1. Something to consider.

i) Records show Flynn-Kislyak not unmasked by FBI between 12/29 and 01/04

@SidneyPowell1 @Techno_Fog @ClimateAudit @almostjingo @15poundstogo @ProfMJCleveland

2. IG report showed Flynn not under FISA warrant.

3. AND, "incidental contact" is "incorrect narrative"..

Stay with me.

4. The only remaining option, for Flynn-Kislyak FBI intercept would be a valid wiretap warrant as part of the FBI counterintelligence investigation.

A Flynn investigation (by the FBI) we know, according to their own records, was taking place.

5. But the former FBI officials are *NOW* going to great lengths to say the Flynn-Kislyak intercept was "incidental collection".

[Forgot to add @The_War_Economy ]

TODAY.

TODAY.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/us/politics/bill-priestap-michael-flynn.html?smid=tw-share

6. The FBI position before:

It was NOT "incidental collection"...

7. So.... What this looks like is that the FBI was indeed conducting surveillance of Flynn as part of their ongoing investigation; and they captured the conversation during that surveillance; but.... THEY DIDN'T HAVE A WARRANT!

8. Which would explain why the unmasking list of Flynn would be so valuable to John Durham's investigation.

9. No record of the FBI unit requesting a transcript; and yet the FBI having, discussing, debating said transcript (January 4, 2017); would imply the FBI intercepted the call as part of ongoing surveillance by the FBI.

10. To avoid exposure of illegal Flynn surveillance (no warrant, and no FISA), the FBI is now claiming "incidental collection".

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/us/politics/bill-priestap-michael-flynn.html?smid=tw-share

11. What other reason, other than the absence of legal authorization, would explain the FBI now claiming "incidental collection"?

/END