Many people have wondered why Lt. Gen Michael Flynn took the guilty plea; indeed, even his trial judge, Emmet Sullivan, posed curious questions about the agreement. Yesterday, in a very smart move on behalf of her client, defense Attorney Sidney Powell informed the court why Mike Flynn took the guilty plea on November 30th, 2017.

Background – As part of ongoing proceedings and consideration Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan had requested a status update about the ongoing cooperation of Michael Flynn in the trial of his former business partner Bijan Rafiekian. On September 24th Federal Judge Anthony J Trenga nullified the jury verdict against Rafiekian and tossed the case.

Flynn’s lawyer, Sidney Powell, now files a motion to update trial judge Emmet Sullivan. However, in a smart legal move, and using the jury nullification within the status report, Powell also outlined the reason why her client took a guilty plea (pdf link):

As highlighted, Michael Flynn -under pressure from Mueller’s prosecutors- signed a plea to avoid his son, Mike Flynn Jr., being indicted/accused. As we suspected General Flynn signed a plea deal to avoid seeing his son charged with a fabricated FARA violation.

It is a smart strategy for Flynn’s defense to inform Judge Sullivan -now- of the undue pressure and threat from Mueller’s assigned prosecutor Brandon Van Grack.

First, this information will help Judge Sullivan reconcile many of the troubling aspects behind the Flynn plea. Against ongoing defense and prosecution arguments about Brady evidence, the highlight in this short status update will not be missed; it will reconcile to the court why Flynn’s defense attorney is seeking supplemental information.

Second, the timing is smart. Strategically the next time each party squares off in court, Judge Sullivan will have a frame of reference. Additionally, Judge Sullivan now has the legal insight of his peer, Judge Andrew Trenga; along with the thoughts and information behind why Judge Trenga took the extraordinary step of nullifying a jury decision and dismissing the case. The DOJ prosecutors facing Sullivan will be on egg-shells.

Mueller’s corrupt prosecutors used legally sketchy FARA violations, and threats therein, against many of their targets. Those tenuous legal theories have now been dispatched in two separate cases: Bijan Rafiekian (Flynn Intel Group), and Greg Craig (Obama White House). [Additionally the DOJ dropped the FARA investigation of Tony Podesta and Vin Weber for the same reasons.]

As a result of prior cases showing malicious prosecutions under false FARA pretenses, Flynn’s defense doesn’t have to try and convince Judge Sullivan that Michael Flynn and Mike Flynn Jr. were being threatened by those same heavy-handed DOJ tactics. It is now self-evident those tactics were deployed; the prosecution would be silly to try and deny their threats were present.

This explanation to Judge Sullivan, in combination with prior judicial outcomes, creates a fulsome and self-evident picture for Sullivan to see what was taking place in the background… without defense attorney Sidney Powell having to try and explain.

It will be interesting to see how the DOJ responds to the requests from Flynn’s defense counsel for further documents. It will also be interesting to see how the explanation for Flynn’s plea is viewed by Judge Sullivan. Here’s the recent status report by Powell:

Hat Tip Techno-Fog for the filing.

.

A second expanded scope memo was issued by Rod Rosenstein to Robert Mueller on October 20th, 2017. The transparent intent of the second scope memo was to provide Weissmann and Mueller with ammunition and authority to investigate specific targets, for specific purposes. One of those targets was General Michael Flynn’s son, Michael Flynn Jr.

As you review the highlighted portion below, found on pages 12 and 13 of the Weissmann report, read slowly and fully absorb the intent; the corruption is blood-boiling:

The first redaction listed under “personal privacy” is unknown. However, The second related redaction is a specific person, Michael Flynn Jr.

In combination with the October timing, the addition of Flynn Jr to the target list relates to the ongoing 2016/2017 investigation of his father, General Michael Flynn, for: (1) possible conspiracy with a foreign government; (2) unregistered lobbying; (3) materially false statements and omissions on 2017 FARA documents; and (4) lying to the FBI.

This October 20th, 2017, request from Weissmann and Mueller aligns with the time-frame were special counsel team lawyers Brandon L. Van Grack and Zainab N. Ahmad were prosecuting Michael Flynn and attempting to force him into a guilty plea.

Getting Rosenstein to authorize adding Mike Flynn Jr. to the target list (scope memo) meant the special counsel could threaten General Flynn with the indictment of his son as a co-conspirator tied to the Turkish lobbying issue (which they did) if he doesn’t agree to a plea. Remember: “jointly undertaken activity“.



The October 20th, 2017, expanded scope memo authorized Mueller to start demanding records, phones, electronic devices and other evidence from Mike Flynn Jr, and provided the leverage Weissmann wanted. After all, Mike Flynn Jr. had a four month old baby.

The amount of twisted pressure from this corrupt team of prosecutors is sickening. A month later, General Flynn was signing a plea agreement:



But wait, it gets worse…

~ Mike Flynn Was Under a Fraudulently Obtained FISA Title-1 Surveillance Warrant ~

{Deep Weeds} The official media 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 were accurate (it’s not), it would fall under FISA-702 collection: the lawful monitoring of a foreign agent (Kislyak) who has contact with a U.S. person (Flynn).

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 prompted]

In the two-and-a-half years following this testimony, there was nothing that would deliver the answer as to: who unmasked General Michael Flynn?

The reason is simple, Flynn wasn’t unmasked – because Flynn was under FISC authorized active surveillance. Here’s how we know:

♦ First, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were watching that hearing where Senator Lindsey Graham was questioning Sally Yates and James Clapper. As they discussed in their text messages the issue of “unmasking” is irrelevant. “incidental collection” is the “incorrect narrative”:

The “incidental collection” is an “incorrect narrative” because the collection was not incidental. Flynn was actively being monitored. Flynn was under an active FISA surveillance warrant.

♦ Second, more evidence of Flynn under active surveillance is found in the Mueller report where the special prosecutor outlines that Flynn was under an active investigation prior to the phone call with Ambassador Kislyak:

Mary McCord was the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the DOJ National Security Division, after John Carlin left in October of 2016. McCord would have signed-off on the Flynn FISA warrant, or any extension therein, throughout the Trump transition period.

[McCord was also the person who Sally Yates took with her to the White House to confront White House Counsel Don McGahn about the Flynn call and FBI interview.]

♦ Third, from the 2017 House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), when Devin Nunes was Chairman, the four targets of the Trump campaign -under investigation throughout 2016- were outlined:

SUMMARY: ♦In real time Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were saying the “incidental contact” (unmasking) narrative was incorrect. ♦Then Devin Nunes outlines the targets of the 2016 FBI investigation which included Flynn. ♦Then Robert Mueller says Flynn was under investigation prior to the 12/29/16 phone call with Kislyak.

Put it all together and…. (1) There was never an unmasking request because the collection was not incidental…. (2) Because the intercept was not incidental. (3) Because the intercept was part of the FISA court granting a surveillance warrant.

The lack of incidental collection is why FISA-702 doesn’t apply; and why there’s no paper trail to an unmasking request. The intercept was not ‘incidental‘ because the intercept was the result of direct monitoring and FISC authorized surveillance being conducted on Michael Flynn.

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.

All of the evidence from documents over the past two years indicates #2 was the status of Michael Flynn at the time of the Sergey Kislak call.

The incoming National Security Advisor of President-Elect Donald Trump was under active Title-1 FBI surveillance as granted by the FISA court. That’s how the FBI intercepted the phone call with Sergey Kislyak and why there’s no unmasking request.

This doesn’t deal with the propriety of the FISA warrant, or the legal basis, the legal predicate that must exist prior to granting the FISA warrant. However, accepting that Michael Flynn was under court approved surveillance reconciles all the issues.

Additionally, this would explain two more issues. #1) President Obama warning incoming President Trump not to hire Michael Flynn as his Nat. Sec. Advisor; and #2) a very strong possibility that Flynn’s status is the redacted paragraph in the January 20th, 2016, Susan Rice memo.

At 12:15pm on January 20th, 2017, Obama’s outgoing National Security Advisor Susan Rice wrote a memo-to-self. Many people have called this her “CYA” (cover your ass) memo, from the position that Susan Rice was protecting herself from consequences if the scheme against President Trump was discovered. Here’s the email:

“On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also present. President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book“. The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book. From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.” [Redacted Classified Section of Unknown length] “The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.” Susan Rice ~ (pdf link)

I would suggest the redacted section relates to President Trump being under FBI investigation; and/or incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn being under investigation and FISA surveillance. Hence the issues with “sharing information”.

While Michael Flynn being under active FISC authorized surveillance would indicate there’s no need for unmasking of Flynn, there would be a need for unmasking of everyone else captured within the Flynn surveillance. Hence the dozens of White House unmaskings identified by Devin Nunes in March 2017.

Additionally, Flynn being under FISA authorized surveillance still doesn’t excuse the leak -likely by Andrew McCabe- to the Washington Post about the phone contact between Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak on December 29th, 2016.

There are likely multiple FBI 302 reports on all sorts of contacts by Michael Flynn; as the FBI was conducting political surveillance under the auspices of “investigating” and updating their files.

This FBI surveillance background of Flynn would also reconcile another unusual date within the Mueller report. An FBI 302 written on January 19th, 2017, before the Flynn interview on January 24th, 2017, about Kislyak:

Flynn was under surveillance and the FBI reports on Flynn’s surveillance did not start with the January 24, 2017, interview of Flynn – As you can see above there are FBI 302 reports that preceded it. [h/t Techno Fog] This aligns with Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Mary McCord, Devin Nunes and Robert Mueller all saying Flynn was under investigation prior to the 12/29/16 Kislyak call.

If Flynn’s defense attorney Sidney Powell can get all of the material requested in her August 30th motion for evidence. She will expose the fact that General Flynn was under a fraudulently obtained FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant.

In the 19-pages (full pdf below), Ms. Powell walks through the history of the DOJ, FBI and intelligence apparatus weaponization against Mr. Flynn and lays out the background behind everything known to have happened in 2016, 2017 through today.

From the corrupt DOJ lawyers who were working with Fusion-GPS and Chris Steele, including Mr. Weissmann, Mr. Van Grack and Ms. Zainab Ahmad; to the 2015/2016 FISA database search abuses; to the CIA and FBI operation against Flynn including Nellie Ohr; to the schemes behind the use of DOJ official Bruce Ohr; to the corrupt construct of the special counsels office selections; to the specifics within the malicious conspiracy outlined by hiding FBI interview notes of Mike Flynn,… all of it…. Is a stunning filing that many CTH readers are well prepared to understand.

.