UPDATE: Devin Nunes telling Lou Dobbs, It gets much worse because Flynn is only one of the people being surveilled and unmasked.
this blog develops the idea that a theory of man in history can be worked out around the theme that man's self expression in culture and society is motivated by the desire to find meaning in man's existence. i proceed by summarizing seminal works that provide insights into the dynamics of this process, with the view that the culmination of this exploration was reached with god's self revelation in jesus. i'll hopefully also explore the developments that followed this event.
Key point: the meeting was already set up before McDonough's unmasking request. That suggests somebody already knew about Flynn's Kislyak calls before the meeting was set up, because they were jawing about Logan Act in the Oval Office meeting.ReplyDelete
But.... Flynn was not unmasked after the Kislyak calls until the day of the Oval Office meeting!!!! The IG report tells us there was no FISA on Flynn, so they didn't get the details that way.
That seems to leave two possibilities: the EO 12333 expansion by Obama, allowing wider dissemination of RAW NSA INTERCEPT intelligence, or FFG Intel services (GCHQ?) sharing the transcripts with people in the Obama Admin who were hunting Flynn.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Law Enforcement cannot use info from interecepts not authorized on the US person for criminal purposes. NSA intercepts are of foreigners, and there is no search warrant. so they can't use that. I assume Foreign Intel can't be used either, because it would be a "back door" around the constitutional requirement for search warrants to spy on US persons.
Something smells here.
Hannity just mentioned he is being told this unmasking list is very relevant to Durham's investigations.
It's starting to look like they were either illegally spying on Flynn, or improperly using Foreign Intel for the same purpose, without a warrant.
This appears to go to the heart of the predication issue -- not only did they not have any, they were using illegally obtained info and then covered it up as the basis of their baseless Logan Act hogwash.
I'm I reading too much into this?
Yes. The FBI gave it to them.Delete
But where did FBI get the transcript? IG says no FISA on Flynn. McCabe testified that Flynn was not "unmasked" -- there was no masked transcript to request to be unmasked. Not a traditional intel product.Delete
Something is very odd here.
I'm curious about those other than Biden. What does DOE need this for? And Treasury?ReplyDelete
Joe Biden’s on there.
Long list, I don’t understand the why on so many of these people. My guess is the breadth of Obamagate is even bigger than I could imagine.
It is. And it reaches back long before 2016.Delete
Thanks for all the news today.ReplyDelete
Look at McCabe's testimony about Kislyak call:ReplyDelete
>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EX7G-Q9WAAEtIpA?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 <<
Just as the unmasking list shows, there were no unmasking of Flynn between the date of Flynn's calls with Kislyak and the day of the Oval Office meeting where it was discussed. McCabe's testimony is consistent with this.
I reiterate my previous suspicion: they either accessed RAW NSA intercepts under the expanded authority under the revised EO 12333, or they got it from a FFG intel service, because the IG report tells us there was no FISA on Flynn.
There's something very odd going on here.
Please give your wild speculating a rest:Delete
"The Russian ambassador, simply by virtue of his nationality and official position, is an “agent of a foreign power” under FISA and hence a valid target for wiretapping. It is publicly known and acknowledged that the U.S. government uses FISA to wiretap foreign embassies and consulates. So, the Journal may be right that Flynn was picked up on a wiretap of the Russian ambassador."
The FBI handles all CI of this sort. The FBI gave it to them. End of story.
McDonough ... McDonough ... Oh, you mean Spigot.ReplyDelete
My mistake, I was thinking of Donilon. The guy was a sieve.Delete
When Donilon the Fixer left, McDonough picked up his baton. Another Obama weasel… Wasn’t McDonough “on the job” the night the Benghazi murders went down?Delete
I think Donilon was NSA during Benghazi. McDonough was deputy.Delete
Today a CTH reader sums these things up rather well:ReplyDelete
"While it is obvious that Obama and Jarrett were the ringleaders on this, I doubt Obama will ever be called out directly for it.
It won’t sit well, but if we see Comey, Brennan, McCabe, and a few others indicted for this mess, it will *destroy Obama’s* legacy.
Not that those of us who have even half a brain are unaware of how horrendous things were under that Manchurian Candidate, but he will be outed in pure sunlight, for the corruption he was behind. It will also *out the media* as being nothing other than a propaganda racket for the DNC, for even *low information* voters to see."
"Just talked w/ intel pro who said vast majority of names on list had no reason to be accessing unmasked info *period* as they're not investigators. Reminder: masked info is info so sensitive that it's hidden from intelligence community *itself.* B/c Americans have civil liberties"ReplyDelete
Absolutely right. But according to Obama's Iran Deal echo chamber non-IC creative writer lie guy who felt a sudden compulsion to chime in for some reason, it was all "routine":
This is true. This type of information should percolate up from the investigators, who decide on issues of relevance. People at that level are not paid to do the investigating themselves. Very irregular.Delete
They did it because they could. Immense feeling of power. Everyone wants to be “in the know”. Heady stuff.Delete
We may well find out what they have to say about their having done this...
How Russiagate Began With Obama’s Iran Deal Domestic Spying CampaignDelete
"The administration was, it appears, clearing space for Obama to implement his big foreign policy idea—the Iran nuclear deal. Another aide, Ben Rhodes, had said in 2013 that the Iran Deal was the White House’s key second-term initiative. Evidence that Tehran was coordinating with a terror group that had slaughtered thousands in Manhattan and at the Pentagon would make it harder to convince American lawmakers of the wisdom in legitimizing Iran’s nuclear weapons program."
If Durham issues indictments does he do them all at once or would he do them in stages,ie, indictments now related to the flynn case then a few weeks or months later indictments related to FISA etc etc?ReplyDelete
Also they didnt have to release these names now so do you think there was a purpose to this and does this tell you anything about how close we might be to hearing from durham?
At this point we can only speculate. It's possible for Durham to indict some of the conspirators on separate offenses like False Statements or Obstruction, for the purpose of a plea deal in which those perps would testify against bigger fish. But for the main defendants who are charged with the big picture conspiracy, I expect indictments at one time.Delete
Again, can only speculate. Durham may be seeking to pressure some of these people.
As hard and frustrating as it is to wait developments from Durham, the silence is also refreshing.Delete
It demonstrates what a real investigation looks like and communicates that a grown-up is in charge.
Quite the contrast from Bob "Show Indictments" Mueller and his buddies Comey and Weissmann.
"It demonstrates what a real investigation looks like and communicates that a grown-up is in charge."Delete
Right. I hope to have a brief comment on that later.
It just occurred to me that the reason for the multiple "unmasking" incidents is to expand the total universe of persons who could possibly leak the transcript, making it much more difficult to discover and prosecute the person who actually leaked the transcript to Ignatius.ReplyDelete
A corrupt special counsel (Mueller) led by a 'pit bull' prosecutor (Weissmann) was able to get pleas from and/or verdicts on Manafort, Gates, Cohen, Papadopoulos, Stone and Flynn, in some cases coerced, in others on the flimsiest of (manufactured) evidence.ReplyDelete
So far the White Hats have not indicted (and have even formally declined to charge in some cases) Comey, McCabe, Brennan, Strzok, L Page, etc. despite evidence of conspiracy and criminal intent in respect of multiple criminal violations in plain sight.
If one is to have any faith in the criminal justice system, one must believe that Durham is building air tight slam dunk cases the old-fashioned way.
And that the indictments will come.