Was There Approved FISA Surveillance on General Michael Flynn?…
Posted on April 1, 2019 by sundance
The official account of how the intelligence community gained the transcript of incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn talking to Ambassador Sergey Kisliyak on December 29th, 2016, surrounds “incidental collection” as a result of contact with an agent of a foreign power. Meaning the Flynn call was picked up as the U.S. intelligence apparatus was conducting surveillance on Russian Ambassador Kisliyak.
If this version of events is accurate, it falls under FISA-702 collection: the lawful monitoring of a foreign agent who has contact with a U.S. person. In order to review the identity of the U.S. person, a process called ‘unmasking’, a 702 submission must be made. That submission, the unmasking, leaves a paper/electronic trail.
In a 2017 congressional hearing, Senator Lindsey Graham asks Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and former DNI James Clapper about this process. [Watch first 3 minutes]
.
In the two years that have followed this testimony, despite the simplicity of the the process to discover the answer, we can identify no action taken (nor reports of action taken) that would deliver the answer as to: who unmasked General Michael Flynn?
My suspicion is there never was an ‘unmasking request’.
My suspicion is there was never an unmasking request because the collection was not incidental….
Because the intercept was not incidental.
The lack of incidental collection is why FISA-702 doesn’t apply; and why there’s no paper trail.
Now, I could be entirely wrong on this…. However, my hunch is the intercept was not ‘incidental‘ because the intercept was the result of direct monitoring and surveillance being conducted on Michael Flynn.
That typ of active surveillance can be done legally, through an active FISA surveillance warrant and wiretap; or illegally, by an unauthorized wiretap and no active FISA.
The bottom line question here is easy to reconcile as noted by Lindsey Graham. If there was not active surveillance on Michael Flynn, then a FISA-702 unmasking request exists.
This is not a difficult issue to identify and clear up; and could be discovered with a simple phone call to current DNI Dan Coats. Was there an unmasking request: yes, or no?
There are only three options:
Incidental collection = unmasking request.
Direct intercept / Legal = Active FISA Title-1 surveillance authority.
Direct intercept / Illegal = Active surveillance without Title-1 authority.
#2 and #3 above would be explosive developments considering this was active surveillance of an incoming National Security Advisor of the opposing political party. If there was a pre-existing surveillance warrant on General Flynn, that’s a big effen’ deal.
However, of the two possibilities, #3 would bring down everyone involved.
First things first…. Was there an unmasking request? Yes, or No?
Senator Lindsey Graham asked this question two years ago. Graham is now the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee with secondary oversight over the FISA court.
1/2