Barr Installs Outside Prosecutor to Review Case Against Michael Flynn, Ex-Trump Adviser

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not the unmasking that is illegal (although it is interesting that so many politicos asked for unmasking). It is the leaking that is the problem. That is the crime.

There has been a huge increase in unmasking requests since Trump came into office according to some of the documents released yesterday. If I remember correctly it was a 75% increase

Have they been leaking classified material like in the prior administration?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not the unmasking that is illegal (although it is interesting that so many politicos asked for unmasking). It is the leaking that is the problem. That is the crime.

What leaking? Intel reports are meant to be shared and used and acted upon. That is what they are for. Nothing was leaked.

The transcript was leaked to Washington Post. Leaking classified information is illegal. David Ignatious was the reporter.

You sound like Devin Nunes. Just sayin'.

DP.
OMG. You are seriously believing that no crime was committed in the leaking to the WaPo?
Geez... the left wing media has done a total snow job on you......

And, so you know. I will take anything Devin Nunes says over anything that the Democrats (particularly Schiff) say.
Pretty much everything he has said has turned out to be true. That is not the case with Schiff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not the unmasking that is illegal (although it is interesting that so many politicos asked for unmasking). It is the leaking that is the problem. That is the crime.

There has been a huge increase in unmasking requests since Trump came into office according to some of the documents released yesterday. If I remember correctly it was a 75% increase

Have they been leaking classified material like in the prior administration?

This administration leaks like a sieve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my former life, I reviewed the transcripts and then minimized (“masked”) the names of US persons before sending out the docs. Without context, it’s frequently impossible to identify the US person in the individual transcripts. If particular transcripts raise a concern because that US Person is communicating with someone who is a NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERN, then someone requests to view the identity of the masked US Person to determine whether the contact is benign or perhaps nefarious. This happens all the time. And we want it to happen, because if your neighbor Bob is talking to a Bin Laden-type, you want to make sure someone is at least aware.

This. I am not a National security or government worker but this is how I understand the process works. So the better question to ask is why Flynn was in contact with the kind of people who were ringing alarm bells.

The Russian Ambassador is not Osama Bin Laden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not the unmasking that is illegal (although it is interesting that so many politicos asked for unmasking). It is the leaking that is the problem. That is the crime.

There has been a huge increase in unmasking requests since Trump came into office according to some of the documents released yesterday. If I remember correctly it was a 75% increase

Linked upthread:

In a briefing with reporters, Alex Joel, the office’s chief civil liberties officer, cautioned against reading too much into statistical fluctuations, but said that one factor in the surge of unmaskings was that a handful of reports in 2018 contained numerous identifiers of Americans or American businesses that malicious hackers abroad had targeted.

“That could be an important factor in explaining the number here,” Mr. Joel said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/us/politics/nsa...kings-surveillance-report.html

[Anonymous]

I am hearing that a whole lot more damning information is forthcoming regarding the Obama administration.
Good times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not the unmasking that is illegal (although it is interesting that so many politicos asked for unmasking). It is the leaking that is the problem. That is the crime.

What leaking? Intel reports are meant to be shared and used and acted upon. That is what they are for. Nothing was leaked.

The transcript was leaked to Washington Post. Leaking classified information is illegal. David Ignatious was the reporter.

You sound like Devin Nunes. Just sayin'.

DP.
OMG. You are seriously believing that no crime was committed in the leaking to the WaPo?
Geez... the left wing media has done a total snow job on you......

And, so you know. I will take anything Devin Nunes says over anything that the Democrats (particularly Schiff) say.
Pretty much everything he has said has turned out to be true. That is not the case with Schiff.

Nunes leaked the unmasking of ... himself. Illegal and funny.

Leaking isn't great. But many of the most vocal are (purposefully) ignoring the substance of what was leaked.

Flynn's name was leaked in conjunction with the mendaciously described phone call. The transcript was requested but never produced.

But sure, focus on the leak.

[Anonymous]

Sorry I don’t know how to embed a tweet. This is from josh geltzer

“This & exactly this is what the unmasking list shows:

1) That senior US officials across the govt were so concerned about conversations b/w foreigners & some US person that they sought & got approval to understand who that person was.

2) That, repeatedly, that person was Flynn.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am hearing that a whole lot more damning information is forthcoming regarding the Obama administration.
Good times.

Obamgate isn't a thing. Nothing damning has come out. Nothing damning will come out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not the unmasking that is illegal (although it is interesting that so many politicos asked for unmasking). It is the leaking that is the problem. That is the crime.

There has been a huge increase in unmasking requests since Trump came into office according to some of the documents released yesterday. If I remember correctly it was a 75% increase

Linked upthread:

In a briefing with reporters, Alex Joel, the office’s chief civil liberties officer, cautioned against reading too much into statistical fluctuations, but said that one factor in the surge of unmaskings was that a handful of reports in 2018 contained numerous identifiers of Americans or American businesses that malicious hackers abroad had targeted.

“That could be an important factor in explaining the number here,” Mr. Joel said.

Reassuring. Thanks

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/us/politics/nsa...kings-surveillance-report.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my former life, I reviewed the transcripts and then minimized (“masked”) the names of US persons before sending out the docs. Without context, it’s frequently impossible to identify the US person in the individual transcripts. If particular transcripts raise a concern because that US Person is communicating with someone who is a NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERN, then someone requests to view the identity of the masked US Person to determine whether the contact is benign or perhaps nefarious. This happens all the time. And we want it to happen, because if your neighbor Bob is talking to a Bin Laden-type, you want to make sure someone is at least aware.

This. I am not a National security or government worker but this is how I understand the process works. So the better question to ask is why Flynn was in contact with the kind of people who were ringing alarm bells.

The Russian Ambassador is not Osama Bin Laden.

Russia had just attacked our country by interfering in the 2016 election. So, yes, in a way he was like Osama Bin Laden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, these key words in the NSA memo released today aren’t getting enough attention:

“Each individual was an authorized recipient of the original report & THE UNMASKING WAS APPROVED THROUGH NSA’S STANDARD PROCESS, WHICH INCLUDES A REVIEW OF THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST.”

This is standard practice and happens all the time. If there is intelligence that someone in a position of influence is having secret talks with the Russian ambassador and other foreign government officials, the people in need-to-know positions ask who it is. If the approval process determines that the request is from a need-to-know person, that person gets the name.

Unmasking doesn't mean the name was made public or shared outside the need-to-know national security people, but Trump lovers are too stupid to understand that.

Flynn made everything worse for himself, after the calls to the ambassador, when he lied to Pence and the FBI about them. Once Pence publicly repeated Flynn's lie about he discussed, Flynn was open to blackmail by the Russians who could threaten to expose his lie. That made him a national security threat.

The argument within DOJ was not whether to investigate Flynn, but whether it should be primarily a counterintelligence investigation or a criminal investigation. No one disputed that he lied to the FBI and the VP and that it should be investigated. Barr is lying again and misrepresenting the internal FBI deliberations about the Flynn case.

Just a hunch...... I am betting that unmasking a member of an incoming administration by people in the White House is NOT standard practice.

I don't think you get it. They didn't know they were unmasking a member of an incoming administration. Hence the request to unmask. They were unmasking an unidentified American who was having treasonous conversations. That person just happened to be a member of an incoming administration. Maybe ask, what was the conversation the now Flynn was having and with whom. Let's get the transcripts and recordings and see what he was trying to do and assess if it was valid to make the request based on the information known at the time.

Trumpkins who are crying about unmasking of treasonous conversation which resulted in Flynn’s identification fail to ask if the conversation were above board why did Flynn lie to Pence?

In addition if treasonous conversation caught on wiretapping are not unmasked and a traitor goes on commit a crime against USA, who should be blamed. in addition to the traitor?

I have said this before......

I don't think Flynn actually lied to Pence. I think Pence was told by the FBI that Flynn lied to him. I think they mischaracterized his conversation.
There was NOTHING treasonous in Flynn's conversations. He was the incoming national security advisor. It was his job to speak to people from other countries.
He knew his calls were being monitored. You folks love to throw out these accusations with absolutely no evidence.
You simply cannot recognize that perhaps, many in the Obama administration were not as pure as you want to paint them.

White House counsel Don McGahn reviewed the transcripts of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, and agreed he was lying.

Please don't insult us with 2020 revisionist history.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/us/politics/trump-michael-flynn.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my former life, I reviewed the transcripts and then minimized (“masked”) the names of US persons before sending out the docs. Without context, it’s frequently impossible to identify the US person in the individual transcripts. If particular transcripts raise a concern because that US Person is communicating with someone who is a NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERN, then someone requests to view the identity of the masked US Person to determine whether the contact is benign or perhaps nefarious. This happens all the time. And we want it to happen, because if your neighbor Bob is talking to a Bin Laden-type, you want to make sure someone is at least aware.

This. I am not a National security or government worker but this is how I understand the process works. So the better question to ask is why Flynn was in contact with the kind of people who were ringing alarm bells.

The Russian Ambassador is not Osama Bin Laden.

The Russian Ambassador is a legitimate national security interest and has been for decades. There was an active investigation in Russian election interference. Who knows what the intercepts of interest contained, but you can bet they weren’t shopping lists. And you can bet the Russians were keeping records of all that same correspondence; why would you want them to know more than our NatSec officials?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not the unmasking that is illegal (although it is interesting that so many politicos asked for unmasking). It is the leaking that is the problem. That is the crime.

There has been a huge increase in unmasking requests since Trump came into office according to some of the documents released yesterday. If I remember correctly it was a 75% increase

Have they been leaking classified material like in the prior administration?

Are you forgetting Trump, in the Oval Office, with Lavrov and a Thumb Drive? or the disclosure of the Israeli operation? Tip of the iceberg.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hearing that a whole lot more damning information is forthcoming regarding the Obama administration.
Good times.

Obamgate isn't a thing. Nothing damning has come out. Nothing damning will come out.

Unless you count the illicit conversations Flynn had with our adversaries. Barr really screwed the pooch with Sullivan and now Gleason.