Michael Flynn Was Not “Unmasked” – Evidence Flynn Was Under Active, FISC Authorized, Surveillance…

The official media account of how the intelligence community gained the transcript of incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn talking to Ambassador Sergey Kisliyak on December 29th, 2016, surrounds “incidental collection” as a result of contact with an agent of a foreign power. Meaning the Flynn call was picked up as the U.S. intelligence apparatus was conducting surveillance on Russian Ambassador Kisliyak.

If this version of events were accurate (it’s not), it would fall under FISA-702 collection: the lawful monitoring of a foreign agent (Kislyak) who has contact with a U.S. person (Flynn).

In order to review the identity of the U.S. person, a process called ‘unmasking’, a 702 submission must be made. That submission, the unmasking, leaves a paper/electronic trail.  In a 2017 congressional hearing, Senator Lindsey Graham asks Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and former DNI James Clapper about this process. [Watch first 3 minutes]

.

However, in the two years following this testimony, there was nothing that would deliver the answer as to: who unmasked General Michael Flynn?

The reason is simple, Flynn wasn’t unmasked – because he was under FISC authorized active surveillance.  Here’s how we know.

♦ First, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were watching that hearing where Senator Lindsey Graham was questioning Sally Yates and James Clapper.  As they discussed in their text messages the issue of “unmasking” is irrelevant.  “incidental collection” is the “incorrect narrative”:

The “incidental collection” is an “incorrect narrative” because the collection was not incidental.  Flynn was actively being monitored.  Flynn was under an active FISA surveillance warrant.

♦ Second, more evidence of Flynn under active surveillance is found in the Mueller report where the special prosecutor outlines that Flynn was under an active investigation prior to the phone call with Ambassador Kislyak:

Mary McCord was the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the DOJ National Security Division, after John Carlin left in October of 2016.  McCord would have signed-off on the Flynn FISA warrant, or any extension therein, throughout the Trump transition period.

[McCord was also the person who Sally Yates took with her to the White House to confront White House Counsel Don McGahn about the Flynn call and FBI interview.]

♦ Third, from the 2017 House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), when Devin Nunes was Chairman, the four targets of the Trump campaign -under investigation throughout 2016- were outlined:

SUMMARY: ♦In real time Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were saying the “incidental contact” (unmasking) narrative was incorrect.  ♦Then Devin Nunes outlines the targets of the 2016 FBI investigation which included Flynn.  ♦Then Robert Mueller says Flynn was under investigation prior to the 12/29/16 phone call with Kislyak.

Put it all together and…. (1) There was never an unmasking request because the collection was not incidental…. (2) Because the intercept was not incidental. (3) Because the intercept was part of the FISA court granting a surveillance warrant.

The lack of incidental collection is why FISA-702 doesn’t apply; and why there’s no paper trail to an unmasking request.  The intercept was not ‘incidental‘ because the intercept was the result of direct monitoring and FISC authorized surveillance being conducted on Michael Flynn.

There are only three options:

  1. Incidental collection = unmasking request.
  2. Direct intercept / Legal = Active FISA Title-1 surveillance authority.
  3. Direct intercept / Illegal = Active surveillance without Title-1 authority.

All of the evidence from documents over the past two years indicates #2 was the status of Michael Flynn at the time of the Sergey Kislak call.

The incoming National Security Advisor of President-Elect Donald Trump was under active FBI surveillance as granted by the FISA court.  That’s how the FBI intercepted the phone call with Sergey Kislyak and why there’s no unmasking request.

This doesn’t deal with the propriety of the FISA warrant, or the legal basis, the legal predicate that must exist prior to granting the FISA warrant.  However, accepting that Michael Flynn was under court approved surveillance reconciles all the issues.

Additionally, this would explain two more issues.  #1) President Obama warning incoming President Trump not to hire Michael Flynn as his Nat. Sec. Advisor; and #2) a very strong possibility that Flynn’s status is the redacted paragraph in the January 20th, 2016, Susan Rice memo.

At 12:15pm on January 20th, 2017, Obama’s outgoing National Security Advisor Susan Rice wrote a memo-to-self.  Many people have called this her “CYA” (cover your ass) memo, from the position that Susan Rice was protecting herself from consequences if the scheme against President Trump was discovered.  Here’s the email:

“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 Comey 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.”

[Redacted Classified Section of Unknown length]

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

Susan Rice ~ (pdf link)

I would suggest the redacted section relates to President Trump being under FBI investigation; and NSA Advisor Michael Flynn being under investigation and FISA surveillance.  Hence the issues with “sharing information”.

While Michael Flynn being under active FISC authorized surveillance would indicate there’s no need for unmasking of Flynn, there would be a need for unmasking of everyone else captured within the Flynn surveillance.   Hence the dozens of White House unmaskings identified by Devin Nunes in March 2017.

Additionally, Flynn being under FISA authorized surveillance still doesn’t excuse the leak -likely by Andrew McCabe- to the Washington Post about the phone contact between Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak on December 29th, 2016.

There are likely multiple FBI 302 reports on all sorts of contacts by Michael Flynn; as the FBI was investigating and updating their files.

This FBI surveillance background of Flynn would also reconcile another unusual date within the Mueller report.  An FBI 302 written on January 19th, 2017, before the Flynn interview on January 24th, 2017, about Kislyak:

Flynn was under surveillance and the FBI reports on Flynn’s surveillance did not start with the January 24, 2017, interview of Flynn – As you can see above there are FBI 302 reports that preceded it.  [h/t Techno Fog]  This aligns with Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Mary McCord, Devin Nunes and Robert Mueller all saying Flynn was under investigation prior to the 12/29/16 Kislyak call.

Lastly, release and unredact the Comey memos, and Flynn’s status under a FISA warrant is likely outlined by copious Comey CYA diary entries.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, Election 2016, FBI, IG Report FISA Abuse, Legislation, media bias, President Trump, Russia, Spygate, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

246 Responses to Michael Flynn Was Not “Unmasked” – Evidence Flynn Was Under Active, FISC Authorized, Surveillance…

  1. visage13 says:

    Begs the question why didn’t Pres Obama tell Pres Elect Trump that Gen Flynn was under surveillance. I know he told him not to hire him but why not tell him why at that point?

    Liked by 24 people

    • WSB says:

      I just posted on the other thread…maddening!!!!

      WSB says:
      June 24, 2019 at 10:08 pm

      “President Obama made an off the cuff comment that the incoming President should not hire Michael Flynn, but where were any government officials debriefing candidate Trump that having Michale Flynn on his campaign would not be appropriate since he had been under surveillance…since 2015!

      And what about everyone screeching that candidadte Trump should reveal his National Security advisor list?

      This is just disgusting!!!”

      Liked by 22 people

    • Perot Conservative says:

      Another great question. (Mine below.)

      No, I know; instead we’ll disseminate classified information all across government to smear the incoming President! s/

      [Please tell me Valerie Jarrett and Barack Obama are under surveillance now… tricky? … as they manage the insurgency.]

      Liked by 14 people

      • dallasdan says:

        I am very confident that if they are under surveillance, they have been told, and any damaging evidence of their resistance activities has been scrubbed. Yes, I am that cynical and distrusting of the alphabet entities.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Uncle Max says:

      maybe because Trump was under surveillance too?

      Liked by 5 people

      • CopperTop says:

        We probably know that answer. Came from 45 himself when he recently said. It looks like my telephone calls were listened to.”We’ll see.But probably.”

        CTH’ s Sundance made a light comment about Barr shortly after that I feel were not so subtle.

        “Is he still protecting the institution?”

        The implication to me was that Barr said something like, “Well Mr. President I can go down many paths to expose the FBI but they will END in full transcripts of all your conversations because right or wrong Weismann has them safe somewhere to leak any time he wants to.”

        Obviously none will be anything at all illegal (as they would have already been used) but they will embarrass him enough…which they are just waiting to use at election. The only hold out will be Barr hanging his own sword of Damocles over them to stop it costing the election. We know they are trying all other means (aka response to non manned drown downing) until then. I trust Barr has one or two things that even they would lose sleep over…midnight raids on their sleeping wives etc…

        Liked by 7 people

        • Amy2 says:

          We know they were listening to PDT’s phone calls because at the beginning of his administration the conversation with the Australian official was leaked. ‘Another one too, but I don’t remember who it was with.

          Liked by 3 people

        • dallasdan says:

          “CTH’ s Sundance made a light comment about Barr shortly after that I feel were not so subtle.

          “Is he still protecting the institution?”

          To my knowledge, SD has not recanted his labeling of AG Barr as “Bondo Barr”, the fixer, in his article published on 1/15/2019. Couple that with McConnell forcing Barr on the President as his AG (because no one else could be confirmed), Barr’s non-performance to-date in administering justice to known deep state operatives, Wray’s continued obstruction of justice as FBI Director, etc., and you have multiple, legitimate reasons to question Barr’s loyalty to both his office and to the President. JMO

          Liked by 3 people

          • Blister Bill says:

            I wasn’t sure about Barr, although I knew he was a deepstate bushie, until I heard him use the word jejune. Anyone using ‘jejune’ with a straight face is not to be trusted and needs to be ca-caned

            Like

            • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

              Barr has talked with subtlety in EVERY appearance he has made with the exception of his using of the now infamous four-letter word: SPY.

              (He also used the word “JIVIN'” which sounds more Bee Gees than Bushies)

              It’s his style….and it’s pretty effective because most MSM TV people in the cable news “ecosystem” are too dumb to understand what he’s saying.

              But in the end they’re only words.
              Let’s see what else he DOES…..
              he’s been on the job 4 months…and
              already shut down the Special Counsel’s office
              left the Dems with doing re-runs of That 70’s Show
              and has Schiff scrambling to find a way to “negotiate” to get a guy WE PAID to testify about his own report.

              He’s appointed a Special Counsel and leaks have dried up.
              (I don’t really even miss our good friend : “Unnamed Source Familiar with the Matter”)
              Silence SHOULD characterize a REAL investigation but the clock is tickin
              and POTUS is expecting results.

              Liked by 3 people

        • ABN says:

          This is interesting speculation, but I would assume PDJT was well aware of the possibility of his phone calls being recorded many years prior to his running for office. And thus would have been careful about what he said on the phone. We know he was very careful about emails.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Absolutely, Uncle Max! If Zero told PDJT I am sure PDJT would conclude he was under surveillance too. As CopperTop states below PDJT knew he was under surveillance when he claimed “Obama had my “wires tapped,” more than likely well before March 4, 2017.
        Adm. Rogers more than likely told trump on his Nov 17, 2016 visit.

        Liked by 6 people

      • redline says:

        Certainly not! CNN would never make a mistake of such scale.

        https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/04/politics/trump-obama-wiretap-tweet/index.html

        Like

        • littleanniefannie says:

          A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice,” Lewis said in a statement early Saturday afternoon. “As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any US citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.”
          CATCH THAT—NO WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL. BRENNAN AND COMPANY ARE NOT WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS
          The former senior US official with direct knowledge of the Justice Department’s investigations said Obama could not have ordered such a warrant. It would have been taken to a judge by investigators, but investigators never sought a warrant to monitor Trump’s phones, the former official said.
          A federal judge would only have approved a warrant to wiretap Trump’s phones if he or she had found probable cause that Trump had committed a federal crime or was a foreign agent.
          Former Obama deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes echoed the point in a tweet responding to Trump on Saturday morning.
          “No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you,” he said in his Twitter post.
          RIGHT. OBAMA CANNOT ORDER ANYTHING? YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO BE KIDDING. WHAT ABOUT THE PALLETS OF BILLIONS IN CASH TO IRAN. THAT IS ONE EXAMPLE IN 8 YEARS OF THIS SAME KIND OF THING. THE FACT THAT OBAMA IS STILL ADVISING HIS BROTHERS IN IRAN IS A WHOLE ANOTHER STORY.

          Liked by 2 people

    • sarasotosfan says:

      And in making that remark, Obama is admitting he has knowledge of this activity.

      Liked by 14 people

      • dwpender says:

        Remember President Trump’s March, 2017 tweet. In substance, “Just found out that Obama ‘wiretapped’ me ….. McCarthyism!.” POTUS left no doubt this malfeasance went all the way to the TOP of the last Administration.

        Liked by 2 people

    • free.and.true says:

      Why, because if Flynn was under a FISA warrant, then by the two-hop rule, everyone he communicated with AND everyone THEY communicated with was also being surveilled.

      Seems to me that Flynn might have been the FBI’s mole in the campaign all along… even if he had no idea that he was…

      Liked by 3 people

    • MustangBlues says:

      Please Note:

      ”'[Redacted Classified Section of Unknown length”’

      This is the crux of the Rice memo; the names are named and deeds are described, Why does not Sundance mention this part?

      So Un Redact this part and then know what was going on, and voila , end of speculation!!

      Like

    • Dutchman says:

      The rationalisation, I suspect is ;
      “Because DJT, himself was at that time under investigation for being a,Russian agent, (or compromised by Russia).Therefore, we could not inform DJT, (person) that Flynn was under an ongoing counter-intel investigation, for being a Russian agent (or compromised by Russia.)

      See the ‘beauty’ of “by the book”?
      The “book” says if they believe someone is the TARGET of a Russian intel operation, they ‘advise’ person.

      However, if they believe someone HAS BEEN COMPROMISED, and IS a Russian agent, that they DO NOT inform them they are under investigation, nor advise them of any other ongoing counter-intel investigations.

      Again, this whole thing traces right back to Obama. He’s telling them “investigate the incoming potus and their administration, but don’t TELL them they are under investigation.”

      I guess they think it was “the right thing to do”, and so don’t mind laying this all on Obama?

      They think they were justified in believing the incoming POTUS was compromised by Russia, and so justified in their actions.

      Which all gets back to the predicate; crowdstrike, and steele dossier which leads straight to Hillary.

      Ah, ha! It wasn’t a RUSSIAN disinformation campaign against the U.S!

      It was a Hillary Clinton campaign disinformation operation against the Obama administration, to gain their cooperation in A) supporting the claim the DNC was ‘hacked’by Russia, and B) that DJT campaign was involved.

      1/2,…/s

      Liked by 2 people

    • bertdilbert says:

      If we can prove Sally Yates knew it was not incidental collection then she lied to congress. It also makes her part of a coverup of the FISA. Her argument will be that she could not reveal that there was an ongoing investigation at the time the scheme was hatched.

      If Sydney Powell helps land Yates in prison, that would be awesome. Yates was actively engaged in covering up for the spying.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

        She didn’t lie to congress (about that)……
        Lindsey asked specifically if Flynn had a FISA warrant on him.

        She gave the classic..
        “I can’t answer this in a open setting”

        Doesn’t mean she can’t be got on other things though:
        She signed one of the Carter Page FISA warrants for example.
        The very first one in fact!

        Liked by 2 people

    • Boxerpaws says:

      i have a really stupid question. Why is it assumed the surveillance of Flynn was legal? I’m not getting that. Missed something.Can someone explain?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Issy says:

        Not stupid, but these people are all lawyers, who know how to work the system to make otherwise illegal acts legal. Why do something illegal, when it is so easy to do it legally?

        Like

  2. J Gottfred says:

    This just makes me sick. What kind of depraved people do this $hit against someone they think can help remove Trump? No one who deserves to live in this country. Yuck!

    Liked by 6 people

    • A Moderate Man says:

      J Gottfred, unfortunately with Obama’s crew… probably all their actions are legal, just depraved as you say or very vindictive and underhanded, like all democratic politicians come to think of it.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Well, “technically” everything shitler did was “legal” too… how’d that work out for him and his gang of evil minions?

        Like

      • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

        probably all their actions are legal, just depraved

        This is what ultimately will make Barr/Durham’s case a difficult one as it can’t be made on any one document, email, text…..
        and considering this from the angle that Barr is not BONDO…..
        why documents aren’t being declassified willy-nilly.

        I suspect these people are too smart to overtly document their crimes and always looking for some tangent of “legality” to explain any one action taken.

        (Perfect example: The Logan Act IS still LAW, they were just depraved enough to use it and knew the MSM would go along)

        The depravity, and the difficulty for Barr/Durham lies at the interface between
        COUNTERINTEL products (often incomplete info, rumors by shady folks, etc)
        AND their use
        to pursue CRIMINAL cases

        As Comey stated in his Mar 20 2017 testimony:
        “as with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed”.

        To hold people accountable Barr/Durham will have to approach this similar to a circumstantial evidence case…..
        An overwhelming amount of evidence that’s ONLY explanation for all of it is a NEFARIOUS one.
        “legal” + “legal” + “legal” (in quotes) actually equals ILLEGAL (no quotes)

        To make this type of case will take a bit of time……but not too much.
        The evidence does not need to be FOUND…..it already exists and simply needs to be gathered.
        Barr and Durham appear to be doing just that and quickly.
        (As opposed to Mueller & Co, which were pursuing the “slow roll & blockage”

        If we don’t see something tangible at least by Fall-ish timeframe….then I’ll start getting worried about “Bondo Barr”.

        Like

    • covfefe999 says:

      It makes it all the more amazing that we were able to elect Trump and he was able to fend off all of those investigations. The traitors must have been sick to their stomachs when Trump won the election, not only did they know they’d have an uphill battle trying to remove him from office, they were also at great risk of being found out. And it’s happening now.

      Attorney General Barr, even if nobody goes to prison for this, PLEASE TELL THE FULL STORY. Let the citizens know exactly what happened.

      Liked by 14 people

      • “for this,”…

        Think about it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • underwhelmingposter says:

        IMO, this all is now a ‘jump the shark”scenario. Everyone is going to do “something”. The information is being snail rolled out, but the time may be past where it will all have meaning anymore. The lack of cooperation from the FBI and CIA will insure that this ends up in the round files of history.
        Does any poster here know why General Flynn was being investigated?
        And I agree that all of PDJT’s teams (before and after the election) were “investigated.

        Liked by 2 people

    • redthunder238 says:

      Closet Marxists like Obambi.

      Like

  3. Perot Conservative says:

    So, what is the legal predicate for spying on General Flynn? Is that the money shot?

    Liked by 10 people

    • J Gottfred says:

      This is something those who are responsible need to explain in a public hearing. Just who the **** (choose your expletive) do these people think they are and what do they stand for?

      Liked by 13 people

    • sarasotosfan says:

      See the third Scope Memo.

      Oh, wait. That hasn’t been declassified yet. Nor have the first two.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Sentient says:

      2 hops from Carter Page or Papadopoulos. Anyway you look at it, the initial predicate – whatever it was- was BS. I think a crucial evidentiary point will be how and why Papa was stopped coming back from Greece and why they expect him to be carrying ten grand cash. They’d conspired to entrap him and that conspiracy will ensnare the conspirators.

      Liked by 8 people

      • J Gottfred says:

        This “2 hop rule” has to be removed. It is obvious that the deep state gamed the system and picked those associates of Trump who would expose the greatest number of people, maybe even Trump himself, they could surveil.

        You just cannot trust the government to do the right thing…ever, never ever!
        .

        Liked by 5 people

        • Dutchman says:

          Remember recently PDJT said they were investigating whether he, himself as candidate was having his phone conversations ‘bugged’.
          Obviously he WAS. Papad talks to Sessions (also under investigation for talking to Ambassador Kysliak) and then Sessions talks to DJT.
          2 hop rule.

          Like

      • underwhelmingposter says:

        Is there any word regarding the Australian “diplomat” who recorded Papadopolous? That needs to be outed as well as the British involvement. The Italians have taken some steps. The Ukrainians too!

        Like

      • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

        2 hops from Carter Page or Papadopoulos. Anyway you look at it, the initial predicate – whatever it was- was BS

        “seems to me that a single FISA and confidential informant was a rather ANEMIC OPERATION given the nature of the THREAT as it was reported to be”
        -Bill Barr, Senate Judiciary Testimony

        Translation:
        If the FBI/DoJ/CIA actually truly believed that Trump Campaign was colluding with Russians they would have done more than just target some low level, unpaid, volunteers.

        Ironically it may be what they DID NOT do that proves that what they DID DO can only be explained by POLITICAL motives

        And why Clapper is losing his shit over wsj story that Durham’s RED TEAM is questioning CIA assessment.
        Of course
        RED TEAM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE ORIGINALLY AS PART OF ANY “ASSESSMENT” as they normally are.

        (See Obama’s Osama raid)

        Like

    • Issy says:

      That’s the rub. I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think there is one. In a counterintelligence investigation, it’s a belief, a reasonable suspicion, etc that a person needs to be investigated. I’m sure there are guidelines/procedures that should be used, hence the use of the term predicate, but there again it’s a judgment they make. Not following the predicate, I don’t believe would be illegal.

      Like

  4. Tall Texan says:

    Six ways to Sunday…

    Liked by 8 people

  5. Zorro says:

    Obamboozler is vindictive little Marxist.

    Liked by 4 people

  6. sarasotosfan says:

    I wonder what Emmett Sullivan might think about this. While a direct line can be drawn from the FISA warrant to the alleged crime, it isn’t a part of the record.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Old Scroll Ranger says:

    A power play to impede the incoming administration to fault. Then Obama could say, “I told you so.” However, it never played that way and we see who holds the cards now.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Uncle Max says:

    They were just sure she wouldn’t lose. No way!

    Liked by 1 person

    • farrier105 says:

      If they were not afraid of Hillary losing, none of their activities would have been necessary. Steele testified in writing, under penalty of Perjury, that Fusion GPS was hired in order to provide Hillary with a legal pretext to challenge the results of the election if she should lose it.

      “Pied Piper Candidate Strategy” was developed by Hillary to ensure she ran against a candidate she thought would be easy to beat. This was a brazen attempt to meddle in the process of the Republican Party picking their candidate with the help of friendly Hillary supporters in the media. If someone is a shoo-in, such extraordinary steps are not necessary. Yet the media gave away billions in free media to get Trump nominated. It backfired.

      https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/09/15/yes_hillary_the_media_did_help_trump_win_so_did_you_135011.html

      Like

  9. Bogeyfree says:

    Next we are going to find out that they had a FISA on Candidate Trump which carried over to President Trump.

    Liked by 7 people

  10. Nice work as usual by SD. I wonder if this analysis will get any further than TCTH. I wonder if Judge Sullivan knows…………….or cares.

    Liked by 1 person

    • A Moderate Man says:

      SD will find that all of their actions are legal… except now we will be asking what was the predicate for investigating Flynn? Another rabbit hole.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Sentient says:

        Maybe, but who was Mifsud’s handler? Where’d the $10,000 come from and how did they come to expect that Papadopoulos would be carrying it upon his return to the U.S.? Those are not matters of prudential judgment or something that be spun as being an unfortunate incorrect assessment.

        Liked by 12 people

      • redthunder238 says:

        What was the predicate for anything? The whole thing is a sham and the MSM has half the Country believing it. It’s absurd.

        Liked by 4 people

        • A Moderate Man says:

          Exactly, absurdity is right, the way I see what is going on is that they punched us below the belt and we are hoping that the referee will give them a penalty… instead we need to hit them back even harder… push for tighter immigration polices, crush the Chinese economy, drastically cut the number of federal employees, cut regulations, don’t weep for Iran or the Palestinians or the Germans… in other words support what Trump is doing.

          Liked by 2 people

    • Bubba Cow says:

      it sure seems that Sundance’s main pieces lately have been remarkably thorough including info from previous discoveries
      wonder why ?

      Liked by 1 person

      • underwhelmingposter says:

        I believe Sundance sees the flavor of the comments and puts great effort into providing information to us posters. I though want to see action from Barr, Durham, Nunes, Graham. Ground breaking events are just around the corner? Not a corner I can see yet? When criminal referrals occur, indictments happen, Grand Juries convened on these matters, I personally will feel much less stressed.

        Like

    • Or in what context he cares…. it’s the swamp after all. As well as a lot of unmasking, a lot of masks are still providing cover.

      Like

  11. Bryan Alexander says:

    I would wager a TON of money that as soon as Michael Flynn was forced out as DIA Director in August of 2014, President Obama ordered Clapper/Brennan/Comey to monitor Flynn’s communications. Flynn had completely embarrassed Obama on ISIS and Obama wanted payback.

    When Flynn joined the Trump campaign, that was a “two-fer” for Obama and Clinton. They could get Flynn AND tank Trump with the same operation.

    Liked by 12 people

    • Invisigoth says:

      Flynn is a big reason why Trump won. DIA capabilities mirror those of the CIA. Obama and the Deep State cabal were desperate to get Flynn removed from the administration. Remember what McCabe said. It was the gospel truth.

      Liked by 2 people

    • felipe says:

      “First we f Flynn and then we f Trump” McCabe

      Liked by 4 people

    • Tiffthis says:

      Yes, I think that’s very plausible. I also think the only reason Obama told PDJT not to hire Flynn was because of the 2014 incident. Obama knew with or without Flynn the FBI/CIA could get to 2 hops to PDJT communications 💯.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Bryan Alexander says:

    And another thought. I wonder if this is what Evelyn FArkas was referring to, when she indicated that they didn’t want to lose the source of intelligence when Trump got in. As long as Flynn was a suspect and in the Trump campaign, they could get everyone, including Trump.

    Liked by 10 people

  13. ALEX says:

    Interesting. They were actively spying on General Flynn before or at the very least during transition and his short time in the administration.

    I’m sure these wonderful people never went beyond that and scooped up other people…same as Carter Paige. What a lawless bunch of Constitution abusers.

    Liked by 3 people

    • meow4me2 says:

      Well, that begs the question then. If Flynn was under FISA surveillance and they could get most of the campaign communications that way, why did they need the Carter Page FISA warrant?

      Liked by 1 person

      • meow4me2– That’s been the most compelling question that I’ve been asking myself.

        The ONLY reason I can think of, is if the ‘General Flynn FISA’ had not been acquired prior to ‘the Carter Page’s FISA’ of October, 2016… But that just doesn’t seem likely at all, given the animus towards Flynn from the Obama administration since at least 2014.

        Like

  14. waicool says:

    there was a systematic purge of military brass during obama’s reign, that timeline and flynn’s departure in March of 2017 would be an interesting source for info on the spying.

    from March 2017 True Pundit
    “McCabe, the second highest ranking FBI official, emphatically declared at the invite-only gathering with raised voice: “Fuck Flynn and then we Fuck Trump,” according to direct sources. Many of his top lieutenants applauded and cheered such rhetoric. A scattered few did not.”

    Liked by 4 people

  15. Brenda Brillo says:

    Also note that General Flynn was against the Iran deal & was on Obama’s hit list along with many others! After all they tried getting rid of General Flynn before & finally succeeded!! Deep state actors were monitoring & investigating many many people including some media personalities…all of which I believe they were hunting for anything they could use to blackmail people into doing their bidding!

    Liked by 9 people

  16. Brenda Brillo says:

    Also note that General Flynn was against the Iran deal & was on Obama’s hit list along with many others! After all they tried getting rid of General Flynn before & finally succeeded!! Deep state actors were monitoring & investigating many many people including some media personalities…all of which I believe they were hunting for anything they could use to blackmail people into doing their bidding!

    Liked by 3 people

  17. Hmmm... says:

    Wouldn’t the Page FISA already cover Flynn essentially? It seems as though it would be covered as a legal intercept but would require an unmasking (perhaps questionable but still legal I would assume). The McCarthy podcast interview with Byron York led me to believe McCarthy was implying this was the case with the Flynn intercepts. I suspect that the FBI would not have pushed their luck trying to get a FISA warrant on a General. An open counter intelligence case that requires no real oversight is one thing but presenting the very weak evidence they had to a FISA court is another thing altogether.

    Like

    • Hmmm... says:

      Just to clarify I am not questioning that they were spying on Flynn. I certainly think that was the case. I am only suggesting the method was via the Page FISA which is precisely what we have suspected was the real intent behind the Page FISA (to spy on the Trump campaign). Same Title 1 authority. Just a hop and a legal unmasking away.

      Like

      • gnome says:

        As much to the point, a Flynn FISA warrant would likely cover Page. If there was a Flynn warrant, was it allowed to lapse when others, possibly more easily renewed, were put in place?

        Like

    • trapper says:

      Yes. See my post below

      Like

      • Hmmm... says:

        Perhaps it’s just semantics but it seems to me that authority to intercept is irrelevant. That authority was granted by the Supreme Court a long time ago when they gave them the ability to intercept everything. So the call was going to be in the database no matter what. As I understand it, the FISA would then grant access to see that call in the database and the 2 hop rule would eliminate the need for an unmasking. I mean a Flynn call to his mother would be intercepted if I have a correct understanding of everything I’ve read on the subject since 2013.

        Flynn would likely have been included on at least one email or contact along with Page so he would be one hop away. A one hop contact communicating with a Russian seems well within the scope of the Page FISA. I could certainly be wrong as I have no real knowledge about it but that’s what I got from the McCarthy podcast. It makes sense to me.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Issy says:

      Since the fisa courts seemed to rubber-stamp anything that came there way, it didn’t seem to be much of a problem. After all, the nation’s premier law enforcement agency swore all the information was verified. I forget what year, think 2015, every request was granted. There were over a thousand. This system is totally screwed up and not the first time, it has come to light. I think it was 2001, mueller was hauled in to make changes to fbi abuse of the court, and it occurred under the former director. He had just been appointed.

      Like

  18. acenypd says:

    Two days after winning the 2016 election, President Elect Trump met with obama at the White House. Did the FBI surveil the current President after this meeting? President Elect Trump also received a phone call from Hillary Clinton after he won the 2016 election. Did they surveil Hillary Clinton after this phone call? If not, why not? If they did (and they had every right to), where is the report on the findings?

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Brian Baker says:

    So, when exactly was President-elect or President Trump informed that Gen. Flynn was under FISA Title-1 surveillance for FARA violations involving Turkish lobbying? And why exactly was he not informed?

    Liked by 3 people

  20. Albertus Magnus says:

    I am frankly to believe I understand all this but it seems to me that IF they had reason (Flynn did plead guilty to something for whatever reason) to spy on Flynn and IF that spying found conversations with PDJT about dealings with other governments including Russia (which would be expected between PDJT and his NSA director), then does all of this mean the entire Russia hoax was all legal, no matter how crooked and evil it was?

    And if that is the case, then to my pea brain, EVERYTHING Deepstate is doing and EVERYTHING the MAGA folks are NOT DOING makes 100% sense.

    Just my pitiful, challenged thoughts and questions.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ARW says:

      The government just can’t spy on a person. They have to have probable cause (I,e, evidence of. A crime) and a warrant.

      Like

      • Albertus Magnus says:

        You mean like a crime someone plead guilty to?

        Like

        • farrier105 says:

          Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI, not for working illegally with Russian agents to manipulate the outcome of the election or commit espionage. It is not a crime to talk to a Russian, whether or not you are a registered Republican.

          Like

      • petey says:

        you dear person are giving our opponents a humanity they don t deserve. clinton and the rose law group records , clinton and the FBI files, lerner and FBI. Don t think for gotdam minute they din t have every repub “BUGED”. the obama admin surveillied rosen and atkinson, clapper lied about nsa scooping up all american s cell calls. all the crimes would be covered up after Hil won…..oopsie …the dems are like a pernicious case of the clap

        Liked by 1 person

    • GB Bari says:

      You’re falling for the Big Lie being promulgated by the Deep State / DemocRATs/ coup conspirators. That’s what they WANT us to believe – that all the surveillance was legal. It wasn’t. Because there wasn’t a legitimate predicate.

      The four (or more) contractors were pulling unauthorized 702s long before this scandal. It was the discovery of their illegal use of the NSA database that instigated the big push to create the illusion and cover story, spying, planting fake evidence/stories etc. that it was all legal.

      Liked by 9 people

      • Albertus Magnus says:

        Then I am really confused. Because if Flynn WAS breaking the law and had been discovered to be doing so prior to working for PDJT, then why would it be illegal to spy on him? And then, once PDJT was ensnared into the survelliance through his contacts with Flynn, why would it be illegal?

        Seems to explain why all the tick tocks and no real action taken by the good guys and why the bad guys are so smug.

        Liked by 2 people

        • But why wouldn’t the NSA/FBI/CIA take Candidate/President Elect/President Trump aside and say ditch Flynn, he’s a crook and here’s the proof?
          Would’ve been the right thing to do.

          Like

          • Dutchman says:

            Repeating myself, the excuse is because at the time, DJT himself, was the subject of a counter intel investigation, for POSSIBLY being a Russian agent. You do not TELL him he is, nor do you tell him Gen. Flynn is under investigation, because suppose they BOTH are Russian compromised agents?

            Thats the explanation, I think. Not saying I ‘buy’ it, but thats their excuse.
            “By the BOOK”,…

            Liked by 2 people

            • Derek Hagen says:

              Yupper. And if this determines the outcome, no one will be prosecuted. On the other hand, it’s a complicated world and all kinds of things can play into events.

              Like

              • Dutchman says:

                Agtee, Darek.
                And I’m saying its the EXCUSE they will use, NOT saying I buy it, or that history will.
                It is complicated, and the outcome is uncertain. Thats what makes it so fascinating to watch.

                Like

            • littleanniefannie says:

              Obama hated Flynn—that’s why he was surveilled. Obama hated everything Trump stood for and he wanted revenge for the birther stuff—that’s why he was surveilled. Legal was not a priority. Moral was not even a consideration. Like Susan Rice said, it all had to be done by the book. The book, you ask—Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky.
              The Rules
              1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
              2. Never go outside the expertise of your people.
              3. Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.
              4. Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.
              5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
              6. A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
              7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
              8. Keep the pressure on.
              9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
              10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
              11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
              12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
              13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

              Then there is also another list Obama followed, Communist Rules For Revolution.
              The Rules:
              1) Healthcare — Control healthcare and you control the people
              2) Poverty — Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
              3) Debt — Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
              4) Gun Control — Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.
              5) Welfare — Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).
              6) Education — Take control of what people read and listen to — take control of what children learn in school.
              7) Religion — Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.
              8) Class Warfare — Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

              Like

          • albertus magnus says:

            Because they are evil and demonic beings who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome?

            Like

        • underwhelmingposter says:

          I sadly agree. Basically, what did General Flynn do to warrant the “investigation? Were any of the Dem big money lobbyists investigated? Was Biden’s son investigated by CIA, FBI, DOJ?

          Like

        • GB Bari says:

          Sundance has written multiple articles covering the Flynn case, especially the surveillance that snared him. Sundance has explained this in detail, quite clearly.

          Like

        • Issy says:

          That is a high probability. Unless they lied to the fisa court, then it would be legal. These people know how to work the system to make what they do legal. Leaking classified information, as we know for a fact some did doesn’t seem to interest the prosecutors. So they very well may have something to be smug about.

          Like

    • Tl Howard says:

      There must NOT have been any conversations that pointed to a “compromised” Donald Trump or else MUELLAR would have a record of it and would have “found” it and yelled collusion or whatever.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Boxerpaws says:

      “then does all of this mean the entire Russia hoax was all legal, no matter how crooked and evil it was?” they want us to believe it was legal.

      Like

  21. Do you have links or other info?

    Liked by 1 person

  22. trapper says:

    A FISA warrant on Carter Page was issued in October, 2016. Being a two-hop warrant, two hops through the Trump campaign organization should get you from Page to Flynn with no problem. SO – it is reasonable to assume everyone in the Trump campaign and transition team was under direct, real-time, FISA surveillance. That means every conversation Flynn had with everyone was listened to in real time, including the one with Kislyak in December, 2016. The problem is, their warrant was fraudulently obtained. Uh oh.

    Why did the chicken cross the road? To spy on everyone in the Trump campaign.

    Liked by 1 person

    • sundance says:

      You are looking at the Page FISA wrong.

      I have tried to explain this so that people would drop the 2 hop snipe hunt.

      The Page FISA was not to get surveillance on Trump etc. Page was already out of the picture. The Page FISA was used only to get the Steele Dossier into the investigation.

      They needed the Steele Dossier, not the Page FISA.

      Page was the tool to inject the Dossier virus into the investigation. Nothing more.

      Liked by 8 people

      • trapper says:

        I get that. But it doesn’t have to be “either/or.” The Page warrant had more than one effect: it injected the dossier into the investigation and legitimized it, it “legitimized” any and all illegal surveillance of anyone in the Trump camp that had occurred prior to October 2016, and its two-hop nature permitted real-time surveillance of the entire team after October 2016. Do you really think they did not take advantage of the surveillance opportunities the warrant presented them? The phone lines were all open to them. Do you think they did not listen? They did not need a separate warrant on Flynn. They already had him through Page. That’s my point.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Issy says:

        I must be especially dense today because I don’t understand what a fisa on Page had to do with the steele dossier.

        Like

        • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

          Well first off the Steele Dossier was used to obtain the Carter Page FISA.
          Second off…the Carter Page FISA was used to make the Steele Dossier appear legit.

          A little like snake swallowing itself.

          Page is named prominently in the Steele Dossier and if you can recall way back to early 2017 it was all about the Steele Dossier and then all about Carter Page.

          Right up to the point that Nunes exposed the Steele Dossier was financed by HRC

          Then Bruce Banner became David Banner and
          Carter Page became George Papadopoulos.

          Comic books often need new origin stories.

          Like

      • farrier105 says:

        They don’t want the Dossier to be part of any of that anymore. That was the reason for the change of the original predicate for the investigation from Carter Page’s trip to Moscow to George Papadopoulos talking to Alexander Downer. There was TOO MUCH dossier in Page’s FISA warrant application, including copy-and-paste excerpts from the dossier into the application.

        The New York Times was used as the vehicle to cite “predicates” to the counterintelligence investigation.

        Like

  23. PBR says:

    Put a sock in it gonzo…

    Like

  24. gnome says:

    Post it a few more times and you may even start to believe it yourself. To me, the ugliest thing here is that the intelligence community has seven ways from sunday (an ugly form of words even in isolation) to get at someone they don’t like. Russia and China must be so pleased.

    I don’t know what the solution is, but surrendering to them isn’t it and you certainly aren’t helping.

    Liked by 2 people

    • underwhelmingposter says:

      In past readings, there have been shenanigans in the Politburo of Russia. Getting to be President and keeping the job relies on some nasty stuff. History books are full of the information (unless published in the US by teacher’s unions. Then it would be the US doing the nasty stuff. Also, dissenters have a way of disappearing, reporters too. Being a friend of Putin gets you the chance to be a billionaire before you are 40 (assuming you live that long). China disappears dissenters with a regularity that is more like a pogrom.

      Like

  25. EggsX1 says:

    It would be nice to know when Flynn was put under FISA Title-1 surveillance. This evidence also helps confirm Sundance’s earlier supposition that the Carter Page FISA was really about injecting the Steel Dossier into the system. They would have had the entire Trump campaign already surveilled from the Flynn warrant (and Manafort and Papadopolous warrants) as Flynn campaigned with Trump so the two-hop contacts of Flynn would have a lot of overlap with the two-hops from Page – it all comes down to the time of the Flynn FISA warrant.

    A question to answer would be under what predicate they obtained the FISA authority on Flynn. If it was for FARA, then the Podestas (and practically everyone in DC) should also have had their own warrants taken out.

    Liked by 8 people

    • Dutchman says:

      I think Flynn survellence goes back aways, 2014 at least.
      Recalling how easily they got renewals on Carter Page, despite requirement that they are SUPPOSED to show in subsequent applications that they are productive,…a FISA against Flynn in 2014 could have been reupped countless times.

      Or, were they survelling him without a warrant, in 2014?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

      It would be nice to know when Flynn was put under FISA Title-1 surveillance

      5 minutes after he disagreed publicly with his boss Barack.

      Like

  26. AccountabilityPlease says:

    So if the FBI already had a FISA on Flynn, why would they need one on Carter Page? By virtue of the “two-hop rule,” they would already have the ability to harvest info from the entire Trump campaign. What am I missing?

    Like

    • littleanniefannie says:

      I believe the use of the IC to spy by the 44 admin started early in 2008. They had the goods on Roberts for sure with the Obamacare vote (I know it was later but it was tried and true by then). Someone used Holder, Beatem and Cheatem as a law firm. Much more a propos than that use. It explains a lot of this “authorized surveillance” by the Obama admin, especially the wingman. Yes, he flew rogue, but he wasn’t in it alone! It was almost as though the Obama administration had psychiatric evaluations to see which potential department heads not only were of questionable moral fiber but were dark and sinister in thought and action!

      Liked by 1 person

    • farrier105 says:

      They were “dirtying” Page and Papadopoulos with the appearance of Russian ties.

      Like

  27. PBR says:

    We don’t really need you to repeat and repost.

    Like

  28. Burnt Toast says:

    BLUF

    Obama Admin was spying on all their political enemies.
    First spy then why.

    The Mueller report should have noted that Flynn was under investigation for Russian ties back towards page one. Not as a throw away line out of place in a paragraph noting events of inauguration week written six months later.

    Odd that he, years after the fact, it is claimed he was watched for “Russian Ties” when he found disfavor due to disagreement on Iran (Friend of Russia) and since had virtually worked as an agent for Turkey.

    Did the Mueller report include contemporaneous references to Flynn having these ties (back to 2015 or earlier)? And did they detail how Trump himself was briefed that a key member was under survelience for foreign ties?

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Pew-Anon says:

    Ok.

    So, does this materially effect or change anything downstream regarding Spygate and the Russia hoax?

    Like

  30. Steven Edwards says:

    Amusingly enough Obama did warn Trump. He really did try to help him by saying: ‘you might not want to hire Flynn’.

    If Trump had taken Obama’s advice, none of this would have happened…

    Liked by 1 person

    • Tl Howard says:

      Pretty damning–shows Obama wanted to undermine Trump. He didn’t tell Trump that Flynn was under a FISA and Trump was POTUS-elect.

      Liked by 1 person

    • jebg46 says:

      Not true, the Obama regime has been illegally spying on all their political enemies since at least 2012 or even earlier. He especially went after Flynn who was set up to be filmed sitting next to Putin and another time next to a Russian student who the feds claim was an agent, she’s not and is now suing.

      Once Hillary lost the Obama regime had to cover up all those years of illegal spying so they had to set up people in order to get fisa warrants. They needed these warrants to go wide and deep on as many people they could in order to account for the volume of spying.

      Liked by 1 person

    • underwhelmingposter says:

      We would have to have a double lobotomy to believe that Obama said the to PDJT in good faith, with detailed reasoning. On the 1% chance he did explain the situation. then PDJT probably thought that the reasoning was flimsy at best, and nonsensical at worst. He then may have reflected on what was told and decided the Flynn value was worth more than the issues Obama (may have) brought up.

      Like

    • Boxerpaws says:

      they would have found a way

      Like

  31. The Page FISA would still be illegal IMHO. But the Flynn FISA on the other hand, may be legal but probably isn’t. For the same reason the Page one isn’t. It’s called a fraud on the court system. If they did it to Page, I’d be willing to bet money they did it with Flynn also. Just like they probably did it with Papa D. I think we may get to the point of saying it would be easier and quicker to tell us who didn’t have a FISA investigation on them. And just how do we investigate how many FISA warrants were opened up under the Obama regime? Because if it’s that easy to defraud the court, then we need to shut the whole thing down. This is exactly why when the founders created this country, there was never a provision for a secret court in our Constitution. Because our founders knew a government made up of mere mortals absolutely could not be trusted. The tyranny is already upon us. We just refuse to see it.

    Liked by 4 people

    • sundance says:

      Don’t be surprised to find out Carter Page signed off on allowing his own FISA warrant.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Boxerpaws says:

        wouldn’t be. always wondered about Page.He’s a kind of enigma compared to Papadopolous,Manafort and Flynn. And he did get to quietly walk off.

        Like

        • So now I wonder what the next step of the plan is since Page admitted he had been an FBI or CIA source for many years. Does he basically say he hated being called a spy by FBI when he was working for CIA – or vice-versa – but he believed all along it was legal and PDJT needed to be investigated?
          The guy’s a military academy graduate whose job was intelligence or counter intelligence. He’s a spook and has been for decades. How would he not have known he was being surveilled and also have gotten off with nothing? He was the only one besides the chubby guy who worked with Alex Jones. Morsi is his name?
          How did Morsi get off when they came at him hard? Why did Mueller/Weasley not give him the Manfort/Stone treatment?
          It appears SD is leading us down a road that all these guys were in on it except for the political prisoners.
          Next question is if SD is right and Flynn is tainted, why is Sidney Powell taking his case? To screw Mueller and get the evidence of malicious prosecution vs. setting Flynn free?
          Follow up question: why would Flynn allow this after working with the scum from Eric Holder’s law Firm? He had to know who they were when he hired them.

          Does this also mean Sidney Powell is somehow deep state herself and a plant on this website? I’m doubtful of that now. But since I’ve been here, a bunch of people who were looking like they were for We the People are seeming more and more to have issues.

          Like

        • littleanniefannie says:

          The fact that Page hasn’t even been charged with jaywalking gave me pause long ago.

          Like

      • Pew-Anon says:

        Exactly. The moment I learned Page was a prior CIA asset…well, that told me all I needed to know about him.

        Like

      • Is that even possible that you can sign off on your own FISA warrant? Or are you speaking figuratively? If what you are saying is true, then Page signs off and this now gets the Steele Dossier into play. And since everything after 03/09/16 is just to cover up all the illegal spying done since 2012, this would mean that the Steele Dossier is just a way to open a FISA on Page to give legal cover. Which may mean that Page is a lot more involved in the coverup, or is he kept in the dark?

        So the Judge Collier finding of illegal 702 searches and FISA abuse are actually two separate yet intertwined issues. The first being the contractor access and the second being the 702 abuses by the FBI. It boggles the mind to think of how many different ways the abuse could be implemented.

        Scenario #1) Using a FARA violation as cover, a lobbyist now has a FISA opened up on him. This in turn allows everyone he comes into contact with to be spied upon also. Think of what this list would include. Politicians, other lobbyists, bankers, etc.

        Scenario #2) Contractors spying upon business rivals, trade secrets revealed, etc.

        And there are an endless number of different scenarios, with a lot of overlap. Think of the blackmail opportunities. Vote for this or your wife finds out about your mistress. Bid high on this contract or your tax issues could come to light. Etc, etc, etc…

        The first thing we need is to declassify the Judge Collier report. That’s where Barr’s investigation should start. What a hot mess.

        Like

      • GB Bari says:

        OK. That would certainly answer a lot of suspicions that many (incl. me) have had about his actions, words, body language, and the complete lack of his prosecution. Glad you finally proffered that possibility.

        Like

      • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

        Don’t be surprised to find out Carter Page signed off on allowing his own FISA warrant.

        If we find that out then isn’t it GAME OVER?

        Would demonstrate EXPLICITLY that the FBI knew the Steele Dossier was fake (a significant portion being about Page) and needed their target to AGREE to this DR.EVIL level master plan….to get it in.

        All kinds of REAL problems arise….
        Did FBI brief Go8 about this? Or is this another instance of “too sensitive”?
        Schiff read the dossier into the Congressional record and Comey sat there while he did it.
        Mueller got called to the mat in 2003 for similar shit.
        Carter Page’s fraudulent lawsuits.
        Comey “briefed” the PE on this.
        Steele distributing what FBI knows is BS to DoS, DoJ, members of Congress.
        FALSE ACCUSATIONS (American Disinfo) against a foreign country.by the US Chief Law Enforcement agency
        Oh and the FBI treats FISAs as playthings……..TOYS.

        What would be their supposed legitimate excuse for this gem of a plan?

        Maybe, possibly, perhaps , perchance Donald Trump was a Russian SPY?

        And what did they get from this wonderful undertaking?

        BUPKUS
        NOT ONE SINGLE INDICTMENT FOR A “COLLUSION” CRIME
        This “OPERATION” would go down as the stupidest, dumbest, most ridiculous, off the rails, jerk off of a President, Congress, the American people and the world in the history of the FBI.

        “JEJUNE” ain’t the half of it.
        INFANTILE comes close…….

        Scooby-Doo?……
        BINGO

        Would thoroughly enjoy to see this happen especially the Uniparty, MSM, Brennan, Clapper spin their tales about how KICK ASS this OP was
        but most of all….

        The follow on tweet from the wandering poet Comey…
        a picture of him with his head deeply embedded up his own ass captioned:

        “Just stoppin’ to smell the roses”

        Bring that shit on!

        (I apologize for the harsh language….I won’t use the word SPY again)

        Like

  32. Bogeyfree says:

    I wonder if this thread it specifically intended for Sidney Powell?

    Feed the Hound!

    Like

  33. Battleship Wisconsin says:

    Sundance says:

    “There are only three options:

    — Incidental collection = unmasking request.
    — Direct intercept / Legal = Active FISA Title-1 surveillance authority.
    — Direct intercept / Illegal = Active surveillance without Title-1 authority.”

    Here on CTH, a general question concerning the effects of the issuance a FISA surveillance warrant still remains to be clearly answered.

    If active surveillance was being conducted against a person ‘X’ and/or an organization ‘Y’ without an active FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant being in place — that is to say, the surveillance was being conducted illegally — does that prior ‘illegal’ surveillance instantly become ‘legal’ when a proper Title-1 FISA warrant covering the same persons and organizations is signed?

    For example, a FISA warrant for surveillance against Carter Page, and therefore any other persons two hops away from him, was signed on October 21st, 2016.

    As things stand today, is all the surveillance activity done against Carter Page (et al) that was performed prior to October 21st 2016 now considered to be technically legal, simply because a FISA warrant was in fact signed on that date covering the same scope of surveillance?

    Like

    • sundance says:

      Forget the Carter Page FISA.

      I have written about the purpose of the Carter Page FISA so much it stuns me that people think the Page FISA had anything to do with surveillance.

      It’s a complete misnomer.
      Wrong.
      A snipe hunt.
      A conversation to no where.
      A dead end.

      The PAGE FISA was *ONLY* to get the Steele Dossier into the investigation. Nothing more.

      Liked by 6 people

      • CopperTop says:

        and please go to the next step: Getting the dossier in gets the false fact “Cohen” in. Which goes towards obstruction.

        Like

        • Battleship Wisconsin says:

          CopperTop, I have sometimes wondered if John Brennan and others in the Deep State realized that Hillary Clinton was not certain to win in 2016, regardless of what the press and the pollsters were saying before the election, and that she was in fact vulnerable to being beaten by Trump.

          If this is the case, then pushing a false Russia collusion narrative both before and after the election becomes a means of luring Donald Trump into a situation where if, against all odds, he becomes president, he will either wittingly or unwittingly take actions which can be construed as obstruction of justice.

          To do this kind of thing over such a long period of time would be to play a very sophisticated game of entrapment.

          Because Russia collusion is a false narrative, it has the benefit of becoming an exceptionally potent lure if the objective goal is to encourage Donald Trump to make tactical mistakes along the way while he is pursuing his own defense, mistakes which can be spun by creative lawfare experts such as Andrew Weissman into charges of criminal obstruction of justice.

          Like

          • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

            I’ve entertained the idea that Trump/Russia was meant to be the October Coup d’Gras.

            But dammit all to hell….that wasn’t Weiner’s dong in them there Calvin Klein’s….

            it was half a million Hillary emails that didn’t get “baked in the cake”

            And Comey drained all the oxygen from the room while deflating October’s “Surprise”.

            Like

    • Kay Sadeeya says:

      So you’re asking; if a bogus illegal search produces criminal activities or intent, does that justify it’s use to obtain a FISA warrant, after the fact?

      Something would definitely be rotten if that were allowed.

      Like

  34. kev3995@yahoo.com says:

    Concern trolling has been on the uptick lately. What do we attribute that to?

    Like

    • farrier105 says:

      They don’t include in their “concern trolling” the hope that, even if there are no prosecutions for “Russiagate,” they “trolls” express hope that–somehow–the general public is educated about what really happened. If they would just do that, it would no longer be “concern trolling.”

      Like

  35. kev3995@yahoo.com says:

    I’ve noticed a lot more concern trolling around here lately. What do we attribute that to?

    Like

  36. meadowlarkspring says:

    Intelligence officials eavesdropped on Flynn’s calls with the Russian ambassador and later leaked information on those calls to the press. The story of what happened is coming out. The why is not far behind. To me this would seem to include how many of Candidate Trump’s, president elect and POTUS conversations with Flynn were recorded.

    Like

  37. CET says:

    I must be missing something, but why would the Flynn surveillance have had to be associated with a FISA warrant? We aren’t that sure of why he plead guilty, and Cohen even plead guilty to things that weren’t crimes. So, I can’t take at face value that Flynn was under investigation for ties to the Russian government or that the four people under counterintelligence investigation were only under that investigation. Tax evasion, money laundering, insulting Obama, bribery, anything they could have found or made up to get a normal criminal warrant with “wiretap” authority could have put him under surveillance without a need to unmask. Any warrant would do if they were seeking leverage.

    Like

    • dpc32 says:

      I would think a FISA Warrant gives you all you’re going to need as far as surveillance authorizations combined with the fewest number of people knowing about it. Sort of the ultimate one-stop shop for wayward investigators.

      Like

      • CET says:

        Good point-least chance of it getting out and FISA was the neighborhood they ran in. I later remembered the personal connection to the FISA judge also.

        Like

    • littleanniefannie says:

      Though Cohen was anything but a choirboy, are you implying that maybe he and Flynn plead guilty because of other things in their lives that they didn’t want publicly acknowledged? Could that be why they both accepted pure Democrat lawyers through the plea agreements? Blackmail? Possibly for personal rather than professional reasons?

      Like

    • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

      why would the Flynn surveillance have had to be associated with a FISA warrant?

      Because it appears there is no paperwork requesting Flynn’s name be unmasked in his Kislyak phone call which there SHOULD be if he was INCIDENTALLY collected per 702.
      (IF They were monitoring Kislyak)
      That phone call was leaked (illegal) and it should take all of 10 minutes to find out who requested the unmasking (and that includes a bathroom break and a run to Starbuck’s)

      Nobody has answered that question and the SCO refuses to even turn over the transcript in Flynn’s OWN case.

      NO Paperwork, no 702
      Meaning they were spying on Flynn, meaning FISA Title 1 on FLYNN.

      You need to watch Lindsey Graham’s questioning of Sally Logan-Yates and James Clapper and enjoy their evasive answers.

      Like

  38. kp says:

    Why do I trust in the LORD?

    Well 1,000’s of reasons actually, but a flesh man, woman, or child is gonna’ let you down sooner or later, every time. Flesh is weak even when the spirit is strong.

    More prayers for General Flynn, Sidney, PDJT, his family, his advisors, the CTH family, and on, and on, and on…

    Liked by 3 people

  39. dpc32 says:

    Could there possibly be a more stunning and telling fact than the outgoing Commander in Chief discussing with his minions (including the head of the FBI) the concealment from the incoming CnC, of vital, pertinent information regarding a foreign adversary? Breathtaking! And only explainable as the concealment of a plot. This is Obama arranging for the covering over of sedition against the U.S. Government directed by his own hand, in the hopes of destroying a man and his presidency. All to avoid being exposed as the anti-American plant he obviously was.

    Liked by 5 people

    • kp says:

      dpc32,

      All too true. And I frequently refer to the Islamist Obamination traitor Metro-boy that occupied the ‘almost’ Sacred, White House during the previous administration as scum.

      But then I come to my senses and realize there’s no real point in disparaging scum.

      Liked by 1 person

  40. Tiffthis says:

    So the peaceful transfer of power was never on the table in 2016? Makes my blood boil that no one is even questioning the participants and coordinators.

    Liked by 4 people

  41. Tngal says:

    I am getting confused! Why was Obama telling Trump not to hire Flynn?

    Like

  42. Devil in the Blue Drapes says:

    Paragraph two of Mueller rpt states the next day “….Flynn told Bannon of his convo w/Kislyak and it appeared Bannon already knew….”

    Footnote 100. Bannon recalled meeting but denies knowing about the sanctions.

    Is this breadcrumb supposed to imply Bannon was aware Flynn was under surveillance?

    Like

    • BitterC says:

      I believe it’s cuz the transition team knew. And I have long puzzled:

      Flynn spoke with the TT down at Mar a Lago before/after his call to Kislyak. I think he spoke to Pence and told him he had req’d the Russians to chill.

      We know the FBI has those calls. Why did they never call Pence out?

      Like

  43. jbowen82 says:

    The “big picture” is that it’s going to be conclusively proven that the Deep State was spying on the Trump campaign, then the transition, then the White House. That is all that will be needed to do what needs to be done after 2020. There will be a wholesale purge of the agencies. Some entire branches will be eliminated. Authorities will be greatly curtailed. And the political will to do it will be present, for probably the first time in nearly 50 years. It is long overdue.

    Liked by 2 people

  44. arze says:

    Perhaps Gen. Flynn’s new attorney’s strategy is to force the government to let him go free on account of all the classified material they would not want to show, and thus throw in the towel, rather than comply with any discovery….The old attorney he had, why didn’t they do it? The Flynn side-show is an enigma. Perhaps it will remain so….I D K. Why was Flynn targeted? One aspect rarely discussed is Flynn and Iran, and, by extension, Obama’s Iran deal, approved by several other nations.

    The only notable thing Flynn did in his brief tenure was put Iran on notice, Feb. 3, 2017; ten days later he resigned.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-national-security-advisor-michael-t-flynn-iran/

    Liked by 1 person

  45. clr says:

    Something is missing in the Flynn puzzle that I’m trying to figure out – how this event fits into the mix.
    Recall: (October 2016?) Turkey shoots down a Russian Jet. Russia says WW# is coming to Turkey.
    The world is clamoring for the USA to mediate. But who could possibly help?? Well, the only guy anyone could think of was Michael Flynn – but Flynn worked for Trump Campaign. Flynn said no initially but reports said Flynn by far the best qualified, being familiar with intel community people from both countries.
    I never heard if Flynn took on the assignment but soon both countries came to an accommodation.
    Then months later a report of some guy listening in on a conversation between Flynn and a guy from Turkey’s intel people. ( that was among the accusations leveled at Flynn for lobbying for a foreign country.
    So my question is: Was Flynn set up by the CIA right there, just before the election?

    Liked by 1 person

    • BitterC says:

      They tell us no one ever really leaves the KGB/FSB,

      Well, I don’t think Flynn ever really left Military intel. We know he briefed them before and after that dinner in Moscow.

      I have speculated his work in Turkey and the nuke energy work in Saudi were done with his intel hat on.

      THAT is the esculpatory info Grassley’s long ago letter spoke of

      Flynn couldn’t tell the FBI/Mueller about it, either

      Liked by 1 person

      • Issy says:

        It is an interesting theory. I don’t know why everyone jumped on the explanation that Flynn lied to the VP as a reason for firing him. I heard the Pence interview and his answer could have been easily been explained as a misunderstanding. Was that a cover story? It is a mystery.

        Like

    • Wasn’t his firm contracted with Turkey? Didn’t Manafort work for Podesta? Maybe these two got railroaded because they changed their minds when they saw what was happening. I realize I just don’t get it.

      Liked by 1 person

  46. Bigbadmike says:

    Now I finally realize why President Trump is the first and only President who was not a politician , had not been in the Military or had worked for the government. Still, he beat the Deep State by bringing it into the sunlight. We must not be discouraged that they are treacherous in protecting themselves and àre above the law because they control it. It’s the world they live in. We are only the voters. And, with the Grace of God, we elected President Trump as the 45th President of the United States. And we will do it again if we trust in God and keep our heads.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Conservative_302 says:

      To add to this, Trump supporters need a new party. We blame the dems because they are complete swines, but half or 3/4 of the Republican party towed the line and went along during Obama’s presidency. McConnell and Ryan, the gang of 8, I’ll bet they’ve know the entire time about most or all that a been done to Trump and applauded it. Haven’t seen McConnell or Ryan complain about the attempted coup on their party’s president. They hardly ever had his back. This makes me sick. So many slime balls in government. I am going to keep on praying the Lord will deliver us from this evil.

      Liked by 1 person

  47. Mac says:

    While Flynn was definitely under active surveillance, I found no references to any of his communications prior to 11/16. Remember, the Title I FISA warrant on Page came out in 10/16. And, it is reasonable to assume that with Page’s contacts, both before and after he left the Trump Campaign, Flynn would have come within the scope of that warrant. While it is possible that there were active FISA warrants issued on Flynn, in 2016 and 2017, we have seen no verification that any such existed. What is interesting is that the Kislyak intercept was originally billed as being an incidental collection. This would be accurate if Flynn was under active surveillance and Kislyak was the “incidental intercept”, not Flynn; though it was reported as being the other way around. However, when Flynn was indicted, the Mueller team could no longer strictly claim that Kislyak was the target of the intercept.

    Now, we are aware of the Page warrant and that it was subsequently renewed several times. We know that the FBI attempted to obtain 2-3 FISA warrants in June and July of 2016, though we do not know who the targets of these warrant attempts were. We also know that they were not granted. So far, we only know of one active FISA warrant during the 2016-2018 time frame and that was the one on Page. If the original targets of the FBI CoI op were Papadapolous, Manifort, Flynn and Page, as likely reported to the HPSCI, and two or three FISA warrants were applied for in June-July and all were turned down, these would likely have been for everyone except Page.

    Like

    • Hmmm... says:

      There is one other FISA. The “dragon” mentioned in the Page/Stzrok texts. There is enough reporting on it that it would seem to be pretty much confirmed as existing but not much else.

      Like

      • Mac says:

        The reporting on Dragon, which was being considered in August 10, 2016. comes from a short series of text messages between Strzok and Page. They discussed having a superior present a FISA request for “Dragon”. Now, Strzok mentions that he was trying to come up with something military, so this might pertain to Flynn. However, we have no confirmation that the proposed Dragon warrant was ever granted, or even applied for. Nor do we have any information on who, or what, it was directed at. If it was directed at surveilling Flynn and was granted, then there was a seeming long drought between August and the first documented Flynn intercept in late November 2016.

        Dragon could have been the third suspected FISA request of the Summer of 2016. So far, it has been reported that the FBI approached the FISC for two warrants, which were reportedly refused, in June and July, 2016.

        Like

  48. CET says:

    Something else bugging me- Why the heck do you do all this if your so damned sure Hillary will win? You don’t. They must have been pretty sure Trump was winning and big.
    We still don’t know what the insurance policy was, and even worse, who the “agent” is.

    Like

  49. Troublemaker10 says:

    HUGE? Flynn’s Full Legal Team Shows Up
    http://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2019/06/huge-flynns-full-legal-team-shows-up.html?m=1

    Excerpt:

    Politico’s Darren Samuelsohn, in a series of tweets, reports that Sidney Powell is only one of Flynn’s new attorneys. Per Gateway Pundit:

    The team consists of new members — Jesse Binnall, Philip John Harvey & W. William Hodes, along with Sidney Powell — to represent him in his ongoing case.
    These attorneys have entered notices of appearance in the EDVA case against Flynn’s former business partner where Flynn is expected to testify.

    W. William Hodes is the author of “Law and Lawyering” a nationally recognized treatise on legal ethics that is updated annually. Hodes was a member of the Advisory Council to the American Bar Association’s Ethics 2000 Commission.

    This should keep Robert Mueller and his far left “pitbull” Andrew Weissmann up at night.

    Liked by 3 people

  50. Boxerpaws says:

    “This should keep Robert Mueller and his far left “pitbull” Andrew Weissmann up at night.” like the sound of that.

    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 )

Connecting to %s