The General Michael Flynn case grinds on. Flynn has hired a new attorney (Mrs. Sidney Powell) and they were in court this week again. The need for a classified security clearance to review documents was discussed. The DOJ responded by saying no classified information was provided to the prior Flynn defense team. Therefore, Ms. Powell didn’t need to be concerned on that issue.
This means that Flynn was never provided with a copy of the phone call transcript (December 29, 2016) between him and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The content of that phone call lies at the heart of the FBI interview that took place on January 24th, 2017. It became the basis for the charges that he lied to the FBI.
Ignoring for a moment the merits of the Flynn case, one has to ask about the ineptitude (or corruption?) of his previous attorneys for not asking for production of this evidence. There are also all the machinations that occurred in the production of the FD-302 notes from the Flynn interview. But, most importantly, there is the question of how and when Flynn was unmasked.
The intelligence community broadly monitors contacts with agents of foreign powers. It has been widely assumed that the Flynn call was picked up as the U.S. intelligence apparatus was conducting surveillance on Russian Ambassador Kisliyak. As such, it would fall under FISA-702 collection: the lawful monitoring of a foreign agent (Kislyak) who has contact with a U.S. person (Flynn). The identification of Flynn in this would be due to “incidental collection.”
In order to review the identity of the U.S. person in this situation, a process called ‘unmasking’, which is a 702 submission, must be made. That submission, the unmasking, leaves a paper/electronic trail. This was made abundantly clear by James Clapper and Sally Yates during a hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee in May, 2017.
The problem? It appears that no such electronic/paper trail exists.
As was made clear in the Senate hearing, the existence of such a record is classified information. There is no record of this in the DOJ documents for the Flynn case since no security clearance was needed by Mrs. Powell to conduct Flynn’s representation.
The paramours, Strzok and Page, have provided one clue. They were watching the hearing when Sally Yates and James Clapper were answering questions about the Flynn case. They noted in their text messages that “incidental collection” is the “incorrect narrative.”
Hat Tip…CTH
If “incidental collection” was not correct, that means Flynn was under an active FISA surveillance warrant. There is no other option.
The Mueller report also tells us that Flynn was under an active investigation prior to the phone call with Ambassador Kislyak.
Hat Tip…CTH
One has to assume that in December, 2016, an active FISA warrant existed for Michael Flynn. Whether the predicate for that was valid or was a fraud on the court to provide cover for previous illegal monitoring is unknown at this time. However, this appears to fit in with a pattern of conducting surveillance on American citizens who happened to be associated with the opposition party.
It raises the question of just how many people were being spied on by the Obama administration. And how far back were they doing this? Is there enough leverage left in the Flynn case to unmask the bigger malfeasance that appears to have been going on here?
A storm is coming