Lou Dobbs interviews defense attorney Sidney Powell to discuss the latest political efforts of DC Judge Emett Sullivan to target her client, Michael Flynn.
The bizarre twists and turns in this case are befuddling. The prosecution and the defense have agreed to drop the case; however, the judge -signaling he is a member of the resistance- wants to continue the prosecution to generate maximum political damage.
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.
It’s always worthwhile to revisit past assertions and denials when presented with new evidence. Consider this…
During an interview on April 26, 2019, former Deputy National Security Advisor to President Obama, Ben Rhodes, told a journalist the Obama White House didn’t even know there was an FBI investigation into President-elect Trump or Michael Flynn. WATCH:
.
If the White House didn’t know about an FBI investigation into Michael Flynn (per Ben Rhodes), then how does President Obama tell the FBI to conduct their investigation “by the book” according to Ben Rhodes boss, National Security Advisor Susan Rice. See the problem?
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:
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.
First things first: ♦Understand Obama’s Surveillance Operation HERE. ♦Michael Flynn wasn’t under a FISA (Title-1) HERE …. that’s the background.
Devin Nunes appears with Lou Dobbs to discuss the recent list of Obama-era officials who unmasked NSA intercepts of Michael Flynn talking to foreign government officials. Rep. Nunes reminds the audience that Flynn is only one person within a much larger group of Trump transition team members who were under surveillance by Team Obama.
A few points on the unmasking before Rand Paul response. First, the release today is only what the Obama team did regarding unmasking General Flynn. As Devin Nunes previously outlined, there are many more Trump transition team members who were unmasked as the Obama team conducted surveillance on the incoming administration.
Second, the NSA “reports” are related to actual transcripts, emails and text messages of communication; not just various intelligence interpretations of those communications.
As Senator Rand Paul shares, the effort of the Obama and Biden administration to unmask their political opposition during the transition; and then use widespread distribution and leaks to the media to push a specific one-sided view; is the weaponization of the intelligence apparatus to target political opposition. That’s the major issue:
.
Again, a reminder, these reports surround only NSA intercepts. Simultaneous to this there was an ongoing FBI counterintelligence operation using FISA surveillance (Carter Page) and non-fisa targeted FBI surveillance of Michael Flynn.
For the sake of understanding this specific release, “unmasking” occurs when the NSA, eavesdropping on foreign communications, sweeps up communications with U.S. citizen. That is known as “incidental collection.”
When the intelligence about that communication is shared across the government, the names of U.S. citizens in the communication are typically concealed or masked to protect their identities. However, the names can be unmasked if U.S. officials make the request.
In this release [pdf here], the Obama-era NSA was monitoring various foreign government officials and within their communication they picked up contacts with incoming President-elect Trump’s National Security Advisor Lt. General Michael Flynn. This release only includes NSA intercepts; not other intelligence agency reports; only the NSA.
The NSA generated [redacted number] of reports based on those foreign contacts. The reports are actual transcripts of the conversations. The Obama-era officials then asked the NSA to unmask the name of General Flynn so they could see the content and context of the calls. Current DNI Ric Grenell has assembled a list of who asked the NSA to unmask incoming NSA Michael Flynn from November 8, 2016 through January 31, 2017.
It is important to remember, these intercepts are part of the normal function of monitoring foreign communications. There is nothing nefarious about the monitoring and there is nothing nefarious about a foreign person contacting the incoming administration, via General Flynn, to begin preparing for the change in administrations.
However, what is completely alarming and disturbing, is the extent to which the Obama administration went to share the contacts and transcripts of the calls with a myriad of government officials. That’s where the list comes in.
Fox News analyst Andrew McCarthy discusses the order by Judge Sullivan allowing amicus briefs from third-parties prior to issuing a ruling in the Flynn case. As McCarthy notes Sullivan is allowing an anti-Trump therapy session within his legal proceedings.
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.
