"Biden is caught red-handed!"

"Was it the Vice President leading this effort to go after General Flynn...or was it President Obama?" "This is potentially the largest abuse of power that I can Imagine in recent history!" "Inappropriate? Abuse of Power? A crime?"

Rand Paul wants Rick Grinnell, Acting Director of the United States National Intelligence, to testify before his subcommittee. You go, Senator Paul!

"This is not just about unmasking. It is about how pervasively the Obama administration was monitoring the Trump campaign."

Andy McCarthy writes in part in National Review, after carefully obtaining factual information, that he hypothesizes,

Flynn was not unmasked in connection with the December 29 Kislyak call. Either the CIA monitored the call directly or a friendly foreign intelligence service — whether subtly tasked by U.S. intelligence or knowing that U.S. intelligence would be very interested — intercepted the call and passed it along, probably to the CIA. At the time, Kislyak was likely outside the United States, where the CIA would not have needed FISA authorization to monitor him. And while Flynn is an American citizen, he was not only outside the country, he was already regarded by the Obama-era intelligence community as a clandestine agent of Russia — i.e., not an innocent American citizen whose surveillance was merely incidental.

Don’t get me wrong. This week’s revelations about unmasking are important and intriguing. They should be thoroughly examined. In fact, they are only a snapshot of the unmasking issue — involving just one U.S. person (Flynn) over a period of less than three months. It is highly irregular for government officials on the political side of the national-security realm to seek the unmasking of Americans. It is eye-opening to learn that Vice President Biden and President Obama’s chief-of-staff (McDonough) unmasked the incoming Trump administration’s national security advisor. It is downright scandalous that Samantha Power, Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, who had little reason to seek unmasking, reportedly requested 260 unmaskings . . . and then told Congress that she did not make the vast majority of requests attributed to her — though it remains unclear, years later, who did make them.

But let’s not miss the forest for the trees. This is not just about unmasking. It is about how pervasively the Obama administration was monitoring the Trump campaign.

Read more here.

"It wasn't me!"

At Ace of Spades this morning:

Obama's UN Ambassador Susan Power: I Didn't Make Those Unmasking Requests. Someone Must Have Made Them Using My Credentials.
—Ace

Then that would be a major crime, right?

Someone within the Obama administration’s intelligence apparatus made requests to unmask the identity of Americans named in intelligence reports on behalf of Samantha Power, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
That's what Power told the House Intelligence Committee last week during a closed-door interview.

South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy revealed in an interview on Fox News on Tuesday that Power was “emphatic” on the point that someone else in the Obama administration made the unmasking requests that have been attributed to her.

Fox News recently reported that Power made approximately 260 unmasking requests -- a rate of one per business day -- in her final year in office, including up through the end of Obama’s term.

I'm halfway willing to believe this -- but then, I'm gonna need a major investigation to find out which Obama personnel were using Power's logins and such to illegally make these unmasking requests.

Apparently someone without the power to do so himself -- or someone who had the authority, but knew he was engaged in an illegal operation, and so wanted to conceal his identity.

Unmasking requests by Samantha Power

Bret Baier and Catherine Herridge report at Fox News,

Samantha Power, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was 'unmasking' at such a rapid pace in the final months of the Obama administration that she averaged more than one request for every working day in 2016 – and even sought information in the days leading up to President Trump’s inauguration, multiple sources close to the matter told Fox News.

Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 last year. One source indicated this occurred in the final days of the Obama White House.

The details emerged ahead of an expected appearance by Power next month on Capitol Hill. She is one of several Obama administration officials facing congressional scrutiny for their role in seeking the identities of Trump associates in intelligence reports – but the interest in her actions is particularly high.

In a July 27 letter to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said the committee had learned "that one official, whose position had no apparent intelligence-related function, made hundreds of unmasking requests during the final year of the Obama Administration."

The "official" is widely reported to be Power.

...Power has agreed to meet with the Senate and House intelligence committees as part of the Russia probe. She is expected before the House committee in a private, classified session in October.

"Who was unmasked? Were they targeted rather than incidentally monitored? Was there any correlation between unmaskings and leaks to the media?"

I have been wondering what is going to happen to the four Obama administration persons who unmasked American citizens. Andrew McCarthy writes about that today at National Review. Here are some excerpts:

The president is in charge of the executive branch, including its intelligence agencies. He has the authority to decide what intelligence information, and intelligence abuses, can be declassified and made public.

I am perfectly prepared to believe that the real story of the 2016 election was collusion between the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration — particularly, the Justice Department and the intelligence agencies. On that score, the unmasking allegations are alarming.

It is not a crime to unmask the identity of an American. It is a discretionary call, even if we would think it bad judgment under the circumstances. Thus, the question here is almost certainly not whether criminal offenses were committed. It is whether power was abused.

...Who did the unmasking? Were these officials in jobs that generally do not involve unmasking decisions? If yes, was there anything unusual going on that would justify the sudden change? Who was unmasked? Were unmasked Americans in the opposition party’s campaign? Was there a supporting rationale for the unmaskings that related to national security? Was there an unusually high number of unmaskings? Were there unmaskings of people related to each other in some way, such that we should suspect they were targeted rather than incidentally monitored? Was there any correlation between unmaskings and leaks to the media?

Read more here.

"Shall be made available..."

You may have read that Susan Rice's unmasking records were sent to the "Obama Library" and cannot be made available for public inspection for five years. Judicial Watch says not necessarily so:

As noted, the records could be squirreled away from the public for at least five years, but there are ways they can be obtained almost immediately under law. The exceptions to Obama Library records restricted access are as follows:

“subject to any rights, defenses, or privileges which the United States or any agency or person may invoke, Presidential records shall be made available–

(A) pursuant to subpoena or other judicial process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of any civil or criminal investigation or proceeding;

(B) to an incumbent President if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of current business of the incumbent President’s office and that is not otherwise available; and

(C) to either House of Congress, or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, to any committee or subcommittee thereof if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of its business and that is not otherwise available;

You can see that both President Trump and Congress can quickly get ahold of these records. As JW considers it legal options, they should both move quickly to preserve, protect, and disclose the Obama spying scandal documents to JW and the American people.

Read more here.

An expert in Nothingburgers

My admiration for Laura Ingraham increases daily. Here she is with #NeverTrumper Jonah Goldberg, who hypocritically makes fun of Hillary Clinton, and I think Charles Krauthammer might have also refrained from voting for Trump, although I am not sure about that. Laura doesn't confront either of them for their hypocrisy.

Oh, and can you believe Hillary blaming the DNC, when they rigged the nomination for her against Bernie? That's Chutzpah!

Unmasking the unmaskers

It begins!

Surveillance, unmasking, felonious leaking of intelligence

Now both Hannity and Mark Levin have picked up on the story Sundance brought us days ago. Two other veteran investigative reporters have found the existence surveillance on the Trump staff. Dr. Evelyn Fargus needs the best attorney in Washington DC! Hannity tries to warn her. It is a felony requiring ten years of imprisonment!

Within minutes after I posted this, You Tube took away the video. Here is a new video with the same information; in fact, even more information, since it has Hannity interviewing the two journalists from Circa News.

Oops! The video has been taken down again. Go here to see the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmAKE3PHlhk
Guess what, folks? Apparently You Tube has taken down Hannity program video! The link does not work!

hat tip Sundance

The unmasking and the leaking

More on the Intelligence Committee Hearing today from Sundance at The Last Refuge:

...not a single congressional panelist asked Director James Comey or NSA Mike Rogers if they personally were the person who unmasked the identity of General Mike Flynn in the “intelligence intercepts”.

Yes, that’s correct. There is only ONE KNOWN Factual and CRIMINAL activity currently identified: the unmasking and leaking of Mike Flynn’s name to the media.

Yet not a single congressional intelligence committee member would ask Rogers or Comey -under oath- if they were the source of: A) “The Unmasking”, and/or B) “The Leaking”.

Stop for a moment and think about that glaring an intentional non-inquiry against the expressed intention of the purpose of the committee.

Trey Gowdy gets Comey to admit that some Obama political appointees had the ability to "unmask" the names of US citizens.

Gowdy asks Comey hypothetical questions about intel officials leaking to the press. Comey replies, "Somebody told them who shouldn't have told them!" Gowdy asks about the unmasking process.