Pages

Tuesday, May 12, 2020

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.

43 comments:

  1. Someone who called himself SonofNewo had a YouTube channel, where he posted a video titled "Susan Rice Confirms: Trump Tower Wiretapped by FBI". This video was posted in September 2017, but it has been removed because SonofNewo go into trouble in a completely unrelated controversy.

    SonofNewo cleverly proved that Michael Flynn was being wire-tapped under a FISA warrant when he attended a meeting in Trump Tower on December 15, 2016. Susan Rice unmasked the names of a couple of the meeting's participants -- Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon -- but did not have to unmask Flynn's name, because Flynn was the wire-tap target.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I found that YouTube video to be convincing. As I remember, the Trump Tower meeting on December 15, 2016, was with the Crown Prince of the United Emirates. As I remember, the meeting's main topic was US-Iran relations, and the Crown Prince was trying to improve those relations.

      The meeting was wire-tapped, and intelligence reports about it were issued. Some details about the meeting were leaked to Trump-hating journalists.

      Anyway, the meeting's participants included Jared Kushner, Steve Bannon and Michael Flynn. Susan Rice took action to unmask Kushner and Bannon but did not have to unmask Flynn. The video argued that this unmasking situation indicated that Flynn was the targeting of the wire-tapping.

      I was so convinced by that video that I was surprised to learn from the Horowitz report that, supposedly, no FISA warrant was issued against Flynn.

      Delete
    2. Mike, this is that meeting:

      https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/350557-rice-told-investigators-she-unmasked-trump-officials-in-undisclosed

      Note that the article states "Rice told House Intelligence Committee investigators that she requested to know the names of the Americans mentioned in the classified report."

      It states "the Americans" which presumptively means all three Americans. The tech coverage of the meeting would likely have targeted the foreigners. I don't see any reason from this to believe that Flynn was the FISA target.

      If I'm wrong I'm wrong. Right now I don't think I am.






      Delete
    3. Again, "Rice ... requested to know the names of the Americans." "The Americans" would presumptively include Flynn unless it can be proved otherwise.

      Delete
    4. Mark, I'm a little flummoxed regarding this Trump Tower meeting with the Crown Prince. Does the "tech coverage" mean the Feds know who was at the meeting--implying surveillance--or they know what was said at the meeting--implying eavesdropping?

      What am I missing?

      Delete
    5. There are all sorts of possibilities, including both that you mention. A very likely possibility that you don't mention is that telephone calls were collected in which arrangements for the meeting were discussed. Only the identities of the foreign parties would have been initially revealed. Rice then asked for the USPER side to be unmasked, probably fully aware that these would be Trump officials.

      Delete
  2. With the Carter Page Fisa and the 3 hops and Michael Flynn’s foreign calls due to his position, there was no need.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not necessarily. Those hops have to start from Carter Page, so it would depend on how many people Page actually spoke to in the campaign and how centrally connected THOSE people were. Conceivably those hops would get right to Trump himself, but conceivably they might be more like dead ends. We don't really know. Of course, the argument in your favor is that renewals of the FISA were sought that continued the FISA up to 8/2017, so presumably they found them productive.

      Delete
    2. My understanding is the Russian ambassador is considered part of the Russian Intel services in the US ("rezidentura" working out of the Russian Embassy would report to Kislyak,) and thus his communications are routinely intercepted for counter intel purposes.

      Flynn would have been an incidental USPER picked up under such surveillance.

      Delete
    3. Top diplomats such as ambassadors are NOT considered intel personnel. However, they are considered non-USPERs and therefore subject to electronic surveillance.

      Delete
    4. More: what about Obama's eleventh hour change to EO 12333 to expand the sharing of raw NSA intercepts among a larger share of the US Intel Community:

      >> The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people.

      Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch signed the new rules, permitting the N.S.A. to disseminate “raw signals intelligence information,” on Jan. 3, after the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., signed them on Dec. 15, according to a 23-page, largely declassified copy of the procedures.

      Previously, the N.S.A. filtered information before sharing intercepted communications with another agency, like the C.I.A. or the intelligence branches of the F.B.I. and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The N.S.A.’s analysts passed on only information they deemed pertinent, screening out the identities of innocent people and irrelevant personal information.

      Now, other intelligence agencies will be able to search directly through raw repositories of communications intercepted by the N.S.A. and then apply such rules for “minimizing” privacy intrusions. <<

      >> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html <<


      Note: this expansion of access to raw NSA intercepts was signed off by Clapper on 15 December 2016, and signed off by Loretta Lynch on 3 Jan 2017, two days before the infamous Oval Office meeting.

      Delete
    5. And I would argue that this was one of those specific steps in furtherance of the conspiracy to deprive USPERs of their constitutional rights, as diGenova was describing yesterday in a more general way.

      Delete
    6. "Note: this expansion of access to raw NSA intercepts was signed off by Clapper on 15 December 2016, and signed off by Loretta Lynch on 3 Jan 2017, two days before the infamous Oval Office meeting."

      mark wauck May 12, 2020 at 11:44 AM

      "And I would argue that this was one of those specific steps in furtherance of the conspiracy to deprive USPERs of their constitutional rights, as diGenova was describing yesterday in a more general way."
      You two are dead to rights on this issue.

      I remember this change happening, and, at this point, I don't think there was much information about the Russian Hoax yet. I was suspicious of this from the get go of this change.

      Changing an E.O. altering a whistleblower complaint form to allow secondhand information, unmasking improperly, leaking seem, to me, to be evidence of conspiracy.

      I believe that Durham will successfully build a prosecutable case. It's just a matter of if it's going to come this month, June, July, etc.

      All the right people are very nervous. I expect serious cooperating witnesses. Durham is probably overflowing with information, hence a ramped up staff and Jensen, et. al., taking on duties.

      If Donald wins reelection, it won't surprise me if Obama, Biden and Clinton are indicted. Their crimes are just to great to ignore. Perhaps a deal could be worked out where they admit to their culpability in exchange for no prosecution.

      I say this because we have a tradition of not prosecuting our election opponents. But, this is unprecedented, at least to my knowledge. Having Obama, Biden and Clinton admit guilt seems to me to be an elegant way out for the country.

      Delete
    7. I think you're right about the enormity of what went down. This isn't some penny ante lie about sex. The scope of this does change the legal considerations.

      Delete
    8. You are so right, Mr. Wauck. In a prior post comments section, you commented that we (the USA) have a tradition of not prosecuting political opponents. You then added (tongue in cheek?) "Until the Democrats get back in office."

      I'm a great lover and respecter of tradition. In this case, tradition needs to go out the window because a), the Dems really will do it when they get back in power and b), it's the right thing to do (i.e., prosecuting Obama, Biden and Clinton).

      I'd be happy, however, if a clear majority of Americans acknowledged what crooks they are.

      Delete
  3. >> Another source familiar with the intelligence told Fox News that Grenell is moving to declassify several pieces of intelligence in stages, with this being one part of it. Asked if former President Barack Obama's name is on the list of officials involving in unmasking Flynn, the source would not say but stressed the list would make waves. <<

    >> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/grenell-declassifies-names-of-obama-officials-who-unmasked-flynn-report-says <<

    My money is on CIARAMELLA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stop pushing FAKE NEWS, EZ. sundance has told me that Flynn was NOT UNMASKED. :-)

      Yes, that would make waves, which may be why we've been assured that there would be bombshells this week.

      Delete
    2. Dan Bongino was talking about this today/ He mentioned a text between Page and the Peter the liar on 18-19 July, that was heavily redacted. It was around the time that Flynn was ambushed by the press concerning an incident I cannot remember.

      Rob S

      Delete
  4. What is becoming clear with these latest episodes of new disclosures is that there will likely be a steady stream of similar (and concomitantly damaging) declassifications extending on for the foreseeable future (possibly all the way into the Fall election). Biden is nowhere to be found and even Pelosi and Schumer have gone dark. A tsunami is building and it does not portend well for the Democrats.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown, you are spot on with this comment. My only question for you is, is the tsunami red in color?

      LOL.

      Delete
  5. I think the redacted paragraph in Rice's email to herself might explain some things, like what she meant by "by the book." Remember, it was on January 3 that Lynch signed off on the executive order that expanded unmasking, and a day later that the FBI somehow got the transcript of the Flynn-Kislyak conversation and put a hold on the closing of the WFO investigation of Flynn. So unmasking Flynn would have been "by the book."

    ReplyDelete
  6. While reading this article: https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/12/fbi_man_in_europe_undercut_ohrs_claim_of_limited_russiagate_role_123578.html I realized that Gaeta's interview disappeared from intelligence.house.gov but still can be found on www.dni.gov.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think you got it reversed. House released more interviews (58), while While DNI / Grennel did 53.

    Seems to be the Witness Name Redacted transcript.

    DNI did not include:

    Carter Page (November 2, 2017)

    Christopher Wylie (April 25, 2018)

    Erik Prince (November 30, 2017)

    Simona Mangiante (July 18, 2018)

    Witness Name Redacted (December 20, 2017)
    https://intelligence.house.gov/UploadedFiles/WNR56.pdf

    Of course DNI numbered it, and alphabetized by first name, and House alphabetized by last name.

    https://intelligence.house.gov/russiainvestigation/

    https://www.dni.gov/index.php/features/2753-53-hpsci-transcripts

    ReplyDelete
  8. from IG report:

    >> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EX2AQd2XgAMiEAP?format=png&name=small <<

    No Flynn FISA.

    ReplyDelete
  9. FLASH TRAFFIC:

    Flynn guilty plea improperly accepted by Judge Sullivan -- reversible error:

    >> So, when discussing what might take place at the next hearing, Judge Sullivan reaffirms that he still needs to hear from both sides why Gen. Flynn’s statements were “material.”

    Judge Sullivan entered judgment on a guilty plea without first finding that a factual basis existed. That violated the requirements of Rule 11, and makes the guilty plea unsound.

    The DOJ motion says the issue of “materiality” cannot be factually established based on the investigative records in the case.

    It is also clear that Judge Sullivan never made a finding on materiality that needs to be reversed.

    The guilty plea was invalid as a matter of law independent of the DOJ motion. <<

    >> https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/05/12/very-likely-judge-emmet-sullivan-committed-error-in-connection-with-flynn-sentencing/ <<

    Pretty damned interesting.

    Sullivan accepted the guilty plea without ever getting any evidence that Flynn's alleged false statement was "material" -- an element of the 1001 statute -- and thus
    the plea was improperly accepted by the Court.

    As Shea's Motion to Dismiss argues, the defendant cannot stipulate to materiality -- it can only be established by the prosecution by demonstrating how the false statement could have affected a decision by those to whom the false statement was directed. And since there was no open investigation of Flynn to which questions about his call with Kislyak were germane at the time of the interview, it is impossible for there to have been materiality in any statement Flynn made to the FBI agents, because there was no investigatory decision the statements could have influenced.

    Pretty interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What does FLASH TRAFFIC mean? That article is very interesting, but it's not breaking news.

      Delete
  10. If you listen to Dan Bongino it seems to me that his secret source is Sundance. He was saying the same thing.

    Rob S

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting. Actually, I don't listen to him without a specific recommendation.

      Delete
    2. Is Bongino still calling for a pardon?

      Delete
    3. Rob S.,

      There is enmity between Dan Bongino and Sundance. Sundance has alienated a lot of Twitter people. Dan is only one. There's Brian Cates, Jeff Carlson, Tracy Beanz and others. Then there's Mark Levin and the men at Powerline.

      Delete
  11. Ed Henry reporting on Tucker Carlson Show moments ago that Grenell delivered 4-5 "batches" of declassified documents to DOJ Friday Afternoon, among which was the list of Obama Officials who "unmasked" Gen. Flynn in intercepts of Kislyak between election day and inauguration day. Noted that this could be a crime, if done for reason outside the scope of that permitted under law.

    More interestingly, he reports the other batches of documents contain major "bombshells," some of which could spell trouble for Brennan.

    Specifically, Henry has a source who tells him one of the batches of documents will confirm recent reports that Brennan put his finger on the scales when the IC produced the bogus ICA in January 2017, which claimed that intel showed Putin wanted Trump to win, when, in fact, CIA had arguably stronger evidence to the exact CONTRARY: that Putin wanted Hillary to win because she was a known quantity and was considered more "malleable" than Trump. Brennan suppressed the contrary evidence in order to push the fake narrative that Putin was trying to help Trump win in the fake ICA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fred Fleitz (sp?) previously reported the same thing re: the ICA and Brennan suppressing the Russia pro-Hillary intel.

      Also mentioned: Durham's interviews with CIA analysts likely were related to this issue.

      The hysterical howling by various co-conspirators, and their sycophantic minions in the MSM, the past few days suggest Barr/Durham are over the target.

      Also, somebody (can't recall who) in the past 24 hours reported some of the big names have "lawyered up" with the best criminal lawyers in DC. That's sure sign of where things are headed.

      Delete
    2. Yes, I cited Fleitz' statements.

      Delete
  12. 39 names released by Grenell:

    >> https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1260635872271228928 <<

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I think, actually, I'll be more excited to see the docs re Brennan and the ICA.

      Delete
    2. There are some really odd people asking for Flynn's unmasking:

      there's about a half dozen people at the top of TREASURY who wanted his identity (not clear which conversation) unmasked in mid- December.

      What possible reason does Treasury have for "needing to know" who the US Person was in the intercept they reviewed? Does it relate to Sanctions on Russian Obama imposed?

      Most amusing name on the list is the very last one -- Joe Biden --12 January.

      Delete
    3. Interesting observation: the big bubble of unmaskings occur around 15 Dec 2016, +/- a day or two.

      But Flynn's calls with Kislyak didn't take place until the last week or so of the month, one of which had to do with a UN resolution condemning Israel!

      Delete
    4. More:

      >> https://twitter.com/FOOL_NELSON/status/1260645821764100096 <<

      No one unmasked Flynn between his 29 December call with Kislyak, and the Jan 5 Oval Office meeting where they are talking about Flynn and the Logan Act.

      That raises the question of what the basis was to talk about Flynn relative to the Logan Act.

      Recall, IG report says there was no FISA on Flynn. How did FBI/DOJ know about the Kislyak call of 29 Dec if there was no unmasking, and no FISA on FLynn?

      One possible answer is the EO 12333 revision signed off by Clapper in mid December, that gave much wider IC access to RAW NSA INTERCEPTS.

      Delete
    5. Re Treasury, I can only guess that maybe they were hoping to frame Flynn on a money laundering charge.

      Delete