Was Flynn 'Unmasked'?

Sundance today at CTH is arguing that Flynn wasn't 'unmasked' because there was no 'incidental monitoring'. Flynn, he says, was the actual target:

Flynn was actively being monitored.  Flynn was an active target in an ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation.  Flynn was THE target.

I'll be the first to say, Color me surprised if this turns out to be true. However, I believe there's some confusion here.

Yes, Flynn was the target of an ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation. We've seen the opening and closing ECs for that investigation, which appears to have been a Full Investigation. However, ...

As I've explained, being an "active target" of a Full Investigation does NOT translate ipso facto into authorization for "active monitoring". Having your communication activities "actively monitored" as a "target" can only mean being the target of a FISA order, and thus far we have no reason to believe there was a FISA on Flynn. Probable Cause as required for a FISA on an USPER goes far beyond predication for a Full Investigation (and I don't concede that there was such predication). IMO, we've seen how labor intensive a FISA application is--I doubt the FBI would have undertaken two in Crossfire Hurricane at the same time.

We've seen that a FISA can be ginned up very quickly--the Carter Page case is a good example. However, the predication in the Flynn case--refer to those ECs--may have been good enough for Crossfire Hurricane CYA opening purposes, but it would have been a very bad joke if submitted to the FISC. Just compare those ECs to the Carter Page FISA application. If a Flynn FISA application got through the FISC, then that 'court' definitely needs to be totally dismantled.

Now, in her testimony to the Senate, Sally Yates makes a very good point. She points out that at her level much of the intel reports on USPERs come already 'unmasked'--which even an outsider should realize upon reflection makes perfect sense.

Reread What does "CR cuts" Mean? I believe that when Strzok refers to "CR cuts" he's speaking loosely. Rather than meaning that CR (Flynn) is the subject of the FISA on which CR conversations were picked up, I believe it simply means that CR appeared on other FISAs and that reports or "cuts" from those FISAs were routed to the CH team that was handling the Flynn case:

Now, the existence of "CR cuts" may indicate that the FBI had a FISA on Flynn himself, as they did on Carter Page. However, it may also merely indicate that Flynn's conversations were captured through some other FISA coverage. For example, his conversations may have been through coverage of foreign powers with whom Flynn was doing business in his consulting firm. For example, Flynn's conversations with Russian officials might have been captured in that way. But they might not have been preserved in the form of "tech cuts" but for the fact that the FBI had an open case on Flynn.

FISA minimization procedures require that only material considered relevant is written up in the form of "tech cuts." Thus, reference to "CR cuts" is an indication that conversations in which Flynn participated--even if the FISA involved was not specifically directed against Flynn--were probably kept in a separate "tech subfile" pertaining to the Flynn case, however they were obtained. Naturally, the FBI would not want the White House--and certainly not Flynn!--to be aware of just how intense the focus on Flynn had been.

I'll be very surprised if there was a FISA based on the Crossfire Razor case. If there was, that should cause a real explosion of investigative interest and I'll have learned something.