Against the unmasking discussion currently underway, it is worthwhile contrasting the distinctions between: (1) the NSA unmasking of incidental collection; and (2) the FBI unmasking as a result of targeted investigations.

There is a big difference between the two types; and Mike Flynn was a subject of both.

Appearing before a congressional committee on March 20, 2017, FBI Director James Comey outlined the FBI parameters for unmasking U.S. persons who are captured as part of domestic FBI surveillance.

.

The distinction between the two unmasking aspects is becoming increasingly important. The FBI is currently claiming the Flynn-Kislyak call was due to “incidental collection”; this is a lie. The New York Times is pushing that lie today:

(New York Times) […] Mr. Flynn’s case grew out of phone calls he made to Mr. Kislyak in the final days of 2016, asking that Moscow refrain from retaliating after the Obama administration imposed sanctions on Russia as punishment for interfering in the election.

The conversations were captured on routine wiretaps of Mr. Kislyak and prompted concern among the F.B.I. agents investigating Mr. Flynn once they learned of them.

By assigning the conversation to a routine wiretap of Kislyak, the Times, on behalf of the FBI, is attempting to hide the fact the Flynn-Kislyak phone call was captured during FBI surveillance of Flynn.

Apparently, despite the recent records being released which show an investigation, the FBI doesn’t want to admit to domestic surveillance of Michael Flynn as their investigative target.

If the Dec 29th Flynn-Kislyak call was intercepted by the NSA as part of “routine wiretaps” of Mr. Kislyak; and if the FBI was using that intercept as part of their January 4th discussion to keep the Flynn case open; there would have been an unmasking record of that event (released today) showing an FBI unmask request between Dec 29th and Jan 4th:

Note: There wasn’t an unmasking request after the Dec 29th call before January 4th.

There wasn’t a request, because Flynn wasn’t unmasked to the FBI as a result of routine wiretaps of Mr. Kislyak; because the call was simultaneously captured by the FBI as part of the investigation and surveillance of Flynn.

Denis McDonough got the Flynn-Kislyak transcript on January 5th, which is how Obama and Susan Rice discussed the call with DAG Sally Yates on January 5, 2017, that surprised her.  The FBI 7th Floor (Comey and McCabe) already knew about the call.

The issue of how the FBI is explaining their discussion of the Flynn-Kislyak call; which they are now saying (falsely) they discovered via “incidental collection”; is likely why those unmasking records are valuable to, and requested by, John Durham.

I shall not say more than that because it would not be a good idea to tip-off the coup plotters on the direction of an investigation….