• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Flynn’s Name Never ‘Masked’ in Call Transcripts Briefed to Obama, Records Indicate

sanman

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Messages
11,994
Reaction score
4,635
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Flynn’s Name Never ‘Masked’ in Call Transcripts Briefed to Obama, Records Indicate

The name of Michael Flynn wasn’t masked to protect his identity in transcripts of his calls with a Russian ambassador that were distributed or revealed to President Barack Obama and a number of top officials in his administration, recently released documents indicate.

Information about the calls, including Flynn’s name, was leaked to the media within days, setting off a series of events that cost the retired Army lieutenant general his job as national security adviser, millions of dollars in legal fees, and several years of his life.

In addition, Obama administration officials made dozens of unmasking requests for intelligence reports that involved Flynn’s identity between the 2016 election day and the first days of President Donald Trump’s administration, the documents (pdf) show.

The practice of masking refers to replacing the names of Americans in foreign intelligence reports with generic standing to protect their identity. Senior officials involved in intelligence and national security have the power to request that the National Security Agency (NSA) reveal the masked names for various reasons, such as when it’s necessary to understand the intelligence.

Richard Grenell, the acting director of national intelligence, released on May 13 a list of officials who made unmasking requests between Nov. 8, 2016, and Jan. 31, 2017, that may have revealed Flynn’s identity.

There were 49 such requests, but none of them occurred between Dec. 29, 2016, and Jan. 4, 2017.


Apparently, there is an exception allowed under FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) which lets the President directly order the wiretap transcript through the Attorney General, who has to certify that this order is aimed at monitoring communications between foreign powers only, without substantial likelihood of catching a US citizen. Since this Presidentially-ordered wiretap transcript does not require masking of names of US citizens who get picked up, then the President & Attorney General have to ensure that the name of those US citizens don't get leaked - and any decision toward disclosure requires that Senate Intelligence Committee be notified in advance of this.


So how did they determine that a phone call between Flynn and the Russians was a phone call between 2 foreign powers? Okay, the Russians are a foreign power - but Flynn??
Did Attorney General Loretta Lynch even care??
 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)

50 U.S. Code § 1802.Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court

(1)Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A)the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i)the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii)the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B)there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C)the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801(h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.


50 U.S. Code § 1801.Definitions
...
(h)“Minimization procedures”, with respect to electronic surveillance, means—
(1)specific procedures, which shall be adopted by the Attorney General, that are reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular surveillance, to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information;
(2)procedures that require that nonpublicly available information, which is not foreign intelligence information, as defined in subsection (e)(1), shall not be disseminated in a manner that identifies any United States person, without such person’s consent, unless such person’s identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance;
(3)notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), procedures that allow for the retention and dissemination of information that is evidence of a crime which has been, is being, or is about to be committed and that is to be retained or disseminated for law enforcement purposes; and
(4)notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), with respect to any electronic surveillance approved pursuant to section 1802(a) of this title, procedures that require that no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.
(i)“United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101(a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3).
 
Flynn’s Name Never ‘Masked’ in Call Transcripts Briefed to Obama, Records Indicate




Apparently, there is an exception allowed under FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) which lets the President directly order the wiretap transcript through the Attorney General, who has to certify that this order is aimed at monitoring communications between foreign powers only, without substantial likelihood of catching a US citizen. Since this Presidentially-ordered wiretap transcript does not require masking of names of US citizens who get picked up, then the President & Attorney General have to ensure that the name of those US citizens don't get leaked - and any decision toward disclosure requires that Senate Intelligence Committee be notified in advance of this.


So how did they determine that a phone call between Flynn and the Russians was a phone call between 2 foreign powers? Okay, the Russians are a foreign power - but Flynn??
Did Attorney General Loretta Lynch even care??

This gets worse for Obama's old administration, the more time goes by.
 
Fuller text of above article:


The name of Michael Flynn wasn’t masked to protect his identity in transcripts of his calls with a Russian ambassador that were distributed or revealed to President Barack Obama and a number of top officials in his administration, recently released documents indicate.

Information about the calls, including Flynn’s name, was leaked to the media within days, setting off a series of events that cost the retired Army lieutenant general his job as national security adviser, millions of dollars in legal fees, and several years of his life.

In addition, Obama administration officials made dozens of unmasking requests for intelligence reports that involved Flynn’s identity between the 2016 election day and the first days of President Donald Trump’s administration, the documents (pdf) show.

The practice of masking refers to replacing the names of Americans in foreign intelligence reports with generic standing to protect their identity. Senior officials involved in intelligence and national security have the power to request that the National Security Agency (NSA) reveal the masked names for various reasons, such as when it’s necessary to understand the intelligence.

Richard Grenell, the acting director of national intelligence, released on May 13 a list of officials who made unmasking requests between Nov. 8, 2016, and Jan. 31, 2017, that may have revealed Flynn’s identity.

There were 49 such requests, but none of them occurred between Dec. 29, 2016, and Jan. 4, 2017.

Those dates are important, because it was on Dec. 29, 2016, that Flynn spoke over the phone with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and asked for Moscow to not escalate the situation after Obama had imposed new sanctions on Russia.

While Jan. 4 was the date the FBI was to shutter its counterintelligence investigation of Flynn because it established no “derogatory” information about him, then-FBI head of counterintelligence operations Peter Strzok scrambled that day to keep the probe open. Then-FBI Director James Comey later told the House Intelligence Committee that the probe was kept open after the FBI obtained Flynn’s calls with Kislyak regarding the sanctions.

“Our people judged was appropriate, for reasons that I hope are obvious, to have Mr. Flynn’s name unmasked [in the transcripts],” he said (pdf).

Comey said the calls were “turned up … at the end of December, beginning of January.”

Then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper requested copies from Comey and then briefed Obama, his Vice President Joe Biden, and Obama’s senior staff about the calls, Comey said.

Clapper, during congressional testimony, denied briefing Obama about the calls, but then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates told the FBI that Obama brought up the calls during a meeting on Jan. 5. She said she didn’t know at the time how Obama learned about the calls (pdf).

Since no unmasking requests involving Flynn were made between the time the Kislyak calls took place and when the FBI had the transcripts with Flynn’s name unmasked, it appears his name was never masked to begin with.

That would align with Comey’s comment that “we did not disseminate this [redacted] in any finished intelligence.”

If no intelligence report was produced based on the Kislyak calls, it would suggest the FBI distributed the raw intercepts—likely in transcript form.

A congressional staffer discussed this matter during a Dec. 19, 2017, interview with then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

The staffer quoted from the prior Comey testimony, “We did not disseminate this take in any finished intelligence” and added that Comey “was referring to those specific tech cuts.”

“So no transcript or summary of conversations with Kislyak that were ever masked, and therefore, there were no unmasking requests that could have been made for these nonexistent reports,” the staffer said, while describing the issue.

“I think your description is accurate,” McCabe ultimately responded.

As McCabe described the origin of the transcripts, “They came up—we found them through an effort—without getting into too long of an explanation—in an effort to respond to a tasking from [redacted] and so the results of what we found were communicated to the Agency, who I think had the pen on that response.”

Flynn was accused of lying to the FBI agents during a Jan. 24, 2017, interview. He pleaded guilty, but later disavowed the plea and asked the court to allow him to withdraw it. The Department of Justice moved to drop the case on May 7, saying the FBI interview wasn’t based on a properly predicated investigation and “seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn.”
 
If your claim is that the President doesn't have authority to know the names of citizens engaged in conversations with foreigners of a hostile country, in the middle of a counter intelligence investigation of that country, well then... :lamo

If your claim however is that what is mproper is the leaking of this info to the press(i agree), well first, you have to prove who that was, and two no administration leaks more than Trumps, so to that end.... :lamo
 
If your claim is that the President doesn't have authority to know the names of citizens engaged in conversations with foreigners of a hostile country, in the middle of a counter intelligence investigation of that country, well then... :lamo

If your claim however is that what is mproper is the leaking of this info to the press(i agree), well first, you have to prove who that was, and two no administration leaks more than Trumps, so to that end.... :lamo

And you still found a way to cry about Trump... for ****s sake man.
 
This gets worse for Obama's old administration, the more time goes by.

It's certainly looking weirder the more we learn about what happened.

So even Yates didn't know where the transcript came from, according to her Congressional testimony.

Was Obama wrongfully misusing a FISA loophole that didn't include masking/concealment of US citizens' names, because it was only intended to monitor communications between foreign powers?

Because if that loophole can be used beyond just monitoring communication between 2 foreign powers, then it directly shreds the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution.
 
If your claim is that the President doesn't have authority to know the names of citizens engaged in conversations with foreigners of a hostile country, in the middle of a counter intelligence investigation of that country, well then... :lamo

But Obama was able to know directly without going through the FISA court process. So it looks like Obama was directly controlling surveillance of Flynn.

Flynn is not a traitor - he was the designated National Security Advisor for the incoming President of the United States. He was representing the Trump administration and not himself - and he had a right to be talking to Russian ambassador Kislyak.
Under what law was Flynn committing a crime? By what definition? Just because you say so? Which law says so?


If your claim however is that what is mproper is the leaking of this info to the press(i agree), well first, you have to prove who that was, and two no administration leaks more than Trumps, so to that end.... :lamo

David Ignatius knows who it was that leaked to him.
 
It's certainly looking weirder the more we learn about what happened.

So even Yates didn't know where the transcript came from, according to her Congressional testimony.

Was Obama wrongfully misusing a FISA loophole that didn't include masking/concealment of US citizens' names, because it was only intended to monitor communications between foreign powers?

Because if that loophole can be used beyond just monitoring communication between 2 foreign powers, then it directly shreds the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution.

As far as the FISA warrants go, we know already know that many of the ones used to go after Trump's administration were not valid. So anything else isn't out of speculation at this point.

We already know that Obama most likely didn't like Flynn, but I don't know if that means he was at least partially behind the attempt to go after him.
 
But Obama was able to know directly without going through the FISA court process. So it looks like Obama was directly controlling surveillance of Flynn.

Flynn is not a traitor - he was the designated National Security Advisor for the incoming President of the United States. He was representing the Trump administration and not himself - and he had a right to be talking to Russian ambassador Kislyak.
Under what law was Flynn committing a crime? By what definition? Just because you say so? Which law says so?




David Ignatius knows who it was that leaked to him.

Debator is also leaving out that a majority of the leaks from Trump's administration were aimed at harming him, or his office. Leaks should be about keeping transparency, but when the leak is about "he said, that she said, that they said, that Trump did this" It usually muddies the whole process up more than anyone would care to admit.
 
Why did the US ambassador to Italy need to unmask General Flynn? Is the US embassy in Italy in control of counter-intelligence investigation of incoming Whitehouse administration officials?

Why would the US ambassador to Italy even know about Obama's investigation into Flynn?
Did he need to tell the Pope, to get his permission?

"Your eminence, Obama wants to know what to do about Russia..."




 
And you still found a way to cry about Trump... for ****s sake man.

:lamo

Do you not know human emotions or something? What I was expressing was humor and not even at Trump but at any of his supporters who want to criticize other administrations of leaking.
 
Debator is also leaving out that a majority of the leaks from Trump's administration were aimed at harming him, or his office. Leaks should be about keeping transparency, but when the leak is about "he said, that she said, that they said, that Trump did this" It usually muddies the whole process up more than anyone would care to admit.

So it's everyone else's fault that the only information leaking out Trump's white house is about how much of a **** up he is?

:lamo
 
And you still found a way to cry about Trump... for ****s sake man.

The last Democrat to actually care about the rule of law was probably Jimmy Carter. (Just so long as it doesn't apply to Israel)


I've finally came to the conclusion that the Unthinking Left doesn't care what the Dems do, just so long as they get into power.

Purgery is purgery, but I can still understand the circumstances around Slick Willy, and those coming to his defense.

The crimes of Obama and Hillary, their acceptance unfathomable.

With the exception being the one I stated above. Power, by any means necessary.
 
So it's everyone else's fault that the only information leaking out Trump's white house is about how much of a **** up he is?

:lamo

Seeing as you're doing your best to leave out how much the information's been used to lie about the man, or his administration.

I'm not at all surprised that you're going to continue being this inept, but I could ask that you at least make it less apparent than it already is.

Still, you're free to cry about the man some more if you'd like.
 
The last Democrat to actually care about the rule of law was probably Jimmy Carter. (Just so long as it doesn't apply to Israel)


I've finally came to the conclusion that the Unthinking Left doesn't care what the Dems do, just so long as they get into power.

Purgery is purgery, but I can still understand the circumstances around Slick Willy, and those coming to his defense.

The crimes of Obama and Hillary, their acceptance unfathomable.

With the exception being the one I stated above. Power, by any means necessary.

It's simple enough to point out when it happens. I've had very few issues with Trump over his stay as president, save for his big mouth and a portion of his foreign policy. I'm hard pressed to find much more to find issue with.

Now here I am, looking at what the previous administration has left behind and wondering just how bad for Obama's legacy "If one can call it that" this will eventually be.
 
It's certainly looking weirder the more we learn about what happened.

So even Yates didn't know where the transcript came from, according to her Congressional testimony.

Was Obama wrongfully misusing a FISA loophole that didn't include masking/concealment of US citizens' names, because it was only intended to monitor communications between foreign powers?

Because if that loophole can be used beyond just monitoring communication between 2 foreign powers, then it directly shreds the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Why is that? Nobody made your guy lie.
 
It's simple enough to point out when it happens. I've had very few issues with Trump over his stay as president, save for his big mouth and a portion of his foreign policy. I'm hard pressed to find much more to find issue with.

Now here I am, looking at what the previous administration has left behind and wondering just how bad for Obama's legacy "If one can call it that" this will eventually be.

Would you define yourself as more right wing or left wing?
 
Would you define yourself as more right wing or left wing?

If you were to ask me that ten years ago, I'd answer "more left".

But I've found myself sliding slightly to the right over the these last few years.
 
If you were to ask me that ten years ago, I'd answer "more left".

But I've found myself sliding slightly to the right over the these last few years.

That often happens to people, I've noticed. Is it the accumulation of wisdom or senility?
One of the reasons I oppose Trump is, apart from his outrageous personality, his political policies and ideology.
Would you say you were right wing on when it came to economics, or on issues like sexuality and race, or both?
 
That often happens to people, I've noticed. Is it the accumulation of wisdom or senility?
One of the reasons I oppose Trump is, apart from his outrageous personality, his political policies and ideology.
Would you say you were right wing on when it came to economics, or on issues like sexuality and race, or both?

More liberal on my stances with sexuality and race. While on economics I would be more right leaning. Supporting a strong capitalist market, but with a decent amount of overview.
 
Seeing as you're doing your best to leave out how much the information's been used to lie about the man, or his administration.

I'm not at all surprised that you're going to continue being this inept, but I could ask that you at least make it less apparent than it already is.

Still, you're free to cry about the man some more if you'd like.

Again, you don't seem to understand basic human emotions. Trump's leaky white house is a source of great amusement, not despair. Thats you projecting again.

:lamo
 
More liberal on my stances with sexuality and race. While on economics I would be more right leaning. Supporting a strong capitalist market, but with a decent amount of overview.

You sound quite moderate then... although this site often attracts the worst kinds of rightwingers and the worst kinds of leftwingers, unfortunately.
 
Back
Top Bottom