And this
As new exculpatory evidence is unsealed, the case against Flynn has reemerged as a matter of national interest
justthenews.com
In a single sentence filing to the court, Van Grack informed federal Judge Emmet Sullivan that he would be quitting the case.
/——-/ Breaking:
Top Obama administration officials purportedly requested to "unmask" the identity of Michael Flynn during the presidential transition period, according to a list of names from that controversial process made public on Wednesday.
List of officials who sought to 'unmask' Flynn released: Biden, Comey, Obama chief of staff among them
Unmasking is NOT illegal.
What does ‘unmasking’ someone in an intel report mean?
In 2016, Obama administration officials received intelligence reports that were concerning, but incomplete.
Surveillance of Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. revealed he had interacted with an unnamed American who may have been undercutting efforts to pressure Vladimir Putin’s government.
Using a common process known as “unmasking,” they asked intelligence agencies to reveal the American’s name. It was Michael Flynn, an adviser to President-elect Donald Trump.
There is nothing illegal about unmasking and the declassified document states that proper procedures were followed. While Trump casts unmasking as sinister, his administration has used the process more frequently than Obama’s.
WASHINGTON (AP) — In 2016, Obama administration officials received intelligence reports that were concerning, but incomplete.
www.bozemandailychronicle.com
where? where has the trump admin use this tactic?
An agency official attributed the change, disclosed in a new report about surveillance, to reports about American victims of foreign hackers.
www.nytimes.com
Intelligence officials asked the National Security Agency to unmask the identities of Americans in surveillance-based intelligence reports
16,721 times last year — a significant rise from a year earlier,
a new report revealed on Tuesday.
Uh oh.
Reason's for unmasking are not equal. Each are specific and purposed. Most are normal protocol, but what happened in the Trump situation was something all together different. It's known now, and the documents tell it.
How was it all together different?
Go do your homework.
You made the claim, apparently you aren't able to defend it. Weak.
he defends it fine; you just have zero give in your views. you see it one way and one way only and then simply try to bully those who disagree.
weak.
"Go do your homework" is not a defense. It's a deflection.
People just want to say and believe whatever they want. It doesn't matter if it's grounded in reality. It doesn't matter if it has a factual basis or evidence to support it. You can tell when people don't want to acknowledge that's the case, because they never seem to want to talk about why they believe what they believe. Instead they tend to get upset. They take it as an attack just to be asked why they believe what they believe. As if their beliefs are so fragile that they cannot stand even the slightest bit of scrutiny. That's the weakness.
Now, no one's perfect, and I'm certainly guilty of that at times, but I think if we want to have a functional society, people should be expected to at least try to be real and not just believe whatever is convenient, or easy or whatever satisfies their ego. It's hard, I know. But if you ask me why I believe something, I'm going to be prepared to explain why.
It's a disussion board, so I assume people are here for discussion. If defending your beliefs is too difficult, then you need to grow some spine. Life isn't your safe space.
So here's what I think. I agree that unmasking can be done for good or bad reasons. That's obvious. I don't see anyone explaining why unmasking Flynn was improper. And when asked about why people feel it was improper, they get upset. What am I to conclude based on that? I conclude that no one really knows why it's improper but it's important for them to feel that it is to justify the ongoing victimization complex.
maybe. but you've told me to do that before too.
was it defense, or deflection at the time? where i get my own "angst" is when people tell me not to do something then turn around and do it. coyote should know this about me by now as i'm sure she's as tired of hearing it as i am tired of her trump rampage 24x7.
where we tend to go wrong is we can't talk about these anymore, we must either attack or defend; neither of which, to me, is really "talking". it's the same old shit with a different thread title.
now i'll be honest and say 90% of the time i just ignore you cause you usually have the same gruff attitude. but for all i know, i come across no better or even worse to you or others. but i do try to take that feedback when i come across in a way i really don't want to. but yea, there are times i know i'm being an ass, i just don't care for those people. i've reached my limit and know they will never change.
then you come along and usually, no. you don't. then you go do something like this and i see what i would call being reasonable and it changes my perspective. we all tend to argue from our vantage point and perspective. but i do wish we could talk more, get angry and scream a whole lot less. i can only do that for myself and just tune out the rage-noise i suppose. when push comes to shove you do tend to, it would seem, back up and explain why. not sure more can really be asked. we may never agree on many things, but if we can pull out of nosedive bullheaded arguments, maybe discussion is more possible.
and i have to admit your question is valid - why is THIS one improper other than it suits a direction at the time. is it? never really dug that much into unmasking so i am not qualified to know. your own article yesterday showed it happens a lot. questions from me then become what were the situations and why were they different; who signed off and why?
so all i can do is sit back and hope people that know and understand this can explain it in a manner that i can perhaps understand.
This was a very reasonable post, and I think at heart you're a very reasonable person, but tribalism and bunker mentality is affecting all of us and it really messes with our ability to have a discussion.
It happens to me too, and I have good days and bad days. More bad days it seems these days.
Asking someone why they think something is not an attack. It does prompt a defense, so maybe that's why it feels like an attack, but it's not. I come from an academic background, a place where if you say something, if you make an assertion, you damn well better be prepared to say why. I just wish we could have these conversations without being confrontational. I don't react to people just because they have a different opinion, but because they may not be basing that opinion on facts, at least not facts that they can annunciate.
One of my takeaways from this is that because of "Obamagate" or whatever we are calling it, has demonstrated that the practices of the intelligence agencies are not working well. They're broken. This is a story that's actually been on repeat for years, more or less, so it's less than surprising. The FISA court is a mess. The IG report demonstrated in March that it's not a problem limited to Carter Page. It's widespread and needs bipartisan attention. It is my belief that it has gotten substantially worse in the post 9-11 world. It was neglected by Obama's administration and for that they deserve criticism. What I don't think is justified is saying that this is evidence of political bias. The problems in the FISA court cut across politics and speak to fundamental process problems. It's not evidence that anyone was out to get Trump, but underlies that this was (very wrongly) business as usual. There was an IG report that didn't get as much splash from March.
Investigators haven't been submitting sufficient evidence along with their applications to conduct surveillance in counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations, a report shows.
www.npr.org
Applying this to the Flynn case, I don't know if it's really all that related. The FISA warrant is directed against Kislyak. The ambassador of Russia is so obviously going to be justifiably subject to a FISA warrant, it's silly to even consider that he wouldn't. He's a foreign officer of a foreign government. Everyone knows that. The question as to whether Flynn could be unmasked, I think is also pretty obvious. It matters to the intelligence gathering if Kislyak is talking to the incoming NSA, someone that has or will soon have authority and influence with the Trump administration. If Kislyak was talking with some average joe schmo, the relevance of their conversation would be minimal. The Obama administration was trying to understand what Russia's response was going to be to the sanctions. It's a relevant question because if there was not a public response, should they expect a clandestine response? Either way, the Russian response to sanctions is clearly a relevant foreign intelligence matter. I find no reason to be upset that Flynn was unmasked. I would be surprised if the Trump administration would do anything different in their shoes.
Anyway, thanks for your response. Stay sane!
