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…)

Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard “Ric” Grenell announced today he is in the process of declassifying the transcripts of the calls between Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

Within a twitter response by Grenell, part of the riddle behind the transcripts gets a little more clarity: “The IC doesn’t have all the transcripts/summaries…. it wasn’t our product.”

The implication here is the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) did not generate one of the transcripts; that evolved into an FBI equity, and was later used in their case against Lt. General Michael Flynn. The December 29, 2016, intercept was not exclusive to the U.S. intelligence apparatus, and the call summary became proprietary to the FBI; the agency exploiting the underlying content.

This makes sense and explains how the FBI was able to manipulate the framework of the call and keep the remaining U.S. intelligence system away from their internal plan.

There was more than one phone call and conversation between Flynn and Kislyak.  Some immediately after the election and in/around mid-December 2016.  Reports of those contacts and communications WERE in the U.S. IC network and those reports led to unmasking requests.  However, the specific December 29th communication was not an exclusive intercept of the U.S. intelligence community and therefore easier for the FBI to shape.

(more…)

Michael Flynn defense attorney, Sidney Powell, appears on Lou Dobbs tonight to discuss the ongoing case against a background of daily revelations showing Flynn was the target of the Obama-era FBI.

(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…)

KT McFarland provides her perspective on the newly unclassified segment of the Susan Rice memo to herself.

.

The bottom line about what took place in the 48 hours of January 4th and January 5th 2017 is not that complex.  Remember, the position of President Obama and Susan Rice is that the White House was unaware of any FBI investigation of Flynn (or the Trump campaign); nor did they have any involvement in directing it to take place.

When Clapper briefed Obama (Jan 4th) about the Flynn intercept the White House lost deniability; Obama was now demonstrably aware of an FBI investigation.  The stay behind meeting (Jan 5th) was the result of the White House reassembling deniability.

(more…)

HPSCI ranking member Devin Nunes appears for an interview with ¹Liz MacDonald to discuss his current House investigation and the latest declassification of the Susan Rice memo to file.

Nunes asks the basic question about the Rice memo: “why was it ever classified in the first place?”  The answer to that question points to current DOJ/FBI and intelligence officials.

.

¹Watch Liz Mac closely now. A little over a week ago she began catching-on to the substantive story about FISA, NSA database abuses, and how Obama’s overall political surveillance operation was conducted.

(more…)

It looks like Sidney Powell has angered Emett Sullivan as the DC judge has now granted all of the requests by prosecuting amicus John Gleeson.

In an order today Judge Sullivan granted Gleeson with the requested schedule to include a July 10th briefing deadline and oral arguments scheduled for July 16th.

Just as the news broke Flynn’s defense attorney Sidney Powell appeared on Lou Dobbs to react.

(more…)

Acting DNI Richard Grenell declassified the hidden paragraph of the Susan Rice memo and it was released earlier today.  Our suspicions about the content of the redacted paragraph being Michael Flynn connected are confirmed.

On January 5, 2017, President Obama and Susan Rice were discussing incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn with FBI Director James Comey. The motive for Susan Rice to write the January 20, 2017, memo to file becomes clear.  Here’s the paragraph:

Within this paragraph we find the motive for writing it (emphasis mine):

“Director Comey affirmed that he is proceeding “by the book” as it relates to law enforcement.” … “Comey said he does have some concerns that incoming NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador Kislyak.”  “Comey said that could be an issue as it relates to sharing senssitive information.”  “President Obama asked if Comey was saying that the NSC should not pass sensitive information related to Russia to Flynn.”  “Comey replied “potentially.””  “He added that he has no indication thus far that Flynn has passed classified information to Kislyak, but he noted that “the level of communication is unusual.”

Remember, the position of President Obama and Susan Rice is that they were unaware of any FBI investigation of Flynn (or the Trump campaign); nor did they have any involvement in directing it to take place.

The content of this January 5th meeting makes the first part of their claim challenging to accept.   Thus the need for Susan Rice to cover for it.

(more…)

Moments ago Michael Flynn defense counsel Sidney Powell filed an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, a Petition for Writ of Mandamus (pdf link here), asking for intervention to correct Judge Sullivan’s unauthorized action.

Within the request Flynn’s defense requests the DC Appeals Court to order district court judge Emett Sullivan to: (1) grant the Justice Department’s Motion to Dismiss; (2) vacate its order appointing amicus curiae; and (3) reassign the case to another district judge as to any further proceedings.

The request cites numerous legal precedents in favor of granting the writ; but it’s a DC panel of judges so politics will likely play a role in determining what the appeals court decides to do.  Given the nature of this extraordinary situation it is difficult to predict success or failure for the request to intervene.   The whole darn thing is bizarre.

Within the petition the defense team notes:

(more…)

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence voted today to approve Rep. John Ratcliffe to be the next US intelligence director. Senators approved Ratcliffe in an 8 to 7 vote along party lines during a closed-door meeting. The previous SSCI vote to approve Dan Coats in 2017 was 14 to 2.  DNI Coats turned out to be a disappointment protecting the swamp.

Mr. Ratcliffe now moves to be confirmed by the full Senate before replacing acting Director of National Intelligence Richard “Ric” Grenell, who also is US ambassador to Germany. As acting DNI Grenell built a strong foundation for Ratcliffe to build upon; and there is a strong likelihood Grenell will stay close to the administration and lead President Trump’s Intelligence Advisory Board.

The ODNI position is important within the intelligence apparatus as the DNI is the hub for all intelligence agencies and the director controls the overall intelligence community.  The DNI also coordinates the declassification and release of executive branch documents.

Politico reports Ratcliffe is expected to be confirmed by the full Senate in a vote likely to be held after Memorial Day, according to Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo).