Now the purpose of the leaked conference call, aka instructions, from former President Barack Obama come into play. In a very unusual move today Michael Flynn’s judge, Emmet Sullivan, enters an order granting outside parties the time to enter amicus briefs (friend of the court) to assist in guiding the court; a briefing schedule to follow.
…”Given the posture of the case the court anticipates individuals and organizations will seek leave to file amicus briefs” …
It looks like the judge wants to give former DOJ employees (2,000 signatures on letter) an opportunity to publicly undermine and undercut the position of the DOJ in moving to dismiss the charges. Infuriating, remarkable and transparently political.
Judge Sullivan even cited famously political Judge Amy Berman Jackson, a subtle hat/tip to President Obama’s recent May 8th instructions. Sullivan’s order can put to rest any contemplation of him holding corrupt prosecutor Brandon Van Grack to account; and only further delays removing the sword of damocles from atop Lt. General Michael Flynn.
The transparent purpose of allowing public comment, specifically from the Lawfare resistance group, is to undermine the DOJ and further create a political narrative around AG Bill Barr. However, on the positive side this might stir Barr to release even more damaging information to counter the political efforts of Judge Sullivan. Quite remarkable.
Everything around that places is hopelessly corrupt and political…
The great Lou Dobbs interviews Flynn’s exceptional defense lawyer, Sidney Powell, about the ongoing revelations directly and indirectly connected to the case against her client.
Ms. Powell is not only Flynn’s lawyer, but she’s one of the few people who put the picture together early and recognized President Obama’s surveillance state included the weaponization of the NSA database. Now that revelations are quickly surfacing, Powell is in a strong position to help people see how the dots connect over multiple years. WATCH:
.
Note: This interview took place prior to the recent order by Judge Sullivan delaying his decision and granting political allies time to petition the court and undermine the DOJ.
After Acting DNI Richard “Ric” Grenell delivered a volume of declassified intelligence records to Attorney General Bill Barr it was reported that Grenell delivered a file showing the intelligence unmaskers from the Obama administration; pending Barr release.
Today ABC is reporting from senior DOJ officials “”we do not intend to release the [unmasking] list” that Grenell brought over to the building last week.”
Considering the content of the files likely delivered to AG Barr it is worth remaining patient. No-one is more cynical than me about DOJ hiding stuff; but this ain’t that.
The declassified documents are not a DOJ equity, they are a DNI equity, the DNI can release them. For the DOJ the declassified documents are evidence.
Kevin Corke and Adam Housley are both reporting the documents delivered by Grenell extend beyond unmasking; their reporting makes sense. The bigger topic is political surveillance. The surveillance encompassed numerous intelligence equities.
Adam Housley
✔@adamhousley
As I’m told the list Grenell brought over is much larger than anything involving Flynn. “The exact tasking flow is hard to discern because the stuff was flying everywhere.”
CIA reports would lead to (702) unmasking requests. FBI investigative reports on counterintelligence would lead to unmasking requests; and may also include (702) unmasking requests. FBI (or DOJ) investigative searches of the NSA database could lead to (702) unmasking requests; and would also lead to audit logs and audit trails of non-minimized extractions if 702 was not applicable (domestic surveillance).
There is a myriad of different intelligence audit trails depending on the agency and type of documentary evidence being reviewed: unmasking (reports), audit logs (search queries), minimizations (database extractions) etc. It’s not only “unmasking.”
REPORT THIS AD
Additionally, remember former NSA Director ADM Mike Rogers said the NSA purged the non-compliant search results (erased them) but retained the audit logs showing who did what, how much, on whom, and when. So those audit logs could be part of the declassified delivery to AG Bill Barr. All of that makes sense and all of it needs to be kept in perspective.
On the recipient side (Bill Barr) of the declassified material the intelligence documents provide a basis for the DOJ to ask the “unmaskers” or “search query operators” or “intelligence officials” why the subjects within the investigative reports (searches etc) were being unmasked or non-minimized…. and who did they give the information to?
Who requested the unmasking (or minimization removal)? Who did the unmasking? Who received the unmasked materials?… and Why?
The primary who and when is identified within the declassified documents delivered by Grenell. The downstream ‘who’ also saw them, and ‘why’ was the request made, can only be discovered by asking the primary person who received the unmasked (non-minimized) result.
We want to know who the unmaskers were. However, Barr/Durham also likely want to know why and what was the purpose? Those questions can only be answered by going directly to the person who made the request and received the end product. So a little patience is afforded here as those questions are likely being asked.
What we do know is that a seemingly trustworthy DNI Ric Grenell has assembled, declassified and seen all of this information… so there’s reason for some confidence it will not be buried like the James Wolfe stuff. Plus, the assembly is public now (I don’t think that’s coincidental).
Additionally, those people who were unmasked (investigative reports) or non-minimized (investigative search queries) are also potential victims; so there’s some privacy elements that overlay the material declassified by Grenell. After all, just because someone came into contact with Lt. General Michael Flynn, and ended up in some intelligence report, doesn’t make them a subject of the investigation. So a little caution is prudent.
DNI Ric Grenell has provided the information; we know it exists and the DOJ knows we know it exists… so let’s wait and see what happens next. If you have been following along with the deep dive research, these tweets from Adam Housley make sense:
Adam Housley
✔@adamhousley
Contractors working for Brennan were gathering the intel. For someone to be unmasked it had to be in an intel report. That’s how they got around the law.
As I’m told the list Grenell brought over is much larger than anything involving Flynn. “The exact tasking flow is hard to discern because the stuff was flying everywhere.”
President Trump tweeted “Obamagate” on Sunday, but what Barack did was far worse than Nixon’s transgression.
Obama used the FBI, the NSA and CIA to spy on Trump’s campaign and then his presidency. Obama and the Deep State Swamp launched a coup attempt. They tried to remove a lawfully elected president from office based on fabricated evidence paid for by the Hillary campaign.
The entire Russia Russia Russia! witch hunt cost the taxpayers a tremendous amount of money, but the real issue is treason. FBI agent Peter Strzok and his FBI lawyer lover Lisa Page conspired against Trump through text messages. They both pushed the FBI to investigate General Flynn when no investigation was warranted. Obama fired Flynn because the general didn’t approve of Obama’s support for muslim terrorists including Iran and ISIS.
Obama did not want Trump to appoint Flynn as his National Security Advisor. Naturally Trump did just that, so Obama sent the FBI to entrap Flynn.
Adam Schiff may be the biggest traitor. The bug-eyed House Intelligence Committee chairman had nothing but leaks and lies to offer. He claimed he had concrete evidence of Trump’s collusion with Russia. He had nothing. He even lied on the floor of Congress when he made up words Trump never said.
Comey is in the pocket of the Clintons. He also lied and leaked to damage Trump’s presidency. The FBI knew the Steele Dossier was a pack of lies, but they used it to push through a FISA warrant and engaged Mueller in a long and wasteful investigation while CNN breathlessly fanned the flames of a Trump Russia conspiracy, when there wasn’t even smoke, let alone a fire.
NSA Director James Clapper lied to Congress, when he said nobody was spying on the Trump campaign. Yet that’s exactly what the security agencies were doing at the direction of Barack Obama.
All roads lead back to Obama and he’s angry. He knows he’s stuck, but he’s become too used to sticking it to others. His arrogance caused him to claim Trump is a threat to the rule of law when in fact it was Obama who was running a coup and abusing the justice system.
Russia-gate was designed to divert the public’s attention away from Obama’s involvement — and the involvement of the CIA — in supporting terrorism in the Middle East. That policy had been approved by Obama and carried out by Brennan
“Obamagate” is the name being given to Barack Hussein Obama’s role in the Michael Flynn case, in which Flynn was framed for wrongdoing then cleared by Trump’s Attorney General William Barr. But why was Flynn targeted?
Flynn, a former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and a retired Lieutenant General, opposed the Obama policy, carried out by John Brennan’s CIA, of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic terrorists in the Middle East. He understood that the proxy war the Obama administration had waged in the Middle East had produced debacles that in Syria alone cost 560,000 lives and created millions of refugees.
Unfortunately, Flynn had made himself a target. On December 10, 2015, almost a year before President-elect Donald Trump named him as White House national security adviser, he had appeared in Moscow as the premier Russian propaganda channel, RT (Russia Today), held a conference marking its 10th anniversary as an outlet for Kremlin propaganda. Flynn’s appearance at the RT event, where he sat next to Russian President Vladimir Putin at a special gala celebration dinner, was alarming to those concerned about how the propaganda channel, known as KGB-TV, uses Americans and other foreigners to spread Kremlin propaganda.
Flynn’s attendance at the RT dinner suggested to some observers that this retired officer, who attained a three-star rank during a 33-year Army career, viewed Russia as a potential U.S. ally in the war on terror. Ironically, he had written in his book, The Field of Fight, about how the Russian intelligence services had been involved in supporting radical Islam.
I was alarmed by Flynn’s participation at that RT event and first broke the story in 2015.
By going to such an event, Flynn had made himself a convenient target. It’s understandable, therefore, why Flynn’s conversations with the Russians, including Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, would draw attention. But Washington Post columnist David Ignatius crossed a dangerous line when he used top-secret surveillance intercepts of communications between Flynn and Kislyak to generate the controversy that Obama and his aides wanted. Ignatius quoted “a senior U.S. government official” as the source of the information about Flynn.
Flynn was forced out of his new position on the grounds that he forgot to tell Vice President Mike Pence about elements of the conversations he had with Kislyak. All of this was transformed into a “scandal,” resulting in Flynn being framed by the FBI on charges of lying. He pleaded guilty under pressure.
Obamagate is more than Obama’s knowledge of what his people were doing to Flynn. The conversations with Kislyak were viewed by Obama and his people as a smokescreen designed to change the subject from the disasters in the Middle East that Flynn was exposing. The real issue, as Flynn had talked about publicly since he left the DIA in 2014, was the evidence of a U.S. role under Barack Obama and his CIA director John Brennan in facilitating an increase of radical Islam in the Middle East. He has cited the evidence contained in a DIA document, declassified and publicly released by Judicial Watch. Trump ended the disastrous Obama policy in mid-2017.
What happened to Flynn was truly an amazing diversion since Obama’s CIA director Brennan should never have received a security clearance. As CIA director, Brennan told a congressional forum that even voting communist, as he once did, was not a bar to employment at the agency. Brennan had voted for a Moscow-line Communist Party.
The media knew that the Obama administration helped to produce the humanitarian disasters in the Middle East. They ran a few stories about CIA arms shipments to terrorists in the region through countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar but did not highlight the criminal nature of the policy. And when Flynn got into a position of power and was able to do something about exposing these dirty wars, he became the target. They used Russia as the pretext to go after him.
The purpose of the leak was to stop Flynn before he could take action to reform the U.S. intelligence community. That’s obvious when you consider that Ignatius is considered a mouthpiece for the CIA. In a major new development, Judicial Watch just recently released documents showing extensive communications between Ignatius and an Obama holdover official in the Department of Defense. The owner of the Post, Jeff Bezos, does business with the intelligence community through Amazon Web Services.
Looking back, we can safely conclude that Russia-gate was designed to divert the public’s attention away from Obama’s involvement—and the involvement of the CIA—in supporting terrorism in the Middle East. That policy had been approved by Obama and carried out by Brennan.
During testimony in June 2017 Admiral Mike Rogers helps to explain what documents would be available to identify who was making unmasking requests. WATCH:
Note: “you must make that request in writing”; which explains the documents Ric Grenell has declassified and the probability that AG Bill Barr will soon release.
ABC News first reported the news but initially said in the title that Grenell was in the process of trying to declassify the list of Obama officials.
A source with knowledge of the matter told The Daily Wire that the list has already been declassified and now it’s on Attorney General William Barr to release the list. (LINK)
FULL BACKGROUND – However, a strong note of caution. Sometimes the specificity of the intelligence operation itself means the U.S. target will already be named in the originating intelligence document and would not require an unmasking request.
Representatives Jim Jordan and Andy Biggs tear the bark off the Obamagate scandal; including culpable republicans who participated in the DC coup effort.
Appearing with Lou Dobbs on Fox Business, Jim Jordan rips through the timeline early in the interview to expose how it was impossible for all of the activity to be happening without former President Obama being a participant. WATCH:
Tucker Carlson has Fox host Trey Gowdy appear for an interview to discuss ongoing events and revelations showing the corrupt behavior of the FBI and DOJ. About mid-way through the interview Carlson takes a passive aggressive tack, shows Gowdy a video of his own comments in May 2018, and asks if he is still willing to stand by them. WATCH:
.
So Gowdy waited from January 2017 until three weeks after May 2018 to go look at the direct documents the DOJ and FBI had been concealing?
Not coincidentally; and in direct alignment with the expressed defenses of Gowdy; two months later, July 12, 2018, the DOJ and FBI told the FISA court the underlying predicate for the FISA warrant against Carter Page was still valid….
Last week it was noted that Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard “Ric” Grenell delivered a satchel of classified documents to AG Bill Barr. The exact content of the documents was unknown.
Today ABC is reporting that Grenell has requested AG Bill Barr use the declassification authority, granted to him by President Trump in May 2019, to declassify the list of Obama officials who requested unmaskings of Trump campaign and administration officials.
WASHINGTON – Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell has sought to declassify a list of former Obama administration officials who were allegedly involved in the so-called “unmasking” of former national security adviser Michael Flynn in his conversations with the former Russian ambassador during the presidential transition, a senior U.S. official tells ABC News.
[…] His visit indicates his focus on an issue previously highlighted in 2017 by skeptics of the investigation into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia, specifically allegations that former officials improperly unveiled Flynn’s identity from intercepts of his call with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
[…] Former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice has openly acknowledged unmasking the identities of some senior Trump officials during the presidential transition but has strenuously denied ever leaking any identities and said nothing she did was politically motivated.
[…] In 2017, Rep. Devin Nunes — a longtime critic of the Russia investigation — accused the Obama administration of improper unmasking of Trump transition officials after he secretly met with two national security officials at the White House who he said provided him with documents supporting his assertions. (more)
March 27, 2017, then House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Devin Nunes, held a brief press conference and stated he was provided intelligence reports brought to him by unnamed sources including ‘significant information’ about President-Elect Trump and his transition team.
These reports included unmaskings of President Trump campaign officials; and included Donald Trump himself…. You know what that means:
1.) …”On numerous occasions the [Obama] intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.”
2.) “Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration; details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.”
3.) “Third, I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition members were unmasked.”
4.) “Fourth and finally, I want to be clear; none of this surveillance was related to Russia, or the investigation of Russian activities, or of the Trump team.
“The House Intelligence Committee will thoroughly investigate surveillance and its subsequent dissemination, to determine a few things here that I want to read off:”
“Who was aware of it?”
“Why it was not disclosed to congress?”
“Who requested and authorized the additional unmasking?”
“Whether anyone directed the intelligence community to focus on Trump associates?”
“And whether any laws, regulations or procedures were violated?”
“I have asked the Directors of the FBI, NSA and CIA to expeditiously comply with my March 15th letter -that you all received a couple of weeks ago- and to provide a full account of these surveillance activities.”
.
The next week, April 4, 2017, you already know the routine. MSNBC is the favorable proprietary venue. Andrea Mitchell plays the role of media-legal-adviser, her client is Susan Rice. Live interviews are always the greatest risk (see: Evelyn Farkas) The full interview is below:
There are some interesting aspects to the interview:
Susan Rice @00:51 – …”Let me explain how this works. I was a National Security Adviser, my job is to protect the American people and the security of our country. That’s the same as the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and CIA Director.; and every morning, to enable us to do that, we receive – from the intelligence community – a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us –on a daily basis– to give us the best information as to what’s going on around the world.”
[Note, Susan Rice is describing the PDB]
“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to. Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.
And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”
OK, so right there, in the very beginning of the forward narrative, Susan Rice is confirming the “unmasking” request(s) which can be pinned upon her, are directly related to her need to understand -on behalf of President Obama- intelligence for the President’s Daily Briefing (the PDB). This was a previous question now answered.
This is EXPLOSIVE, and here’s why.
Remember, the President’s Daily Brief under President Obama went to almost everyone at top levels in his administration. Regarding the Obama PDB:
[…] But while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.
In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers.
By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments. (link)
Susan Rice is admitting to “unmasking” names within intelligence reports to give her context for how they pertain to the overall briefing material. That briefing material is the PDB. That PDB goes to dozens of political people and political entities.
With dozens of people with access to President Obama’s PDB, Rice’s unmasking of the intelligence report names gave dozens of people direct access to unmasked intelligence – including Obama officials who could, perhaps did, use the PDB for specific and intentional political purposes.
FBI Agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka interviewed National Security Advisor Michael Flynn on January 24, 2017. According to documents presented in the court case, agent Peter Strzok did the questioning and agent Joe Pientka took most of the notes.
Following the interview agent Pientka then took his hand-written notes and generated an official FD-302; an FBI report of the interview itself. There has been a great deal of debate over the first draft, the original FD-302 as it was written by Joe Pientka. In the case against Flynn the DOJ prosecutors never presented the original Pientka 302.
Recent evidence from Brady material turned over to the defense by auditing attorney Jeff Jensen showed FBI lawyer Lisa Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok rewriting, editing and shaping the 302 on February 10, 2017, more than two weeks later:
Lisa Page is “pissed off” because Peter Strzok previously edited the 302 and she says he “didn’t even attempt to make this cogent and readable.”
Peter Strzok replies back to Lisa Page that he was “trying to completely re-write the thing so as to save Joe’s voice”, because Joe Pientka was the actual author.
Peter Strzok is re-writing the interview notes of Pientka in order to construct the framework to accuse Flynn of lying. Lisa Page is editing the re-write to make it more cogent and readable.
The question has remained: Where is the original 302 report as written by Pientka?
While the question(s) around the missing original 302 have yet to be reconciled, one possible path to discover its location and a copy of its original content lies in the testimony of Sally Yates. Former DAG Sally Yates testified to congress that after the Flynn interview DOJ-National Security Division:
“received a detailed readout from the FBI agents who had interviewed Flynn.” Yates said she felt “it was important to get this information to the White House as quickly as possible.”
Yates is describing the Pientka 302. The Pientka 302 could have been received at the DOJ-NSD later in the evening of January 24th, or perhaps the morning of the 25th. Either is possible because Yates was having meetings about the topic.
In the DOJ motion to dismiss the case against Flynn, the records indicate Yates received a summary of the interview the night of the 24th, and the full detailed record came on the morning of January 25th:
The calendar of DOJ-NSD Associate Deputy AG Tashina Gauhar shows meetings with Sally Yates which align with the discussions of the Flynn interview and Yates receiving a summary on the 24th and the detail on the 25th:
Together with DOJ-NSD head Mary McCord, Sally Yates used the 302 from Joe Pientka to travel to the White House on January 26th and brief White House counsel Don McGahn about the Flynn interview contrast against the content of the previously captured call between Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Lt. Gen Mike Flynn.
If the FBI search for the original Pientka 302 is mysteriously impossible, perhaps the DOJ should go and get the version that was received by the DOJ-NSD on the evening of January 24th, or morning of January 25th, 2017.
Sally Yates had the original Pientka FD-302 report.
Yates testimony below:
•WednesdayJanuary 25th, 2017, – The Department of Justice, National Security Division, (at this timeframe Mary McCord was head of the DOJ-NSD) – received a detailed readout from the FBI agents who had interviewed Flynn. Yates said she felt “it was important to get this information to the White House as quickly as possible.”
•ThursdayJanuary 26th – (morning) Sally Yates called White House Counsel Don McGahn first thing that morning to tell him she had “a very sensitive matter” that had to be discussed face to face. McGahn agreed to meet with Yates later that afternoon.
•Thursday January 26th – (afternoon) Sally Yates traveled to the White House along with a senior member of the DOJ’s National Security Division, “who was overseeing the matter”, that is Mary McCord. This was Yates’ first meeting with McGahn in his office, which also acts as a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF).
Yates said she began their meeting by laying out the media accounts and media statements made by Vice President Mike Pence and other high-ranking White House officials about General Flynn’s activity “that we knew not to be the truth.”
According to Sally Yates testimony, she and Mary McCord presented all the information to McGahn so the White House could take action that they deemed appropriate. When asked by McGahn if Flynn should be fired, Yates answered, “that really wasn’t our call.”
Yates also said her decision to notify the White House counsel had been discussed “at great length.” According to her testimony: “Certainly leading up to our notification on the 26th, it was a topic of a whole lot of discussion in DOJ and with other members of the intel community.”
•Friday January 27th – (morning) White House Counsel Don McGahn called Yates in the morning and asked if she could come back to his office.
•Friday January 27th – (late afternoon) According to her testimony, Sally Yates returned to the White House late that afternoon. One of McGahn’s topics discussed was whether Flynn could be prosecuted for his conduct.
Specifically, according to Yates, one of the questions *McGahn asked Yates: “Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another?” She explained that it “was a whole lot more than that,” and reviewed the same issues outlined the prior day.
McGahn then expressed his concern that taking any action might interfere with the FBI investigation of Flynn, and Yates said it wouldn’t: “It wouldn’t really be fair of us to tell you this and then expect you to sit on your hands,” Yates claims to have told McGahn.
McGahn asked if he could look at the underlying evidence of Flynn’s conduct, and she said they would work with the FBI over the weekend and “get back with him on Monday morning.”
•Friday January 27th, 2017 – (evening) In what appears to be only a few hours later, President Trump is having dinner with FBI Director James Comey where President Trump asked if he was under investigation. Trump was, but to continue the auspices of the ongoing investigation, Comey lied and told him he wasn’t.
It is important not to get lost in the weeds of each part of the evidence as it starts to surface. All of the material hits upon three key points:
Michael Flynn (and others) were wrongly targeted by the FBI.
Michael Flynn was not guilty of the accusations by the FBI; and Flynn was not guilty of the accusations that came later from the Mueller investigation as a result of evidence gathered by the FBI.
The former DOJ is claiming they were not involved in the targeting of Michael Flynn; nor were the former Obama DOJ officials aware of the FBI activity.
Some of the defensive claims by participants in the anti-Trump effort may hold up under scrutiny (former DOJ). Some of the defensive claims will not. The key point here is that we have entered a phase where the coup-plotters and participants are trying to justify what took place; and they are pointing fingers at each-other to avoid culpability.
Keep in mind this doesn’t even begin to touch on what the corrupt Mueller crew did with the corrupt FBI material.
This phase is the former Obama DOJ officials putting blame upon former Obama FBI officials for the origin of “Spygate” and the subsequent plot to target and remove the incoming administration… However, despite their efforts there is no sunlight between them.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 