Friday, May 15, 2020

Today's Must Read: The other secrets inside Grenell’s satchel

Thomas Lifson at American Thinker has a terrific summary of J. E. Dyer's most recent article. Here's a link to the original Dyer article, which is lengthy. I had considered doing a post on it, but quickly realized it'd be difficult cutting much: Beyond Biden, Brennan, and Clapper: How Grenell’s satchel tells us this is on the right track.

Lifson's summary offers a more gradual entry into the full article--I recommend both: The other secrets inside Grenell’s satchel are the key to the biggest political scandal in US history.

To give you a taste, here are two Adam Housely tweets that Dyer quotes:

Adam Housley
Ooooooh brother. Massive surveillance...that’s what’s been found. “MASSIVE” is the way it was sent to me. 
10:09 PM · May 11, 2020

Adam Housley
As I’m told the list Grenell brought over is much larger than anything involving Flynn. “The exact tasking flow is hard to discern because the stuff was flying everywhere.” 
1:54 PM · May 12, 2020


  1. Question re: unmasking:

    Does unmasking entail requesting all intercepts involving US person X? Or does the unmasker have to review a stack of redacted intercepts and request the unmasking of the redacted US persons?

    1. I don't have the expertise to answer this well. Read Dyer. I'll say this: I believe this type of unmasking would be directed at specific intercepts. However, in the normal case professional investigators/analysts unmask based on standardized criteria. IOW, in these cases the professionals decided there was no reason to unmask but the political appointees said: We wanna see.

  2. WaPost new masthead: Democrat control dies under bright lights.

  3. your bonus second read does not have a link.

  4. After reading Lifson's article, no wonder the Deep State has enlisted Sullivan to slow the incoming tide. But the Flynn battle is only one theater of the war. How do they stop Durham? They counted on wimps like Graham and Burr to cover the congressional side, but new battles are about to commence on different fronts. They (the conspirators) must be feeling overwhelmed.


  5. My comment may be off-topic, but here goes.

    Brennan was at it again, tweeting recently about the President. In his tweet, Brennan praises and encourages Christopher Wray to stay strong. Couple that with Wray's stonewalling and Wray should be gone.

  6. On this blog, many months ago, I speculated that Obama had something on Romney. Romney trashed his fellow Reps and used kid gloves on Obama. Romney voted to remove President Trump.

    I believe that the monitoring is extensive, wide and deep.

  7. This all makes sense, the stonewalling by Wray, the appointment of Rosenstein, the desperation in Obama's voice from the "leaked" telephone call. The puzzle pieces are fitting together.

    We've hear very little from ADM Rogers. Methinks that he is a starring witness when charges drop.

    I've been hoping that Barr and Durham are the disinfectant that we've needed. The reactions of Schiff, Obama, Clapper, etc., tell me that they are on the right track.

    No wonder they hate Trump. He's their Grim Reaper coming with Judgment Day.

  8. I wonder if any forthcoming indictments will capture 100 or more people. Who knows what Barr and Durham know?

    Who is cooperating?

    Baker, L Page, Lynch, Rosenstein, B Ohr, Pientka, Gaeta, Halper, Moffa, others....? Maybe a few big fish like Comey?

    I have to disagree with a commenter on an earlier post who said Brennan will be the fall guy. Any big fish who goes down will take many with him. Human nature tells me that much.

    One concern that I have is the low-information voter. I was dismayed that a devout Catholic man in our virtual prayer group spewed forth CNN talking points. We tried hard to educate him and he wasn't moved. If a devout, pro-life Catholic won't listen, how many others won't listen?

    1. diGenova believes Ash Carter is likely to be indicted.

    2. Seems that Edward Snowden should be given a pardon. Speaking for myself, I'd give him the medal of freedom and put him in charge of NSA.

    3. I understand your sarcasm. I'm only being half tongue-in-cheek. And I spent my time in the military working for NSA, when it was run by honorable people, one and all.

      Those days are gone.

      Admiral Mike Rogers was the only man who risked his career in exposing what was going on to an incoming president.

      Not a single other person said a word. Hundreds had to know what was going on. That is corruption so intractable it works out of a ring in hell.

    4. Hundreds knew or suspected, but it only takes one corrupt President, surrounded by sycophants, protected by Democrat media, to squash anybody who dares to complain. You want an IRS audit to go with your whistleblower complaint?

    5. Wiki explains, how law stipulates, that umnasking "should be restricted, *to* those officials with a need for such information."
      How many is that? Is it specified by law, or subject to Admin. fiat?

      Mike Wallace told Fox today, that Biden will be OK, if he only sought unmaskings, not sprung leaks.
      What if he only sought unmaskings, but did so knowing that such unmaskings would make leaks inevitable?

    6. The thing about unmasking is you probably can't be prosecuted just for being stupid, so maybe Biden gets a pass. OTOH, depending on the overall pattern of behavior, unmasking can be a powerful proof of intent in the big picture conspiracy prosecution.

  9. Ok. Now I've read Lifson and Dyer.

    There's an interesting hat tip at the end of the Lifson article. :)

    Dyer says there was a syndicate enterprise. What does that mean? She doesn't explicate, but I take her to mean a 'criminal' syndicate enterprise. We see that there were lots and lots of 702s, and unmaskings, and computer queries by lots and lots of keyboard jockeys and contractors. In other words, there was lots of surveillance of American citizens. Ok, but I'm not surprised.

    What I'd like to know is: what was the presumably criminal syndicate enterprise up to? What was it trying to (illegally) do? I went back and re-read Dyer and I don't think she tells us...

    Plus...Dyer's article raises a couple more interesting questions...

    Was Brennan financially benefiting from The Analysis Corporation's contracts?

    And, why does Dyer let BHO off the hook? She writes:

    "For what it’s worth, I don’t think Obama himself was the “mastermind.” I think he had cognizance of what was a centrally coordinated campaign against a Trump presidency, but that there’s a “cabal” behind it, if you will, that is fairly identifiable from its long-time political activities, and the movers and shakers are other people. Call it the “deep state” plus Democracy Alliance, which includes the media as its agents and scribes, although that’s not the only grouping."

    I know it will rattle this nation to its foundations to discover Obama was, in fact, the criminal mastermind, but, at this stage, and on what basis, do you let him off?

    Shades of Lindsey Graham and Trey Gowdy...who I think have made 'go easy' on Obama sounds...

    1. If you take a look at the chart of how many 702 queries there were and consider how many unmaskings there were, it becomes apparent that it would be impossible for the relatively small group of unmaskers in the top echelon could be spending their days doing all that. They were directing others, so she writes:

      "No, the pot of gold is among the worker bees (including “czar” appointees). The people who actually sat at computers and used them, to do things the principals could authorize, but didn’t keyboard-jockey themselves, because NSC principals aren’t your keyboard jockeys."

      The syndicate is the top echelon (TE, as we said in organized crime investigations) that directed all this. They're identified by interviewing all those "keyboard jockeys" and asking them: Who told you to do these searches.

      That's a lot of work, a lot of interviewing, but it leads to solid cases.

      As for Obama, he was probably too lazy to be the mastermind, too short an attention span after all those years in the Choom Gang. Think Jarrett/Rice/Power, the women he fronted for. Nevertheless, the buck still stops there because he held the office--even if he spent his OO time watching basketball on TV and reading books unrelated to his office. He'll be named. At a minimum. It will depend on what Durham learns. Durham is doing a very deep dive. He may end up having to do a report to expose everything in addition to indictments.

    2. Yup. No disagreement.

      But I still don't think we know what crimes the criminal syndicate enterprise is suspected of committing...

      Are Dyer and you saying, "Gosh! That's a lot of surveillance! They must have been committing crimes!"

      I'm really just anticipating the likely Resistance reaction: Where's the crime?

      But maybe I don't get it.

    3. I've been saying it for ever and ever. Conspiracy to deprive named persons of civil rights, and to deprive government of honest services. With false statements, obstruction, and perjury thrown in. Possible espionage for leaks.

      What Obama's team can be charged with. Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing with Sebastian Gorka

  10. Mark -- WADR. That's the 'law' you would charge them under.

    I have been asking 'for ever and ever' what were the specific acts (in this case relating to unmasking) which amounted to 'Conspiracy to deprive, etc., etc.'

    So far as I can tell unmasking may be not nice, but not necessarily illegal. And just to be clear I'm not suggesting the conspirators did nothing 'wrong' to Flynn.

    But Dyer suggests that the Obama Admin surveillance may have been massive and my question is: What were the acts that made the surveillance criminal?

    I don't think she says. That's all.

    1. "So far as I can tell unmasking may be not nice, but not necessarily illegal."

      I addressed this on the other thread:

      "The thing about unmasking is you probably can't be prosecuted just for being stupid, so maybe Biden gets a pass. OTOH, depending on the overall pattern of behavior, unmasking can be a powerful proof of intent in the big picture conspiracy prosecution."

      As for specific acts, I've been saying this for ever and ever, too: The Flynn frameup is key and among the most amenable to prosecution. All the acts that went into launching an investigation without predication and a prosecution based on misrepresentations, all the false statements involved, etc.

    2. Ok.

      You say unmasking can show intent and can be useful in showing wrong-doing in the Flynn case. I have never disagreed regarding Flynn.

      What I have been saying is that Dyer suggests that an investigation of massive unmaskings might lead to criminal charges.

      I ask on what facts and wonder what facts she's got. I re-read the article and there aren't any. I'm not saying there won't be, I'm just saying she doesn't offer any.

      Perhaps I'm unable to make myself clear but as far as I'm concerned let's leave it there.

    3. Unmasking itself is not illegal. However, leaking unmasked names IS illegal.

  11. Now I'll go watch the youtube. :)

  12. Regarding unmasking ...

    I believe thousands of unmasking of US citizens year in and year out to be not normal.

    I thought this was to be done in regards to some lawful investigative function on communications with monitored foreign entities.

    If our need for further context on what American is talking to a foreign entity is truly this “normal” then we have lots of potential American spies or our government’s need for further context is corrupt.

    Either was, it’s. FUBAR!

    - TexasDude

    1. That's true. However, the real problem--the criminal problem--arises when that unmasked info is leaked, usually for political purposes.