List of officials who sought to 'unmask' Flynn released: Biden, Comey, Brennan, Clapper and Obama chief of staff among them

They spent their transition time spying instead of helping the incoming administration. And Biden, just days before leaving office, personally directed the unmasking of Gen. Michael Flynn. Lied about it just yesterday and corrected himself a few minutes later. Unprecedented politicization of intelligence & law enforcement.

And Samantha Power in HPSCI testimony said she had no recollection of making unmasking request of Flynn…Did she blackout seven different times when she requested unmasking or did she lie under oath?

4 Likes

Did they request to “Unmask” before Gen. Flynn had the conversation with Kislyak?

Remember, these officials did not ask to unmask Flynn.

They wanted to know who was talking to the Russian Ambassador to the United States. It was Flynn, and Flynn lied about it. He pled guilty to lying.

I think you guys need to look for another scandal.

3 Likes

They asked to unmask someone, period. It was Flynn. You should look to the original 302 to see what Flynn ACTUALLY said regarding his conversations, he didn’t say he didn’t talk to the Ambassador. Also, when were the calls conducted…before or after the requests…nothing wrong with the calls one way or another.

What jumps out to me is Obama’s Chief of Staff making the request the same day of the Obama meeting with Comey & Yates. McDonough wouldn’t have done so without instruction by Obama, and remember Obama’s denials…

My eyes are bugging at the ABSENCE of requests from 12/29 , which is date of Kislyak call to 1/5 (Oval Office). Clapper sent request on 12/28, date of sanctions and a text by Kislyak. BUT the FBI had transcript by 1/4, how? And why no unmasking request? They clearly were spying before the call on Flynn as per the Nov and Dev. masking requests show.

Is there a claim that unmasking is illegal?
My understanding is that there is a procedure.

@Zzyzx_Road

Thanks for that great informative post!!

1 Like

It could be under certain circumstances, we know leaking of classified information is illegal though under any circumstances.

1 Like

Hear ye, Hear ye. Hear ye

Leaking? But not unmasking necessarily.
That is what I thought. Thanks

Today’s testimony covers this issue

Maybe some explanation is in order:

How unmasking happens:

In order to learn the information, US officials with proper security clearance to review the report can ask the agency that collected it — such as the FBI, CIA or National Security Agency — to “unmask” the name.

They must provide a reason, such as their need to fully understand the significance or context behind the intelligence.

This is a common process that happens “literally hundreds of times a year across multiple administrations,” according to former CIA deputy director Michael Morell.

If the request is approved, the names are then only shared with the specific individual who asked. Leaking an “unmasked” name to the media or public is illegal.

It is also highly unusual for the names of the officials who requested the “unmasking” to be released.

Why unmasking in the news now:

In the Flynn case, Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak was overheard talking to a “masked” individual about the possibility of lifting sanctions imposed by the Obama Adminstration

Obama-era officials asked intelligence agencies to reveal the American’s name and found out it was Flynn, then an adviser to President-elect Trump.

This week, acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell declassified a list of 23 officials who sought to “unmask” or learn Flynn’s identity during the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The Trump administration and some Republicans have accused the Obama administration of acting inappropriately in requesting the information.

However Grenell’s memo, which was released by Republican senators, notes that the “unmasking” was approved through the NSA’s “standard process.”

You can’t unmask for political purposes, unmasking has to be due to a national security threat reason under the Foreign Int’l Security Act. Additionally, it’s on a need to know basis and for those with proper clearance. UN Ambassador Samantha Power who made the first requests back in Nov., and on paper was responsible for hundreds of unmaskings, had little or no need to know the identities of US persons intercepted in foreign intelligence collection. Intel analysts are obligated to hide or mask the name of an American if their participation is incidental and no wrongdoing is suspected,

1 Like

So you don’t think this is China’s fault?

1 Like

The unsealed FBI notes written by Bill Priestap revealed the intent of the FBI’s ambush interview of Flynn in January of 2017.

“What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute [Flynn] or get him fired?” Bill Priestap wrote.

On January 4, 2017, the FBI field office found “No derogatory information” on Flynn and decided to close CROSSFIRE RAZOR.

And then after a meeting between Comey and President Obama, Strzok intervened and told the FBI that “upstairs” wanted the case kept open.

PaulininVA makes a good point that there is nothing ILLegal about unmasking, and that unmasking isn’t about unmasking an individual person (ie: targeting Flynn) but rather finding out who a foreign agent is talking to.

What is unusual though is the number of unmasking requests in the last years of the Obama administration (a 300% increase), and the people who did the unmasking requests. It’s fishy. May be legitimate, but when added to the totality of the circumstances of how the FBI was being run at the time it stinks.

Andrew McCarthy, likely the most learned author on the subject and a former Assistant United States Attorney , doesn’t think it was the unmasking of Flynn that started Crossfire Razor. He thinks Flynn was framed as a clandestine agent of Russia, so therefore didn’t need to be masked in the first place.

Flynn placed himself subject to blackmail with his actions. An incoming compromised NSA has everything necessary to support an unmasking request. Granted, not for just anyone.

You keep posting this malicious falsehood, so I’ll keep shooting it down.

When asked (by two biased FBI agents, Strzok and Pienka, who were sent on an ambush interview that broke all the rules) if he talked to Kislyak about the sanctions he replied “Not really”.

These two (heavily biased) FBI agents didnt think he was lying. The FBI was going to close the case until “Upstairs” overrode them and forced them to keep it open.

Flynn apparently told the VP that he didn’t talk about sanctions, but then the biased FBI leaked out that he did setting up a media frenzy. Trump was at the beginning of the media “RUSSIA HACKED/STOLE THE ELECTION AND GAVE IT TO TRUMP” frenzy, so Trump fired Flynn.

2 Likes
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.