For three years, we’ve been led to believe that Flynn’s December 29 conversation with Kislyak was intercepted because the latter was “routinely” monitored. (Kislyak was replaced as ambassador in 2017.) That is, Kislyak was an overt agent of Russia, stationed at its embassy in Washington, so the FBI kept tabs on him. Indeed, the “routine”-surveillance story line was repeated by the New York Times just this week.
.........
I no longer buy this story. If it were true, there would be a record of Flynn’s unmasking. DNI Grenell has represented that the list he provided to Senators Grassley and Johnson includes all requested unmaskings of Flynn from November 8, 2016 (when Donald Trump was elected president) through the end of January 2017 (when the Trump administration had transitioned into power). Yet, it appears that not a single listed unmasking pertains to the December 29 Kislyak call.
........
I hypothesize, then, that Flynn was not unmasked in connection with the December 29 Kislyak call. Either the CIA monitored the call directly or a friendly foreign intelligence service — whether subtly tasked by U.S. intelligence or knowing that U.S. intelligence would be very interested — intercepted the call and passed it along, probably to the CIA. At the time, Kislyak was likely outside the United States, where the CIA would not have needed FISA authorization to monitor him. And while Flynn is an American citizen, he was not only outside the country, he was already regarded by the Obama-era intelligence community as a clandestine agent of Russia — i.e., not an innocent American citizen whose surveillance was merely incidental.

Don’t get me wrong. This week’s revelations about unmasking are important and intriguing. They should be thoroughly examined. In fact, they are only a snapshot of the unmasking issue — involving just one U.S. person (Flynn) over a period of less than three months. It is highly irregular for government officials on the political side of the national-security realm to seek the unmasking of Americans. It is eye-opening to learn that Vice President Biden and President Obama’s chief-of-staff (McDonough) unmasked the incoming Trump administration’s national security advisor. It is downright scandalous that Samantha Power, Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, who had little reason to seek unmasking, reportedly requested 260 unmaskings . . . and then told Congress that she did not make the vast majority of requests attributed to her — though it remains unclear, years later, who did make them.

But let’s not miss the forest for the trees. This is not just about unmasking. It is about how pervasively the Obama administration was monitoring the Trump campaign.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can someone not know they are lying? That makes no sense whatsoever.

If I spoke to the Russian Ambassador about not worrying about sanctions, and am asked about it by the FBI and deny that was a topic of conversation, I know I lied.

What if you forgot that you did?

Maybe that would be a question for the agents that made the observation that they did not think he knew he was lying. There obviously is a reason why those two words are written into the statute.

They asked him about events from less than 4 weeks earlier. If his mind is so feeble so as to not remember a series of calls with the Russian Ambassador from a few weeks ago, then he has no business being in the Administration.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can someone not know they are lying? That makes no sense whatsoever.

If I spoke to the Russian Ambassador about not worrying about sanctions, and am asked about it by the FBI and deny that was a topic of conversation, I know I lied.

What if you forgot that you did?

Maybe that would be a question for the agents that made the observation that they did not think he knew he was lying. There obviously is a reason why those two words are written into the statute.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comey testimony in DOJ motion to dismiss .........

Two things.....
1. Agents did not believe Flynn was lying.
2. The 302 was drafted immediately.
The 302 on file as part of this case has a Feb. 15 date.

Where is the original draft? Before Strzok and Page got to it?

You are lying. The agents knew he was lying to them because they had transcripts of his calls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can someone not know they are lying? That makes no sense whatsoever.

If I spoke to the Russian Ambassador about not worrying about sanctions, and am asked about it by the FBI and deny that was a topic of conversation, I know I lied.

What if you forgot that you did?

Maybe that would be a question for the agents that made the observation that they did not think he knew he was lying. There obviously is a reason why those two words are written into the statute.

Anonymous wrote:How can someone not know they are lying? That makes no sense whatsoever.

If I spoke to the Russian Ambassador about not worrying about sanctions, and am asked about it by the FBI and deny that was a topic of conversation, I know I lied.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comey testimony in DOJ motion to dismiss .........

Two things.....
1. Agents did not believe Flynn was lying.
2. The 302 was drafted immediately.
The 302 on file as part of this case has a Feb. 15 date.

Where is the original draft? Before Strzok and Page got to it?

You are lying. The agents knew he was lying to them because they had transcripts of his calls.

That's not the point. The statute (1001) specifically requires that the false statements must be made knowingly and willingly. Comey said that the agents did not believe that Flynn knew he was lying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comey testimony in DOJ motion to dismiss .........

Two things.....
1. Agents did not believe Flynn was lying.
2. The 302 was drafted immediately.
The 302 on file as part of this case has a Feb. 15 date.

Where is the original draft? Before Strzok and Page got to it?

You are lying. The agents knew he was lying to them because they had transcripts of his calls.

Anonymous wrote:Comey testimony in DOJ motion to dismiss .........

Two things.....
1. Agents did not believe Flynn was lying.
2. The 302 was drafted immediately.
The 302 on file as part of this case has a Feb. 15 date.

Where is the original draft? Before Strzok and Page got to it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it was the FBI on this:

Which means Flynn's name from the Kislyak call came from a Title III electronic surveillance warrant from the CRIMINAL DIVISION, not counterintelligence.

Flynn was already in criminal trouble.

When Grenell put out the list of legal requests for unmasking from appropriate personnel protecting America, he inadvertently confirmed something else:

Flynn was under criminal AND counterintelligence investigation at the same time.

#winning

If this is true, and it was the FBI who collected the call, and it was their notes, I am even less convinced of the charge that he lied to to the FBI or that he lied to Pence.
I wonder if Pence has ever actually HEARD the call. I wonder if he trusted the FBI's notes.
And, if there was a Title III electronic surveillance on Flynn, then this administration was knowingly spying on the incoming Nat. Sec. Advisor. We will need to know what they put ini the Title III warrant. I am betting it was BS just like the FISA warrants.