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:

(more…)

A few points on the unmasking before Rand Paul response.  First, the release today is only what the Obama team did regarding unmasking General Flynn.  As Devin Nunes previously outlined, there are many more Trump transition team members who were unmasked as the Obama team conducted surveillance on the incoming administration.

Second, the NSA “reports” are related to actual transcripts, emails and text messages of communication; not just various intelligence interpretations of those communications.

As Senator Rand Paul shares, the effort of the Obama and Biden administration to unmask their political opposition during the transition; and then use widespread distribution and leaks to the media to push a specific one-sided view; is the weaponization of the intelligence apparatus to target political opposition.  That’s the major issue:

.

Again, a reminder, these reports surround only NSA intercepts. Simultaneous to this there was an ongoing FBI counterintelligence operation using FISA surveillance (Carter Page) and non-fisa targeted FBI surveillance of Michael Flynn.

(more…)

For the sake of understanding this specific release, “unmasking” occurs when the NSA, eavesdropping on foreign communications, sweeps up communications with U.S. citizen. That is known as “incidental collection.”

When the intelligence about that communication is shared across the government, the names of U.S. citizens in the communication are typically concealed or masked to protect their identities. However, the names can be unmasked if U.S. officials make the request.

In this release [pdf here], the Obama-era NSA was monitoring various foreign government officials and within their communication they picked up contacts with incoming President-elect Trump’s National Security Advisor Lt. General Michael Flynn.  This release only includes NSA intercepts; not other intelligence agency reports; only the NSA.

The NSA generated [redacted number] of reports based on those foreign contacts. The reports are actual transcripts of the conversations.  The Obama-era officials then asked the NSA to unmask the name of General Flynn so they could see the content and context of the calls.  Current DNI Ric Grenell has assembled a list of who asked the NSA to unmask incoming NSA Michael Flynn from November 8, 2016 through January 31, 2017.

It is important to remember, these intercepts are part of the normal function of monitoring foreign communications.  There is nothing nefarious about the monitoring and there is nothing nefarious about a foreign person contacting the incoming administration, via General Flynn, to begin preparing for the change in administrations.

However, what is completely alarming and disturbing, is the extent to which the Obama administration went to share the contacts and transcripts of the calls with a myriad of government officials.  That’s where the list comes in.

(more…)

There has been a shift; it’s subtle, it’s nuanced, but it’s there.  Against the revelations that Ric Grenell has declassified multiple component parts of weaponized intelligence used against candidate, President-elect and President Trump; and with the unmasking data as only one part of that larger component grouping; DOJ Spokesperson Kerri Kupec says: “what happened to candidate Trump was one of the greatest political injustices in history.”

While AG Bill Barr doesn’t need to sign-off on the specific wording by the DOJ spox, the overarching public statement would never be articulated without institutional approval.  The AG cannot make public comments that are too strong, but authorizing the spokesperson to articulate the position is one way to accomplish the same.  WATCH:

.

Insufferably Martha MacCallum ‘pretends not to know’ the distinction in intelligence equity; she asks the same question repeatedly.  The answer is clear.  DNI Ric Grenell has presented one component group of intelligence data, the identity of the unmaskers and who they unmasked, to the DOJ.  The DNI retains ownership and can release.

(more…)

First things first: ♦Understand Obama’s Surveillance Operation HERE.  ♦Michael Flynn wasn’t unmasked, nor under a FISA (Title-1) HERE That’s the background.

After Acting DNI Richard “Ric” Grenell delivered a volume of declassified intelligence records to Attorney General Bill Barr it was reported that Grenell delivered a file showing the intelligence unmaskers from the Obama administration; pending Barr release.

Today ABC is reporting from senior DOJ officials “”we do not intend to release the [unmasking] list” that Grenell brought over to the building last week.”

Considering the content of the files likely delivered to AG Barr it is worth remaining patient.  No-one is more cynical than me about DOJ hiding stuff; but this ain’t that.

The declassified documents are not a DOJ equity, they are a DNI equity, the DNI can release them.  For the DOJ the declassified documents are evidence.

Kevin Corke and Adam Housley are both reporting the documents delivered by Grenell extend beyond unmasking; their reporting makes sense.  The bigger topic is political surveillance.  The surveillance encompassed numerous intelligence equities.

(more…)

It appears we are about to find out if one of my long-standing theories about surveillance of Michael Flynn is correct.  Flynn was not “unmasked”, because he was the direct target.

For three years 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, surrounded “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 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. As NSA Director Rogers said: that submission, the unmasking, leaves a paper/electronic trail.  However, I do not think that is what happened, here’s why:

Back in 2017 Senator Lindsey Graham questioned former DAG Sally Yates and former DNI James Clapper.  Within the questioning, Sally Yates tipped her hand.  There was never an unmasking of Flynn because Flynn was a target; it was not incidental collection. WATCH:

.

Sally Yates doesn’t directly say Flynn was a target, but by now we all know he was a target of the FBI investigation.  As a result of Flynn being the actual target he would be directly identified within the intelligence documents because the investigation would be about him, and not incidental. But there’s more…

(more…)

During testimony in June 2017 Admiral Mike Rogers helps to explain what documents would be available to identify who was making unmasking requests. WATCH:

Note: “you must make that request in writing”; which explains the documents Ric Grenell has declassified and the probability that AG Bill Barr will soon release.

ABC News first reported the news but initially said in the title that Grenell was in the process of trying to declassify the list of Obama officials.

A source with knowledge of the matter told The Daily Wire that the list has already been declassified and now it’s on Attorney General William Barr to release the list. (LINK)

FULL BACKGROUND  – However, a strong note of caution.  Sometimes the specificity of the intelligence operation itself means the U.S. target will already be named in the originating intelligence document and would not require an unmasking request.

(more…)

Why is former President Obama calling forth all his defensive resources now?  Why did former national security advisor Susan Rice write her cya letter?  Why have republicans in congress not been willing to investigate the true origins of political surveillance?  What is the reason for so much anger, desperation and opposition from a variety of interests?

With the release of recent transcripts and the declassification of material from within the IG report, the Carter Page FISA and Flynn documents showing FBI activity, there is a common misconception about why the intelligence apparatus began investigating the Trump campaign in the first place.  Why was Donald Trump considered a threat?

In this outline we hope to provide some fully cited deep source material that will explain the origin; and specifically why those inside the Intelligence Community began targeting Trump and using Confidential Human Sources against campaign officials.

During the time-frame of December 2015 through April 2016 the NSA database was being exploited by contractors within the intelligence community doing unauthorized searches.

On March 9, 2016, oversight personnel doing a review of FBI system access were alerted to thousands of unauthorized search queries of specific U.S. persons within the NSA database.

NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers was made aware.

Subsequently NSA Director Rogers initiated a full compliance review of the system to identify who was doing the searches; & what searches were being conducted.

On April 18, 2016, following the preliminary audit results, Director Rogers shut down all FBI contractor access to the database after he learned FISA-702 “about”(17) and “to/from”(16) search queries were being done without authorization. Thus begins the first discovery of a much bigger background story.

(more…)

The good news is former President Obama is panicked by recent sunlight; the slight possibility of a U.S. DOJ that may soon have him in the cross-hairs; and the more obvious possibility the American people will discover the scale of his corrupt weaponization of intelligence to target his political opposition.

The better news is former President Obama is so heavily concerned about the looming possibilities; rather than relying on intermediary instructions through Media Matters; he is giving political operatives and national media his instructions directly.  LISTEN:

(more…)

The DOJ is releasing a series of additional documents to support their decision to drop the case against Lt. General Michael Flynn [download here].  Not coincidentally, at the same time these additional documents are being released, a fracture in the core group of coup plotters is surfacing.  The bigger picture is now the former DOJ -vs- former FBI.

The dynamic of distinction is interesting to watch unfold.  Prior DOJ officials pointing to corrupt decisions by prior FBI officials.  This is the fracture that will bring down the fraud. This was always why we needed the declassification process.  Things are happening fast.

Additionally, because the underlying Flynn evidence documents include portions of transcripts from questions put to the “small group”, Adam Schiff is now forced to release the transcripts. [file here] We’ll walk through this as it unfolds…. starting with McCabe.

Andrew McCabe releases a statement about the DOJ decision to drop the Flynn case:

However, within the newly released documents supporting the DOJ decision to drop the Flynn case, we can see how former DOJ-National Security Division head Mary McCord points a finger at former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

Essentially Main Justice, via Mary McCord, is saying it was Andrew McCabe who first raised the issue of Flynn violating the Logan Act.   According to McCord’s testimony and notes: McCabe, FBI legal Counsel James Baker, FBI lawyer Trisha “Trish” Beth Anderson and former DNI Bob Litt were driving the use of the Logan Act as a targeting mechanism against incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

(more…)