An exclusive Treasury Department whistleblower outline in the Ohio Star is almost an absolute match to our research {Go Deep} on how President Obama constructed the political surveillance network during his second term.

According to the article in mid-December 2015 the Treasury whistleblower started noticing data-search transactions with the Treasury Dept. for specific people that aligned with the 2016 GOP primary.  The searches included Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Donald Trump and his family as well as certain members of congress.

[(L-R) Denis McDonough, Joe Biden, President Obama, Tom Donolin, Jack Lew]

The complaint outlines an unnamed database [likely NSA] was used as the first search mechanism.  After initial data was extracted the results were then used to transfer more specific searches to the Treasury dept.   The level of detail within the whistleblower complaint is eerily familiar to our own research based on declassified records.

OHIO STAR – […] By March 2016, the whistleblower said she and a colleague, who was detailed to Treasury from the intelligence community, became convinced that the surveillance of Flynn was not tied to legitimate criminal or national security concerns, but was straight-up political surveillance among other illegal activity occurring at Treasury.

“When I showed it to her, what she said, ‘Oh, sh%t!’ and I knew right then and there that I was right – this was some shady stuff,” the whistleblower said.

(more…)

More than a week after CBS first constructed their editorial narrative they finally released the full interview between Catherine Herridge and AG Bill Barr.  Many people read the transcript; however, thankfully Michael Sheridan excerpts a portion of the video that doesn’t come across in the transcript.

When the attorney general is questioned about “still having confidence” in FBI Director Christopher Wray, a newly articulated hesitancy is visible that doesn’t come across in the transcript. WATCH:

.

Since February 2019 Bill Barr has been a staunch and very public defender of Chris Wray. However, with new revelations about recent FBI efforts to block the release of information as it relates to Michael Flynn, it now appears the AG has less confidence.

This shift is important because as the public have a renewed focused on the question of who illegally leaked Flynn’s communication with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, there has always been a rather curious contrast issue with the known classified intelligence leaking of James Wolfe.  If finding Flynn’s leaker is important then why didn’t the DOJ/FBI take action when they found a classified intelligence leaker in 2018?

(more…)

Maria Bartiromo broadcasts a taped interview with President Trump discussing the topic of Obamagate and how the IC, FBI and DOJ was weaponized against the Trump campaign and incoming administration.

This interview is interesting as to how much President Trump is aware of what took place.

.

During the Obama administration the NSA database was continually used to conduct surveillance. This is the critical point that leads to understanding the origin of “Spygate”, or “Obamagate” as it unfolded in the Spring and Summer of 2016.

(more…)

Unsurprisingly when Trey Gowdy said “the Trump family was unmasked on inauguration day”… interviewer Sandra Smith never paused to say: “wait, unmasked in what”?

During his tenure as House Oversight Committee Chair, apparently Trey Gowdy has seen intelligence reports showing the Trump family was unmasked on inauguration day. The logical follow-up question would be: who was generating intelligence reports on the Trump family?

Alas, the dangling participle never had the opportunity to dangle… go figure.

.

Follow the bouncing ball. If Gowdy is correct, and he has no vested interest in just making it up, then there was FBI domestic surveillance of the Trump family on inauguration day; which generated an intelligence report. Yet, apparently, no-one seems surprised by that… I digress.

(more…)

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…)

Stunning and outrageous doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of this move by DC Judge Emett Sullivan in the Flynn case.

Judge Sullivan is requesting retired judge John Gleeson to file an amicus brief outlining why: (a) the charge against Flynn should not be dropped; and (b) frame the argument about how to prosecute Flynn for perjury.

Former Judge John Gleeson (U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of New York) recently penned an op-ed in the Washington post arguing that Flynn should continue to be prosecuted.

(more…)

Senator Grassley sends a letter (pdf here) thanking AG Bill Barr and DNI Richard Grenell for the declassified documents produced so far.  With the DOJ deciding to drop the Flynn prosecution Grassley notes there are three more buckets of classified documents he would like to see declassified and presented soon:

(1) The Flynn/Kislyak transcript. (2) The Susan Rice Memo to file. (3) The original and mysteriously missing Flynn 302 authored by FBI agent Joe Pientka. [Grassley Press]

Within the letter Senator Grassley notes he previously requested the release of these documents from former DAG Rod Rosenstein; who refused to submit them and made excuses to congressional oversight.

(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…)