Home » Unmasking the unmaskers: Republicans pounce

Comments

Unmasking the unmaskers: Republicans pounce — 25 Comments

  1. Note, the media outlet which published the leaked information is covering for the perpetrators.

  2. WHEN are we going to see some indictments? Inquiring minds want to know,

    🙂

    Even if they never go to jail, they will be millions of dollars out-of-pocket on attorney fees.

  3. The battle is joined.

    Time for the Republican senators to step up. Media opposition to the MSM is ready to fight. No time for the L. Graham types to get cold feet.

    Hey Samantha ! What’s with all this requesting ?

  4. The MSM can spin all they want and the Democrats can continue to lie, but the facts are out and the ‘Crying Wolf’ has lost. Buckle up your seatbelts, this is a historic ride.
    My question is; ‘Why did Obama think this was a good idea and good for, his now very tarnished, legacy?’

  5. Ambassador to Italy and San Marino: meh

    He is John R. Phillips. Who is he married to?

    Linda Douglass. Currently Head of Communications for Bloomberg in DC. But from 2009 to April 2010 Director of Communications for the White House Office of Health Reform in the Obama administration.

    Per Wikipedia.

  6. Gringo’s question is seconded by me.
    Indict the bastards,
    ALL of them.
    That is what grand juries are for, to bring people to trial. As has tediously been said, a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich. Grand Juries are not there to determine innocence or guilt.
    Make the perps sweat the way they sweated Flynn.

  7. That’s multiple months and multiple occasions and multiple individuals.
    The list is just for the requests for ONE US citizen –Mr. Flynn. Who else from the Trump team were also subject to the unmasking. Somebody knows, for sure.
    How many individual calls in total were subject to the illegal unmasking? If all calls with Flynn were intercepted, but only some were do, who decided which ones and how did they decide? How many unique individuals were on the ‘other side’? Were the subject calls only to Russians? How about China? Japan? Brazil? Flynn would had legitimate justification calling anywhere he wanted.

    I can think of many other permutations.

    These people need to ordered to turn themselves into the nearest US Marshall’s office, surrender their passports and be released on their own recognizance to await their arraignment in Federal Court.

  8. It may well turn out that General Flynn’s greatest contribution to our nation wasn’t the 30 years of military service but the withstanding of disgrace, bankruptcy, and evil treatment by corrupt politicians, media types, and government officials. This cabal would never have been exposed were it not for General Flynn. He’s a real American Hero.

  9. Roll-aid makes a good point: this list is for unmasking requests for Michael Flynn ONLY. I read somewhere within the past year that Samantha Power had asked to unmask 200 times. Now maybe I misremember — after all, I’m very nearly as old as Biden and we all know what his memory is like. But it bears looking into.

    Oh, and remember, please, that Samantha Power is married to Cass Sunstein. Need I say more? She doesn’t have to leak to get the names of unmasked individuals to the Democrats — she only has to talk in her sleep.

    This is, as several people have said above, a good time for the Senate to begin some serious investigation. At the speed they normally move, they should be ready to indict someone by about the end of Trump’s second term.

  10. At the Texas Book Festival in 2019 I asked Power the following question (it is on BookTV), “Why did you spy on Americans without a warrant.” Power, “Sir, I did not.” Me, “I think you are lying.”

    Power will rat out everyone and cut a deal. She has young kids at home. Let Brennan and Comey go to prison.

  11. The Democrats and their accomplices will huff and puff, obfuscate, and play prevent defense. Fortunately for justice, and unfortunately for them; I don’t think Barr will be intimidated or hoodwinked.

    On the other hand, as much as I would like to believe that all of this offal would change minds out in the public; I know very well that it won’t have much, if any, effect.

  12. Lawfareblog is already hard at work justifying and pretending that there is no fire here. Not only that, but there is no smoke!

  13. Cornhead:

    Good job. And I certainly hope you are right that Power will cave. I think Susan Rice is vulnerable too unless she thinks Obama would be targeted. Rice will go down in flames rather than rat out her boss.

    The question now is who leaked Flynn’s name to The Washington Post only days before Trump’s inauguration? I certainly hope we can find that out. My money’s on Brennan, and I would love to see him in an orange jump suit.

  14. “Who else from the Trump team were also subject to the unmasking. Somebody knows, for sure.”

    Yes, they unmasked many Trump campaign members. I saw Devin Nunes on Lou Dobbs tonight and he has seen the evidence, but cannot name names until they are unclassified. Which it appears that Richard Grenell (Acting DNI) is planning to do. There’s more, much more to come.

  15. @Cornhead 7:59
    Do you know where in the video your question is? I’d like to see it but am unwilling to wade through 54 minutes of her “malarkey”.

  16. “There are sixteen people on the list, why did so many request Flynn’s name to be unmasked.” – Matt Margolis at PJM

    That seems curious to me too.
    Unless it’s a variant of murdering Caesar – everyone gets to take a stab so no one person is guilty (that is, the only one who could have leaked the name to the press).

  17. I can’t help but fantasize about 16 different but simultaneous 4am SWAT team raids on all the 16 individuals as part of the investigation of the crimes.

    On earth, ain’t gonna happen.

    But some indictments seem more likely. Sometimes I think still only 10%; sometimes 90% likely for at least one rat indicted before Nov. 2020. Rat = Dem gov’t criminal.

    Another set of rats are the Dem media folk who got the illegally leaked info. I’d love to see the Feds investigate them like they did with Roger Stone & Paul Manafort — two guys who were not innocent but were punished for being on Trump’s side.

    The unmasking might not be illegal – but it IS illegal if done for political purposes.

    As mentioned, Grand Juries should be handing out indictments, and let the DOJ prosecute.

    The DOJ, filled with Obama loving Dem deep state supporters and even a few, or more, criminals willing to violate laws and rules to protect the Dems.

    The FBI is corrupt. They are watched by the DOJ, who are corrupt.
    Who watches the watchers?
    The Dem media; and the US Congress, half controlled by the corrupt Dems.

    I think many, even most, politically active Dems won’t have their minds changed just by the facts of corruption. BUT many less active Dems, and especially those who call themselves independent, will see these facts as reasons to not vote for the Dems this election.

    Trump fanboy Don Surber claims that everybody who voted for Trump 2016 will vote for him again – and lots more, this time, too. I think so too — but at some 70% level now, rather than 80%. There HAS been a big recession, not Trump’s fault, but the Dems will be falsely blaming Trump.

  18. Clarification of the timeline on unmasking:
    https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2020/05/13/timing-of-unmasking-requests-reveals-big-questions-about-the-surveillance-of-flynn-and-bidens-connection/

    It includes three requests from DNI James Clapper, two from CIA Director John Brennan, seven requests from U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, one from James Comey, one from Obama Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and one from – wait for it – Vice President Joseph R. Biden.

    But many of the requests were before the call with the Russian Ambassador on Dec. 29. The only request to unmask in between Dec. 29 and Jan. 5, when it was clear that Barack Obama knew about the call was one. That was by Obama Chief of Staff Denis McDonough on the day of the meeting, on Jan. 5, it looks pretty clear that that unmasking was related to the meeting. It makes McDonough a likely candidate for who may have briefed Obama on the call depending on the timing of the request and the timing of the meeting.
    But there are a few problems here. These are NSA records. There are other avenues of surveillance, and the question would be if there were other actions going on against Flynn that may have picked up the calls.

    Also the FBI knew of the call at least by Jan. 4, according to prior reports. They were scheduled to close the case on the Jan. 4, but then kept it open because of the call. So how did they learn of it? If there’s no NSA unmasking between the time of the call and Jan 4, either the list of unmasking is incomplete or there had to have been other surveillance that picked it up. That raises a lot more questions about surveillance on Flynn and whether even now, we have the full story.

    CTH answered the question of other surveillance here:
    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/05/13/flashback-james-comey-explains-fbi-unmasking-in-2017-today-the-fbi-is-conflating-two-collection-aspects/

  19. I notice the list of unmaskers included Obama’s Ambassador to Italy & San Marino, and five different officials from the Treasury Department.

    What legitimate “need to know” could they possibly have had to justify their requests to unmask Flynn?

    As I understand it, each individual unmasking request had to be justified by paperwork–a document–which specified the reason justifying the request as legitimate.

    Boy, I’d like to see that paperwork!

  20. I commented on the previous thread on the same thought. There’s far too many people who seem to have very weak connections to Mr. Flynn and the Russians. What I can’t understand is the connection between the unmasking and the leaking. The unmasking, as far as I know, just lets the requester know that the previously un-named US citizen who was talking to some foreign national who is being spied upon – call them “Vlad” — was actually Mr. Flynn. Nothing else. So how do they know about the content? And, if they already knew about the content and such content was “leakable”, why would they even have to memorialize the “unmasking”? And could all this happen in a matter of a few hours, so that an unmasking request on Jan 5th could result in a news story that same day?

  21. There is a more important subject that should be released and solve now not tomorrow.

    We Knew there is pages waved out from FBI investigation report.
    Whatever reason many US administrations from G.W. Bush to Obama those pages should released because the problem we face now is an important time for the US and the world

    In court filing, FBI accidentally reveals name of

  22. Roll-aid — Not correct. What people in the national security apparatus get routinely is the transcript of the conversation between a foreign person of interest and another person. If that other person is a U.S. citizen, his or her name is redacted. Unmasking gives the requestor the name of the U.S. citizen; they already have the rest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>