The official 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 is accurate, it falls under FISA-702 collection: the lawful monitoring of a foreign agent who has contact with a U.S. person.  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]

.
In the two years that have followed this testimony, despite the simplicity of the the process to discover the answer, we can identify no action taken (nor reports of action taken) that would deliver the answer as to: who unmasked General Michael Flynn?
(more…)

Congressman Darryl Issa appears for an interview with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the sketchy Mueller case against Michael Flynn; the likelihood that someone in the administration is going to have to talk to the FISA court about likely DOJ abuse; and the second round of questions for James Comey scheduled for tomorrow.

(more…)

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.

(more…)

Judge Rudolph Contreras recused himself from the case surrounding Michael Flynn, and people are wondering why.  There’s one very distinct possibility.

POLITICO – President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, will face a different judge to be sentenced than the one who took Flynn’s guilty plea to a felony false statement charge last week, court records show.
Judge Emmet Sullivan was randomly assigned to take over the case after Judge Rudolph Contreras recused himself. (more)

As soon as CTH saw the name Judge Rudolph Contreras our spidey sense alarm bells began ringing.  You know why?…
(more…)

This has been one of the odd aspects to the special counsel investigation deployed under the nameplate of Robert Mueller.   However, with the trial of Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann bringing more curious minds to the backstories, here’s one that few people understand.

You will remember the massive media debate in early 2018 about the FISA application deployed against former short-time Trump campaign aide Carter Page.  The DOJ, at the time under the control of the Mueller special counsel for all things Trump-Russia related, wouldn’t let congress see the FISA application. Devin Nunes complained to House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Eventually a deal was struck and two members from the House Intelligence committee (democrats and republicans) and two members from the House Judiciary Committee, were allowed to go to Main Justice and read the FISA application, but not copy it.  Four congressmen were allowed to go read and take notes. Trey Gowdy and John Ratcliffe represented the two republicans, and their notes formed the basis for what later was called “The Nunes Memo.”

The Democrats were not happy with the claims in the Nunes memo, and subsequently HPSCI ranking member Adam Schiff wrote the democrat version.

Both of those sets of memos then needed to be declassified, more delays, before they could be made public.  For weeks and weeks, the Nunes -vs- Schiff memos were debated by both sides, with each saying their version was the truth and the other party’s version was spin and/or false.   All of this was happening in January, February and March 2018.

Then, later in the summer, something really weird happened.  Main Justice completely reversed position on keeping the FISA application secret, and for the first time in U.S. history a top secret classified Title-1 FISA application was released to the public (with redactions).

People were so filled with curiosity about the Carter Page FISA application that few, heck, almost no one, stopped to ask why it was released?  Why the sudden secrecy reversal by the DOJ?

(more…)

Yesterday, we noted the curiously random set of coincidences taking place amid an internecine DC judicial system {GO DEEP}.  The network of DC relationships, specifically judges, connected to prior Main Justice DOJ, FBI and FISA Court activity could not be as random as the process defenders would claim.

The latest revelation came from the “random” civil case assignment of Carter Page -v- James Comey.  The case was reassigned to Judge James Boasberg, who held a major conflict of interest in the specifics of the Carter Page lawsuit against James Comey {Again, Go Deep}.

Today, perhaps partly in response to the sunlight provided by the extensive background; or perhaps related to the reality that Boasberg could not possibly sit as the judge in the lawsuit; the Carter Page case was again reassigned.  However, this time it is not the reassignment that draws attention, it is the reassigner, the Chairman of the Case Calendar and Case Management Committee, Rudolph Contreras:

As we can see, the civil case has been reassigned from Judge James Boasberg to Judge Timothy J Kelly, that’s good.

There was no way for Boasberg to sit as the judge in this case given his connections and rulings on prior cases like the (1) James Comey memos, the (2) case against Kevin Clinesmith; and (3), the fact that Boasberg was a FISA court judge, and he personally approved the June 29, 2017, FISA warrant against Carter Page – which was constructed by fraudulent manipulation of the underlying affidavits.   There are massive conflicts for Boasberg in all aspects of the Carter Page civil suit against James Comey.

However, it is also interesting to see the name Rudolph Contreras appear again. The DC judicial system is getting very interesting with all of the sunlight upon it.  Specifically, in this instance, the role of the FISA court in the controversial Fourth Branch of Government {Go Deep} is starting to make a lot more sense.

(more…)

The FISA Court is Compromised

I hate to write this, but there is just no good way to look at this. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, specifically Presiding Judge James Boasberg, has hired former DOJ National Security Division head, Mary McCord, as amici curiae advisor to the court. [LINK] The placement was first noted by an announcement from Georgetown Law ICAP.

Presiding Judge James Boasberg, is the decision-maker in the appointment of Amici Curiae to the FISA court. There is no way, NO WAY, Judge Boasberg does not know Mary McCord was at the epicenter of the fraudulent FISA application used against Carter Page. Remember, in addition to being the FISC Presiding Judge, Boasberg was also the trial judge in the case against Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI lawyer who lied about Page working for the CIA on the FISA application. {Go Deep}

Boasberg knows Mary McCord took over from former DOJ-NSD head John Carlin (October 2016); and it was McCord who guided the Carter Page FISA application through the court and across the finish-line (October 2016 and January 2017). That FISA application was built upon fraud and Mary McCord was at the center of it.

Mary McCord was also the DOJ-NSD official who went with Sally Yates to confront the White House Counsel, Don McGhan, about the Michael Flynn interview with the FBI. {Go Deep} It was also Mary McCord who had Michael Atkinson as the chief-legal-counsel for the DOJ-NSD -that’s her office attorney- when the FISA application was submitted in October 2016, and renewed in January 2017.

Michael Atkinson went from DOJ-NSD counsel to become the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG). {Go Deep} In that new role Atkinson changed the rules to allow an anonymous CIA whistleblower (Ciaramella on behalf of Vindman) to file the complaint that led to the Ukraine impeachment effort. {Go Deep} Who was the lead lawyer in the Jerry Nadler led House Judiciary Committee? Why Mary McCord of course. Judge Boasberg knows all of this… AND MORE.

(more…)

Yesterday, in a final foot-stomping and teeth-gnashing exhibition of judicial activism, federal judge Emmet Sullivan allowed a host of political amicus briefs to be provided to the case file against Lt. General Michael Flynn.

The obvious judicial intent was to legally smear General Flynn with as many corrupt and manipulative Lawfare opinions as possible. In essence Sullivan was just pouring on the dirt after President Trump stepped in and said “enough” granting Flynn a deserved, full and unconditional pardon.

I didn’t write about Sullivan’s scheme and vile nature last night because: (a) I was very angry, and (b) I suspected Sullivan’s only intent was to besmirch the good name and reputation of Flynn in the judicial record.  Ultimately Sullivan’s childish Lawfare antics held no legal or judicial merit because Flynn has been pardoned. It was all moot.

Today, after stomping his feet and throwing a verbal tantrum, as expected Judge Sullivan announces the motion to dismiss the case is granted.

I’ve got two words for you Judge Sullivan, and they ain’t Merry Christmas!

(more…)

Missouri U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen has provided additional information to the Flynn defense team highlighting a January 25th meeting between officials in the DOJ-NSD and FBI the day after Michael Flynn (code-named Razor) was interviewed in the White House.

The DOJ officials attending the meeting included: Mary McCord (NSD head), George Toscas (NSD principal deputy), Stu Evans, Tashina Guahar, and “Matt A” (possibly Matthew Axelrod (lawyer for the Deputy Attorney General).  Additionally, from the FBI there was: James Baker (chief legal counsel), Bill Priestap (CoIntel head) and a redacted name.  It is clear from the meeting notes the group was trying to find something to target Michael Flynn and brainstorming on what approach to take.

As noted they discussed the “Logan Act” yet found there was no reasonable way to use it and Flynn’s contact with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, during the transition, was normal.

FBI Legal Counsel James Baker asked how could you prosecute Flynn for a 1001 violation (lying to FBI officials) when you couldn’t prosecute any underlying crime because the contact with Kislyak was normal.

The “truth of something being falsely stated to the public” surrounds the January 15, 2017, CBS interview with Vice-President Mike Pence who conflated a question about contact with Russians during the election; with Flynn’s contact with Kislyak in the transition period.

John Dickerson: Just to button up one question, did any advisor or anybody in the Trump campaign have any contact with the Russians who were trying to meddle in the election?

MIKE PENCE: Of course not. And I think to suggest that is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy. (link)

The DOJ/FBI team was going to hang their hat on this conflation as a conflict between Pence and Flynn.   That’s the beginning of the Russian “blackmail” narrative.

(more…)

Michael Flynn’s defense attorney Sidney Powell hits it out of the park as she connects the dots within the surveillance state and the use of FBI contractors to mine the NSA database.

Must Watch:

.

A DEEP DIVE – How Did It Work?

(more…)