Travesty
-
No need defending anything xenon, now that you proved in that other thread that nothing you say regarding Trump is grounded in truth.
-
Unmasking? The Real Story Is When Flynn Was Not Masked in the First Place
Was his call with Kislyak recorded by a different agency than the FBI?
Despite Wednesday’s blockbuster news about the dozens of Obama-administration officials who “unmasked” then-incoming Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn, there remains a gaping hole in the story: Where is the record showing who unmasked Flynn in connection with his fateful conversation with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak?
There isn’t one.
There is no such evidence in the unmasking list that acting national intelligence director Richard Grenell provided to Senators Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R., Wis.). I suspect that’s because General Flynn’s identity was not “masked” in the first place. Instead, his December 29 call with Kislyak was likely intercepted under an intelligence program not subject to the masking rules, probably by the CIA or a friendly foreign spy service acting in a nod-and-wink arrangement with our intelligence community...
The implication is that Kislyak was probably subjected to traditional FISA surveillance by the FBI; or, since he lived in Russia and traveled to other places when not in America, perhaps he was also a FISA Section 702 target. In either event (or both), Kislyak was interacting with Americans, who were thus incidentally intercepted.
That, the story goes, is what must have happened to Flynn. Trump’s designated national security advisor was unmasked because, once intelligence agents intercepted the December 29 phone call, they decided it was essential to identify the person with whom the Russian ambassador was discussing sanctions that President Obama had just imposed against Moscow.
I no longer buy this story. If it were true, there would be a record of Flynn’s unmasking. DNI Grenell has represented that the list he provided to Senators Grassley and Johnson includes all requested unmaskings of Flynn from November 8, 2016 (when Donald Trump was elected president) through the end of January 2017 (when the Trump administration had transitioned into power). Yet, it appears that not a single listed unmasking pertains to the December 29 Kislyak call.
Grenell’s list notes an unmasking request for Flynn on December 28, 2016 — weirdly, by the U.S. ambassador to Turkey. There are no unmasking requests on December 29, the date of the Kislyak call. Nor is there one during the week after that. In fact, the next listed unmasking occurred on January 5, 2017. That one is attributed to President Obama’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough...
There is another significant fact that has long been highlighted by the blogger known as “Sundance” at the Conservative Treehouse site. It comes from the infamous Strzok–Page text messages. On May 8, 2017, Strzok texted Page while watching Senate testimony by former acting AG Yates and former DNI James Clapper. As Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) questioned the two former Obama officials, Strzok wrote to Page (my italics):
F*CK! Clapper and Yates through Graham questions are all playing into the “there should be an unmasking request/record” for incidental collection incorrect narrative.
If we review the transcript of that Senate testimony, we find that Strzok’s observation related specifically to the December 29 Flynn–Kislyak call:
GRAHAM: So there should be a record somewhere in our system whether or not an unmasking request was made for the conversation between Mr. Flynn and the Russian ambassador. We should be able to determine if it did — if it was made, who made it. Then we can ask, what did they do with the information? Is that a fair statement, Mr. Clapper?
CLAPPER: Yes...
I hypothesize, then, that Flynn was not unmasked in connection with the December 29 Kislyak call. Either the CIA monitored the call directly or a friendly foreign intelligence service — whether subtly tasked by U.S. intelligence or knowing that U.S. intelligence would be very interested — intercepted the call and passed it along, probably to the CIA. At the time, Kislyak was likely outside the United States, where the CIA would not have needed FISA authorization to monitor him. And while Flynn is an American citizen, he was not only outside the country, he was already regarded by the Obama-era intelligence community as a clandestine agent of Russia — i.e., not an innocent American citizen whose surveillance was merely incidental.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Oh, what a tangled web we weave...
-
Unmasking? The Real Story Is When Flynn Was Not Masked in the First Place
Was his call with Kislyak recorded by a different agency than the FBI?
Despite Wednesday’s blockbuster news about the dozens of Obama-administration officials who “unmasked” then-incoming Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn, there remains a gaping hole in the story: Where is the record showing who unmasked Flynn in connection with his fateful conversation with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak?
There isn’t one.
There is no such evidence in the unmasking list that acting national intelligence director Richard Grenell provided to Senators Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R., Wis.). I suspect that’s because General Flynn’s identity was not “masked” in the first place. Instead, his December 29 call with Kislyak was likely intercepted under an intelligence program not subject to the masking rules, probably by the CIA or a friendly foreign spy service acting in a nod-and-wink arrangement with our intelligence community...
The implication is that Kislyak was probably subjected to traditional FISA surveillance by the FBI; or, since he lived in Russia and traveled to other places when not in America, perhaps he was also a FISA Section 702 target. In either event (or both), Kislyak was interacting with Americans, who were thus incidentally intercepted.
That, the story goes, is what must have happened to Flynn. Trump’s designated national security advisor was unmasked because, once intelligence agents intercepted the December 29 phone call, they decided it was essential to identify the person with whom the Russian ambassador was discussing sanctions that President Obama had just imposed against Moscow.
I no longer buy this story. If it were true, there would be a record of Flynn’s unmasking. DNI Grenell has represented that the list he provided to Senators Grassley and Johnson includes all requested unmaskings of Flynn from November 8, 2016 (when Donald Trump was elected president) through the end of January 2017 (when the Trump administration had transitioned into power). Yet, it appears that not a single listed unmasking pertains to the December 29 Kislyak call.
Grenell’s list notes an unmasking request for Flynn on December 28, 2016 — weirdly, by the U.S. ambassador to Turkey. There are no unmasking requests on December 29, the date of the Kislyak call. Nor is there one during the week after that. In fact, the next listed unmasking occurred on January 5, 2017. That one is attributed to President Obama’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough...
There is another significant fact that has long been highlighted by the blogger known as “Sundance” at the Conservative Treehouse site. It comes from the infamous Strzok–Page text messages. On May 8, 2017, Strzok texted Page while watching Senate testimony by former acting AG Yates and former DNI James Clapper. As Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) questioned the two former Obama officials, Strzok wrote to Page (my italics):
F*CK! Clapper and Yates through Graham questions are all playing into the “there should be an unmasking request/record” for incidental collection incorrect narrative.
If we review the transcript of that Senate testimony, we find that Strzok’s observation related specifically to the December 29 Flynn–Kislyak call:
GRAHAM: So there should be a record somewhere in our system whether or not an unmasking request was made for the conversation between Mr. Flynn and the Russian ambassador. We should be able to determine if it did — if it was made, who made it. Then we can ask, what did they do with the information? Is that a fair statement, Mr. Clapper?
CLAPPER: Yes...
I hypothesize, then, that Flynn was not unmasked in connection with the December 29 Kislyak call. Either the CIA monitored the call directly or a friendly foreign intelligence service — whether subtly tasked by U.S. intelligence or knowing that U.S. intelligence would be very interested — intercepted the call and passed it along, probably to the CIA. At the time, Kislyak was likely outside the United States, where the CIA would not have needed FISA authorization to monitor him. And while Flynn is an American citizen, he was not only outside the country, he was already regarded by the Obama-era intelligence community as a clandestine agent of Russia — i.e., not an innocent American citizen whose surveillance was merely incidental.
Instead, his December 29 call with Kislyak was likely intercepted under an intelligence program not subject to the masking rules, probably by the CIA or a friendly foreign spy service acting in a nod-and-wink arrangement with our intelligence community..
Wouldn't it be a hoot, if in the interest of "being more flexible," it was....Russia?
-
Instead, his December 29 call with Kislyak was likely intercepted under an intelligence program not subject to the masking rules, probably by the CIA or a friendly foreign spy service acting in a nod-and-wink arrangement with our intelligence community..
Wouldn't it be a hoot, if in the interest of "being more flexible," it was....Russia?
Instead, his December 29 call with Kislyak was likely intercepted under an intelligence program not subject to the masking rules, probably by the CIA or a friendly foreign spy service acting in a nod-and-wink arrangement with our intelligence community..
Wouldn't it be a hoot, if in the interest of "being more flexible," it was....Russia?
Now that would be a hoot!
-
The dog ate it, I guess.
Meanwhile, maybe Obamagate sticks...
-
Didn't Barr say today that there won't be anything criminal related to Obama or Biden here?
For the "greatest political crime" in U.S. history - the name of the crime should actually be connected to a criminal.
“Based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man,” Barr told reporters. “Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.”
-
Senator Graham, what took so long?
The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on June 4 whether to authorize subpoenas for documents and testimony from more than 50 current or former government officials, including James Comey and John Brennan, as part of the panel’s investigation into abuse of the surveillance process during Crossfire Hurricane.
The committee will debate and vote June 4 on whether to issue the subpoenas, said Sen. Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Judiciary panel.
Graham is seeking documents and testimony from 53 individuals in all.
Committee rules require Graham, a Republican, to either obtain consent from the top Democrat on the committee or to obtain a majority vote in order to issue subpoenas.
Graham is seeking documents and testimony referenced in the Justice Department inspector general’s report on the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane probe. The FBI committed 17 “significant” errors and omissions in applications for surveillance warrants against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page, the report stated. (RELATED: DOJ Watchdog Faults FBI For ‘Significant Inaccuracies’ In Carter Page FISAs)
The FBI relied heavily on the unverified Steele dossier to obtain the spy warrants.
FBI officials withheld information that undermined the credibility of the dossier and its author, Christopher Steele, the IG report noted.
Graham is seeking the testimony of any current or former government official involved in Crossfire Hurricane, or any current or former government official who handled the Steele dossier.
Graham included the following list of individuals he plans to subpoena:
Trisha Anderson, Brian Auten, James Baker, William Barr, Dana Boente, Jennifer Boone, John Brennan, James Clapper, Kevin Clinesmith, James Comey, Patrick Conlon, Michael Dempsey, Stuart Evans, Tashina Gauhar, Carl Ghattas, Curtis Heide, Kathleen Kavalec, David Laufman, Stephen Laycock, Jacob Lew, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe, Mary McCord, Denis McDonough, Arthur McGlynn, Jonathan Moffa, Sally Moyer, Mike Neufield, Sean Newell, Victoria Nuland, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Stephanie L. O’Sullivan, Lisa Page, Joseph Pientka, John Podesta, Samantha Power, E.W. “Bill” Priestap, Sarah Raskin, Steve Ricchetti, Susan Rice, Rod Rosenstein, Gabriel Sanz-Rexach, Nathan Sheets, Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, Glenn Simpson, Steve Somma, Peter Strzok, Michael Sussman, Adam Szubin, Jonathan Winer, Christopher Wray, and Sally Yates.
-
Didn't Barr say today that there won't be anything criminal related to Obama or Biden here?
For the "greatest political crime" in U.S. history - the name of the crime should actually be connected to a criminal.
“Based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man,” Barr told reporters. “Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.”
Didn't Barr say today that there won't be anything criminal related to Obama or Biden here?
For the "greatest political crime" in U.S. history - the name of the crime should actually be connected to a criminal.
“Based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man,” Barr told reporters. “Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.”
I would say that Barr’s comments should be taken seriously and sets an enormously high bar for those that think this should be big big news.
-
Didn't Barr say today that there won't be anything criminal related to Obama or Biden here?
For the "greatest political crime" in U.S. history - the name of the crime should actually be connected to a criminal.
“Based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man,” Barr told reporters. “Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.”
I would say that Barr’s comments should be taken seriously and sets an enormously high bar for those that think this should be big big news.
Didn't Barr say today that there won't be anything criminal related to Obama or Biden here?
For the "greatest political crime" in U.S. history - the name of the crime should actually be connected to a criminal.
“Based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man,” Barr told reporters. “Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.”
I would say that Barr’s comments should be taken seriously and sets an enormously high bar for those that think this should be big big news.
Barr said nothing about whether Obama or Biden did anything criminal. He said they most likely would not be investigated.
Huge difference.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Didn't Barr say today that there won't be anything criminal related to Obama or Biden here?
For the "greatest political crime" in U.S. history - the name of the crime should actually be connected to a criminal.
“Based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man,” Barr told reporters. “Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.”
I would say that Barr’s comments should be taken seriously and sets an enormously high bar for those that think this should be big big news.
Barr said nothing about whether Obama or Biden did anything criminal. He said they most likely would not be investigated.
Huge difference.
Didn't Barr say today that there won't be anything criminal related to Obama or Biden here?
For the "greatest political crime" in U.S. history - the name of the crime should actually be connected to a criminal.
“Based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man,” Barr told reporters. “Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.”
I would say that Barr’s comments should be taken seriously and sets an enormously high bar for those that think this should be big big news.
Barr said nothing about whether Obama or Biden did anything criminal. He said they most likely would not be investigated.
Huge difference.
I think he said, "at this point in time", they most likely would not be investigated.
He left the door open if something new came to light during the ongoing Durham investigation.
-
Obama and Biden need to wait in line. We still haven’t indicted Hillary
-
Obama and Biden need to wait in line. We still haven’t indicted Hillary
-
Booting Sullivan?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6894721-Petition-Filed.html
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6894721-Petition-Filed.html
During an interview, Powell asked why the defense, neither she nor Flynn's previous attorneys were given access to the damning Kislyak phone call with Flynn. The fact that the defense is not given access to evidence that may prove exculpatory is grounds for dismissal.
