Patterico's Pontifications

6/28/2019

The Unmasker-in-Chief

Filed under: Politics — DRJ @ 9:45 am



[Headline from DRJ]

The Hill‘Unmasker in Chief’ Samantha Power spewed anti-Trump bias in government emails:

It turns out that [Samantha] Power — the diplomat whose authority inexplicably was used to unmask hundreds of Americans’ names in secret intelligence reports during the 2016 election — engaged in similar Trump-bashing on her official government email, according to documents unearthed by an American Center for Law and Justice lawsuit. The conservative legal group is run by Trump defense attorney Jay Sekulow.

The discovery could add a new dimension — a question of political bias — to a long-running congressional investigation into why Power’s authority was used to unmask hundreds of Americans’ names in secret National Security Agency intercepts during the 2016 election. That practice of unmasking continues to grow today.

— DRJ

14 Responses to “The Unmasker-in-Chief”

  1. Could this also be considered a violation of the Hatch Act? Or does that have to reach e general public, or subordinates, for that to be the case? Or maybe he Hatch Act interpretations just goes too far?

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  2. Saw this earlier, if you google news for SP it looks like so far being ignored by msm.

    She also apparently said that much of the unmasking was not done by her, even if it was done under her name (say what?).

    harkin (58d012)

  3. harkin, it may be old news to them but it isn’t to us, is it?

    DRJ (15874d)

  4. Sounds like election meddling. Oh wait, she’s not Russian — so, scratch that.

    Munroe (f61be7)

  5. as far as policy, pushing the un resolution against Israel is the most probative gesture, everything else is what you here on MSNBC, cbs, abc, cnn, (the blue checked sites)

    narciso (d1f714)

  6. Changing the topic, Munroe? Why don’t you work on a list of 4 things you want blogged about and post them here? I will consider them. Be sure to include topics with links.

    DRJ (15874d)

  7. Same for you, narciso. If you have better ideas, back them up with coherent, legible topics with links.

    DRJ (15874d)

  8. “Changing the topic, Munroe?”
    DRJ (15874d) — 6/28/2019 @ 10:36 am

    No, totally on topic — as always. That the question of political bias is a “new dimension” shows how ridiculously skewed the election meddling jihad has devolved the past three years. It was political bias from day one, obvious to anyone who wanted to look before today.

    Question: Do you think a SC should be appointed to look into these unmaskings? Or, is that changing the topic?

    Munroe (e801a4)

  9. Well we could examine the bad sourcing
    https://mobile.twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1142456618245926912

    Narciso (30eb7e)

  10. this was isikoff’s confirming source:

    https://www.conservativereview.com/news/major-player-clinton-uranium-one-scandal-finds-way-trump-russia/

    so someone actually working for Russian interests,

    narciso (d1f714)

  11. So… why aren’t we questioning whether it’s prudent or not for an ambassador seemingly have intelligence authority to unmasked US citizens (nevermind the number of times this happended)?

    whembly (fd57f6)

  12. I know that one’s an old link, but Solomon sperry, Atkinson, carter, hemingway have done Pulitzer worthy word, not like tracking receipts at mara lago,

    narciso (d1f714)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2608 secs.