Chuck Todd Caught Editing AG Barr Tape on Meet the Press

I think we all know the answer to those questions but only if Durham answers them will it have any meaning but see if this answers your questions

My go to guy on all this is Andrew McCarthy former federal prosecutor.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...-russia-probe/

The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the Trump–Russia Probe... Originally Posted by HedonistForever

All that presupposes that the goal was to "get" Trump, which loosely means get him removed from office. Muh Russia was the pretext for that. But was it? Or was it just the cover up of previous crimes? Recall; They never thought she would loose.

Simple question requiring complicated answers...

All that presupposes that the goal was to "get" Trump, which loosely means get him removed from office. Muh Russia was the pretext for that. But was it? Or was it just the cover up of previous crimes? Recall; They never thought she would loose.

Simple question requiring complicated answers... Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

My reading of the article is both. They wanted Trump removed because he would supposedly destroy Obama's legacy what ever the hell that was, worse than ever race relations maybe and the idea that if Flynn was left in the office of NSA, he would indeed discover all the illegal activity that Obama set in motion.


I think both of these things are going to be made clear as day. To me, they already have but an official report by Durham which Democrats will say was "politically motivated therefore you can't believe a word of it", will at least, I hope, convince enough Independents that the worst actors in all this, were the Democrats from the President, the House, the Senate and the media and should not be rewarded with a chance to hold power again especially when they now have what they think is the best reason to move forward with their Socialist, hell, Communist agenda, that being the pandemic.

My reading of the article is both. They wanted Trump removed because he would supposedly destroy Obama's legacy what ever the hell that was, worse than ever race relations maybe and the idea that if Flynn was left in the office of NSA, he would indeed discover all the illegal activity that Obama set in motion. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Well... couple issues here. Recall that:

1. Flynn was not a subject of a FISA warrant
2. There are approximately a chit-tonne more unmasking of other persons, which may include Trump, that have yet to be revealed
3. The FISA was THE COVERUP for the previous spying (unmasking)

I think both of these things are going to be made clear as day. To me, they already have but an official report by Durham which Democrats will say was "politically motivated therefore you can't believe a word of it", will at least, I hope, convince enough Independents that the worst actors in all this, were the Democrats... Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Might be the best case scenario for the Demonicrats regarding Durham. However, he is not hamstrung by idiosyncrasies that a typical IG is constrained by. He can (has) convened grand juries, he can (has) interrogated (under oath presumably) both current and former employees of the government and is not limited exclusively to employees for that matter. Also, Durham's main product is not a report - it is indictments, aka charges, whereas an IG would make recommendation for further action in their findings report.

Two clips of Devon Nunes from a couple years ago which indicate it is not just about Flynn, when it comes to unmasking. Imaging if we were to see a list of all of the unmasking of all players.

~3 mins March 27, 2017

1. …”On numerous occasions the [Obama] intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.”
2. “Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration; details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.”
3. “Third, I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition members were unmasked.”
4. “Fourth and finally, I want to be clear; none of this surveillance was related to Russia, or the investigation of Russian activities, or of the Trump team.

“The House Intelligence Committee will thoroughly investigate surveillance and its subsequent dissemination, to determine a few things here that I want to read off:”

• "Who was aware of it?”
• “Why it was not disclosed to congress?”
• “Who requested and authorized the additional unmasking?”
• “Whether anyone directed the intelligence community to focus on Trump associates?”
• “And whether any laws, regulations or procedures were violated?”

“I have asked the Directors of the FBI, NSA and CIA to expeditiously comply with my March 15th letter -that you all received a couple of weeks ago- and to provide a full account of these surveillance activities.”

Anyone recall Nunes getting placed in "time-out" for a few weeks after he informed GEPOTUS about the depth of the stank of the people spying on him?

<2mins

Anyone recall Nunes getting placed in "time-out" for a few weeks after he informed GEPOTUS about the depth of the stank of the people spying on him? Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

don't recall him being suspended from the committee, but ethics charges were filed against him.

don't recall him being suspended from the committee, but ethics charges were filed against him. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Technically, not suspended, but investigated, starting April 2017. Got cleared in December of the same year. That was to freeze him out.

Ethics Committee clears Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes

The House Ethics Committee has cleared Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes in its investigation into whether he disclosed classified information to the Trump White House, which could create an avenue for Nunes to return to the helm of the panel's Russia investigation.

Nunes's return could further inflame the partisan fervor surrounding the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 US election.

The California Republican has already launched a joint investigation with the House Oversight Committee into the Uranium One deal that was agreed to in 2010 under the Obama administration, which Republicans claim involved illicit donations to the Clinton Foundation.

He has also hammered the FBI and Justice Department for not turning over documents or making witnesses available in response to subpoenas related to the FBI's connection to the Fusion GPS opposition research dossier on President Donald Trump and Russia compiled by former British agent Christopher Steele.

The Ethics Committee announced Thursday that it was closing its investigation into Nunes after determining the information that he had disclosed was not classified.


Ewwwwwe! Now I have to go take a bath in hand sanitizer after quoting a CNN article. Thanks pal...

I see the Democrat response is to point out the thousands and thousands of unmasking requests in the Trump years but how many of those unmaskings ended up on the front page of the Washington Post? THAT IS THE POINT! not that all unmaskings are unreasonable or illegal, the point is, somebody with the authority to unmask,( and there are far to many IMHO ) passed that information directly or indirectly to the media and that is a violation of law but in the age of Trump only supposed violations by Republicans are worth reporting by the MSM.


That's the issue! That's the problem!


And Joe Biden must explain his reason for asking for the name of General Flynn and what if anything did he do with that information. Mr. Vice President, did you leak the name of General Flynn to the media, yes or no? Get him on the record. Better yet, lets see the document that everybody making a request must submit with their reason for doing so required by law.

I see the Democrat response is to point out the thousands and thousands of unmasking requests in the Trump years but how many of those unmaskings ended up on the front page of the Washington Post? THAT IS THE POINT! not that all unmaskings are unreasonable or illegal, the point is, somebody with the authority to unmask,( and there are far to many IMHO ) passed that information directly or indirectly to the media and that is a violation of law but in the age of Trump only supposed violations by Republicans are worth reporting by the MSM.


That's the issue! That's the problem!


And Joe Biden must explain his reason for asking for the name of General Flynn and what if anything did he do with that information. Mr. Vice President, did you leak the name of General Flynn to the media, yes or no? Get him on the record. Better yet, lets see the document that everybody making a request must submit with their reason for doing so required by law. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I think you just have to sign a paper. Rand Paul said he was introducing a bill that you must state a specific reason in writing why you need to unmask someone. I guess it was like a FISA warrant, pretty much a rubber stamp.

I think you just have to sign a paper. Rand Paul said he was introducing a bill that you must state a specific reason in writing why you need to unmask someone. I guess it was like a FISA warrant, pretty much a rubber stamp. Originally Posted by bambino

I don't think Rand Paul is introducing a bill because it is already required that you must state your reason and your reason must adhere to the guide lines. And here is where Biden and others just might get their fingers caught in the cookie jar. If asked, Biden had better remember why he asked for the unmasking and better be able to explain his reasoning.


https://nypost.com/2020/05/13/heres-...n-controversy/

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

The law says that you may not unmask for political reasons. To determine that you have not asked for political reasons, you must be able to explain why you are asking. I imagine that if questioned, Biden will have to tell us what that National Security interest was and will probably be asked if he intended to share that information with the incoming administration which seems to be a very big issue in all this.


Is it ever proper for an outgoing administration to keep information they have developed on a national security matter, from the incoming President? I would be shocked to hear Biden say YES, it was proper and explain why.


Do I really think these questions will be asked? No but wouldn't you just love to hear Biden try to explain his reasoning for asking? Of course ole Joe will say "I don't remember" and that will be that but anything that creates doubts in the minds of the voters that Biden and Obama were on the up and up, would be a good thing for Trump.

Well, not remembering is plausible for Biden. I’d be more inclined to believe it before whatever blather they make up for him to say.

I don't think Rand Paul is introducing a bill because it is already required that you must state your reason and your reason must adhere to the guide lines. And here is where Biden and others just might get their fingers caught in the cookie jar. If asked, Biden had better remember why he asked for the unmasking and better be able to explain his reasoning.


https://nypost.com/2020/05/13/heres-...n-controversy/



The law says that you may not unmask for political reasons. To determine that you have not asked for political reasons, you must be able to explain why you are asking. I imagine that if questioned, Biden will have to tell us what that National Security interest was and will probably be asked if he intended to share that information with the incoming administration which seems to be a very big issue in all this.


Is it ever proper for an outgoing administration to keep information they have developed on a national security matter, from the incoming President? I would be shocked to hear Biden say YES, it was proper and explain why.


Do I really think these questions will be asked? No but wouldn't you just love to hear Biden try to explain his reasoning for asking? Of course ole Joe will say "I don't remember" and that will be that but anything that creates doubts in the minds of the voters that Biden and Obama were on the up and up, would be a good thing for Trump. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

So, since unmasking for political reasons is a crime, why would anyone put that in writing?

So, since unmasking for political reasons is a crime, why would anyone put that in writing? Originally Posted by bambino

They wouldn't of course. They know what is expected and I'm sure they write that and that is where the rubber stamp analogy comes in. They are authorized and they wrote the proper response, so they get the information never imagining they will ever be asked to explain and justify what they wrote.


But what excuse does the Treasury Secy. have in unmasking the name? What excuse does any political operative having nothing to do with intelligence matters have to do with unmasking?


And if your name is on the list 6 or 7 times asking for that name to be unmasked as in the case of Samantha Power, you have said under oath that you never did that, that's a problem and either she lied or somebody forged her name and that absolutely must be investigated. And why exactly does the Amb. to the UN need this intelligence information? To further her investigation? What investigation Ms. Power? Can you explain please?



I do think it is reasonable for the Vice President of the United States to ask questions about intelligence matters concerning who the Russian Amb. is talking to after seeing an intelligence briefing on the matter.


As I have said, the point is, who shared that classified information with the Washington Post which in my mind, automatically makes that a Political matter, thus violating the terms of this National Security Act.


So it's not so much that Biden asked, it's "did you share that information with anybody not authorized to have it" thus putting him on record as saying he was not the leaker. Everybody on that list IMHO needs to be asked that question because this is a criminal investigation, not a diversion, not a witch hunt but a legitimate criminal investigation and I'll bet Durham is asking that question since it is a criminal matter.


Biden's on the list, he must be asked and Samantha Power for 3 1/2 years has not been asked these questions that I'm aware of and that's on current Director Christopher Wrey who it appears to me is engaged in an ongoing cover up.

Rand Paul is introducing a bill to reform FISA trying to keep Americans out of the whole process.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ran...ent-fisa-court


Rand Paul, citing Flynn case, proposes FISA amendment to curb surveillance of Americans

Sen. Rand Paul on Tuesday introduced an amendment to the House-passed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to protect Americans’ privacy, citing the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn as an example of “abuse” and saying it “should never be allowed to happen again.”



Paul, R-Ky., who is an outspoken advocate for privacy reforms, proposed an amendment to the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020 – which passed the House on a bipartisan basis earlier this year – to protect Americans' privacy, ensure due process and “reassert the Fourth Amendment.”



“It flies in the face of our Constitution that a secret court can authorize invading an innocent American’s privacy,” Paul said in a statement Tuesday. “Recent months have once again made all too clear how such a system leads to abuse. It’s time for Congress to stop paying lip service to reform and pass real safeguards that respect Americans’ rights.”


He added: “What happened to General Flynn and President Trump should never be allowed to happen again.”


Paul’s amendment would still allow the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to order surveillance of non-Americans and enemies abroad, but would require the government to obtain a warrant from a traditional federal court – as opposed to the secret FISC – to surveil an American.


The amendment would also prohibit the federal government from introducing into evidence any information gained from warrantless surveillance on an American, and would guarantee an American’s ability to use that evidence in their defense.


Paul’s proposal comes as the FISA bill hits the Senate floor and amid rapidly unfolding developments about the origins of the Russia investigation.


But if 9500 Mr. Deflection is right and Fox News lies and Tucker Carlson reported on it, then maybe Rand Paul never "really" introduced this bill!

HF- +1