Today the DOJ has released additional exculpatory information to the Flynn defense team surrounding hand-written notes taken by Tashina Guahar and FBI agent Peter Strzok. The 1/25/17 meeting takes place the day after two FBI agents interview Flynn at the White House.  There’s also an internal document from the DOJ dated 1/30/17, and notes by former DOJ AAG -who later became FBI counsel- Dana Boente.

[NOTE: Keep in mind the last day for Jody Hunt, Noel Francisco and Dana Boente was last Friday, July 3rd. Coincidental timing?]

The notes and internal document are filed under seal per Judge Sullivan’s prior order. However, with previous filings the documents were made public the following day; so we might see the content tomorrow.

Tashina Guahar and Dana Boente were part of the small group inside Main Justice who convinced AG Jeff Sessions to recuse.   But you don’t need to wait for the court to release the March 30, 2017, Boente notes, because we already have them.

When the special counsel team was stirring the pot for the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, they leaked the Boente notes to their allied resistance member, Rachael Maddow.   Those notes form the basis/justification for Boente signing the second renewal of the FISA warrant against Carter Page (April 2017).   James Comey called Dana Boente because he needed the FISA extended and could not call Jeff Sessions.

Comey enlisted Boente into the operation against President Trump.  Ultimately these notes form the basis for why the DOJ demanded Boente leave his position in May.  This is why Boente was removed {Go Deep}.

(more…)

Moments ago President Trump tweeted he will veto the House FISA re-authorization if it is passed without first investigating and exposing prior FISA abuses committed against his prior election campaign and administration:

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote by proxy on the FISA re-authorization previously passed by the Senate.  No-one has any idea if the FISA vote will actually pass the House and it appears most republicans are positioned to vote against it.

Lou Dobbs discusses the issues with Representative Jim Jordan shortly before President Trump tweeted his intent.  WATCH:

.

These developments come on the heels of increased sunlight into the corrupt purposes and intents of Obama-era intelligence officials and how they weaponized their authorities to target the Trump administration starting with National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

[…] It was the FBI, not the NSA, that wiretapped Kislyak’s calls and created the summary and transcript, the former officials said. (link)

(more…)

Yesterday we noted a rather important, yet less discussed, motive for the strength of the DC Circuit Court position against Judge Emmet Sullivan.  I’ll expand after the video.

In this interview Gregg Jarrett talks with Flynn’s defense lawyer Sidney Powell about the rather unusual behavior of Judge Emmet Sullivan.  WATCH:

.

A DC judge hiring a well connected DC lawyer to write his response to a DC circuit court appeals panel is the part that’s interesting.  There’s no guarantee the appeals court will accept such a response; but that’s also another issue.   Bottom line: Judge Sullivan is importing a lawyer to represent his interests.  Very unusual.

(more…)

The Washington Post headline reads (emphasis mine): “Federal judge hires high-powered D.C. attorney to defend his actions in Flynn case.” Which gives some insight into the framework and purpose of this event, and how it reached the WaPo narrative engineers.

The Washington Post is, as an institution, adverse to the interests of Michael Flynn.  So this story, specifically the events behind the story, are written in a posture to aid Judge Sullivan and oppose Flynn.  Keep that in mind (I’ll explain after).

Judge Sullivan has hired a high profile DC lawyer to assist him in responding to the inquires of the DC circuit:

WASHINGTON DC – […] In a rare step that adds to this criminal case’s already unusual path, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has retained Beth Wilkinson to represent him in defending his decision to a federal appeals court in Washington, according to a person familiar with the hire who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

[…] Wilkinson, known for her top-notch legal skills and get-results style, is expected to file a notice with the court in the coming week about representing the judge. She declined to comment when reached Friday evening. Sullivan also declined to comment through his office.

(more…)

On the topic of the FBI capture and use of the December 29, 2016, Flynn-Kislyak phone call…  First we had a hunch; then it became a suspicion… that evolved into a likelihood… that has now become a strong probability.

The capture of the December 29th phone call, which generated the raw “CR cuts“, was an FBI summary, modified for a specific interpretation.  Much like the missing 302 there is now a very strong probability the FBI ‘CR cuts’ do not represent the actual call content.

In this short interview segment Trey Gowdy alludes to one issue, and speaks directly to another.  First, the only reason the FBI opened the internal INSD review is because the information previously hidden has become public.  Second, the Flynn-Kislyak calls that Trey Gowdy has reviewed were “boring” nothing-burgers.  WATCH:

.

SELECTIVE CAPTURE – Did you note the part where the FBI told Gowdy some of the Flynn phone calls were “not captured”?  Wouldn’t it be a very convenient framework if the FBI was going to summarize one of those non-captured calls into a “CR cut.” 

FBI: “Oh, sorry, we don’t have the actual transcript, but we do have a summary of what we interpreted that call content to be.”  Huh, funny that.

(more…)

The Washington Post confirms today what we have been saying for almost two years.

Michael Flynn’s name was never masked in the FBI intercept of his call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Here’s the part that matters:

WaPo […] in the FBI report about the communications between the two men, Flynn’s name was never redacted, former U.S. officials said.

[…] It was the FBI, not the NSA, that wiretapped Kislyak’s calls and created the summary and transcript, the former officials said.

“When the FBI circulated [tech cuts], they included Flynn’s name from the beginning” because it was essential to understanding its significance, said a former senior U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive intelligence. “There were therefore no requests for the unmasking of that information.”  (read more)

The FBI was conducting (FISA) surveillance on Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.  When Kislyak contacted Flynn the call was intercepted by the FBI.  The calls were then transcribed and “tech cuts” created.

(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…)

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…)

In response to Judge Emmet Sullivan announcing a delay in Flynn ruling to allow third party amicus briefs to be filed with the court, Michael Flynn’s defense counsel files a motion in opposition. [Cloud pdf Here]  Embed pdf below

In opposition to the delay Attorney Sidney Powell notes Judge Sullivan’s earlier ruling of December 20, 2017, disallowing amicus briefs in this case.

(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…)