You may have recently noticed that Susan Rice has called for the release of the transcript of the conversation between Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak:

(Source and Full Statement)

However, what many people do not realize is the motive for Susan Rice to call for the release of this transcript.  This aspect of the intercepted communication is very interesting.

First, there is nothing damaging in the content of the Flynn-Kislyak call.  We know there is nothing damaging in the transcript because the call was made on December 29, 2016; and the FBI investigators who intercepted the call reviewed the call content; and five days later on January 4, 2017, the same Washington DC field office of the FBI wanted to close the investigation of Michael Flynn having “found no derogatory information.”

If there had been something damaging within the call to either the incoming Trump administration, or Michael Flynn himself, the FBI would not be saying they have found nothing derogatory and they were closing the Flynn investigation five days after the call.

Additionally, we also know there was nothing damaging or inappropriate within the call because Robert Mueller’s investigators outlined the content:

(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…)

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…)

An exclusive Treasury Department whistleblower outline in the Ohio Star is almost an absolute match to our research {Go Deep} on how President Obama constructed the political surveillance network during his second term.

According to the article in mid-December 2015 the Treasury whistleblower started noticing data-search transactions with the Treasury Dept. for specific people that aligned with the 2016 GOP primary.  The searches included Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Donald Trump and his family as well as certain members of congress.

[(L-R) Denis McDonough, Joe Biden, President Obama, Tom Donolin, Jack Lew]

The complaint outlines an unnamed database [likely NSA] was used as the first search mechanism.  After initial data was extracted the results were then used to transfer more specific searches to the Treasury dept.   The level of detail within the whistleblower complaint is eerily familiar to our own research based on declassified records.

OHIO STAR – […] By March 2016, the whistleblower said she and a colleague, who was detailed to Treasury from the intelligence community, became convinced that the surveillance of Flynn was not tied to legitimate criminal or national security concerns, but was straight-up political surveillance among other illegal activity occurring at Treasury.

“When I showed it to her, what she said, ‘Oh, sh%t!’ and I knew right then and there that I was right – this was some shady stuff,” the whistleblower said.

(more…)

More than a week after CBS first constructed their editorial narrative they finally released the full interview between Catherine Herridge and AG Bill Barr.  Many people read the transcript; however, thankfully Michael Sheridan excerpts a portion of the video that doesn’t come across in the transcript.

When the attorney general is questioned about “still having confidence” in FBI Director Christopher Wray, a newly articulated hesitancy is visible that doesn’t come across in the transcript. WATCH:

.

Since February 2019 Bill Barr has been a staunch and very public defender of Chris Wray. However, with new revelations about recent FBI efforts to block the release of information as it relates to Michael Flynn, it now appears the AG has less confidence.

This shift is important because as the public have a renewed focused on the question of who illegally leaked Flynn’s communication with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, there has always been a rather curious contrast issue with the known classified intelligence leaking of James Wolfe.  If finding Flynn’s leaker is important then why didn’t the DOJ/FBI take action when they found a classified intelligence leaker in 2018?

(more…)

Maria Bartiromo broadcasts a taped interview with President Trump discussing the topic of Obamagate and how the IC, FBI and DOJ was weaponized against the Trump campaign and incoming administration.

This interview is interesting as to how much President Trump is aware of what took place.

.

During the Obama administration the NSA database was continually used to conduct surveillance. This is the critical point that leads to understanding the origin of “Spygate”, or “Obamagate” as it unfolded in the Spring and Summer of 2016.

(more…)

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.

(more…)

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:

(more…)

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.

(more…)