Thread by @TheLastRefuge2

1.) If this "unmasking of Flynn" aspect interests you, then read on. If it doesn't - then skip this thread.

In the *specific* example of Flynn, there was no "unmasking". I'll explain why.

https://twitter.com/BarbaraRedgate/status/1143121858759294983

2.) The official *media* account of how the intelligence community gained the transcript of National Sec. Adviser Michael Flynn talking to Ambassador Sergey Kisliyak on December 29th, 2016, surrounds “incidental collection” as a result of contact w/ an agent of a foreign power.

3.) "incidental collection"... Meaning the Flynn call was picked up as the U.S. intelligence apparatus was conducting surveillance on Russian Ambassador Kisliyak.

4.) If this version of events was accurate (it's not), it would falls under FISA-702 collection: the lawful monitoring of a foreign agent who has contact with a U.S. person.

5.) Accordingly, under the false premise.... 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.

6.) In a 2017 congressional hearing, Senator Lindsey Graham asks Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and former DNI James Clapper about this "unmasking" process. [Watch first 3 minutes]

7.) In the two years that have followed this testimony, despite the simplicity of the the process to discover the answer, I can identify no action taken (nor reports of action taken) that would deliver the answer as to: who unmasked General Michael Flynn?

8.) However, in the two years that have followed the 2017 testimony. We have discovered buckets of information about the 2016 and 2017 FBI monitoring of Flynn. Including information from within the Mueller report.

9.) Flynn wasn't "unmasked", because Flynn's communication was not picked up as a process of "incidental collection".

Flynn's communication was picked up because he was under FISA authorized surveillance.

10.) There was never an unmasking request because the collection was not incidental…. Because the intercept was not incidental. Flynn was a target. His communications were legally intercepted as part of ongoing FISC authorized surveillance. [Ergo, no unmasking]

11.) The lack of incidental collection is why FISA-702 doesn’t apply; and why there’s no paper trail (no unmasking). The intercept was not ‘incidental‘ because the intercept was the result of direct monitoring and targeted FBI surveillance being conducted on Michael Flynn.

12.) There are only three options:

#1 Incidental collection = unmasking request.

#2 Direct intercept / *Legal* = Active FISA Title-1 surveillance authority.

#3 Direct intercept / *Illegal* = Active surveillance without Title-1 authority.

13. All existing evidence and documentation points to #2 option.

A direct and legal intercept via active FISA Title-1 surveillance authority.

14.) When Mike Flynn was selected as President-Elect Trump's National Security Advisor, Flynn was under an active FISA warrant.

You can argue the legitimacy therein, but just like Carter Page the surveillance was authorized by the FISC, and completely legal.

15.) That's why the "unmasking" issue is moot. And that's likely why President Obama told incoming President Trump not to hire General Michael Flynn.

Flynn was carrying a surveillance ebola virus. He was unwittingly infecting everyone he communicated with.

16.) Again, accepting this issue does not deal with the legitimacy of the predicate that led to the FBI and DOJ getting a FISA warrant on Flynn.

However, the FISA warrant itself reconciles all of the issues around Flynn "unmasking", .....because there wasn't any.

17.) /END

Key sentence: