Grenell's latest declassification a strong hint that Obamagate prosecution will include spying on Trump campaign

The true scope of the Obama administration's abuse of federal law enforcement and national security organs to spy on political enemies is going to come out as part of the Durham investigation.  That's the implication of a move by Interim director of National Intelligence, Ric Grenell, late yesterday.  Martha Raddatz reported for ABC News:

Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell has declassified 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.

Grenell, who remains the U.S. ambassador to Germany along with being the acting DNI, visited the Justice Department last week and brought the list with him, according to the official.

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.

The key background factor to understand here, unmentioned by Raddatz, is that the NSA database includes all electronic communications — in other words, a universal wiretap mechanism.  What she misses is that the unmasking was not of Flynn, but rather of the Trump campaign officials who communicated electronically with Flynn.  As is so often the case, eagle-eyed Sundance of The Conservative Treehouse has closely read the evidence and explains in a post titled "Prepare to Discover That Michael Flynn WAS NOT Unmasked – But Everyone Else Was..."

It appears we are about to find out if one of my long-standing theories about surveillance of Michael Flynn is correct.  Flynn was not "unmasked", because he was the direct target.

For three years 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, surrounded "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 monitoring of a foreign agent (Kislyak) who has contact with a U.S. person (Flynn). (snip)

Back in 2017 Senator Lindsey Graham questioned former DAG Sally Yates and former DNI James Clapper.  Within the questioning, Sally Yates tipped her hand.  There was never an unmasking of Flynn because Flynn was a target; it was not incidental collection. (2 minute video)


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 an active target in an ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation.  Flynn was THE target.


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:

The key point is that since Flynn was under active investigation already, he would not have needed to be unmasked.  But those campaign officials who were in touch with Flynn after he joined the Trump campaign in February 2016 and became a target of investigation could have their electronic communications spied upon if their identities were unmasked.

In other words, a vast spy operation on the campaign of a political enemy — dwarfing Watergate in scale and importance — apparently was underway.

The next question is when the investigation of Flynn began.  Sources tell Adam Housely that it goes back six years:

All of this explains why President Trump was somewhat coy yesterday as he responded to a reporter's question  about the crimes he references when uses the term Obamagate.  The crime is vast.

Photo credit: YouTube screen grab (cropped).

If you experience technical problems, please write to