to spy on the party out of power, is not because the press is partisan. No, it is because the press has played an active role in the Trump-Russia collusion story since its inception. It helped birth it.””]

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/02/echo-chamber-music.php

    Liked by 11 people

    • wolfmoon1776 says:

      Totally agreed. Not just a WILLING participant. An EAGER participant.

      Liked by 7 people

      • Maquis says:

        Saw this in the Federalist this morning, linked by Drudge! It’s getting out there.
        Two words:

        RICO

        SUAVE

        Liked by 5 people

        • wolfmoon1776 says:

          R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-I-C-O!

          Liked by 1 person

          • ladypenquin says:

            I tweeted their article and mentioned the #MSM as the “Leftist Brigade” – we could use a few new phrases. But indeed, RICO is where this goes. Consider also even the Interstate Commerce Clause – that has to do with commerce across state lines, media is across state lines…

            Heck, we might even get into interfering with free and fair elections – which is what they did by doing in kind contributions for the Democrats, reporting false stories, and then, of course, is the voter fraud. Someone knows details about that operation. We’re not nutty squirrels to believe there was substantial fraud and that’s what they counted on to bring her over the finish line. Been going on for long time with the Dems as beneficiaries. I have friends who believe 2012 was won by Obama fraudulently. He sure expected to lose…

            Wonder if that is some of the information they’re keeping classified.

            Liked by 1 person

            • wolfmoon1776 says:

              Interesting ideas there! I’ll bet some of Sessions’ people could make them work!

              Like

            • Maquis says:

              Yes indeed. Political operatives, giving the store away on behalf of Clinton and Zero, even getting paid for it in many cases, and coordinating directly with their campaigns.

              Mostly on public airwaves (ours) but also on cable where those that would nevet watch CNN for the sake of their sanity and the health of their television set (me) who are forced to support them if they don’t want to cut their family off of the Disney Channel.

              Wait…

              Like

          • Maquis says:

            Wish I could roll my R’s like that! Well done!

            Liked by 1 person

      • ForGodandCountry says:

        A willing, eager ACCOMPLICE.

        Liked by 2 people

  13. Chewbarkah says:

    Wouldn’t the transcript of FBI Director Comey testifying that the agents who interviewed Flynn told him that Flynn hadn’t lied, and 302 statements along the same lines, be massively “exculpatory”? Wouldn’t it constitute misconduct for the Special Counsel to coerce Flynn into a guilty plea without having shared all that information (and who knows what more) with the defense?

    Mueller has to assume that Judge Sullivan will have this information in hand from ex parte sources. If Mueller does not produce it among the exculpatory material, Sullivan can burn him down. If he does produce it, Sullivan should ask Flynn if he was given the material before his plea, after Flynn says no and the prosecution can’t prove otherwise, vacate the guilty verdict and toss the case. And as I enter deep REM sleep…Sullivan will suspend the law licenses of the Mueller Minions and impose sanctions of $200 million to be paid to Flynn from their personal funds.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Phil Costello says:

    Forgive me if this has been brought up before, but has it been demonstrated that Flynn was swept up by the FISA warrant on Carter Page? My understanding is that Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak was picked up by a warrant on Kislyak.

    Like

    • Anonymous says:

      Phil, correct, unless there is something we don’t know. Unfortunately, people are jumping to conclusions that are wishful. Saw same thing with Plamegate.

      I do thing FBI spied on Trump and abused power, but we need to not give in to hopes and think everything will immediately break our way. (The enemy gets a vote, too. Milstrat 101.)

      Liked by 1 person

      • Phil Costello says:

        I agree … we do not know exactly what happened and it’s best not to jump the gun. My suspicions do align pretty closely with Sundance’s though.

        Like

    • jbowen82 says:

      I’m sure both Kislyak and Flynn have been around the block long enough to know that when they’re having a phone call and Flynn is in the Dominican Republic there would be all kinds of people listening in.

      Like

      • Phil Costello says:

        Correct … and Flynn would have known that if he lied to the FBI, they would very easily be able to prove it. I find it hard to believe Flynn actually lied …

        Like

    • Deplore Able says:

      This is an interesting question. Were Flynn’s conversations swept up under the Carter Page warrant? Read the following text from pages 2 and 3 of the Flynn Statement of Offense. We know that Flynn’s calls with Kislyak were picked up by the IC. The question is how does the FBI know about Flynn’s calls to members of President Trump’s transition team and the content of those calls? Either they were listening in on everyone Flynn talked to or somebody on the transition team told the FBI. I am betting on the former.

      Michael Flynn Statement of the Offense

      c. On or about December 29, 2016, FLYNN called a senior official of the Presidential Transition Team (“PTT Official), who was with other senior members of the Presidential Transition Team at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to the Russian Ambassador about the US. Sanctions. On that call, FLYNN and the PTT official discussed the U.S. Sanctions, including the potential impact of those sanctions on the incoming administration’s foreign policy goals. The PTT official and FLYNN also discussed that the members of the Presidential Transition Team at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the situation.
      d. Immediately after his phone call with the PTT official, FLYNN called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.
      e. Shortly after his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with the PTT official to report on the substance of his call with the Russian Ambassador, including their discussion of the U.S. Sanctions.
      f. On or about December 30, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin released a statement indicating that Russia would not take retaliatory measures in response to the U.S. Sanctions at that time.
      g. On or about December 31, 2016, the Russian Ambassador called FLYNN and informed him that Russia had chosen not to retaliate in response to request.
      h. After his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, Flynn spoke with senior members of the Presidential Transition Team about conversations with the Russian Ambassador regarding the U.S. Sanctions and Russia’s decision not to escalate the situation.

      https://www.lawfareblog.com/michael-flynn-plea-agreement-documents

      Liked by 1 person

      • Phil Costello says:

        This is very interesting … thank you for providing the link. It does seem like Mueller possesses very detailed information as to the timing and content of calls — more so than might be expected if the allegations were based merely on a witness’s recollection. At the same time, the language could be intentionally puffed up to give the appearance of knowing more than they really know.

        Like

      • Armadillo Eggs says:

        Oh boy… so the initial intercept (legal) of Gen. Flynn was when he had a call with the Russian Ambassador. No problem… except no one even at NSA past the first line of filtering out US ID should have known which American was speaking to Kislyak.

        To “unmask” this information — within the NSA — requires a separate FISA application directed at the US Person, based solely on that initial intercept (or multiple intercepts) of the Kislyak call. Once the FISA process has been approved to ferret out the ID of Flynn… and you monitor his calls… the process would have to repeat itself in order to ID Flynn’s US contact as a member of the Trump Transition Team. That is how it works, if it is a counter-intelligence investigation, as has been claimed.

        If it is a criminal investigation, then the FBI has a separate process from FISA to obtain wire-tapping of Flynn… but we’ve been told all along this is a counter-intelligence investigation.

        Like

  15. scott467 says:

    “He said Contreras had a gift for connecting with people, a skill that would serve him well on the bench.

    In 1994, Contreras was hired by Eric Holder Jr., then the U.S. attorney for D.C., to join that office.”

    __________________

    Sounds like he had a ‘gift’ for connecting with the wrong people.

    Holder is as dirty and crooked as anyone in the Hussein administration. If there is any reason to think Eric Holder would hire or promote anyone who wasn’t of a similar character and who shared the same objectives and ideology, what would that reason be?

    How many crooks hire straight arrows to work for them?

    Not many successful ones…

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Dave says:

    The discussions of Gen. Flynn’s entrapment assume his ‘lying to the FBI’ happened during the interview at the White House that was conducted by Strzok and another agent while he still had his job as the National Security Advisor. What I haven’t seen discussed is whether there were additional interviews after Mueller was appointed as SC.

    Like

  17. scott467 says:

    “In essence there’s a possibility Judge Contreras might have granted a little more leeway for the ideological endeavors of the DOJ given his prior personal and professional relationships. Was he willfully blind to the weakness and politics within the FISA application?

    ______________

    Or it was a one-two punch.

    Of course he tipped the scales in favor of his cronies in the Obama/Clinton/DNC syndicate.

    But that syndicate does not ever rely on willful compliance alone; they use carrot AND stick.

    Do what you’re told, and you will be rewarded. And don’t even think about not doing what you’re told, or they’ll release those photos of you with (fill in the blank) that summer on Thunder Island, and you definitely don’t want that.

    And you certainly don’t want to be Arkancided, what with all the pressure and depression you’ve been suffering lately… am I right, Rudy? 😉

    Liked by 1 person

    • jbowen82 says:

      The FISA judges were part of the conspiracy. They knew that although Page was the named target, the real target was Trump. They were just as enthusiastic about going after him as the DOJ and FBI.

      Liked by 5 people

      • scott467 says:

        Star Chambers (which is exactly what the FISA court is) have a way of doing that…

        Like

      • lizzyp says:

        Interesting question- who was the judge on the initial (denied ) request? Same or someone else? If I’m remembering correctly, the first one included the name Trump and was denied for being too broad. If I understand everything as it’s been recapped here, a Title 1 FISA surveillance request on one specific individual with known connections to the ‘real target’ would be an as good, if not better, way for them to achieve their goal.

        Liked by 1 person

  18. tav144 says:

    For those who don’t know, the FISC — (FISA court) public filings are listed here:
    http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/public-filings

    Relevant History:

    1/25/17 FISA court decision DENIED movants attempts to intervene with a first amendment argument to unseal the redacted portions of the court’s Bush era order allowing bulk data collection.

    Later a polling of the justices agreed to rehear the issue En Banc (FIRST time in the HISTORY of FISC to use En Banc hearing) .

    They allowed briefs to be submitted and on 11/9/17 the En Banc court reversed the 1/25/17 decision and GRANTED standing to the movants by a closely divided decision: 6 of the 11 judges overturned it to grant standing. However 10 of the 11 judges then agreed that there remains a question of law that needs to be answered before a decision is made. That question is:

    “Whether Movants have adequately established Article III standing to assert their claim of a qualified First Amendment right of public access to FISC judicial opinions.”

    “…the question of law should be certified to the FISCR pursuant to 50 USC 1803(j) because review would serve the interests of justice, a dispositive issue about standing was involved, and the split among the FISC judges was very close and involved a difference of opinion about the law to apply, among other consideration.”

    That question has been sent to the FISC Review court — a panel of three judges that Chief Justice Roberts appointed (William C Bryson, Federal Circuit; Jose Cabranas, 2nd Circuit; Richard Tallman, Ninth Circuit) and was certified on 1/9/18. Deadline for parties to have briefs in is 2/23/18. Professor Laura Donohue is the court’s designated amici and will be filing and Amicus brief by same deadline. To date there have been three briefs/supplemental briefs filed (2/618, 2/9/18, 2/14/18). They have 10 days after the deadline to file reply briefs. So I would expect an order on this question sometime in the first week or two in March.

    Liked by 1 person

    • LafnH2O says:

      Thank You, tavv144.
      Great link!!

      FISC (and the abuse of it) is long lived. Imho
      I believe FISC was overrun in 2001-ish with the Patriot Act.
      From below link…
      “If an application is denied by one judge of the court, the federal government is not allowed to make the same application to a different judge of the court, but may appeal to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. Such appeals are rare: the first appeal from the FISC to the Court of Review was made in 2002 (In re Sealed Case No. 02-001), 24 years after the founding of the court.”

      Imho, FISC was…
      Tweaked, Twisted and abused..
      A Complete fubar!

      From the below link..graph
      “FISA requests, denials and modifications increased.”

      DOJ/NSD created in Mar 2006
      NSD pulled FISC/FISA experienced personnel from other locations.
      Operational Sep 2006

      —–

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051500999.html

      On Sept. 7, 2006, President Bush defended the controversial program and urged Congress to give him additional authority to continue the warrantless eavesdropping, as part of a series of speeches on the war on terror leading up to the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

      On Jan. 17, 2007, the Bush administration announced an abrupt reversal to its policy, agreeing to disband the controversial program run by the National Security Agency that it had staunchly defended, to replace it with a new effort overseen by the secret court that administers the FISA.

      On Aug. 6, 2007, President Bush signed into law an update to the FISA that expands the government’s power to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign terrorism suspects’ communications in the United States. It will expire in six months unless Congress renews it.

      And on and on…

      Like

  19. Lynn Morton says:

    This whole Russiagate deal is now coming clear as a very flabby conspiracy to smear and indict team Trump via politically motivated surveillance. Contreras being involved is just another name to a big cast of characters. I call this a flabby conspiracy because with information being routed around by so many Obama-connected people that means that over time it will all come out.
    On the impeachment side, Mueller and his team of Democrats need a tight operation to move forward and impeach Trump. All he has now appears to be a weak obstruction of justice accusation, and ship Mueller is under cannon fire from all directions. The cannonballs being the endless new and ugly facts coming out like the Memo.
    Mueller has Rosenstein, a portion of the DOJ, Committee Democrats helping him by hiding and obstructing as much as possible. And the Mainstream Media is aiding Mueller by simply refusing to cover important developments while endlessly reprinting every nauseous claim that looks harmful to Trump.

    Liked by 1 person

    • TomF says:

      “Mueller has Rosenstein, a portion of the DOJ, Committee Democrats helping him by hiding and obstructing as much as possible.”
      Rosenstein helping Mueller?
      Nah.

      Liked by 1 person

  20. LafnH2O says:

    FISA-ish..
    Was originally researching..
    https://www.justice.gov/nsd/staff-profile/acting-assistant-attorney-general-edward-ocallaghan

    Which lead to..
    https://www.justice.gov/nsd/former-assistant-attorneys-general

    Which lead to..
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

    Anthrax 🤔🤔
    Curious…

    Which lead to..
    The reauthorization tab in the wiki article.
    🤔🤔
    FISA, FISA, FISA…ALWAYS with the FISA!!!

    With further reading..

    “”On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama used an Autopen to sign the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, a four-year extension of three key provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act while he was in France:[9] roving wiretaps, searches of business records (the “library records provision”), and conducting surveillance of “lone wolves”—individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups.[10] Republican leaders[222] questioned if the use of the Autopen met the constitutional requirements for signing a bill into law.[223]””

    “”Roving Wiretaps””???

    Roving. 🕵️‍♀️🤳🏡 👣 🕵️‍♀️🤳🏛 👣 🕵️‍♂️🤳🌐

    Wiretaps… 🤔🤔
    Where have I heard THAT recently?
    Here a Tap 🕵️‍♂️🤳🏡
    There a Tap 🕵️‍♀️🤳🏛
    Everywhere
    Tap 🌐 Tap

    Like

  21. LibertyONE says:

    Ochams Razor..the simplest answer IS the answer; Judge Sullivan issues an ODER for Team MULEer( now he’s on NOTICE) to furnish Fynn’s defense with ALL materials including exculpatory evidence . Team MULEer via his rep, Atty Van Grack ( who also signed the Statement of Offense & made a Motion to delay Flynns sentencing) makes a Motion to “seal the materials” given to F’s defense. Connect the dots…Team Muleer knows the cat is out of the bag, the charges WILL be dropped ( Fruits of the Poisonous tree i.e. FISA Warrant) AND the “materials” WILL be destroyed and /or returned to the gummit….SEALED! Move along , nothing to see here LOL!

    Like

  22. jmclever says:

    What if General Flynn’s guilty plea is being used to flush out corrupt judges? Contreras was very ready to sentence General Flynn and then was mysteriously recused by someone else. Next, Mueller postpones the sentencing and the new judge on the case issues a “sua sponte” (on his own accord, without a lawyer making a request for action) ruling that all evidence that helps Flynn’s case (even though he plead guilty) must be turned over to his defense lawyers, but those documents must remain secret. When were those new documents discovered, or were they known documents that had been suppressed?

    Flynn fired February 2017
    Judge Collyer writes opinion RE widespread Obama era FISA abuses April 2017
    Mueller interviewed by POTUS Trump May 2017
    Mueller appointed Special Counsel May 2017
    Flynn pleads guilty lying to FBI agrees to work with S.C. Mueller December 1, 2017
    Contreras recused and Judge Emmet Sullivan randomly (maybe not so random http://observer.com/2014/06/breaking-meet-emmet-sullivan-irs-judge-who-once-sicced-a-special-prosecutor-on-doj/ ) assigned the case December 7, 2017
    Judge Sullivan issues orders to Mueller to turn over documents favorable to Flynn December 12, 2017
    January 16 2018 Presiding FISA judge Collyer is asked for FISA apps and transcripts
    Feb 3 2018 FISA and DC Judge Boasberg rules Comey memos stay secret (while acting as fed district court judge)

    Like

  23. JP says:

    Lets see, Muller asks for a delay in sentencing Flynn until May on plea agreement, all records sealed, and DOJ must hand over docs to defense to see abet noone can copy or talk about it.
    Looks like Flynn may have a good chance for cause to vacate his plea agreement given evidence the FISA warrant was illegal, Muller gets to drag out things further. Maybe Muller can shield his buddy Rod Rosenstein a bit longer who appointed him and signed off on at least one of the bogus FISA warrants. They already shut down the Intelligence Committee interviews of key players which would have been leaked. Someone is talking (or pretend talking on paper), immunity deals for the cabal (just like HRC and emailgate shenanigans, repeat play), question is who will be the fall guy indicted, or if more grand plan to bury things under the rug, but sure some delayed housecleaning by Congress to dig up dirt before midterm elections.

    Like

  24. lcpusa says:

    just throwing this out there…all the leaks against tainted agents started right after the guilty plea…maybe because that was the moment when this was all etched in stone. no take backs. a man had been railroaded.

    Like

  25. Shadrach says:

    Question: Do we know for sure that there is just one FISA warrant? It seems to me there may be more than one. Maybe I’m confused….but we know there’s a Title 1 FISA for Carter Page that was renewed multiple times. But are we making an assumption that the information on Michael Flynn was revealed by information covered by this Title 1 FISA?

    I’ve been assuming (and I could be very wrong) that we have Title 1 FISA for Carter Page and also FISA 702’s for other people, including Gen. Flynn, who could have been unmasked using different authorities (he did talk to Kisalyak, and we can take for granted Kisalyak was spied on). All they’d have to do is meet this guideline:

    “The dissemination of any information about U.S. persons is expressly prohibited unless it is necessary to understand foreign intelligence or assess its importance; is evidence of a crime; or indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm.”

    I wonder whether Contreras was recused because of his involvement with the FISA Tile 1 Carter Page activities, which would pay double duty by helping FBI in meeting the above guideline for Gen. Flynn. Contreras could then reasonably be recused from the Flynn case, because if the Title 1 he granted is baloney, then the 702 unmasking justification is baloney.

    Thoughts?

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Shadrach says:

    and just so you remember, here’s the WaPo admission the IC were monitoring the calls w/ Kislyak (but how were they unmasked?)

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/14/the-fall-of-michael-flynn-a-timeline/?utm_term=.10039043bfcf

    “Dec. 29: Flynn places five phone calls to Kislyak. These calls were apparently on unsecured lines, and monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies. On the same day, Obama announces measures meant to punish Russia for its interference in the 2016 election.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • JP says:

      Flynn was probably briefed by Obama team (Rice?) before the 5 phone calls to Kislyak Dec. 29 concerning the Russian sanctions, or why 5 phone calls same day? More I will check and call you back on something or things. So illegal to discuss sanctions. Russian Ambassador likely denied meddling and asked if DT team would lift. Other things could have come-up on the calls like Syria. Flynn was in pocket and paid by Turkey. The Kurdish/SDF offensive on ISIS capital Ar Raqqah planned out months by leaving Obama team was about to begin, and Flynn told Obama team to delay start of Syrian offensive, something Turkey wanted 100%. FISA warrant prior to Page and two bumps rule on communications and Flynn was being monitored months by FBI (Bill Priestap, Peter Strzok, w/Comey, et al, in know) as “foreign agent” abet US citizen, and Sally Yates unmasked. FBI in communication with Obama team and DOJ, note Sept.2 Strzok txt with Page POTUS “to know everything we’re doing,” so monitoring and communication w/WH being done for a while. Aug. 15 was the “insurance” text noting “Andy” McCabe. Could it be the fake Russian story already being peddled by DNC and HRC about the DNC and Podesta hacks and Crowdstrike referral from DNC and HRC lawyers Perkins Coie who also laundered money to Fusion for fictitious dossier used for the FISA warrant was just expanded to Trump by partisan FBI/DOJ? The “insurance policy” could have referred to some potential pre-election stunt or post-election plan about Russia hoax for scandal. In lack of better charges which would have stuck, FBI(Yates plan) gets Flynn for at least lying to them, Flynn on advise from his lawyers (and admin?) plea bargains out for that lesser charge only, forget Logan Act violations for Kislyak conversations and working for Turkey, and Muller gets a small bite justifying his fishing expedition.

      Like

  27. jeans2nd says:

    One problem.
    You all would be disappointed if there was not, yes?

    “the substance behind the application for the FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant is the eventual basis for the FBI’s surveillance of Mike Flynn.”

    One could claim Gen Flynn was picked up as a result of monitoring the comms of Russian Amb Kisylak, and monitoring someone from the Netanyahu government. FISA 702, not FISA Title-1.

    The unmasking of Gen Flynn is the problem. There is absolutely positively NO reason whatsoever for Gen Flyn to be unmasked. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

    Odds are Gen Flynn actually did lie to Strzok during that 24 Jan 2017 FBI interview. On purpose, imo (VP Pence). Additionally, there is item #5 from the Flyn Plea Agreement, the part dealing with Turkey and FARA, the one that threatens Gen Flynn’s son. That one would also stick it would seem.

    Seems to me the only way to clear Gen Flynn is to prove the illegality of Gen Flynn’s unmasking, as the unmasking of Gen Flynn is the only reason Gen Flynn was interviewed by FBI Strzok in the first place. Without the unmasking, there would be no reason for Mueller to even look at Gen Flynn, other than the item #5 Turkey thing. imo

    FISA Title-1 was used to monitor Candidate-Pres-Elect-Pres Trump, and others. Not to mention the target of that FISA order, Carter Page.

    We may argue the merits of there even being a Mueller investigation another time, perhaps.

    btw, you all know my powers of logic are extremely fallible. from time to time. ok, odds are not in my favor for being correct here.

    reading through a few comments above, seems my opinion may not be solitary re: the unmasking part (Shadrack).

    Like

  28. Deplore Able says:

    I suspect Flynn’s identity didn’t need to be unmasked, because all of his communications were being monitored as a consequence of the Carter Page FISA warrant. As I understand it a Title I FISA warrant can be used to monitor not only the suspected foreign agent (Carter Page) but also others with whom he has been in contact (members of the Trump Campaign).

    The Statement of the Offense, which is part of Flynn’s plea deal states:

    “On or about December 29, 2016, FLYNN called a senior official of the Presidential Transition Team (“PTT Official), who was with other senior members of the Presidential Transition Team at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to the Russian Ambassador about the US. Sanctions. On that call, FLYNN and the PTT official discussed the U.S. Sanctions, including the potential impact of those sanctions on the incoming administration’s foreign policy goals. The PTT official and FLYNN also discussed that the members of the Presidential Transition Team at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the situation.”

    How did the FBI know about this call and the contents of the conversation? Either they were listening in (just like they were listening in on Trump Tower) or they got this info from someone on the Trump transition team. If I was a betting man, I would bet the FBI was monitoring all of Flynn’s conversations.

    Admiral Rogers had warned PDJT in November, 2016, just eight days after the election, that Trump Tower was under surveillance. I think it is a pretty safe bet that Trump Tower was not the only place being surveilled.

    Liked by 2 people

    • rlc970582410 says:

      Yes, my understanding based on Sundances early explanation of Title 1 is it allows unrestricted wiretapping of anyone connected to Carter- and if the scope of Muellers investigation being as broad as it was, means that is Trump and anyone connected, no matter where they are.

      This was a deliberate fishing expedition, abusing the FISA court on purpose, only caught when Admiral Rogers sniffed it out. That’s why Obama had Sec Def Ash Carter and CIA Brennan threaten to firm him, as reported by leaks, in October. Rogers did not back down and went on his own to Trump Tower in November to let Trump know he was being spyed upon.

      Thus the reason for Susan Rices CYA memo about Obama’s meeting in January to claim they did it all by the book, when it was obvious to anyone with a clue months before it was cooked up, and they got caught.

      Liked by 1 person

  29. Anonymous says:

    It seems like there is a little bit of an on again, off again dance being played by the weaponized FBI group. They get a warrant that is national security, counterintelligence in nature. And then they refuse to turn over info to the President based on worries there is a criminal investigation. But if it is a criminal investigation, why use a counterintelligence warrant?

    This behavior of course is dishonest.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. All American Snowflake says:

    And so it becomes apparent that Judge Contreras is former AG Eric Holder’s lackey.

    Like

  31. denward13 says:

    Monty Hall school of law, “lets make a deal”!!! Problem is it stinks to high heaven and they must have really strong armed Flynn with all kinds of threats, intimidation and duress which taints the entire case and is grounds for civil rights violation of intimidating a federal witness? or his counsel really sucks??

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s