FBI Agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka interviewed National Security Advisor Michael Flynn on January 24, 2017. According to documents presented in the court case, agent Peter Strzok did the questioning and agent Joe Pientka took most of the notes.

Following the interview agent Pientka then took his hand-written notes and generated an official FD-302; an FBI report of the interview itself. There has been a great deal of debate over the first draft, the original FD-302 as it was written by Joe Pientka. In the case against Flynn the DOJ prosecutors never presented the original Pientka 302.

On May 2, 2020, the DOJ, using new information gathered by U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen, declassified and released a segment of James Comey testimony that was previously hidden.  Within the transcript Comey says Pientka wrote the Flynn 302 on January 24th immediately following the interview. [Screengrab below – pdf here ]

That January 24, 2017, version of the 302 is the one that has gone missing.

People defending the FBI have even said it never existed.  However, the testimony of FBI Director James Comey proves the 302 was drafted on January 24th.

Additionally, recent evidence from Brady material turned over to the defense by auditing attorney Jeff Jensen showed FBI lawyer Lisa Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok rewriting, editing and shaping the 302 on February 10, 2017, more than two weeks later:

(more…)

First things first: ♦Understand Obama’s Surveillance Operation HERE.  ♦Michael Flynn wasn’t under a FISA (Title-1) HERE …. that’s the background.

The riddle of how the White House discovered the telephone call and subsequent content between Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak appears to have been solved. The FBI used a “Pen Register.”  There was no unmasking, and no warrant.

A pen register is a device/process which records the telephone numbers of outgoing calls.  Monitoring outgoing call numbers does not require a search warrant or FISA.

After the 2016 election Lt. Gen Flynn was given a government issued secure cell phone; a blackberry device for use.  However, with Flynn under a preexisting FBI investigation the phone numbers Flynn was calling in December ’16 and January ’17 were being monitored.

A review of prior testimony by former FBI Director James Comey [HERE]; prior testimony by former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe [Here]; and a cross-reference of recent releases of Flynn unmasking documents [Here] tells the full story.

In December of 2016 incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was under a sketchy FBI Counterintelligence investigation for possible coordination with Russia.  According to recent documents and the Comey transcript, the Flynn investigation began in the summer of 2016; that investigation was ongoing in late December.

After President Obama initiated sanctions against Russia on December 29, 2016. The Obama administration was trying to figure out why Russia was not reacting.  According to James Comey testimony the intelligence community, writ large, was tasked to find out why Russia was not reacting more severely.  See Transcript:

(more…)

It’s always worthwhile to revisit past assertions and denials when presented with new evidence.  Consider this…

During an interview on April 26, 2019, former Deputy National Security Advisor to President Obama, Ben Rhodes, told a journalist the Obama White House didn’t even know there was an FBI investigation into President-elect Trump or Michael Flynn.  WATCH:

.

If the White House didn’t know about an FBI investigation into Michael Flynn (per Ben Rhodes), then how does President Obama tell the FBI to conduct their investigation “by the book” according to Ben Rhodes boss, National Security Advisor Susan Rice.  See the problem?

(more…)

It likely takes a lot of main justice approvals to serve a search warrant for the device of the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI).  The Chairman of the powerful committee also sits on the congressional oversight team known as the gang-of-eight.

According to the Los Angeles Times the FBI served a search warrant on North Carolina Republican Senator Richard Burr Wednesday. The warrant appears connected to an ongoing investigation on whether or not Burr violated a law that prevents members of Congress from trading insider information they learn from their work.  According to the report federal agents seized Burr’s cell phone after they served the warrant at his residence in the Washington DC area.

The sketchy guardian of swamp secrets is retiring at the end of his term so he’s probably just willing to wait out the investigation and negotiate with the DC justice-tier to pay a fine and move on.  DC has a totally different set of laws and outcomes than everywhere else.  Any fine, and any resulting legal expenses, will likely be paid by a lobbying firm or political interest group who previously contracted with, and received benefit from, Senator Burr.

It’s the way of the swamp.

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…)

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…)

Anticipating the first step in the phase-three effort to remove President Trump from office, today at 10am ET Dr. Anthony Fauci will appear before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. CTH anticipates Fauci will position the reopening of the economy as a likely public health catastrophe; thus paving the way for Trump removal 3.0.

In addition to sketchy Fauci, Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers on Disease Control and Prevention, Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services for Health Adm. Brett Giroir and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn are scheduled to appear. However, the pre-planned media narrative will be led by Fauci.

Fox News Livestream – Fox Business Livestream – PBS Livestream Link

(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…)

Representatives Jim Jordan and Andy Biggs tear the bark off the Obamagate scandal; including culpable republicans who participated in the DC coup effort.

Appearing with Lou Dobbs on Fox Business, Jim Jordan rips through the timeline early in the interview to expose how it was impossible for all of the activity to be happening without former President Obama being a participant.  WATCH:

(more…)