FBI-needs-to-explain-why-Michael-Flynn-was-recorded-GOP-intelligence-chairman-says. It fascinates me that the press will dig to any depth through feet of bullshit to glean one little turd that supports their position while ignoring the mountain of excrement that they just moved. 

According to the MSM Flynn was monitored by an intelligence agency speaking with the Russian Ambassador, before the inauguration and is appointment as national security advisor. He did this as a private citizen, which is prohibited by statute.

The reason we know that this conversation took place is that somebody in the US Government intelligence sector broke the law. It is a matter of routine to eavesdrop on foreign national politicians, including Ambassadors. There is no violation here, and everybody involved understands the game.

When the foreign ambassador interacts with American citizens, the American citizen has a right to be free of electronic monitoring. As an opinion, I think that the American is fair game. To avoid being recorded, he should have picked a better class of friend. That is not what the law says.

I am no expert on electronic monitoring. I have participated in several Title III wiretaps that are law enforcement rather than intelligence based, and I can offer a guess of how things are supposed to work. Typically, in a criminal investigation law enforcement targets a phone because the suspect is known to use that phone to conduct illegal business. Chances are, if it is a home phone, family members who are not targets of the investigation also use that telephone.

Since the family is not a target, their conversation is mostly free of monitoring. Law enforcement is free to monitor the initial conversation, to see who is calling whom. Once the monitoring agent determines that nontargets are engaged in conversation the recording is turned off. Periodically, for the duration of the call, the control agent can revisit the call to ensure that the conversation remains non-criminal.

Assuming it remains an innocent call, it would be logged as such. Had the conversation or players changed in midstream and the conversation turned criminal, it would be recorded from that point forward.

This conversation isn’t in the criminal forum. It is in the intelligence bailiwick. As a trade off (I’m guessing here) the conversation is recorded and immediately classified. For purposes of prosecution, it may be admissible against the ambassador but not against the American. Evidence gathered illegally is not admissible in court. Again I’m guessing, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the illegal nature of the recording can be cured by a special FISA judge and then used for limited purposes.

Nobody knows what Flynn had to say to the Ambassador. Here’s a possibility:

Ambassador: “We need to talk about these sanctions.”

Flynn: “That discussion will have to be for another time.”

I hear diplomacy, Flynn’s statement can mean almost anything (1) I hear what you said. (2) Not now. (3) In the future.  What I didn’t hear was a discussion of the sanctions.

I’m not a lawyer but it seems to me whatever Flynn had to say is not and will not be admissible in a United States Court. A short list of people should worry about possible prosecution would be the custodian of the recording medium, the case agent, the Attorney General, or designee and anybody else in the chain.

It has always intrigued me I don’t have an answer. When a witness states under oath that So and So said,”You’re nothing but a low down N-word.” Is that an indication of bias by referring to the individual as a nigger or is that a deep-seated rejection of all words beginning with N?