Patterico's Pontifications

5/14/2020

“Unmasking” Is Routine, and the Effort to Portray It As Sinister Is Very Stupid Propaganda

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:20 pm



The utterly desperate attempts to create some kind of narrative that Joe Biden is involved in shenanigans has reached a new level of absurdity with this “unmasking” nonsense. Anyone who buys into it is not a serious person.

Do you guys realize how routine this is?

Government rules intended to minimize invasions of Americans’ privacy in intelligence work generally require “masking,” or obscuring, Americans’ identities and information about them in reports based on foreign intelligence surveillance.

But the rules also permit recipients of such reports to request an unmasking if the identity is necessary to understand the information, and that step is routine: The National Security Agency handled about 10,000 unmasking requests in 2019 and nearly 17,000 in 2018.

Over 10,000 unmasking requests a year. And that’s during the Trump administration.

If you’re uninformed enough to be taken in by the propaganda suggesting that the mere act of asking for the “unmasking” of someone (whose identity you do not know by definition which is why you are asking) is somehow sinister, you must think the Trump administration is a hotbed of corruption. (Which it is, but this is not evidence of that. At all.)

If you’re arguing that it was improper to make a request to unmask someone who turned out to be Flynn with respect to the Kislyak call, you’re simply not arguing in good faith. Full stop.

If you’re arguing that it was improper to make a request to unmask someone who turned out to be Flynn with respect to something else, you do realize all it means is that there is other intelligence out there besides the Kislyak call which would raise the eyebrows of those in the IC. And it turns out that is the case for Flynn, who (for example) was taking money from Turkey to represent their interests without registering as a foreign agent, and lying about it … and don’t even get me started on that wacky kidnapping plot.

Honestly, the only truly troubling thing here is the compiling of the list of those who submitted an unmasking request:

“It’s not at all surprising that individuals in official positions related to U.S.-Russia relations would want to know what was behind intelligence reports,” said Mr. [Douglas E.] Lute [the former ambassador to NATO, who was on the list], who declined to discuss the classified intelligence he saw. “What is surprising is that our acting director of national intelligence would be moved to compile and release this list of officials — most with longstanding, distinguished public service careers — apparently to fuel a partisan conspiracy theory.”

Well, in truth, it’s less surprising given the identity of the partisan hack who compiled the list. But in a larger sense, putting that aside …

Yup. What garbage. This administration is incredibly corrupt and dishonest. The sweaty air of despair is palpable.

234 Responses to ““Unmasking” Is Routine, and the Effort to Portray It As Sinister Is Very Stupid Propaganda”

  1. This clown show must end.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. its outrageous that our government was keeping tabs on a hostile dictatorship who meddles in our elections and their failmerican hirelings

    mr president trump would never allow it you can be sure of that

    Dave (1bb933)

  3. You’re simply missing the point.

    Unmaskings may be routine. Leaking classified information to a reporter is not. It’s a felony. Potentially ten years in prison.

    The unmasking list is to help identify who might’ve leaked to WaPo. Some are interested in that. Rule of Law stuffy stuff….

    Biden’s unmasking of Flynn was on Jan12. Same date as the WaPo piece. Why would a VP request this info barely a week before walking out the door? If it was Trump or Pence, instead of Biden, I guess nobody would wonder.

    beer ‘n pretzels (6674aa)

  4. Biden’s unmasking of Flynn was on Jan12. Same date as the WaPo piece. Why would a VP request this info barely a week before walking out the door? If it was Trump or Pence, instead of Biden, I guess nobody would wonder.

    Please provide some evidence of Biden doing this. You know, instead of Chris Christie, or any of the other hundred people in the Trump transition team that thought Flynn was a horrible idea…because his lies and scumbaggery were known. There’s was a reason why Flynn was sh!tcanned.

    Flynn is a scumbag, not just an ordinary scumbag; a traitorous, criminal, scumbag. This is not news.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  5. The answer to the question as to why somebody like Biden needed this particular information is obvious – Joe Biden is Batman. Flynn may think he’s getting off scot-free with his malarkey, but here’s the thing, nobody escapes the Batman.

    Jerryskids (702a61)

  6. @4: Here ya go. Last page.

    You understand that that is not what that says in any way right? That says Joe Biden was one of almost a hundred people who were informed that Flynn was a traitor.

    Biden’s unmasking of Flynn was on Jan12. Same date as the WaPo piece.

    You took two pieces of information, and connected them without a single thought about the logistics. If the WAPO published in the 12th, and Biden was informed sometime on the 12th, did he use the DNC time machine to go back and retro-leak it.

    Use your brain, there are nearly a hundred better, and more likely, options.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  7. Why would a VP request this info barely a week before walking out the door?

    Because he was still VP until noon on Jan 20th. Just like Pence will be VP until noon on Jan 29, 2021 even if Trump loses.

    Kishnevi (a6653c)

  8. And in what respect does what Biden did or did not do make Flynn less or more guilty or not guilty? In other words, what’s the family-making relevance now?

    I can see the relevance back then. Stepping down from his office, was Biden leaving our country in the hands of a corrupt criminal traitor with a Russian agent as his National Security Advisor?

    nk (1d9030)

  9. Procedural question:
    Are unmasking requests automatically granted?
    If they aren’t then we can’t assume any particular request was granted.

    And we don’t know how many of these requests (much less which ones) were related to the Kislyak conversations, and how many to other matters.

    Kishnevi (a6653c)

  10. And we don’t know how many of these requests (much less which ones) were related to the Kislyak conversations, and how many to other matters.

    No, no, no. It doesn’t matter who Kislyak is, that he is an enemy of the United States, it matters because Flynn is Trump’s manmeat. A traitorous scumbag, but Trump’s traitorous scumbag. You can’t police Trump’s buddies, it might reflect that he’s not very smart, honest, and doesn’t hire the “best”.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  11. This is misdirection. Apples and Oranges.
    The relevant comparison is NOT all unmasking in a year.
    The relevant comparison would be how many senior members of the incoming Obama team were unmasked by the outgoing prior administration.

    Patterico argues essentially “THere were a zillion parking tickets issued last year in a city. Therefore we should ignore anything that the mayor did that might be suspect.”

    Jason Horwege (96397c)

  12. As I understand it, if the conversation involves a foreign source the government has authority to monitor, the unmasking is always permitted.

    Dave (1bb933)

  13. And we don’t know how many of these requests (much less which ones) were related to the Kislyak conversations, and how many to other matters.

    It’s incredibly routine for targets such as Kislyak, because we know who he is, he’s not some mysterious figure. If you’re Flynn and you didn’t think Kislyak was going to be monitored you’re an idiot.

    Fit’s right in with the Trumpsters, stupid above all.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  14. @7: You’re right. The typesetting alone would take at least a half day, then you gotta roll the presses…. Yep, way to use your brain.

    beer ‘n pretzels (b61153)

  15. Patterico argues essentially “THere were a zillion parking tickets issued last year in a city. Therefore we should ignore anything that the mayor did that might be suspect.”

    Do you know who Kislyak was/is?

    If the mayor was drunk, ran over the meter maid, and parked his car in the lobby of the bank, but you claim there isn’t cause to watch the video.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  16. The relevant comparison would be how many senior members of the incoming Obama team were unmasked by the outgoing prior administration.

    But since the requests are made without knowing who is being unmasked, it’s not relevant at all…

    Dave (1bb933)

  17. Your truly an idiot, enjoy moving the goal posts.

    John (0dd617)

  18. 7. Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827) — 5/14/2020 @ 7:22 pm

    You took two pieces of information, and connected them without a single thought about the logistics. If the WAPO published in the 12th, and Biden was informed sometime on the 12th, did he use the DNC time machine to go back and retro-leak it.

    It cold be connected to the leak this way:

    Biden (probably because of somebody on his staff) was trying to verify that the leak was correct: That Flynn had really talked to Kislyak on the dates Ignatius said he did,.

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  19. It cold be connected to the leak this way:

    It could be time machines and witches, but unlikely.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  20. I’ve got the time and enough patience to wait and see how this all plays out. I am not inclined to accept leftwing talking points at face value.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  21. I’ve got the time and enough patience to wait and see how this all plays out. I am not inclined to accept leftwing talking points at face value.

    Do you know what wings are, right or left? Or talking points, can you point to one?

    Is it that Kislyak is the Russian Embassador?
    Is it that Russia is the enemy of the United States?
    Is it that Flynn sold out his country to Russia?
    Is it that Flynn sold out his country to Turkey?
    Is it that the intelligence agencies monitory enemy communications?
    Is it that an American was caught on said communication?
    Is it that government officials wanted to know who said American was?
    Is it that said American lied about it, over and over again?
    Is it that said American plead guilty to lying about it over and over again, as well as admitted to the $600k payoff with Turkey, and ratted on his partners to get them busted (but not his son, so he’s a good dad)?

    Did Flynn do the things he admitted too, yes or no, be specific.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  22. Did the NYT bury the lede here?

    The National Security Agency handled about 10,000 unmasking requests in 2019 and nearly 17,000 in 2018.

    Did our adversaries scale back their efforts against us by almost half in a year’s time, or have half the people who used to care about them been replaced by partisan hacks who don’t?

    Dave (1bb933)

  23. Neither. They have been provided a list of telephone numbers with strict orders not to unmask. Mostly New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Florida, and burner phone numbers.

    nk (1d9030)

  24. Over 10,000 unmasking requests a year. And that’s during the Trump administration.

    How many involved Pence?

    AZ Bob (885937)

  25. How many involved Pence?

    2017 1,103
    2018 1,768
    2019 1,483

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  26. From president moron today.

    And don’t forget: We have more cases than anybody in the world. But why? Because we do more testing. When you test, you have a case. When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn’t do any testing, we would have very few cases. They don’t want to write that. It’s common sense. So we test much more many, many times

    .

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  27. Do we also test more people to see if they’re still alive? Most Worthless President Ever!

    nk (1d9030)

  28. 86k dead, but if we didn’t test anyone, it would be zero, perfect, 10 out of 10.

    What a freakin’ moron. Ignorance is bliss to a Trumper/ette.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  29. The mere traitorous Flynn and Trump’s Russia cover-up are so quaint.

    Heck, remember when we complained about a guy getting a blowey in the oval, or missing so terribly on the Iraq WMDs? The good old days.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  30. @20 In all fairness, I do know some wiccans. They are not fond of Trump.

    (Listen, it’s California, if you don’t know someone into neo-paganism, your peer group is really, really, really conventional. Or in the words of one of my much younger cousins, “OMG, you are so vanilla.” 😛 )

    Nic (896fdf)

  31. Here’s a handy tweet string from Kimberley Strassel, explaining the difference between “routine” unmasking, vs….”un-routine unmasking.” Six tweets in all, pay attention to the last three….basically she’s saying the Feebs –who couldn’t get an actual warrant because they had insufficient probable cause– resorting to listening in on damn near every call he made. Here’s the text of her last tweet, for those too lazy to check the link:

    “We know from the IG that the FBI did not “seriously consider” getting a FISA on Flynn. It knew it didn’t have anything near the probable cause necessary to get such a warrant. And if you lack the goods to get a real warrant, you just don’t get to go eavesdrop by other means.”

    I guess if it’s a minion of Bad Orange Man you do…..

    https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/05/14/it-would-be-outrageous-kimberley-strassel-wonders-if-all-those-unmasking-requests-were-to-build-a-file-on-michael-flynn/

    rondo1342 (8af7a9)

  32. And we don’t know how many of these requests (much less which ones) were related to the Kislyak conversations, and how many to other matters.

    Well, we know anything before December 22, 2016 couldn’t have been Kislyak related.

    David Nieporent (9c8c00)

  33. And “Dilbert” creator Scott Adams sums it up succinctly, too….the “WHAT” (unmasking, no big deal) vs the “WHY” (could be a big deal)….

    https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1260928349041393665

    rondo1342 (8af7a9)

  34. And for my last trick of the evening, not that mostly anyone here cares (commenter #3 inspired me for this last link), but here’s a clip of former NSA Director ADM Mike Rodgers –the only senior IC leader with any sense of honor or integrity at the time- explains the unmasking process. Very few people have the authority to request an unmasking, or to grant it. If you look at the list of the people who requested unmasking of Flynn, there’s ambassadors, Dept/Under Secretaries of Treasury, even an undersecretary of Energy….WTF reason do these people have doing this???? This is supposed to be limited to intelligence officials and senior WH leaders. And this was only Flynn; who ELSE did they unmask??? These are indeed VERY legitimate questions to ask, this is a process susceptible to abuse. And I can’t wait for the next declassified shoe to drop from DNI Grenell; as you’ll see in ADM Rodgers’ clip, requests to unmask someone must be submitted IN WRITING, including a rationale explaining why….that could make for some interesting reading…..and just for good measure, to reiterate #3’s comment, mishandling of the identity of unmasked people is a serious crime…ADM Rodgers stresses that hard. Not that anyone here (other than #3, or anyone else I missed) cares.

    https://youtu.be/lbM1bW7GiuQ

    rondo1342 (8af7a9)

  35. And the “WHY NOT” the biggest deal of all to corrupt criminal traitors colluding with a foreign enemy.

    nk (1d9030)

  36. Dang…on a roll, one more note……here’s a couple excerpts from ADM Rodgers’ clip

    “…first, for the National Security Agency, we define in writing who has the authority to unmask a US person identity. That is 20 different individuals in 12 different positions; I am one of the 20, in one of those 12 positions, as the Director.”

    And at the very end, after an unmasking request was approved:

    “….and if we unmask, we go back to that entity that requested it, not every individual who received the report, but that one entity who asked for us, we then provide them the US identity, and we also remind them, the classification of this report, and that the sensitivity of that identity remains in place; by revealing this US person to you, we are doing it to help you understand the intelligence….not, NOT that you can use this information indiscriminately. It must remain appropriately protected.”

    Aaaaaand, there’s the rub. By my count, DNI Grenell’s document drop showed there were 39 different people who requested to unmask Flynn, practically twice the number of people authorized to do so…square THAT circle….now it’s possible those on the list who weren’t authorized were denied, but why were they even asking??? It is my opinion, in the words of ADM Rodgers, that the unmasking of Flynn was used in a very “indiscriminate” manner to frame him for a “crime” he did not commit. And I hope John “Bull” Durham tracks down the leakers and sends them up the river for a long time

    Images of the released docs here…..

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/05/13/dni-grenell-releases-names-of-obama-officials-who-requested-unmasking-of-nsa-reports-containing-michael-flynn/#more-191640

    rondo1342 (8af7a9)

  37. Oh so its routine to unmask political opponents to spy on their campaigns and try to sabotage them. Also routine to have agents posing as english collage professors to act as agent provocateurs spying on your political opponents. How about planting child pornography on well known nobel prize winning economist’s computer you disagree with for his annoying comments. That routine too? Its now open season for both sides. As malcolm X said by any means necessary!

    asset (3d99ae)

  38. to frame him for a “crime” he did not commit

    Only problem: he did it. He sold his country out. Like many throughout the western world, the Russians managed to buy them or otherwise get to them.

    Sadly Trump could shoot a man dead in the street and some are stupid enough to tell us that’s cool. A con artist doesn’t need to be that good if his mark is that dumb.

    Aaaaaand, there’s the rub. By my count, DNI Grenell’s document drop showed there were 39 different people who requested to unmask Flynn, practically twice the number of people authorized to do so…square THAT circle

    An excellent example of the qanon illuminati anti-vaxx mentality. Musing that something was wrong, without actually showing anything was wrong. Without even actually laying what you’re alleging happened. Just ‘wake up sheeple’ borne out of total ignorance. You’re being manipulated, probably by Russia, in a way the USA used to be very resistant to because of our common sense.

    It’s fascinated me for years how we see the same few blogs copied and pasted here, angrily, by people who don’t even know what they are saying. See Haiku suddenly saying “Karen” 25 times a day. Bet that lines up with when Ace started saying it. You guys are tearing your homeland apart.

    Instead of paranoia about how insidious the opposing political party is, ask yourself: are you better off today than you were four years ago? Did Trump keep his promise to make our nation great? To balance the budget? To support our allies and thwart our foes? To be transparent? To solve the immigration problem? To release his tax returns?

    Folks can’t buy hamburger meat in the USA. We’ve suffered more American fatalities this year than 100 9/11s. More than 10,000 Benghazis. Is there a positive case for Donald Trump? I find Patterico’s legal analysis fascinating and enjoy reading Kevin’s opposite take, but I can’t get past the basic point that our country is being run into the ground by a man who colluded with our nation’s mortal enemy to get elected. And the paranoid fanatics could just focus on what Trump broadcasted, what’s obvious, and scratch their itch to speak out about corruption, but they can’t do that because Trump was the king birther and this all boils down to something much uglier and stupider.

    Dustin (e5f6c3)

  39. If you want to go out, don’t want to get a bout
    Vaccine

    If you don’t take this round, get down on the ground
    Vaccine

    They won’t lie, they won’t lie,they won’t lie
    Vaccine

    So I’ve got bad news, you got no right to choose
    Vaccine

    When your kidney is done, you’ve still got a spare one
    Vaccine

    They won’t lie, they won’t lie, they won’t lie
    Vaccine

    Pinandpuller (36e714)

  40. Very well said, Dustin.

    I always suggest that you look under the hood WRT any story from whatever source. With the Conservative Tree Sloughs and the like you have to look hard to even find a hood at times.

    People used to ask what harm could befall the conservative movement if T-rump were elected. The loss of so much conservative media is one obvious answer. When you have a guy like Roger Kimball on an outlet like PJMedia declaring Mike Flynn a “national hero”, you are looking at a terrible loss and an awful answer to the question about the Thug in the Oval Office and harm to the conservative movement.

    (sigh…)

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  41. Anyone else notice the sudden but inevitable return of whataboutism?

    frosty (f27e97)

  42. Please elaborate, frosty.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  43. “ According to the standards now set by Obama-administration defenders, it would be no big deal if Donald Trump’s Department of Justice opened criminal investigations into high-profile Democrats such as John Kerry (now a member of Joe Biden’s campaign) who met with Iranians officials over the past four years in an effort to undermine the foreign-policy goals of the duly elected government of the United States. These are potential Logan Act violations, after all.

    It would be no big deal, either, if Trump’s DOJ opened up investigations into Democrats who have ever taken any money from foreign powers, because these are potential FARA violations. Sure, only six such convictions have been pursued by the DOJ since 1966, but no one says your pretext has to be solid.

    It would also fine if, three weeks before Election Day, the DOJ filled out surveillance warrant applications — applications that excluded vital exculpatory evidence — to spy on the Democratic Party’s presidential campaign.

    If Joe Biden were to win the presidency, it would be no big deal if Trump’s DOJ snooped on the incoming national-security adviser John Kerry, taped his completely legal calls with foreign dignitaries, simply because Trump suspected that Kerry would disagree with his administration’s stance on Iran, a nation that threatens the sanctity of our democracy and murders hundreds of soldiers.

    Then, once Kerry was spied on by the NSA, and unmasked by dozens of high-ranking partisan Trump officials — one of them a future presidential candidate — it would be no big deal if any of them illegally leaked Kerry’s name to the press. They would do this in an effort to smear Kerry and railroad him into a plea — not over any risible FARA or Logan Act abuses, but over an innocuous lie about a lawful call told during an ostensibly friendly conversation — so that the Trump administration could fortify a waning investigation into the Democratic Party.“

    Cooking Up a Criminal Investigation, the Obama Way

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/cooking-up-a-criminal-investigation-the-obama-way/
    _

    harkin (8f4a6f)

  44. Lol @ Ragspierre @comment #42……Sundance at Conservative Treehouse has more intellectual acuity than all of the #NeverTrump losers here combined, including the idiot host of this site….

    rondo1342 (8af7a9)

  45. Wow. Good to know. I always find it valuable to be put in my place by my much smarter betters.

    Thanks.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  46. BTW, my comment was at 41.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  47. There is some concerted campaign to misrepresent this unmasking as spying on Flynn

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  48. Tis can oly be aimed at eople who do not understand it. (That can include newspaper columnists and radio ad TV commentators)

    There’s a “conservative” spin factory that always claims to prove something from something that does not prove it.

    The what is now called “progressive” spin works differently. It relies on an argument from authority or arguments from consensus and is more wrong. They never “prove” something from something else. The “conservative” spin factory always purports to derive ts conclusions from logic. Again, “progressive” spin simply asserts things and never offers reasoning except for citing authority.

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  49. #45

    Lol @ Ragspierre @comment #42……Sundance at Conservative Treehouse has more intellectual acuity than all of the #NeverTrump losers here combined, including the idiot host of this site….

    rondo1342 (8af7a9) — 5/15/2020 @ 4:51 am

    Dude… (or dudette?)

    That’s uncalled for… I’ve disagreed with the host and most of the anti-Trump folks here regarding this topic, but let’s disagree civilly.

    These sort of “drive by” trolling does more harm in this debate and encourages the sides to be more entrenched.

    whembly (c30c83)

  50. https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-unmasking-q-a-11589481210

    …“Unmasking” is a term used when the identity of a U.S. citizen, lawful resident or corporate entity is revealed in classified intelligence reports typically produced by the National Security Agency. Unmasking is designed to be used only for national-security reasons, such as helping officials assess intelligence by providing the identity of someone two or more foreign spies might be discussing on a call. In other cases, the American revealed might be a direct participant in a call and talking to a foreign government official or, perhaps unknowingly, with a spy of a foreign intelligence service.

    The process is governed by rules across the U.S. intelligence apparatus that make it illegal to use unmaskings for political purposes or to leak classified information….When incidental collection occurs, the names of the Americans are usually blacked out. To learn the identity of an American in such an intercept, officials must request that the name be unmasked.

    …One of the more common forms of unmasking is when a recipient of an intelligence report, like a senior White House national-security official or a military commander, asks for an “identity release” of an unidentified person in a report that has already crossed the official’s desk as part of the normal traffic of intelligence products. In some cases, NSA analysts are allowed to proactively identify an American in an intelligence report before sharing it with other agencies—for example, if an intercept concerns international terrorism activity.

    …Unmasking requests must include a justification, and the NSA can either reject a request or ask for more clarity if the reasoning is seen as insufficient. Former intelligence officials said the justifications are typically cursory and rarely turned down.

    …. Did Obama administration officials target Michael Flynn to be unmasked?

    By definition, unmasking means that officials don’t know the identity of an American included in an intelligence report and request that identity to better understand the context and significance of an intercepted conversation. Mr. Flynn’s conversations were frequently unmasked during the presidential transition, but the Obama administration officials would have known they belonged to or mentioned Mr. Flynn only after the unmasking request was fulfilled.

    The reasons for making the unmasking requests weren’t provided, but most requests took place weeks before a phone call in late December between Mr. Flynn and Russia’s ambassador, which later became the episode that triggered his resignation. It isn’t known whether any of the conversations that were unmasked involved Mr. Flynn’s conversations with the ambassador.

    Isn’t known from this, but it stands to reason some were of the conversations with Kislyak in late December.

    I read that first they wanted to know who Kislyak had talked to. Then got the transcript, and third unmasked the name of the U.S. person he had talked to. (which they might have guessed from the contents anyway, depending on exactly what was said.)

    Fourth, somebody tried some careful illegal leaking. First, only to David Ignatius of the Washington Post, the mere fact that Mike Flynn had spoken with the Russian Ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, at a crucial point in time – between Obama imposing limited and mild sanctions, including expulsions of diplomats, on Russia for interference in the 2016 election and Russia’s expected counter sanctions, which didn’t happen. When that didn’t work, the interview with Flynn and telling the White House counsel’s office of the contradiction. When that didn’t work, letting people in the White House, including now Vice President Mike Pence, see the transcripts for themselves, combined with simultaneous massive illegal leaking to different news outlets of the further detail that yes indeed, Flynn had discussed sanctions in conversation with Kislyak.

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  51. If only we could return to Obama. Now there was a patriot and man who believed in civil liberties. Hopefully, the New Biden Administration with AOC in charge of CLimate Change and immigration will be more to Patterico’s liking.

    rcocean (2e1c02)

  52. @30

    to frame him for a “crime” he did not commit

    Only problem: he did it. He sold his country out. Like many throughout the western world, the Russians managed to buy them or otherwise get to them.

    Dustin (e5f6c3) — 5/15/2020 @ 2:28 am

    I’m going to accept this premise for sake of arguments…

    Why didn’t Obama officials tell the incoming administration and SHOW them how compromised Flynn was? He was under FBI counter-intelligence investigation for nearly 6 months… and yet, the FBI closed Crossfire RAZOR in December without finding any derogatory information. (the investigation was closed as the only thing left was to ministerially create the closing documents for supervisor’s approval).

    And no, Obama “asking” Trump pre-inauguration not to hire Flynn is not it. If there were true concerns, they could’ve shown the incoming administration the acquired intelligence to demonstrate why he shouldn’t be hired.

    Moving forward, the phone call, if the call was so bad, it would be dereliction of the duty NOT to inform the WH. Why didn’t they?

    Then, why did the FBI circumvent long established protocols between the DOJ and WH to interview Flynn? Keep in mind, contemporaneously to this event, no one at the FBI though he was untruthful.

    Then, if the FBI was troubled by Flynn’s lies to Spicer and Pence, why was this LEAKED? If they were so concerned, the prudent thing to do is to inform Pence/Spicer.

    Then, why did it take a separate group of prosecutors (Mueller team) to decide to charge Flynn for false statement, when the FBI at the time didn’t think he lied to them? (I think they wanted to squeeze Flynn for his cooperation for future investigations).

    When you start pulling at these threads and start asking why… its really hard for me to ignore that there appears to be a lot of bad faith efforts here.

    whembly (c30c83)

  53. Talking about “Hey, Unmakasking was as common as drinking a glass of water” is an irrelevant. Unmaking Flynn – the incoming NSA advisor by the lame Duck White house was NOT a nothing burger. Nor was unmasking of Flynn by S. Powers, Biden, or OBama’s Chief of Staff. What possible reason could any of these people have for unmasking Flynn and having access to his phone calls?

    Why was Obama involved in any of this? Of course, this goes back to the point that Trump was President elect of the USA. If Obama thought Flynn was worthy of being wiretapped and investigated he should have told Trump what was going on. but he didn’t. He just told Trump there were “problems with Flynn”. BTW, notice that Bush II has been AWOL on this. He’s NEVER spoken up to defend Trump. HE only speaks up to criticize him. Typical Establishment.

    rcocean (2e1c02)

  54. Gorsh, some of us here can manage to detest crappy leadership and policy regardless of which tribal headband being worn. When you become a cultist, you’ve ceased to be what an American is.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  55. Nobody has ever explained by S. Powers the UN Ambassador with NO REASON TO KNOW, was unmasking Flynn and others in the TRump campaign. And you have to wonder why she lied under oath that she didn’t do it.

    Further, some one in the Obama white house, leaked the Flynn-Russia conversation to the press, which was against the law. But hey, unlike Flynn’s likes to the FBI, who cares? Its just a silly law, we can ignore. Unlike the logan act.

    rcocean (2e1c02)

  56. #55 – what are you unemployed? Retired? You must camp out on this site, because the number of times you respond IMMEDIATELY after I post is astounding.

    rcocean (2e1c02)

  57. Let’s flip the script.

    To those who don’t have any problems with Obama era officials monitoring the incoming administration…

    Let’s say Biden wins in November, and we find out that the Trump administration is monitory Biden’s campaign and even his son Hunter out of sincere concerns about Chinese influence.

    With that stated, now hypothetically, run through your mind and replace all things “Trump” with “Biden” as incoming administration and all things “Obama officials” with “Trump officials”.

    Are you seriously going to sit there and not think that these actions would be kosher?

    Here’s the kicker… it keeps getting worse.

    whembly (c30c83)

  58. What possible reason could any of these people have for unmasking Flynn and having access to his phone calls?

    How ’bout he’s a 1) lying POS, and 2) was selling his country out? Those are “possible reasons”.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  59. @59

    What possible reason could any of these people have for unmasking Flynn and having access to his phone calls?

    How ’bout he’s a 1) lying POS, and 2) was selling his country out? Those are “possible reasons”.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 5/15/2020 @ 6:59 am

    Can you elaborate? The unmasking took place during the Obama administration.

    whembly (c30c83)

  60. I’m betting people have known what kind of punk Flynn is for some years.

    You don’t suppose that we know the full Flynn story, do you? Do you think he just went criminal under the influence of T-rump?

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  61. Why would George W. Bush defend Trump?

    Paul Montagu (b3f51b)

  62. What possible reason could any of these people have for unmasking Flynn and having access to his phone calls?

    Try to keep in mind that Flynn wasn’t the only one on the phone call, and he wasn’t the one being monitored. The target of the intel community was. Anyone willing to guess who that was? And why the IC would want to know why an incoming admin official was talking to this target, and lying about it.

    Nah? It’s probably fine, it’s not like they had an actual transcript of it or anything.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (9878f6)

  63. What possible reason could any of these people have for unmasking Flynn and having access to his phone calls?

    Do you think they knew who he was before they asked who he was?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  64. And “Dilbert” creator Scott Adams sums it up succinctly, too….the “WHAT” (unmasking, no big deal) vs the “WHY” (could be a big deal)….

    https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1260928349041393665

    rondo1342 (8af7a9) — 5/15/2020 @ 12:32 am

    Typical Scott Adams to say something dumb in way he thinks make him look sooooper smart.

    Obama Put Sanctions on Russia.
    Russia usually reacts with some sort or response, but didn’t in this case.
    The Russian Ambassadors communications were being monitored. They knew that someone spoke to him and they knew what that person said. But they didn’t know who it was. SO they unmasked them. Turns out it was Flynn.

    The transcript hasn’t been released yet so I don’t know if that was a reasonable thing to do or not. But those of you running around saying “All these people targeted Flynn” sound really silly.

    Time123 (457a1d)

  65. @64, that’s exactly what they think. Might be more accurate to say “They unmasked the person speaking to the Russian Ambassador.”

    Time123 (457a1d)

  66. @61

    I’m betting people have known what kind of punk Flynn is for some years.

    You don’t suppose that we know the full Flynn story, do you? Do you think he just went criminal under the influence of T-rump?

    Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 5/15/2020 @ 7:08 am

    You’re deflecting.

    You just said that the reason that Flynn was unmasked because:
    1) he’s a lying POS
    2) was selling his country out

    Because of those two is accurate, then just about everyone in Washington is screwed.

    whembly (c30c83)

  67. Further, some one in the Obama white house, leaked the Flynn-Russia conversation to the press, which was against the law. But hey, unlike Flynn’s likes to the FBI, who cares? Its just a silly law, we can ignore. Unlike the logan act.

    I think this is worthy following up on. Either there are no leads, or Barr isn’t for some reason.

    Time123 (457a1d)

  68. Sorry, Patterico. Unmasking is not routine. Not at all. And it is very hard to do in the post-Snowden age of the intel community.

    Am I wrong?

    Well, there are thousands of intelligence analysts across the USIC. Yet from what has been released, there is not that many instances of unmasking. And the ones that are seem quite political these days.

    Samantha Power said she never unmasked. Oops. She did do seven times according to USIC records.

    Why did she lie? If it is commonplace as you say, she had no reason to lie.

    Hoi Polloi (dc4124)

  69. Nonsense.

    I asked two questions you don’t seem to be able to step up to.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  70. @70

    Nonsense.

    I asked two questions you don’t seem to be able to step up to.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 5/15/2020 @ 7:35 am

    So… the goal post has been moved.

    Fine…

    You don’t suppose that we know the full Flynn story, do you?

    Maybe… maybe not. The dude had a nearly 6 month counter-intel investigation opened on him and was closed in December after finding no derogatory information (from FBI and other intel agencies).

    Do you think he just went criminal under the influence of T-rump?

    Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 5/15/2020 @ 7:08 am

    I’m not convinced he’s a criminal.

    whembly (c30c83)

  71. Sorry, Patterico. Unmasking is not routine.

    How is an average of over 45 unmaskings a day in 2018 not routine?

    Paul Montagu (b3f51b)

  72. Continuing…

    You can be a lying POS…

    You can engage in unsavory business practice…

    You can fully embrace all things in gutter politics…

    But even with all that… there’s a wide chasm between things that are unsavory vs criminal.

    Can we at least agree on this premise?

    whembly (c30c83)

  73. I don’t know what goalposts you’re b!tching about, but I get your answers.

    You dunno and you dunno. Which is fine.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  74. Sure.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  75. What possible reason could any of these people have for unmasking Flynn and having access to his phone calls?

    Do you think they knew who he was before they asked who he was?

    They really have no clue what they’re talking about, Patterico. Their “reasoning” only goes as far as: “Trump like Flynn, me like Flynn.”

    nk (1d9030)

  76. 62.Why would George W. Bush defend Trump?

    Maybe because Bush-II as an ex-president is supposed to be a leader of the R Party and Trump is a duly elected Republican President. And maybe because Bush – based on his past rhetoric – supposedly believed in most of things TRump does and disagrees – based on his past rhetoric – with most of the things Pelosi and Schumer believe in.

    But you’re right. Maybe Bush is really a moderate Democrat, who ran as a Republican to get elected. It certainly would explain a lot.

    rcocean (2e1c02)

  77. If I read whembly right, he’s working really hard to keep an open mind, which I respect.

    Normally, this is my default position. Here, however, I long ago had all the data I needed to conclude that Flynn is a criminal lying POS.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  78. No one has ever explained, and that’s especially true of the dispatch gang and the bulwark boys, why Obama and the FBI didn’t tell Trump at the very start that Flynn and Manafort were possible security risks and they were wiretapping them. Or why once Trump got elected, that they were wiretapping Flynn and considered him a s security risk. Because why wouldn’t you? If you were just concerned with national security. But of course, it wasn’t that.

    rcocean (2e1c02)

  79. GWB probably recognizes that Trump is a human dumpster fire that ends up making everyone that works with him look like a clown.

    Or maybe he took all the mean things Trump said about him personally and decided if Trump really believed the things he said that Trump wouldn’t want Bush’s support.

    Time123 (457a1d)

  80. Former Rep. Trey Gowdy asserted Thursday that the list of Obama officials is “a really nice witness list to start investigating the leak of classified information.”

    “Disseminating that name to the Washington Post is a 10-year felony,” said Gowdy.

    Biden submitted his request on Jan. 12, 2017, the same day that a Washington Post column revealed that Flynn had phone calls weeks early with Sergey Kislyak.

    There is no indication that Biden was the source of information for the column, but it remains unclear what prompted him to make an unmasking request that revealed Flynn’s identity.

    The presidential candidate has yet to comment on the issue, though an official on his campaign attacked CBS News reporter Catherine Herridge after she published the list of Obama administration officials who unmasked Flynn.

    Gowdy, the former Republican lawmaker, questioned how frequently Biden made unmasking requests.

    “Vice President Biden how many other unmasking requests did you make?” he asked rhetorically in a Fox News interview.

    “I bet it wasn’t very many.”

    https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/14/michael-flynn-unmasking-controversy-explained-facts/

    beer ‘n pretzels (fb25e7)

  81. People like Kristol, French and Jonah goldberg can play dumb, but the whole point of wiretapping Flynn, the TRump campaign, etc. was to find some illegality that would destroy Trump. It was an excuse to rummage around and eavesdrop. There never was a legitimate National Security concern. There was never any reason to leak this to the press, or believe the steele dossier. That’s why doing this “Well, everyone unmasks” is a lame defense.

    rcocean (2e1c02)

  82. Its nice Gowdy is singing the right song, NOW. When he could have issued subpoenas 2 years ago, he was AWOL and ran away to the private sector as soon as he could. Just like Ryan.

    rcocean (2e1c02)

  83. Maybe Bush is really a moderate Democrat, who ran as a Republican to get elected. It certainly would explain a lot.

    Maybe unicorns fart pixie dust over oil fields, and that’s where our energy comes from…

    Not maybe, but certainly W was a good gop governor when your cult leader was a NE Dem and supporter of every Dem with any stroke.

    Which certainly explains a lot if you’ve retained the snap to read and deal with reality.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  84. The fact that it is routine is the problem. FISA should not be reauthorized until the protections for citizens are tightened considerably.

    1DaveMac (4cc9b4)

  85. “ Because of those two is accurate, then just about everyone in Washington is screwed.”

    – whembly

    So are you saying that “just about everyone in Washington” is secretly communicating with the Russians and lying about it? Or are you conflating “lying POS in the general sense” with “lying POS in this specific General’s sense”?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  86. Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 5/15/2020 @ 4:16 am

    Please elaborate, frosty.

    An alternative title for this post could have been “You think Obama unmasking is a big deal? What about Trump?”

    This is also a common response in comments about Biden, e.g. you say Biden is corrupt/incompetence/lying whatabout Trump…, etc. You see some of it in the Flynn comments, e.g. you say the DOJ/FBI did some shady stuff but whatabout Flynn.

    Obviously, we’ve beaten the whatabout horse enough that most of the commentators here know not to literally say “whatabout” but that doesn’t change the game. I’m not complaining, just observing.

    frosty (f27e97)

  87. Obviously, we’ve beaten the whatabout horse enough that most of the commentators here know not to literally say “whatabout” but that doesn’t change the game.

    Nope. Not remotely comparable. Whatabout is responding to an allegation of clear wrongdoing by saying the other guy does it too.

    Here, I am saying: it’s not wrongdoing. And if some Trumper is ignorant enough to think the mere act of unmasking is by itself inherently corrupt (a deeply, deeply ignorant position) then how do they explain thousands upon thousands of unmaskings under Trump — which, by the way, also cannot be said to be corrupt merely because they are unmaskings.

    Not remotely the same argument. Not even close.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  88. Why did she lie? If it is commonplace as you say, she had no reason to lie.

    I won’t defend Powers in the matter of lying. But is it somehow less morally offensive for Donald Trump to lie with such prodigious frequency?

    Radegunda (7fb487)

  89. The fact that it is routine is the problem.

    Please explain the system, how requests are made, who decides, and how often requests are denied. Please give an example of a typical unmasking request. If you can’t do any of this, please consider that you actually have no real knowledge of any of this.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  90. People like Kristol, French and Jonah goldberg can play dumb, but the whole point of wiretapping Flynn,

    Nobody wiretapped Flynn. Please do not use my comments section to spread disinformation.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  91. Not maybe, but certainly W was a good gop governor when your cult leader was a NE Dem and supporter of every Dem with any stroke.

    But, but, but, but, but, Donald Trump was a New York City developer. So, you see, he just had to lard a lot of love on local Democrat politicians in order to be allowed to operate. And when Trump goes along to get along, why, that’s totally different from when any other Republican does so. Because he’s trying to make America great again and they’re not.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  92. So are you saying that “just about everyone in Washington” is secretly communicating with the Russians and lying about it?

    These are inconvenient facts and they are to be ignored, Leviticus. Get with the program.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  93. @86

    “ Because of those two is accurate, then just about everyone in Washington is screwed.”

    – whembly

    So are you saying that “just about everyone in Washington” is secretly communicating with the Russians and lying about it? Or are you conflating “lying POS in the general sense” with “lying POS in this specific General’s sense”?

    Leviticus (efada1) — 5/15/2020 @ 8:15 am

    Not conflating anything here.

    Ragspierre’s previous comment as to why Flynn was unmasked was:

    How ’bout he’s a 1) lying POS, and 2) was selling his country out? Those are “possible reasons”.

    I think he may have conflated (1) to Flynn’s false statement charge and (2) his company advocating for Turkey’s interest.

    I realize that he may be imprecise, which is why I asked him to elaborate (meaning, why does he think the high level Obama-folks was justified here).

    So, to answer your question:

    So are you saying that “just about everyone in Washington” is secretly communicating with the Russians and lying about it?

    I find it hard to believe that Flynn, a military officer and a former DIA who specializes in the spook world, was actively having a “secret” conversation with a foreign power without assuming that those calls are being monitored. I can’t suspend my disbelief of that no matter how hard I try.

    As for lying about certain aspect of the call, we only have the charging the statement from Mueller for false statement, that really doesn’t line up to the original interviewers, as well as what McCabe/Comey believed at the time.

    Or are you conflating “lying POS in the general sense” with “lying POS in this specific General’s sense”?

    I’m trying to call attention to the fact that the alleged Flynn false statement charge by the Mueller Team is separate from the unmaskings of Flynn’s calls by Obama-ear officials during the transition.

    Furthermore, there’s a lot of POS in Washington… there’s also a lot of POS who advocates for unsavory actors in Washington. It’s not a crime to be either of those (invalid FARA applications notwithstanding).

    There needs to be more than just those things to justify the level of surveilance of Flynn (and possibly, the rest of the campaign). Otherwise, what you are looking at is an opposition administration trying to criminalize politics.

    And that should be of concern to everyone.

    whembly (c30c83)

  94. #93 It there is plenty of evidence that a lot of people are secretly communicating with China (and not so secretly) but we should only worry about the Russians.

    1DaveMac (4cc9b4)

  95. China’s economy is far bigger and their malign activities are an order of magnitude worse than the russians. They have already stated they will meddle in our elections, and are going to be much more effective because the media and entertainment industry as well as key people in the Democratic Party have large financial stakes in China.

    1DaveMac (4cc9b4)

  96. Maybe Bush is really a moderate Democrat, who ran as a Republican to get elected.

    So Bush should defend Trump despite the fact Trump dumped all over Bush’s presidency? Where’s Trump’s loyalty to a Republican president, and why does Bush have to toe the party line but Trump does not? This is classic hypocrisy.
    Another question: When was GW Bush ever a Democrat? Or even close to being one? Seems to me Trump was a Democrat, for eight years, in this very century, where he said, “I probably identify more as Democrat.”

    Paul Montagu (b3f51b)

  97. Everyone says how awful it is that the Russians meddled in our elections but nobody bothers to asses how many votes the actually changed. The answer is very few because other influencers were far and away more dominant. China will be far more effective at influencing voter options. They have a lot more money and a significant fraction of voters seems to agree with the Chinese Communist Party.

    1DaveMac (4cc9b4)

  98. Maybe because Bush-II as an ex-president is supposed to be a leader of the R Party and Trump is a duly elected Republican President. And maybe because Bush – based on his past rhetoric – supposedly believed in most of things TRump does

    When has Bush expressed a belief in constant lying, selfish vindictiveness, callous cruelty, putting one’s own ego above the public welfare, etc.?

    Trump ran against the GOP. His most prominent promoters said the whole party had become so degraded and worthless that it needed a Great Destroyer to come in and smash things.
    Some average supporters said they wanted to “Blow it all up!” and “Burn the place to the ground!” They called anyone who favored another GOP candidate a RINO — not a real Republican or even a real American.

    Then they said it was necessary to defend Trump in all things for the sake of the party he took over. They regard personal loyalty to Trump as the very definition of being a good Republican and a real conservative.

    Never mind that Trump was trashing GW Bush long ago. Trumpsters hold Trump’s nastiness to others as a virtue — and then they demand that others show unfailing servility to Trump and heap flattery on him.

    Never mind that Trump is a deranged imbecile too. He must always be defended!

    It’s all so sickening that it makes me almost indifferent to the Dems’ sins.

    Radegunda (7fb487)

  99. …but the whole point of wiretapping Flynn, the TRump campaign, etc. was to find some illegality that would destroy Trump.

    What’s the evidence that Flynn and the “TRump campaign” were wiretapped? I recall FISA warrants for Page, and I recall that Manafort was wiretapped because he’s a literal felon, but not Flynn and not his boss’s campaign.

    Paul Montagu (b3f51b)

  100. @88: The act of leaking classified info to WaPo is corrupt, and a felony carrying 10 years.

    It’s not about the mere act of masking “by itself.”

    The source of the piece was a “senior” U.S. official, which would likely exclude many on the list, like the ambassador to Italy.

    Clapper, Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power, Sally Yates and Mary McCord were asked, I assume under oath, and denied it.

    Unless one committed perjury, that leaves very few: Brennan, McDonough, Comey, McCabe, Biden, Obama.

    Seriously doubt Obama would get his hands dirty with leaking, and not sure McCabe counted as “senior” in the eyes of a reporter at that time.

    So, likely one of those committed a felony — if anyone cares.

    beer ‘n pretzels (db7354)

  101. ‘This administration is incredibly corrupt and dishonest.’

    And entertaining.

    It’s all about the ratings; Sleepy Joe is no JR Ewing– nor FDR.

    “I learned a lot from Richard Nixon…”- President Donald Trump, ‘Fox & Friends’ 5-8-2020

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  102. Lets look at the lies Klinky tells:

    “Is it that Kislyak is the Russian Embassador?”

    That’s true.

    “Is it that Russia is the enemy of the United States?”

    That’s not actually true, given that we haven’t actually declared any war with them.

    “Is it that Flynn sold out his country to Russia?”

    Not true.

    “Is it that Flynn sold out his country to Turkey?”

    Not true.

    “Is it that the intelligence agencies monitory enemy communications?”

    They monitor all communications from foreign countries, of which part of the job of the NSA is communicating with.

    “Is it that an American was caught on said communication?”

    The American was doing his foreign policy job, which those who unmasked him were most emphatically not.

    “Is it that government officials wanted to know who said American was?”

    They had no need to know as part of their job. If they had independently came to the conclusion at different times that they needed to know in the course of their work, and individually asked to unmask Flynn on their own, then perhaps I could believe this wasn’t a political op.

    But when every single member of the outgoing team all requests to do it at once, immediately after the election, very obviously in order to make it much more difficult to find out who leaked his name to the media, then no, there’s no ‘grave concern’ here, this is 100% a coordinated, collusive political op.

    “Is it that said American lied about it, over and over again?”

    No one had gotten the sense that he was actually lying, the evidence for ‘was pressured into it under threat of constant legal battels and fees’ is too numerous to discount.

    “Is it that said American plead guilty to lying about it over and over again, as well as admitted to the $600k payoff with Turkey, and ratted on his partners to get them busted (but not his son, so he’s a good dad)?”

    Never heard of this, and Flynn was never convicted of any bribes or payoffs, so I assume you’re just lying or exaggerating for effect. As attornerds do when they think they can get away with it.

    Blippy Griller (d3469d)

  103. I get that unmasking by rank-and-file intelligence folks may be routine in the course of their investigations.

    What I’m not super clear on, is that is it routine for high-level political actors to unmasks intelligence intercepts?

    This article makes it even more unclear:
    https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/14/investigative_issues_situational_media_attitudes_toward_unmaskings_123632.html

    whembly (c30c83)

  104. #93 It there is plenty of evidence that a lot of people are secretly communicating with China (and not so secretly) but we should only worry about the Russians.

    And they’re making great trade deals, too.

    I wasn’t joking at my comment 24 above. The reason the number of unmaskings has halved from 2018 to 2019 is because Trump’s lackeys and cronies have been selling out America right and left to foreign governments and foreign interests and their telephone conversations have been placed off limits.

    nk (1d9030)

  105. 53. whembly (c30c83) — 5/15/2020 @ 6:49 am

    Why didn’t Obama officials tell the incoming administration and SHOW them how compromised Flynn was?

    They didn’t trust Trump.

    And no, Obama “asking” Trump pre-inauguration not to hire Flynn is not it. If there were true concerns, they could’ve shown the incoming administration the acquired intelligence to demonstrate why he shouldn’t be hired.

    While Obama himself was probably more of the opinion that anybody occupying the office of president of the United States would not subordinate himself to a foreign power, regardless of what he had done before..

    There was also the problem that tolerating the Russians buying or recruitng Flynn – which may have started as far back as 2013, when he was head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and spent a day at GRU headquarters – was also a reflection on him (and also would damage his credibility with Trump)

    If Mike Flynn he was so bad, why didn’t he do something about it!? He let him retire in August, 2014.

    Until Trump came along, they never figured he could occupy an important position in the U.S. government again.

    Moving forward, the phone call, if the call was so bad, it would be dereliction of the duty NOT to inform the WH. Why didn’t they?

    Jams Comey said that his job – that would be the prerogative of the Acting attorney General. Barack Obama had also told them to do things “by the book” Comey also said they could find out more by interviewing Flynn first, and he made sure he wasn’t stopped by DOJ by not informing them untl the agents were on their way to the White Hse Jan 24. Now you could say, they thought maybe Flynn might offer an acceeptable reason for lying to Mike Pence. Or he would say he told the truth to Mike Pence, ad Mike ence was the liar.

    Then, why did the FBI circumvent long established protocols between the DOJ and WH to interview Flynn?

    They wanted to not be ordered not to do it.. I don’t think Comey’s explanation as to why is clear.

    Keep in mind, contemporaneously to this event, no one at the FBI thought he was untruthful.

    I think that only happened later, after Comey cross-examined the agents who spoke to Flynn.

    Then, if the FBI was troubled by Flynn’s lies to Spicer and Pence, why was this LEAKED?

    So he’d be fired!

    If they were so concerned, the prudent thing to do is to inform Pence/Spicer.

    This is what they did:

    1. Leak the fact of a communication implying a violation of the Logan Act.

    There was no lie at this stage, just a question of secret dealing.

    2. Trump staff denies there was talk about sanctions.

    3. Interview with Comey, in which FBI gets independent proof Flynn is the source of the lie.

    4. Now DOJ tells White House counsels office.

    5. White House counsels office send John Eisenberg to check the transcripts

    6. White House counsels office concludes no violation of the Logan Act occured.

    6. Trump ratifies after the fact what Flynn said without checking with him

    7. Flynn not fired.

    8. Major leak operation about contradiction between what the FBI knew and what Mike Pence said.

    9. Same day as the leaks appear, FBI carries transcript over to the White House and shows it to Mike Pence among others.

    10. Mike Pence again asks Mike Flynn.

    11. Flynn says his memory is bad.

    12. Trump fires Mike Flynn.

    13. Trump meets with Comey to discuss a false story leaked to the New York Times. He also asks that Flynn be let off if Comey can see his way oward doing so, because Flynn is a “good guy” and it is enough he was fired.

    14. FBI leaks to CNN that Flynn was truthful and won’t be charged with lying, contradicting leak of previous day.

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  106. The mere fact that there are an average of 45 unmasking a day tells you all you need to know about insufficient rigor about need to know. I have worked in this area on the military side for 36 years. Need to Know must be be established with rigor and must be clear. Similar rules should apply as access to Special Compartmented Information.

    1DaveMac (4cc9b4)

  107. #90. The actual procedures for doing this are classified. The problem is implementation of vague and poorly written regulations. I am surprised you are so unconcerned about the ease with which you can unmask American citizens.

    1DaveMac (4cc9b4)

  108. Trump to speak aoon (this hour) and announce progress towards a vaccine. (Heard around an hour ago)

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  109. No one has ever explained, and that’s especially true of the dispatch gang and the bulwark boys, why Obama and the FBI didn’t tell Trump at the very start that Flynn and Manafort were possible security risks and they were wiretapping them. Or why once Trump got elected, that they were wiretapping Flynn and considered him a s security risk. Because why wouldn’t you? If you were just concerned with national security. But of course, it wasn’t that.

    rcocean (2e1c02) — 5/15/2020 @ 7:56 am

    Not true:

    A former Obama official confirms that then-President Barack Obama warned incoming President Donald Trump about Michael Flynn related to his job performance as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Obama and Trump met in the Oval Office shortly after the election in November.

    Flynn was fired as head of the DIA during Obama’s administration. It has been widely reported that it was over management issues.

    We now know there were other concerns than management issues — concerns that were also likely passed on to the Trump and his transition team. It stands to reason the concerns and warnings contributed to Trump’s early decision to cut Flynn loose. The point for now is that the Obama Administration was worried about Flynn and did warn the Trump team.

    DRJ (15874d)

  110. Why didn’t Obama officials tell the incoming administration and SHOW them how compromised Flynn was?

    Because he did.

    During their first meeting after the election, Obama strongly warned Trump about Flynn:

    President Barack Obama personally warned Donald Trump against hiring Michael Flynn to serve as his national security adviser, three former Obama administration officials said Monday, underscoring the depths of the outgoing White House’s concern about the man Trump would ultimately fire.

    In an Oval Office meeting with Trump two days after the November election, Obama told his successor that there were more qualified candidates for the crucial White House post, according to one official. Flynn was fired as head of military intelligence by the Obama administration in 2014 amid questions about his management style and reports of insubordination. He became a fierce critic of Obama’s policies and a fervent Trump supporter.

    Trump ignored Obama’s advice and tapped Flynn for the top White House national security role. But Trump would ultimately seek Flynn’s resignation less than a month into his tenure, following news reports that Flynn had misled Vice President Mike Pence and other top officials about his conversations with Russia’s ambassador to the United States.

    The Trump White House on Monday confirmed that Obama raised concerns about Flynn in the November meeting.

    Dave (1bb933)

  111. As for why The Bulwark and The Dispatch did not write about this when everyone else did in May 2017, that is undoubtedly because they weren’t around yet. The Bukwark started in December 2018 and The Dispatch in October 2019.

    DRJ (15874d)

  112. @DRJ: What don’t know exactly WHAT Obama warned Trump about Flynn. There’s a lot of speculation there…

    It’s indisputable, however, that Flynn butt heads with Obama policy advisors over numerous things. I think the “concerns” was more related to that, than Flynn’s management performance at the DIA.

    Meaning, Obama’s concerns were over policy differences and to be honest, Flynn would probably be the only person on Trump’s team who would find out, rather quickly, what the Obama administration was doing during the transition.

    If Flynn was doing anything illegal or was in danger of being influenced by a foreign power, then it was their obligation to inform the Trump team… and I think its obvious that they didn’t find anything. (ie, Crossfire RAZOR being closed in December for no derogatory information on Flynn).

    It’s much more likely to me that the Obama administration was up to no good here.

    whembly (c30c83)

  113. In many cases, there are actual hard limits on the number of people cleared to know certain types of information. To increase these limits requires rigorous justification.

    1DaveMac (4cc9b4)

  114. Golly, it’s almost like T-rump purposely picked Flynn after being warned as openly as Obama could that Flynn was unfit (i.e., a lying POS).

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  115. It’s much more likely to me that the Obama administration was up to no good here.

    whembly (c30c83) — 5/15/2020 @ 9:41 am

    Bias does that. Those of us who don’t trust Obama or Trump are more likely to be impartial.

    DRJ (15874d)

  116. It’s much more likely to me that the Obama administration was up to no good here.

    whembly (c30c83) — 5/15/2020 @ 9:41 am

    Bias does that. Those of us who don’t trust Obama or Trump are more likely to be impartial.

    DRJ (15874d) — 5/15/2020 @ 9:44 am

    I think there’s a lot of bias on both sides…

    whembly (c30c83)

  117. A couple of questions:

    1. Let’s posit that Flynn is a liar and just generally not a good guy. But how is he a traitor? In my mind, “traitor” in the serious sense is reserved for the likes of Benedict Arnold, Quisling, Petain’s collaboration during WWII, and spies who sell their country’s secrets. How does Flynn rise (or sink) to that level?

    2. If hypothetically the Obama administration had wanted to “wiretap” Flynn but didn’t have the evidence to get a warrant, could they have accomplished the same goal by pursuing the unmasking process with intercepted calls of persons they knew he would likely speak with, such as Kislyak? I’ve seen variations of that theory advanced for quite a while now in various contexts but could there be, practically, anything to it, or is it just paranoid speculation?

    And not a question, but thanks to the commenter who pointed out the Ammidown case yesterday. Besides explaining the law and the considerations that will, or at least should, guide Judge Sullivan’s actions, it’s a well written and lucid opinion that was a pleasure to read. 497 F.2d 615.

    RL formerly in Glendale (40f5aa)

  118. Meaning, Obama’s concerns were over policy differences and to be honest, Flynn would probably be the only person on Trump’s team who would find out, rather quickly, what the Obama administration was doing during the transition.

    Since there was no question that Flynn was T-rump-bit, and therefore his policy differences with Obama were well established, Obama warning Duh Donald on that score is irrational.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  119. 111. DRJ (15874d) — 5/15/2020 @ 9:33 am

    We now know there were other concerns than management issues — concerns that were also likely passed on to the Trump and his transition team.

    I don’t think Obama passed on his full concerns, because he didn’t have hard evidence that Flynn was a Russian mole; and because it would have been a reflection on himself for being content with Flynn’s retirement in August, 2014. And also to say more might even have damaged his credibility with Trump.

    A further guess:

    Obama also wanted to have the support of his people, and they weren’t sure that Trump wasn’t a Russian mole. Obama was not of that opinion, and felt that, no matter what, once he became president, Trump would be independent of Russia.

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  120. How is an average of over 45 unmaskings a day in 2018 not routine?

    First, 45 unmaskings per day across how many thousands of intelligence analysts across the USIC? That means mathematically, it is not routine.

    Second, the numbers Patterico quoted are unmasking requests, which are different than unmaskings. You can request an unmasking and get denied.

    So until we know the true number of actual unmaskings, it is not a standard occurrence.

    Hoi Polloi (dc4124)

  121. I would bet the “senior U.S. official” leaker was Brennan.

    As with Obama, I doubt Biden would get his hands dirty with leaking. McDonough isn’t known to be a media whore. Comey would’ve left it to someone under him, who wouldn’t be regarded as “senior”.

    That leaves Brennan, who is a media whore, had opportunity, and certainly a motive. I hope Barr gets him under oath.

    Again, this assumes none of those who’ve denied it wanted to add a perjury charge to their resume.

    beer ‘n pretzels (0b864e)

  122. Please explain the system, how requests are made, who decides, and how often requests are denied. Please give an example of a typical unmasking request. If you can’t do any of this, please consider that you actually have no real knowledge of any of this.

    The people who do are not allowed to talk about this in forums such as these. If you have knowledge, then you are in receipt of a classified leak.

    Hoi Polloi (dc4124)

  123. 114. whembly (c30c83) — 5/15/2020 @ 9:41 am.

    Crossfire RAZOR being closed in December for no derogatory information on Flynn

    No derogatory non-public information on Flynn.

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  124. Re: Unmasking: The Wall Street Journal explained it.

    See #51.

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  125. We know Obama did not pass on concerns about Flynn talking to Kislyak because the calls were in December, but Obama warned Trump in November.

    But think about it. Why would Obama or anyone care whether Trump hired Flynn as National Security Advisor if the concern were that Flynn was a poor manager? Warning Trump in that first, brief, post-election meeting, and particularly raising the topic of who Trump picked as NSA, was almost certainly because of a concern about Flynn’s NSA abilities.

    DRJ (15874d)

  126. Bias does that. Those of us who don’t trust Obama or Trump are more likely to be impartial.

    DRJ (15874d) — 5/15/2020 @ 9:44 am

    Cutting criminal deals with terrorist nations (Iran) that have murdered Americans does that to me.

    We do remember that one of the biggest reasons Obama didn’t like Flynn was his positions on Iran.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  127. DRJ @ 111

    It stands to reason the concerns and warnings contributed to Trump’s early decision to cut Flynn loose.

    It may also have contributed to Trump sending Jared Kshner to the in-person meeting that Flynn had with the Russian Ambassador.

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  128. Meaning, Obama’s concerns were over policy differences…

    The official word for Flynn’s sacking was his “leadership style“, and his coziness with Putin has been out there for a while.

    In 2013, while Flynn was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, he took a delegation to Moscow “to speak to a group of officers from the G.R.U., Russia’s intelligence agency, about leadership development.” Although the C.I.A.’s chief of Russia operations at the time voiced concerns and skepticism about this controversial trip, Flynn told The Washington Post that he had a “great trip,” even bragging about being “the first U.S. officer ever allowed inside the headquarters of the G.R.U.” Flynn tried to go back for a second trip and invited G.R.U. officers to come to the U.S., but “permission was denied.”
    In February 2014, six months before the Obama administration fired Flynn, he traveled to Cambridge University as the head of D.I.A. to speak at the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, an organization that last year was hit with allegations of being open to “unacceptable Russian influence,” leading a group of intelligence experts—including the former head of MI-6—to cut ties with the group. He also met with a Russian-British national Svetlana Lokhova and he subsequently remained in email contact with Lokhova, an “expert on Soviet intelligence in the 1930s.” The Wall Street Journal reported that, according to U.S. intelligence rules, Flynn should have disclosed his interactions with Lokhova, but he failed to do so. (As the Guardian has reported, “there is no suggestion that Lokhova has ever worked with or for any of the Russian intelligence agencies.”)
    These events did not escape the notice of the U.S. intelligence community, which increasingly grew wary of Flynn’s foreign contacts. The Guardian reported that “multiple sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the C.I.A. and F.B.I. were discussing this episode, along with many others, as they assessed Flynn’s suitability to serve as national security adviser.” Flynn was reportedly bitter and angry when he was eventually pushed out of the D.I.A. in August 2014. He subsequently became a contributor to RT, where he “often [argued] that the U.S. and Russia should be working more closely together on issues like fighting ISIL and ending Syria’s civil war.”

    I suppose that partially explains Flynn sitting at the same table with Putin in 2015; he actually contributed his work to Russia Today, Putin’s Kremlin-controlled propaganda machine.

    Paul Montagu (b3f51b)

  129. And while we continually focus on Orange Man Bad we have Biden showing how moderate he is by putting crazy niece AOC in charge of environmental issues.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/12/politics/ocasio-cortez-biden-campaign-task-force-climate-change/index.html

    NJRob (4d595c)

  130. Help us, General Paresis, you are our only hope!

    nk (1d9030)

  131. What’s the evidence that Flynn and the “TRump campaign” were wiretapped? I

    Incredible. What evidence is there that Flynn lied?

    rcocean (2e1c02)

  132. That’s troll 101 “Where’s the evidence?” – I dunno. Maybe you should pay attention.

    rcocean (2e1c02)

  133. Hillary was pretty cozy with Putin, with that reset button. Maybe she’s a Russian asset. Eh comrade?

    rcocean (2e1c02)

  134. As for why The Bulwark and The Dispatch did not write about this when everyone else did in May 2017

    Nobody said THE BULWARK and THE DISPATCH wrote about it May 2017. But thanks for informing us. What else didn’t they write about? I’m curious.

    rcocean (2e1c02)

  135. Incredible. What evidence is there that Flynn lied?

    By his own admission, under oath, to a federal judge. Now answer my question.

    Paul Montagu (b3f51b)

  136. 129… looks like someone took Obama’s promise to Putin to “be more flexible after the 2012 election” to heart…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  137. Bias does that. Those of us who don’t trust Obama or Trump are more likely to be impartial.

    “Impartial” means we continue to take our pound of flesh from Flynn, and blow off that felony committed by a “senior” Obama official with the leak.

    beer ‘n pretzels (7bc17b)

  138. “that the U.S. and Russia should be working more closely together on issues like fighting ISIL and ending Syria’s civil war.”

    They should have. Flynn was right about that, just as he was right about China. And instead, our extremely smart leaders in State and CIA took the ‘kill Kaddafi and set off the massive European refugee crisis’, which not only gave us Trump but the meteoric rise of Erdrogan and other strongmen across the region. And led to Trump having to spend much of his first years dealing with ISIS without too much meaningful help from either Russia or the Democrats.

    The CIA hated and feared him, but then again the CIA never got any American inside the GRU. This isn’t A FOUL SCUMBAG TRAITOR THAT SOMEHOW NO ONE CAN GET ANYTHING BUT A PROCESS CRIME ON, this is a high-performing rival for the CIA’s turf that they wanted squashed by any mean’s necessary. But the DIA’s star shines regardless, while the CIA’s wanes.

    To be anti-Flynn is to be pro-Bureaucrat and Anti-American, to be an apologist for the appalling work of CIA and State during the Obama years from Belarus to Benghazi, and to whitewash their failures by appeal to an anti-Russian attitude that no Democrat in Washington has pretended to since 1989.

    Blippy Griller (aa07d1)

  139. 138. Who would that be?

    Have they entered a guilty plea on the record in open court and under oath?

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  140. “Is it that Kislyak is the Russian Ambassador?”

    That’s true.

    “Is it that Russia is the enemy of the United States?”

    That’s not actually true, given that we haven’t actually declared any war with them.
    Noted, you do not think Russia is an enemy, or you are just parsing that since we haven’t declared war they are not, so neither is China, or Cuba, or Venezuala, or the USSR…

    “Is it that Flynn sold out his country to Russia?”

    Not true.
    Really, was he not getting paid by Russia? What was Russia paying him for?

    “Is it that Flynn sold out his country to Turkey?”

    Not true.
    Really, was he not getting paid by Turkey, $600k while in the Trump Transition team to influence US Policy? What was Turkey paying him for then?

    “Is it that the intelligence agencies monitory enemy communications?”

    They monitor all communications from foreign countries, of which part of the job of the NSA is communicating with.
    The NSA does not monitor ALL communications from foreign countries, it does monitor specific people from foreign countries, people like Kislyak.

    “Is it that an American was caught on said communication?”

    The American was doing his foreign policy job, which those who unmasked him were most emphatically not.
    Really, he had no foreign policy job, he’d been fired from his tangentially related post previously. The IC was monitoring Kislyak, and an American was making policy promises to him. They knew this because they were listening. So you cannot use an excuse that he was doing a job, when he explicitly couldn’t have been doing that, and I would find it odd that the IC wouldn’t to know who the American was on the phone making promises to Kislyak. Flynn could have also disclosed, but he chose a different route. You know this of course, so you’re just lying for effect.

    “Is it that government officials wanted to know who said American was?”

    They had no need to know as part of their job. If they had independently came to the conclusion at different times that they needed to know in the course of their work, and individually asked to unmask Flynn on their own, then perhaps I could believe this wasn’t a political op.

    They believed otherwise, people from DOE, the CIA, the FBI, State, all would absolutely want to know about an American making promises to a regime we’d just sanctioned. Or did you forget the course of events? Or maybe it’s just willful ignorance instead of lying.

    But when every single member of the outgoing team all requests to do it at once, immediately after the election, very obviously in order to make it much more difficult to find out who leaked his name to the media, then no, there’s no ‘grave concern’ here, this is 100% a coordinated, collusive political op.

    You must be able to read at some level, and understand a calendar, and you understand that magic and time travel don’t exist, right? You can only ask to know about an event, after the event occurs. There was also the direct warnings that this caused specifically to the Trump transition team

    “Is it that said American lied about it, over and over again?”

    No one had gotten the sense that he was actually lying, the evidence for ‘was pressured into it under threat of constant legal battels and fees’ is too numerous to discount.

    They had the transcript, he claimed he said X happened, Y happened, that is called lying. I can’t even comprehend how you get to your conclusion, it’s inconceivable, they had the transcript.

    “Is it that said American plead guilty to lying about it over and over again, as well as admitted to the $600k payoff with Turkey, and ratted on his partners to get them busted (but not his son, so he’s a good dad)?”

    Never heard of this, and Flynn was never convicted of any bribes or payoffs, so I assume you’re just lying or exaggerating for effect. As attornerds do when they think they can get away with it.

    Nope, you need to educate yourself, if you don’t know what actually happened, he plead guilty in count 5 to this in his proffer. Also, this isn’t new news. So, you are either lazy, or lying. Based on what you typically post, both are probably true.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  141. No Nomad, to be pro-Flynn is to be pro scumbag, pro-traitor, pro-Russia, anti-American. Flynn was, and is, a scumbag, willing to sell out his country for a buck, or a few hundred thousand of then.

    The CIA hated and feared him, but then again the CIA never got any American inside the GRU. This isn’t A FOUL SCUMBAG TRAITOR THAT SOMEHOW NO ONE CAN GET ANYTHING BUT A PROCESS CRIME ON, this is a high-performing rival for the CIA’s turf that they wanted squashed by any mean’s necessary. But the DIA’s star shines regardless, while the CIA’s wanes.

    To be anti-Flynn is to be pro-Bureaucrat and Anti-American, to be an apologist for the appalling work of CIA and State during the Obama years from Belarus to Benghazi, and to whitewash their failures by appeal to an anti-Russian attitude that no Democrat in Washington has pretended to since 1989.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  142. Thank you for stating the Russian position so succinctly, Blippy Griller.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  143. I personally think the US has several adversaries around the world. I can’t recall a time when we didn’t.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  144. “By his own admission, under oath, to a federal judge.”

    Confession under very obvious duress, under advisement, from his lawyer.

    And federal judges do not get privilege over foreign policy communications, otherwise all some bad actor foreign or domestic has to do is bribe one for a direct line into our own secrets. Which is almost as bad as letting unelected domestic intelligence agencies run their own turf wars and personnel restrictions over and above the elected President.

    Blippy Griller (5d32e7)

  145. Confession under very obvious duress, under advisement, from his lawyer.

    Well, that’s nuts. Simply put.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  146. Isn’t the issue the leaking combined with the unmasking?

    Ashley (891f91)

  147. @146

    Confession under very obvious duress, under advisement, from his lawyer.

    Well, that’s nuts. Simply put.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 5/15/2020 @ 11:14 am

    Well…

    a) defense had a motion to withdraw the plea (but rescinded it due to DOJ’s dismissal motion)
    b) very obviously hitting him and his family hard financially
    c) his original lawyers had an ‘unwaivable conflict of interest’ being that they have motive for Flynn’s FARA violation to go away
    d) there’s stronger than circumstantial evidence that Flynn’s son was targeted by Mueller and shortly seeing reports of that in the media, Flynn took the plea.

    So, simply put, I don’t think it’s nuts at all.

    whembly (c30c83)

  148. Golly, it’s almost like T-rump purposely picked Flynn after being warned as openly as Obama could that Flynn was unfit (i.e., a lying POS).

    I gotta say, this one really is the Big O. He should have understood who he was dealing with.

    The way to torpedo Flynn was to gush over what a great choice he was.

    How, yes, the two of them had occasional disagreements but saw eye-to-eye on all the important questions.

    He could have mentioned that Flynn represented an element of continuity between their administrations, and that he expected people would credit him (i.e. Obama) for appointing Flynn to his first high-level post as head the DIA.

    And finally, what a relief it was that Trump hadn’t picked <insert names of plausible candidates who weren’t Russian stooges> instead.

    Dave (1bb933)

  149. “Noted, you do not think Russia is an enemy, or you are just parsing that since we haven’t declared war they are not, so neither is China, or Cuba, or Venezuala, or the USSR…”

    Those last 4 are all COMMUNISTS, who very much were and usually are enemies of the US. Russia is not. Would it be possible for you to maybe LARP in the current year’s geopolitical calculations rather than 50 years ago?

    Currently, they’re an obstinate and difficult rival power in the region where we’re involved. They are nowhere near the worst, and much as in World War 2, an alliance of expedience is highly warranted against much more dangerous rivals and actual enemies, especially since there’s no Stalin in the offering.

    “Really, was he not getting paid by Russia? What was Russia paying him for?”

    Show me the charges, liar.

    “Really, was he not getting paid by Turkey, $600k while in the Trump Transition team to influence US Policy? What was Turkey paying him for then?”

    Show me the charges, liar. If it was significant, corrupt, and traitorous, it would have been brought to court by your brigade of lawyers already.

    “The NSA does not monitor ALL communications from foreign countries”

    The NSA can neither confirm or deny that it monitors incoming communications on a regular basis. To speak on this subject when you have no knoweledge or James Clapper-level assurances is folly.

    “Really, he had no foreign policy job…”

    Yes, he did. There were no names, descriptions, dollar amounts, contextual examples. or criminal charges outlined in that word salad of accusations you just tossed.

    “They believed otherwise, people from DOE, the CIA, the FBI, State, all would absolutely want to know about an American making promises to a regime we’d just sanctioned.”

    State the specific promises made or stop posting.

    “You can only ask to know about an event, after the event occurs. There was also the direct warnings that this caused specifically to the Trump transition team”

    The warnings were as vague and non-actionable as the rest of your post. As expected when you try to let lawyers run things.

    “They had the transcript, he claimed he said X happened, Y happened, that is called lying. I can’t even comprehend how you get to your conclusion, it’s inconceivable, they had the transcript.”

    Anyone can misremember, anyone can get the order of events wrong, anyone can get the phrasing of events wrong, especially when they have a job that involves talking to lots of people every day, the events happened months ago, and the specific event was not specifically a focus of the conversation.

    “Nope, you need to educate yourself”

    The man who has the energy to throw vague accusations has the energy to reiterate specifics if he’s so interested in the events in question. I have offered very specific reasons I think Flynn is good and the ‘Intelligence Community’ of a Democrat-controlled administration is and has been useless at best, actively harmful to US interests at worst. You have offered nothing but legal algebra and platitudes to principles that haven’t been applied since the end of the Cold WAR. And it was such lawyers that enabled things like selling most of the US Uranium supply to a Russian firm.

    This rubber-banding of concern over foreign influence is suspicious and off-putting, much like the Chinese Communists that Flynn wanted to focus on making constant noise about how the US couldn’t accuse China if they didn’t specifically have patient zero. Those who traffick in it are either losers or liars, or both.

    Blippy Griller (e728c8)

  150. #105. And democrats have never done things like this of course.

    1DaveMac (4cc9b4)

  151. Patterico – You set this up as a strawman argument, not even considering what a concerned citizen might be concerned about. I my case, it’s obstructionism of a legitimately elected administration. I was concerned enough about it to entertain the possibility that Mr. Trump might be obstructing justice and giving the Mueller investigation due respect.

    But for now, let’s not go down that rat hole. Please try for just a moment to not just pay lip service to our argument, but rather, make it to our satisfaction. Then as us, to explain any logical disconnects.

    If you can’t afford us such respect, how the hell can you expect us to listen (well) to you?

    respectful (7c9e1d)

  152. @37:

    Aaaaaand, there’s the rub. By my count, DNI Grenell’s document drop showed there were 39 different people who requested to unmask Flynn, practically twice the number of people authorized to do so…square THAT circle….now it’s possible those on the list who weren’t authorized were denied, but why were they even asking???

    You’re not paying attention. He was saying that there were 20 people within the NSA authorized to request unmasking. There are scores of people across government. Everyone who has clearance/need to know about a particular matter.

    There is nothing wrong, suspicious, or criminal about submitting a request to unmask. Of course, leaking classified information would indeed be criminal, but there’s nothing in that list suggested that.

    And again, Trumpkins misunderstand. Nobody requested to unmask Flynn. You can’t request to unmask a specific person. You see a document and you request to unmask “US Person 1″ in that document. Then (if you have appropriate need-to-know) they tell you who it is. It might be Flynn, it might be Jeff Bezos, it might be Dennis Rodman having a conversation with his buddy Kim Jung Un. You don’t know when you submit the request.

    David Nieporent (9c8c00)

  153. Shoot – This should have been proof read before submitting! Here’s what I meant to say:

    ..Patterico – You set this up as a strawman argument, not even considering what a good citizen might be concerned about. In my case, it’s the obstruction of a legitimately elected administration. I was concerned enough about it to entertain the possibility that Mr. Trump might be a traiter and that he may be obstructing justice. I.e., ..giving the Mueller investigation due respect.

    But for now, let’s not go down that rat hole. Please try for just a moment to not just pay lip service to our concern, but rather, help us voice our concern to our satisfaction. Then as an ally, explain any logical disconnects.

    If you can’t afford us such respect, how the hell can you expect us to listen (well) to you? You will just continue to be more noise than signal.

    respectful (7c9e1d)

  154. Nobody has ever explained by S. Powers the UN Ambassador with NO REASON TO KNOW, was unmasking Flynn and others in the TRump campaign. And you have to wonder why she lied under oath that she didn’t do it.

    1) As explained, she wasn’t “unmasking Flynn.” (Nor do I know what “others in the Trump campaign” you mean.)
    2) She did of course have a reason to know, because in addition to being UN Ambassador, she was on the National Security Council.
    3) She didn’t lie under oath that she didn’t do it.

    David Nieporent (9c8c00)

  155. If this unmasking is commonplace – thousands monthly – and there was nothing amiss with its application by the Obama cabinet members, FBI and IC leadership, then why are the lefties and other disgruntled folks around here losing their schiff in such dramatic fashion?

    They must have faith that they will be proven right and not part of the lunatic fringe.

    So many requests made before the call with the Russian ambassador, which we’re advised makes perfect sense, as Flynn was trying to broker nuclear deals and was, at that exact time, holding the world hostage for $1B ransom.

    Which sounds fairly serious… and yet no charges filed.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  156. People like Kristol, French and Jonah goldberg can play dumb, but the whole point of wiretapping Flynn, the TRump campaign, etc.

    Neither Flynn nor the Trump campaign were wiretapped. I suppose “etc.” was, for some value of “etc.”

    David Nieporent (9c8c00)

  157. Our IC – which hasn’t been on top of or anticipated much of anything but their next paycheck in years – is at least with it enough to tell the truth when under oath, and not repeat the lies they’ve been telling the American people for over three years.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  158. whembly, your “c” is incomprehensible.

    a, b, and d are just rehashing argument. a is a simple statement of history. b is your opinion.
    d is rumor.

    Flynn was never Toyota Jamail, 23 yo street runner up in court who had no money for a decent lawyer, limited sophistication, and no back-up. He’s a retired Lt. Gen., and was nippled up in the highest levels of two POTUS administrations. He was the head of an international consulting company.

    His defense costs could be quite minimal, and you don’t know what they have been. Fer sure, they would have been quite modest if he’d stepped up out of the box.

    His kid would have been off any heat if Flynn had insisted on a trial and won…or even lost. UNLESS kid is good for some charges standing alone. Call the blackmailer’s bluff!

    One of the stupidest things I’ve seen written about this mess is that Flynn’s lawyers told him a guilty plea was his only way out. No competent attorney would tell ANY CLIENT that. We give clients all the options we can see, and we advise them of our valuation of their risks and benefits of each.

    Flynn had choices and he made one. Either he lied, or he lied.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  159. She didn’t lie under oath that she didn’t do it.

    LOL. What inspires such confidence?

    If she, as well as others, didn’t lie under oath in their denial then the list of “senior” Obama admin suspects gets quite small.

    Also small is the list of Trump critics who want to find out and prosecute Flynn-style.

    beer ‘n pretzels (7bc17b)

  160. Keep it up, whembly, he’s on the verge of getting his first clue…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  161. Confession under very obvious duress, under advisement, from his lawyer.

    Either this is trivial or wrong. It’s trivial, in that pretty much every guilty plea involves duress. Normal people do not wake up one morning and say, “Hey, it’s cloudy out; I think I’ll go plead guilty to a crime.” They plead guilty when they’re arrested and the prosecutor says, “You’re charged with X, Y, and Z, and are facing 30 years in prison. But if you plead guilty to X and Y, I’ll let Z slide, and you’ll only face 5 years in prison.” That’s pretty hefty duress, but it applies to 90+% of criminal defendants.

    To the extent it refers to anything else, there’s no evidence for it at all. I mean, yes, Flynn belatedly claimed that his son was threatened with prosecution. Does anyone else back it up? (And of course Flynn said, and then reiterated, under oath that this wasn’t true.) And if his guilty plea was to protect his son, then he’s a pretty crappy father for trying to withdraw his guilty plea and expose his son to prosecution.

    David Nieporent (9c8c00)

  162. There’s hope on the way, NeverTrumpGumps…

    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1261021660318179328

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  163. ….and not repeat the lies they’ve been telling the American people for over three years.

    Which puts them light years ahead of your man-crush…!!!

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  164. 132. What’s the evidence that Flynn and the “TRump campaign” were wiretapped?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html

    But the story doesn’t really say that.

    See also:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_wiretapping_allegations

    https://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/revisiting-trumps-wiretap-tweets

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  165. To be anti-Flynn is to be pro-Bureaucrat and Anti-American…

    Um, no. I say it’s anti-American to take a six-figure paycheck from a foreign government while working for a presidential candidate and president-elect. It’s anti-American to celebrate a hostile-to-America propaganda operation while sitting at the table of the person in charge of that hostile-to-America propaganda operation.

    Paul Montagu (b3f51b)

  166. If this was all routine for Biden, that would mean he regularly submitted unmasking requests. So can we get a count of how many times Biden submitted unmasking requests in 2016? That could address the concerns of a fair minded person. And while they are it, could they provide the same for Obama’s Chief of Staff, McDonough?

    Tony Lynch (64ada1)

  167. When Obama advised Trump just after the election that he shouldn’t appoint Mike Flynn as National Security Adviser, Trump hadn’t yet made that appointment, although Flynn was serving as National Security Adviser to the campaign, and t ws generally understood that Trump intended to continue him in that position for the government,

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  168. #159: “One of the stupidest things I’ve seen written about this mess is that Flynn’s lawyers told him a guilty plea was his only way out. No competent attorney would tell ANY CLIENT that. We give clients all the options we can see, and we advise them of our valuation of their risks and benefits of each.”

    I thought you made a very good point in the quoted passage (although am generally on the opposite side of these arguments from you in that I think the case should be dismissed) but am wondering what you make of the report that Judge Sullivan has also ordered that Flynn’s former counsel, Covington & Burling, be added as a party to the case at least with respect to the motion to dismiss. The signs from Judge Sullivan this week have all pointed toward the likelihood that he’s very displeased with Flynn and with the DOJ’s motion to dismiss. But I don’t understand why the judge would require Flynn’s former counsel to enter an appearance now. Is it possible that the judge is at least open to the ineffective assistance of counsel argument that Flynn’s current counsel has raised and may lay the blame for this messy situation on C&B and not on the DOJ? Or is that just reading something into the judge’s order that isn’t there?

    RL formerly in Glendale (40f5aa)

  169. @159

    whembly, your “c” is incomprehensible.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 5/15/2020 @ 11:50 am

    https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.160.2_2.pdf
    Start on page 10 please.

    I want to highlight this part:

    It was not until Sunday afternoon, November 19, 2017, at 1:13 p.m., when Mr. Flynn was
    at his lowest, that Covington partner Anthony finally sent Mr. Flynn with a written request for
    consent to a “potential” conflict of interest that would have taken an ethics expert to comprehend.

    Astonishingly, that email referenced and relied on the wrong ethics rules. Ex. 28. Mr. Flynn did
    not even read and reply to the email until noon the following day—an hour before his third day of
    proffers.

    He had been told that his freedom and his son’s freedom hung in the balance based on how
    these time-critical proffers went, and he would likely be indicted in days if the proffers “didn’t go
    well”—which meant to SCO’s satisfaction.
    The timing of Covington’s “notice” letter was only to
    Covington’s advantage and Mr. Flynn’s complete disadvantage. He had been strongly encouraged
    by his self-interested counsel through the worst two days and increased his “exposure.”

    Secretlyconflicted Covington counsel did him an irreparable disservice, while completely protecting itself.

    And then they did not even bother making their disclosure in person, so he could ask questions
    and discuss with them any concerns, nor did they advise him that he should or must consult
    independent counsel before making a decision, since their advice on the matter was, well,
    conflicted.

    After replying to Anthony’s email and expressing his uninformed but profound trust for
    his lawyers, Mr. Flynn proceeded through three more days of “proffers” with the SCO on FARA
    and tangential issues through November 29, 2017. The exchange of documents for a guilty plea
    began on November 27, 2017.

    Of note, pretty damning:

    On November 30, 2017, the day before Mr. Flynn’s plea, the SCO has said it disclosed to
    Covington that “one of the agents who interviewed Mr. Flynn was being investigated by the DOJ
    Inspector General” and had electronic communications that “showed a preference for one of the
    candidates for President.”22 The SCO also said it disclosed that the agents said Mr. Flynn had a
    “sure demeanor,” and “did not give any indicators of deception” and that the agents “had the
    impression at the time that Mr. Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying.” But, Kelner
    and Anthony did not transmit this important information from the SCO to Mr. Flynn.


    Mr. Flynn even specifically instructed Anthony and Kelner to call SCO immediately and
    ask if the agents believed that he lied. Ex. 21. However, when Kelner and Anthony returned to
    the room where Mr. Flynn was about to sign the plea agreement, they did not inform the Flynns
    that Van Grack said, “both agents said ‘they saw no indication of deception,’” he had “a sure
    demeanor,” and they “did not believe he was lying or he did not believe he was lying.” Ex.21.
    Rather, they said “the agents stood by their statement.” Not only had Mr. Flynn neither been
    properly informed nor properly consented (if such were even possible) to the pernicious conflict
    of interest impairing his lawyers, but he also signed the plea without being fully informed of or
    understanding the government’s eleventh-hour disclosure. Ex. 21. The SCO rushed them into
    court the next morning for Judge Contreras to accept Mr. Flynn’s plea

    Read the whole thing please. Its things like these is where I was coming from…

    whembly (c30c83)

  170. But the story doesn’t really say that.

    Sammy, the point is that rcocean made sh*t up about the US government wiretapping the Flynn and Trump campaign. Kislyak was the target of the tap, not Flynn. The knowledge that Flynn was a party to the call was after the fact, hence the “unmasking”. Page was tapped, but that occurred subsequent to his employment in the Trump campaign. Manafort was tapped, but not the campaign that employed him for four or five months, and we don’t know the timing of when Manafort was tapped.

    Paul Montagu (b3f51b)

  171. My understand is that C&B have asked to make an appearance. Dunno fer sure.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  172. whembly, that clears up your allusion nicely.

    It ALSO clears up some ethics issues we were discussing today.

    Flynn has blown up ANY attorney-client privilege he might ever have dreamed of enjoying!

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  173. #172. Or maybe the quote in #170 from Flynn’s motion provides the answer, i.e., all it means for now is since the allegations about C&B’s conduct have been made, they should be a party and have an opportunity to respond.

    Agree with you that it’s become an interesting case. Although it’s also a messy one, and one that underscores how in a broad, non-Trumpian sense, what a swamp DC has become. Or maybe it’s always been that way, didn’t Truman say that if you want a friend in Washington, buy a dog?

    RL formerly in Glendale (40f5aa)

  174. @174

    whembly, that clears up your allusion nicely.

    It ALSO clears up some ethics issues we were discussing today.

    Flynn has blown up ANY attorney-client privilege he might ever have dreamed of enjoying!

    Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 5/15/2020 @ 12:29 pm

    Oh absolutely. Because claiming ineffective counsel by his first attorneys,by necessity he waives his attorney-client privileges.

    whembly (c30c83)

  175. Paul Montagu (b3f51b) — 5/15/2020 @ 12:18 pm

    Sammy, the point is that rcocean made sh*t up about the US government wiretapping the Flynn and Trump campaign. Kislyak was the target of the tap, not Flynn. The knowledge that Flynn was a party to the call was after the fact, hence the “unmasking”.

    A large number of people seem to be getting things confused, and this can only be the result of a deliberate campaign to confuse them.

    Even Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/about-that-fbi-source-1525992611

    Obama political appointees rampantly “unmasked” Trump campaign officials to monitor their conversations, while the FBI played dirty with its surveillance warrant against Carter Page, failing to tell the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that its supporting information came from the Hillary Clinton campaign.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/barr-vs-the-beltway-11589498654

    The list of Obama partisans who “unmasked” Mr. Flynn—snooping on his phone conversations—include Vice President Joe Biden, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew. The dates suggest the administration was listening in on Mr. Flynn from the start.

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  176. Unmaskng does not mean and cannot mean what a lot of people are thinking it does, (probably I would guess, because they are recipeints f emails that use the wrong meaning of unmasking in an argument)

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-unmasking-q-a-11589481210

    …“Unmasking” is a term used when the identity of a U.S. citizen, lawful resident or corporate entity is revealed in classified intelligence reports typically produced by the National Security Agency….

    …When incidental collection occurs, the names of the Americans are usually blacked out. To learn the identity of an American in such an intercept, officials must request that the name be unmasked.

    One of the more common forms of unmasking is when a recipient of an intelligence report, like a senior White House national-security official or a military commander, asks for an “identity release” of an unidentified person in a report that has already crossed the official’s desk as part of the normal traffic of intelligence products….

    …Unmasking requests must include a justification, and the NSA can either reject a request or ask for more clarity if the reasoning is seen as insufficient. Former intelligence officials said the justifications are typically cursory and rarely turned down.

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  177. Because claiming ineffective counsel by his first attorneys,by necessity he waives his attorney-client privileges.

    Oh, NO! This goes WAY beyond “ineffective assistance”. This is hard-core malpractice of the darkest water, if true.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  178. People have defenses to propaganda, but their guard is not up so much, when the faulty propaganda point is not put forth in its own right, but as a supporting fact or argument, for something other propaganda point.

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  179. Let’s see, you didn’t know what proffer 5 was in Flynn’s guilty plea. You don’t understanding what an adversary is. You didn’t know that Flynn was being paid by Russia. You don’t know that Flynn took more than half a mill to lobby for Turkey for the US to turn over Gulen. You seem to think the NSA monitors all communication external to the US. You seem to think Flynn had a foreign policy job. etc, etc.

    You are either very stupid; quite likely, uninformed; probably, or lying, because every point you brought up was wrong.

    TL:DR Steppe Nomad is a very stupid liar. Oh, what’s your handle today?

    “Noted, you do not think Russia is an enemy, or you are just parsing that since we haven’t declared war they are not, so neither is China, or Cuba, or Venezuala, or the USSR…”

    Those last 4 are all COMMUNISTS, who very much were and usually are enemies of the US. Russia is not. Would it be possible for you to maybe LARP in the current year’s geopolitical calculations rather than 50 years ago?

    Currently, they’re an obstinate and difficult rival power in the region where we’re involved. They are nowhere near the worst, and much as in World War 2, an alliance of expedience is highly warranted against much more dangerous rivals and actual enemies, especially since there’s no Stalin in the offering.

    “Really, was he not getting paid by Russia? What was Russia paying him for?”

    Show me the charges, liar.

    “Really, was he not getting paid by Turkey, $600k while in the Trump Transition team to influence US Policy? What was Turkey paying him for then?”

    Show me the charges, liar. If it was significant, corrupt, and traitorous, it would have been brought to court by your brigade of lawyers already.

    “The NSA does not monitor ALL communications from foreign countries”

    The NSA can neither confirm or deny that it monitors incoming communications on a regular basis. To speak on this subject when you have no knoweledge or James Clapper-level assurances is folly.

    “Really, he had no foreign policy job…”

    Yes, he did. There were no names, descriptions, dollar amounts, contextual examples. or criminal charges outlined in that word salad of accusations you just tossed.

    “They believed otherwise, people from DOE, the CIA, the FBI, State, all would absolutely want to know about an American making promises to a regime we’d just sanctioned.”

    State the specific promises made or stop posting.

    “You can only ask to know about an event, after the event occurs. There was also the direct warnings that this caused specifically to the Trump transition team”

    The warnings were as vague and non-actionable as the rest of your post. As expected when you try to let lawyers run things.

    “They had the transcript, he claimed he said X happened, Y happened, that is called lying. I can’t even comprehend how you get to your conclusion, it’s inconceivable, they had the transcript.”

    Anyone can misremember, anyone can get the order of events wrong, anyone can get the phrasing of events wrong, especially when they have a job that involves talking to lots of people every day, the events happened months ago, and the specific event was not specifically a focus of the conversation.

    “Nope, you need to educate yourself”

    The man who has the energy to throw vague accusations has the energy to reiterate specifics if he’s so interested in the events in question. I have offered very specific reasons I think Flynn is good and the ‘Intelligence Community’ of a Democrat-controlled administration is and has been useless at best, actively harmful to US interests at worst. You have offered nothing but legal algebra and platitudes to principles that haven’t been applied since the end of the Cold WAR. And it was such lawyers that enabled things like selling most of the US Uranium supply to a Russian firm.

    This rubber-banding of concern over foreign influence is suspicious and off-putting, much like the Chinese Communists that Flynn wanted to focus on making constant noise about how the US couldn’t accuse China if they didn’t specifically have patient zero. Those who traffick in it are either losers or liars, or both.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  180. Complete transparency! Let’s see the transcripts of all of Flynn’s calls they have recorded.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  181. Complete transparency! Let’s see the transcripts of all of Flynn’s calls they have recorded.

    Well, Obama will never let that, oh wait, he’s not been president for 3 and a half years? Huh, who’s running the government, who has unlimited power to declassify things? Maybe there’s a reason why you haven’t read it.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  182. Oh, it’s an unusual request, Colonel Karen, but a logical one.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  183. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/michael-flynn-general-chaos

    Flynn began developing a public profile as a decorated former general with experience in fighting Islamic extremism. A month later, he made an appearance on “Charlie Rose.” He spoke at length about the threat posed by the Islamic State, which had been executing hostages and rapidly acquiring territory in northern Iraq and Syria. But America faced bigger foes than isis, he said. “Iran has killed more Americans than Al Qaeda has through state sponsors, through its terrorist network, called Hezbollah.”

    This was a puzzling assertion. “Hezbollah has killed more Americans than Al Qaeda?” Rose asked.

    Flynn began a count, starting with Hezbollah’s 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed two hundred and eighty-three people. He cited other instances, but his math made little sense, and the numbers fell far short of the nearly three thousand killed by Al Qaeda’s attacks on 9/11.

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  184. “Let’s see, you didn’t know what proffer 5 was in Flynn’s guilty plea.”

    People who use guild-specific jargon like ‘proffer’ usually aren’t worth talking to.

    “You don’t understanding what an adversary is.”

    I do, and I’m not in the habit of using the word ‘enemy’ when the word ‘treason’ is being thrown around, given that it requires ‘granting Aid and Comfort to the ENEMIES of the United states’. I’m sure that a Vocabulary Man like you does, which means using it means you intended to be dishonest, rather than just not knowing. Thanks for that.

    “You didn’t know that Flynn was being paid by Russia.”

    You didn’t offer evidence that would hold up in court for it.

    “You don’t know that Flynn took more than half a mill to lobby for Turkey for the US to turn over Gulen.”

    So he did. Who is Gulen that we Americans should care more about him than our relationship to the leader of a country whose people actually approve of him by larger margins than either Trump or Obama? What have we gotten out of him other than preening from the ‘making the world safe for democracy‘ types and a 25 billion dollar charter school scam?

    The CIA’s Gulen plan failed even without Flynn’s involvement, if you’ll recall. Flynn was simply making the pragmatic and cost-effective choice, and they didn’t want to admit it.

    “You seem to think the NSA monitors all communication external to the US.”

    You seem to think you can trust what the NSA describes about its capabilities and intentions.

    “You seem to think Flynn had a foreign policy job. etc, etc.”

    Anyone who served in the US military during the time of the Iraq war already knew that State, CIA, and the rest of the military tended to cross over into each other’s territory on a regular basis, which Benghazi merely demonstrated to the world for all to see. Imagining that title determines role is the first mistake of neophytes.

    But if you’re not a neophyte, then maintaining that position means you’re simply a liar.

    Blippy Griller (32e564)

  185. People who use guild-specific jargon like ‘proffer’ usually aren’t worth talking to.

    Hah, you don’t like words, noted, is it because it’s English? Because you had to look it up, it’s a plain English word?

    Nomad, I see you’re doing your typical “look over here…squirrel” bit. You didn’t know many things. When presented with the things you don’t know, you argue a different point.

    So, you’re either stupid, you’re lazy, or you’re a liar, can be all three. It’s your deal. Now, tomorrow when you choose a new moniker, you’ll do the same thing. Lie, and lie some more, it’s what liars do.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  186. Liars gotta lie, he can hang out with Colonial Haiku.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  187. Badge of honor coming from you, buddy… thanks!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  188. Perhaps it should be Fox Pontifications and Patterico News. I come to this site for the truth.

    Just glanced at FoxNews headlines on this subject. “Clown show” is right.

    noel (4d3313)

  189. OT, but worth a look…

    https://twitter.com/JazzyLM/status/1261184816021516289

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  190. @188, You must not have been a colonial in a military service with a code of conduct around lying.

    Colonel Haihu,
    You said this:

    So… per the Crowdstrike CEO when under oath, no evidence ever found that the Ruuskies hacked the DNC.
    Nada.
    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/13/2020 @ 5:16 pm

    It’s been point out that what was actually said is:

    MR. HENRY: So there is circumstantial evidence that it was taken.
    MR. STEWART OF UTAH: l understand, but not conclusive.
    MR. HENRY: We didn’t watch it happen. There’s not a network sensor that actually saw traffic actually leaving, but there’s circumstantial evidence that it happened.

    CH, are you going to admit your initial claim isn’t what he said or will you continue to lie?

    That’s just one spot, he lays out a lot of evidence in other parts of his testimony, nut you don’t care because you’re a liar.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  191. *colonel

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  192. I have herd the claim made (by Rush Limbaugh among others) that the DNC files cold not havve been downloaded via the Internet because there’s not enough thruput to do that. And the files must have been stolen locally – using a USB drive or something

    I can see two ways that can be a fallacy:

    1) People making this estimate are not allocating enough time to the downloading. The DNC computers were penetrated for months.

    2) Not every file they had access to was downloaded. They looked around.

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  193. People who use guild-specific jargon like ‘proffer’ usually aren’t worth talking to.

    Then, anon, get thee hence, varlet! Forsooth and alack-a-day!

    Actually “proffer” is just good ol’ English. I just means “offer”.

    Who is Gulen that we Americans should care more about him than our relationship to the leader of a country whose people actually approve of him by larger margins than either Trump or Obama?

    You mean the survivors, right? But great, big straw man! The question on the table was about Flynn’s corruption. It wasn’t about anyone’s approval of policy to Turkey.

    And, not that you’ll care, but WTFF are you here with a bunch of jargon-spewing lawyers, losing your nasty month here, there and everywhere? I don’t get the attraction unless you have a kink somewhere.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  194. Badge of honor coming from you, buddy… thanks!

    Said Haiku to his hero, Mike Flynn…!!!

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  195. Time123,

    Clowdstrike’s Mr. Henry was extremely evasive mz used weasel language when it came to his testimony on alleged Russian hacking and theft of material. Why you keep on harping on his vague remarks as conclusive evidence is beyond me.

    NJRob (139883)

  196. whembly (c30c83) — 5/15/2020 @ 12:17 pm

    That reads as much like a spy novel as a legal pleading.

    (That doesn’t mean what is said there is false. Just that the style is unusual, and makes me wonder who wrote it and whom they intended it to be read by.)

    Kishnevi (07ebcc)

  197. Just a little follow-up from a jargon spewer…

    What Flynn’s CURRENT attorneys are saying his FORMER attorneys did is deep, dark end-your-career type malpractice if true.

    Judge Sullivan will be looking veeeeeerrrryyy minutely (that means closely) at the claims and responses, and it will NOT be pretty for one side or the other (maybe both), but either the current claims are true or they’re not. I don’t see a lot of daylight for any middle ground (mixing my metaphors).

    Of course, Flynn does not have clean hands even reading his new lawyer’s account, since he slept the warning sent him on Sunday afternoon. But that’s a minor matter relative to the allegation of malpractice.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  198. Why you keep on harping on his vague remarks as conclusive evidence is beyond me.

    Yes. As with so much else. Like a reading of New Jersey statutes.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  199. Rob, from what I read he wasn’t evasive at all, but rather struggled with not revealing classified information. Can you point out what you felt he was trying to evade?

    Regardless, his testimony was that they had strong circumstantial evidence based on the methods used to infiltrate the DNC server that it was the Russian government. You’re right, this isn’t irrefutable proof. But it’s a lie to say he testified that there was no evidence.

    Time123 (457a1d)

  200. Clowdstrike’s Mr. Henry was extremely evasive mz used weasel language when it came to his testimony on alleged Russian hacking and theft of material. Why you keep on harping on his vague remarks as conclusive evidence is beyond me.

    First of all, he was unequivocal about what the evidence indicated:

    MR. HENRY: So we did – we did some forensic analysis in the environment. we deployed technology into the environment into the network software called Falcon that essentially looks at the processes that are running on different computers in the environment we also looked historically at the environment, using a different piece of software to look backwards at what was happening in the environment. And we saw activity that we believed was consistent with activity we’d seen previously and had associated with the Russian Government.

    MR. STEWART oF UTAH: And can you identify that as being — with a fair degree of confidence that it’s associated with the Russian Government?

    MR. HENRY: We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government. And our analysts that looked at it that had looked at these types of attacks before, many different types of attacks similar to this in different environments, certain tools that were used, certain methods by which they were moving in the environment, and looking at the types of data that was being targeted, that it was consistent with a nation-state adversary and associated with Russian intelligence.

    MR. STEWART OF UTAH: Okay. Are there other nation-states that could have — based on this evidence, that could have been the perpetrator?

    MR. HENRY: There are other nation-states that collect this type of intelligence for sure, but the — what we would call the tactics and techniques were consistent with what we’d seen associated with the Russian state.

    MR. STEWART OF UTAH: And so, because I’m not familiar with this, I’m trying to give it a little more context. You said high confidence or high degree of confidence. We use that phrase in the lc, as you know, and it means, you know, something, but it’s not, you know, absolute in its meaning.

    And so an analogy might be a fingerprint. you know, if you have a fingerprint and I know that that fingerprint’s a match — and I understand kind of because of my life and just being alive and knowing — that’s fairly accurate, a high degree of confidence.

    Is that the same level of confidence as a fingerprint, or is it something less than that, in your ability to define it as the Russian Government?

    MR. HENRY: There wasn’t a videotape of the Russians with their fingers on a keyboard, but the activities were consistent with what we’d seen previously, targeting other — the State Department, for example, the Joint Chiefs, other governments, western governments. And it was consistent with what we’d seen previously and associated with the Russian Government.

    Part of being a professional whose words are take seriously is that you have to measure your words. As he said, there was no video tape of Russians with their fingers on the keyboard. But short of that, everything else pointed to them and nothing pointed to anyone else.

    Second, Crowdstrike was not contracted to investigate the origin of the attack or identify the culprit. They were hired to clean up (“mitigate”) the intrusion, figure out what was compromised, restore security, and put in place safeguards to identify and prevent any subsequent attack. The FBI was investigating the origin of the attack, and Crowdstrike was giving them all the information they found.

    Third, the US law enforcement and intelligence community, using tools unavailable to a private contractor, is unequivocal about who the culprit was.

    Fourth, where are you going with this? Are you suggesting this was some kind of false flag operation, or a frame-up by the entire US intelligence and law enforcement community, implicating the poor, innocent Russians? We know they hacked into the system, we know they released the information they get through barely concealed cut-outs, and that they did so in a manner calculated to do the most harm to Trump’s opponent.

    The nonsense you’re pushing has about as much credibility as the 9/11 truthers’ theories about the CIA or the Israelis blowing up the World Trade Center.

    Dave (1bb933)

  201. Clowdstrike’s Mr. Henry was extremely evasive mz used weasel language when it came to his testimony on alleged Russian hacking and theft of material.

    What exactly is evasive about this?

    MR. HENRY: We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government. And our analysts that looked at it that had looked at these types of attacks before, many different types of attacks similar to this in different environments, certain tools that were used, certain methods by which they were moving in the environment, and looking at the types of data that was being targeted, that it was consistent with a nation-state adversary and associated with Russian intelligence.

    A “high degree of confidence” has meaning.
    The part where Mr. Henry was less certain about was about data exfiltration, which is being dishonestly conflated with hacking by pro-Trump hyperpartisans. They’re two different concepts, and our friend Haiku should recognize and acknowledge that.

    Paul Montagu (b3f51b)

  202. @203,

    On that

    MR.HENRY:Yes,sir. So that,again,staged for,which,l mean,there,s
    not — the analogy I used with Mr. Stewart earlier was we don’t have video of it
    happening, but there are indicators that it happened. There are times when we
    can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears
    it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it
    actually left.

    This seems the opposite of evasive. This seems like he’s taking pains to be very clear what he knows and how confident he is about it.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  203. Russian Collusion Truthers in a snit… film at Eleven…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  204. Walk away liar.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  205. Haiku,

    Russian collusion truthers are people who still deny that the collusion happened. Like with “Karen” you’re just repeating expressions you don’t understand, to personally attack people, instead of admitting you were mistaken.

    It’s not a ‘snit’ for Time to point out that your claim wasn’t correct. And he has shown your error clearly. Insulting him is emotional. Why does defending Trump make you so emotional?

    Dustin (22da4f)

  206. This seems the opposite of evasive. This seems like he’s taking pains to be very clear what he knows and how confident he is about it.

    Moreover, the FBI does have access to records of network traffic, and they established who did what when with great specificity. It’s clear from the level of detail that the FBI was able to reconstruct much of the network traffic including the exfiltration of data:

    28. To enable them to steal a large number of documents at once without detection, the Conspirators used a publicly available tool to gather and compress multiple documents on the DCCC and DNC networks. The Conspirators then used other GRU malware, known as “X-Tunnel,” to move the stolen documents outside the DCCC and DNC networks through encrypted channels.

    a. For example, on or about April 22, 2016, the Conspirators compressed gigabytes of data from DNC computers, including opposition research. The Conspirators later moved the compressed DNC data using X-Tunnel to a GRU-leased computer located in Illinois.

    b. On or about April 28, 2016, the Conspirators connected to and tested the same computer located in Illinois. Later that day, the Conspirators used X-Tunnel to connect to that computer and steal additional documents from the DCCC network.

    Dave (1bb933)

  207. pretty simple. If evidence comes out otherwise he can easily say, oh, well we did hedge our remarks. Sounds like he’s trying to avoid a perjury trap.

    Dave,

    You are once again going on an off topic rant to smear me with your lies and innuendo. Get some help.

    NJRob (139883)

  208. Now, THERE ^^^ is a snit…!!!

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  209. I can see two ways that can be a fallacy:

    1) People making this estimate are not allocating enough time to the downloading. The DNC computers were penetrated for months.

    2) Not every file they had access to was downloaded. They looked around.

    The opposite is actually true, you’d be more likely to be able to pull the Exchange DB Store over the wire, than on any USB Drive, even with a current 14TB drive and a time machine. This is not the capability that the DNC had because they weren’t using Exchange 2016, they were using 2010. For Exchange 2016 you can 100 mailbox DB’s, where each can be 2TB if the db’s are replicated across an enterprise implementation (so again not what the DNC had) so the outside of a current Exchange server is 200Tb, nobody would run it that big, (again, the DNC didn’t). For Exchange 2010 Standard, which is what the DNC ran as a single server config, the max size is recommended to be limited to 200GB per store but it could be as much as 16TB if you didn’t want it to, you know, work, so we’ll use that as the theoretical max and you can have 5 of the 16TB db’s, so if the server was at 100% thoretical capacity, that’s 80TB of total data.

    I have a 1gig connection at my house, 80TB would take 8 Days 3 Hours 28 Minutes 7.44 Seconds, assuming I’m not streaming 4K. The more realistic 200GB X 5 = 1TB following MS’s best practice, 2 Hours 26 Minutes 36.09 Seconds. If it was the former, you’d have to hand truck in a small RAID array, and leave it connected to ethernet for a week plus, then leave with it (assuming they’re running GigE, and these was housed in a secure data center, so you don’t just wheel something in. The wire is just as fast, if not faster, and since you don’t have to bother guards if you’ve penetrated the network, you can take what you want at your leisure, or just grab it all in between a couple hourse to a bit more than couple weeks, as you don’t want to slow everything down so much people notice.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  210. pretty simple. If evidence comes out otherwise he can easily say, oh, well we did hedge our remarks. Sounds like he’s trying to avoid a perjury trap.

    Few things.
    1. There’s a difference, between a perjury trap and perjury. Another way of saying it is it sounds like he was trying to tell the truth when the truth is somewhat nuanced.
    2. Clear cut answers would likely have been very technical and hard to understand if you’re not familiar with the details. See CK’s example above.

    Time123 (457a1d)

  211. You are once again going on an off topic rant to smear me with your lies and innuendo. Get some help.

    You just accused me of “smearing you with lies” in my recent posts.

    Please point out each of the lies I told about you.

    Dave (1bb933)

  212. @199

    What Flynn’s CURRENT attorneys are saying his FORMER attorneys did is deep, dark end-your-career type malpractice if true.

    Judge Sullivan will be looking veeeeeerrrryyy minutely (that means closely) at the claims and responses, and it will NOT be pretty for one side or the other (maybe both), but either the current claims are true or they’re not. I don’t see a lot of daylight for any middle ground (mixing my metaphors).

    Of course, Flynn does not have clean hands even reading his new lawyer’s account, since he slept the warning sent him on Sunday afternoon. But that’s a minor matter relative to the allegation of malpractice.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 5/15/2020 @ 2:56 pm

    It sure is quite a bombshell in my eyes, and even though that motion was rescinded, I’m not Judge Sullivan can ignore that.

    Not sure if the defense can put that toothpaste back in the tube here either. Because the accusation isn’t just “ineffective counsel”… its also allegations of fraud against the court.

    There’s also allegations of fraud against the court by prosecution team as well, so the Judge is probably looking to stage the narrative, via the amicus, to put all parties involved through the ringer before dismissing the case (ala, the Stevens case).

    I mean, just think, had the DOJ decided not to drop the case, this withdrawl motion would be what we’d be discussing now, in that the defense is making an impassioned argument that Flynn’s original lawyers provided ineffective counsel. Just imaginethe fireworks had this been played out in court. It’s such a nuclear tactic such that, if Covington truly did at least some of what the new defense is accusing, they’d suffer reputational harm at the least, if not court sanctions.

    whembly (c30c83)

  213. Russian collusion truthers are people who still deny cling to the belief that the collusion happened.

    FIFY

    Like with “Karen” you’re just repeating expressions you don’t understand, to personally attack people, instead of admitting you were mistaken.

    This from a fellow who repeatedly called the Sandmann kid a racist punk (even after the complete video showed he was waaaayyyy off base) and railed against a red hat for days on end.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  214. CH, you’re a liar. Why would anyone pay attention to you?

    Time123 (3e7a5f)

  215. Clapper, Rice, Power, Farkas under oath: No evidence of collusion with Russians.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  216. Other info will be released, seatbelts recommended.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  217. “Other info will be released, seatbelts recommended.”

    How long have you been saying this?

    Davethulhu (6c08ad)

  218. Will you lie about there testimony also?

    Time123 (3e7a5f)

  219. Clapper, Rice, Power, Farkas under oath: No evidence of collusion with Russians.

    Educate yourself.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  220. Dave,

    You put words in my mouth and equated my questions to being a 9/11 truther. I grew up in the city. I lived close enough to the attacks to see the smoke. I consoled people lost their parents. You deserve much more than ill ever say on here. May you get it if you don’t repent your evil ways.

    NJRob (139883)

  221. 214. I’m still trying to digest and synthesize the conflict of interest allegation(s). Not being a crim law guy, it takes me a while to paw through what’s being alleged and how that is a conflict or even inchoate conflict. I can see a potential conflict that never ripened, as I read this, but I’m not done.

    IF the account I’m reading has ANY verity, Flynn’s FORMER attorneys are wall-eyed idiots for not simply moving the court for leave to withdraw (if I’m reading correctly) UNLESS the only conflict was conditional on them being potential witnesses in a FARA prosecution. In that case, they could inoculate themselves via a disclosure and waiver, allowing them to proceed until a FARA charge germinated. Only at that point would withdrawing seem mandatory to me.

    But I’m still cooking here… And this is outside my wheelhouse.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  222. No evidence of collusion with Russians.

    Mmhmm.

    To: Donald Trump Jr.

    Good morning

    Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

    The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

    This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.

    What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

    I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

    =====

    From: Donald Trump Jr.

    Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?

    Dave (1bb933)

  223. @201

    Rob, from what I read he wasn’t evasive at all, but rather struggled with not revealing classified information. Can you point out what you felt he was trying to evade?

    Regardless, his testimony was that they had strong circumstantial evidence based on the methods used to infiltrate the DNC server that it was the Russian government. You’re right, this isn’t irrefutable proof. But it’s a lie to say he testified that there was no evidence.

    Time123 (457a1d) — 5/15/2020 @ 3:00 pm

    Here’s my take over Crowdstrike’s statements.

    My career in the last 22 years also involved significant IT security in the healthcare sphere. I’m reasonably confident that Crowdstrike’s information security strategy for the DNC IT infrastructures doesn’t rise to the the security needs of a major healthcare organization.

    Because, IT security is bloody expensive.

    So, when I see an flipping CEO talk in this matter, I can only conclude two things:
    1) He doesn’t know what he’s talking about and is only giving well coached responses…
    or
    2) see #1…with copious eye twitchings on my part*.

    I’d wager significant money that these “circumstantial” evidence is vaporware.

    My biggest red flag is this: The FBI didn’t conduct the actual investigation.

    *I can empathize with the host and others being lawyers having conversations about the legal issues with non-lawyers alike. I feel the same way about anything IT.

    whembly (c30c83)

  224. You put words in my mouth

    No I didn’t.

    and equated my questions to being a 9/11 truther.

    No I didn’t.

    I said your nonsense was as ridiculous as 9/11 truther theories. That’s clearly a matter of opinion.

    Can you point to an actual lie about you to back up your charge? Or will you apologize for falsely accusing me?

    Dave (1bb933)

  225. Clapper, Rice, Power, Farkas under oath: No evidence of collusion with Russians.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/15/2020 @ 5:05 pm

    Zero serious people bother saying this. It is simply an article of faith, basically proving one’s loyalty bona fides to dear leader. The collusion definitely happened and you’ll do anything to spin attention away from that fact.

    This from a fellow who repeatedly called the Sandmann kid a racist punk (even after the complete video showed he was waaaayyyy off base) and railed against a red hat for days on end.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/15/2020 @ 5:00 pm

    Well like all good lies, there is a grain of truth here. I definitely took a point of view most people disagreed with about something unrelated to this conversation. It’s just twisted into something it’s not to make a personal attack about comments from a year and a half ago. Because you’d rather attack me over some random thing than just be a man and admit Time123 was correct and you were mistaken about the topic of this thread.

    I criticized that whole group. I saw these punks make a bunch of references to Phillips’s race in their mockery of him. If you run up to a camera to mock someone’s race, people get to criticize you if they want. While some were shocked by the revelation everyone else involved was also behaving poorly, I criticized them too. I don’t see much need to pick which side is politically oriented towards me to spin and be outraged.

    You know for someone who uses the word “Karen” a lot you sure do act like an entitled tattle tale. But guilty as charged, I bashed the hell out of racists a year and a half ago.

    Dustin (d59cff)

  226. My biggest red flag is this: The FBI didn’t conduct the actual investigation.

    I don’t think so.

    Paul Montagu (b3f51b)

  227. There’s a is a sand pile full of truth about your rants re: Sandmann and the folks who took you to task about it back then know it and anticipated your usual attempts to spin it in your favor.

    And your last sentence is an admission you learned nothing from that shameful display.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  228. My biggest red flag is this: The FBI didn’t conduct the actual investigation.

    Except they did. You should read the testimony before making wildly inaccurate statements like this.

    MR. STEWART OF UTAH: Was it unusual to you in your line of work for a client to say they’d been contacted by the FBI or by any law enforcement agency and be told, we think you’ve been hacked? Is that …

    MR. HENRY: That’s not unusual.

    MR. STEWART OF UTAH: It happens frequently?

    MR. HENRY: Periodically, I would say. I wouldn’t say frequently, but periodically.

    MR. STEWART OF UTAH: And I guess at that point, the FBI doesn’t offer to remedy that. They’re just advising them, right?

    MR.HENRY: The FBI will typically provide intelligence information or direction or guidance, but they will not do what we would call a remediation.

    MR. STEWART OF UTAH: And what is a remediation?

    MR.HENRY: A remediation is coming in to do a technical analysis of the environment and then, if identifying an adversary on the environment, taking steps to essentially build a new environment and moving the adversary off of the old environment.

    MR. STEWART OF UTAH: So help me understand’ I don’t want to come back to that, because I don’t understand that well, but I think I got enough to go on for now. Help me understand if they suspect a hack has occurred, which is criminal activity, true?

    MR. HENRY: Yes.

    MR. STEWART OF UTAH: So there’s a crime that’s been committed. Why would not the FBI have at least some role in the investigation subsequent to that hack?

    MR. HENRY: So why would the FBI not have a role?

    MR. STEWART OF UTAH: Yeah. I mean, they said: Hey. They contact them. You’ve been hacked, which is a crime. I don’t understand why the FBI wouldn’t lead or at least have some role in investigating the evidence associated with that crime.

    MR. HENRY: So — excuse me one minute, because I have something I -. So, just to preface my statement, because I think it’s important, one piece to understand. Typically, the FBI looks at computer intrusions, based on, from a national security perspective as well as a criminal perspective. And actions they may take in an environment are often directed by that, who the actors may be — generally, the FBI. As it relates to this case, we shared intelligence with the FBI. We had contact with them over a hundred times in the course of many months from June
    of 2Q16 up through current time, in the last couple weeks, I imagine.

    And later:

    MR. SCHIFF: Once you were retained by Perkins Coie, did you become the – essentially the point of contact for the FBI in the investigation of what the Russians were doing on the DNC server?

    MR’ HENRY: I talked to the FBI for the first time about this matter after the network was remediated. We were sure that the network was locked down. That would have been in June. The remediation took place June 10th to June 12th. I think June 13th, I contacted the Assistant Director of the FBI.

    MR. SCHIFF: And I think you said either you or your firm had thereafter hundreds of contacts with the FBI?

    MR. HENRY: I said more than a hundred. I don’t know exactly the number, but it was phone calls, it was meetings, it was emails.

    MR. SCHIFF: And during those hundred or more contacts, did the FBI ever tell you that they needed the DNC server for their own forensic analysis?

    MR. HENRY: They asked us to provide to them the images of the computers and the results of our collection. They did ask for that, and we shared that with them.

    MR. SCHIFF: And did they ever indicate to you that they thought that the images that you had given them or the information you had given them was incomplete for their own analysis and they required access to the servers?

    MR. HENRY: I have no recollection of them saying that to me or anybody on my team, no.

    […]

    MR. SCHIFF: And those copies of the drives allow you to create a duplicate virtual environment as the DNC server?

    MR. HENRY: Yes.

    MR. SCHIFF: And at any time did the FBI indicate to you that that was unsatisfactory in terms of their own investigation?

    MR. HENRY: I’m not aware of them saying that.

    You can read the whole thing here.

    Crowdstrike and the FBI were doing different jobs. Crowdstrike was a private contractor hired to clean-up the mess and establish a secure system. That is not a service the FBI provides. Crowdstrike gave all relevant information they found to the FBI, a law-enforcement agency whose job was to identify the perpetrators, gather foreign intelligence and protect the security interests of the country.

    Dave (1bb933)

  229. Other than Liars like Colonel Haiku is there really debate that Russia was behind the Hack of the DNC?

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  230. . I can see a potential conflict that never ripened, as I read this, but I’m not done.

    I think what is being alleged is that whatever Flynn did to get himself in FARA was done by following the advice and instructions of C&B, and by rushing Flynn they were trying to avoid anyone from looking into that and coming after them for malpractice or worse.

    Kishnevi (3cd3a0)

  231. No one has ever explained, and that’s especially true of the dispatch gang and the bulwark boys, why Obama and the FBI didn’t tell Trump at the very start that Flynn and Manafort were possible security risks and they were wiretapping them.

    They did not wiretap Flynn. You keep saying that because you do not care about the truth, rcocean.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  232. I’m endng the thread because a quick glance at the thread reveals that people are being nasty to each other and if I let it go on, it will get worse. So, we’re done here. Congratulations.

    Patterico (115b1f)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.0463 secs.