• 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 not masked by FBI

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
111,975
Reaction score
102,160
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Michael Flynn’s name was never masked in FBI document on his communications with Russian ambassador

r

American Traitor - Michael Flynn.

5/20/20
A Republican effort to determine who may have leaked the name of Michael Flynn in connection to his 2016 contact with the Russian ambassador has centered on the question of which Obama administration officials requested his identity be “unmasked” in intelligence documents. But in the FBI report about the communications between the two men, Flynn’s name was never redacted, former U.S. officials said. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) announced this week that he wants to subpoena witnesses over the unmasking of Flynn, as part of a larger effort to unearth information about the FBI’s investigation of Trump campaign officials. On Tuesday, he sent a letter to acting director of national intelligence Richard Grenell asking why a declassified list of Obama administration officials who had made requests that revealed Flynn’s name in intelligence documents “did not contain a record showing who unmasked” Flynn’s identity in relation to “his phone call with” the Russian diplomat, Sergey Kislyak. It was the FBI, not the NSA, that wiretapped Kislyak’s calls and created the summary and transcript, the former officials said.

“When the FBI circulated [the report], they included Flynn’s name from the beginning” because it was essential to understanding its significance, said a former senior U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive intelligence. “There were therefore no requests for the unmasking of that information.” When told by The Post that the name was never masked in the Dec. 29 communication, a Graham aide said the committee would still like the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s “written answer” to its question. The unmasking issue appears to be part of an effort by the president and his allies to tar former president Barack Obama with what Trump says was an unfounded criminal investigation into potential conspiracy between Russia and Trump associates — or what he now calls “Obamagate.”

Apparently Leningrad Lindsey Graham wasn't aware that the FBI and not the NSA had wiretapped the phone of Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Flynn's name was never masked in the FBI report.

Vote for your Democrat candidate for US Senate on November 3[sup]rd[/sup]
 
Hannity best get his people on coming up with a new conspiracy theory. I suppose we'll have to settle for deflecting with noise about Durham or something.
 
Michael Flynn’s name was never masked in FBI document on his communications with Russian ambassador


American Traitor - Michael Flynn.



Apparently Leningrad Lindsey Graham wasn't aware that the FBI and not the NSA had wiretapped the phone of Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Flynn's name was never masked in the FBI report.

Vote for your Democrat candidate for US Senate on November 3[sup]rd[/sup]

Well, if the FBI was monitoring Flynn's conversations then I'd sure like to see the warrant authorizing that surveillance. The FBI doesn't have carte blanche to search anyone it likes and if they were tapping Flynn's conversations then there damned well better be a warrant.
 
Well, if the FBI was monitoring Flynn's conversations then I'd sure like to see the warrant authorizing that surveillance. The FBI doesn't have carte blanche to search anyone it likes and if they were tapping Flynn's conversations then there damned well better be a warrant.

No one was monitoring Flynn. They were monitoring the Russian Ambassador under a FISA warrant per standard practice.
 
Well, if the FBI was monitoring Flynn's conversations then I'd sure like to see the warrant authorizing that surveillance. The FBI doesn't have carte blanche to search anyone it likes and if they were tapping Flynn's conversations then there damned well better be a warrant.

If only Trumpists' outrage at injustice wasn't feigned for hyperpartisan reasons. We really could make America a better place. We could make the constitution actually mean something for everyone, not just the well-off.

There are so many poor criminal defendants, especially minorities, who are railroaded to conviction. So many plead guilty to drug crimes they did not commit because the alternative is spending months or a year in jail, and losing everything; apartment, possessions, employment. Everything. (How do I know? Because there have been efforts to test backlogs of drug samples and in some places like Texas, about a third of the field tests leading to arrest were FALSE positives, because the field tests are crap). Or maybe they did something wrong but the prosecutor throws everything imaginable at them, and the jury concludes that at least some of it must be true and convicts. or maybe it's in one of those states that intentionally and massively underfunds its public defense system so even if the lawyer cares deeply he simply cannot give the case the attention it needs, not even if he puts in 18 hour days.

There's an endless litany of abuses. Cops grabbing a black dude, searching him, and if he has nothing tell him to go. (What's he gonna do? Sue the police? Virtually impossible). But if he has something, he just makes a bunch of **** up in the police report to make it sound like it was a proper stop, followed by a patfrisk, which then provided probable cause. Hell this kind of thing has happened to me as a teenager. They only play by the book when they're on tape and they know it (there even are exceptions to that). They'll simply go through your pockets. Resist? They'll beat you down and/or taze you, then charge you with resisting arrest and disorderly.



You lot don't care about any of that.

You never post about it, let alone start a thread.

You don't care about justice at all. All you care about is defending Team Trump.
 
No one was monitoring Flynn. They were monitoring the Russian Ambassador under a FISA warrant per standard practice.

Right...but isn't Flynn a US citizen and entitled to 4th Amendment protections? The only way Flynn's name could LEGALLY be exposed, assuming nobody "unmasked" it, is if the FBI were given notice of the call by a foreign service that was also monitoring Kislyak.
 
If only Trumpists' outrage at injustice wasn't feigned for hyperpartisan reasons. We really could make America a better place. We could make the constitution actually mean something for everyone, not just the well-off.

There are so many poor criminal defendants, especially minorities, who are railroaded to conviction. So many plead guilty to drug crimes they did not commit because the alternative is spending months or a year in jail, and losing everything; apartment, possessions, employment. Everything. (How do I know? Because there have been efforts to test backlogs of drug samples and in some places like Texas, about a third of the field tests leading to arrest were FALSE positives, because the field tests are crap). Or maybe they did something wrong but the prosecutor throws everything imaginable at them, and the jury concludes that at least some of it must be true and convicts. or maybe it's in one of those states that intentionally and massively underfunds its public defense system so even if the lawyer cares deeply he simply cannot give the case the attention it needs, not even if he puts in 18 hour days.

There's an endless litany of abuses. Cops grabbing a black dude, searching him, and if he has nothing tell him to go. (What's he gonna do? Sue the police? Virtually impossible). But if he has something, he just makes a bunch of **** up in the police report to make it sound like it was a proper stop, followed by a patfrisk, which then provided probable cause. Hell this kind of thing has happened to me as a teenager. They only play by the book when they're on tape and they know it (there even are exceptions to that). They'll simply go through your pockets. Resist? They'll beat you down and/or taze you, then charge you with resisting arrest and disorderly.



You lot don't care about any of that.

You never post about it, let alone start a thread.

You don't care about justice at all. All you care about is defending Team Trump.

So, in essence, all that is your way of saying "I'm not interested in discussing the topic at hand and I'd really prefer to discuss something else so let me try to change the subject", right?
 
Right...but isn't Flynn a US citizen and entitled to 4th Amendment protections? The only way Flynn's name could LEGALLY be exposed, assuming nobody "unmasked" it, is if the FBI were given notice of the call by a foreign service that was also monitoring Kislyak.

The answer is no. They had a FISA warrant for the Ambassador’s line. They don’t need one for each person who calls it (how would they know anyway?) and the FBI, as a domestic law enforcement agency, doesn’t need to mask the names of citizens.
 
No one was monitoring Flynn. They were monitoring the Russian Ambassador under a FISA warrant per standard practice.


Yeah ... like 16 Obama people - all of them on Dec 15, 2016 - felt the urge to see what the Russian ambassador had said.

Deputy Secretary of Energy certainly has the right to see what the newly incoming National Security Advisor discussed with a Russian ambassador. /s
 
The answer is no. They had a FISA warrant for the Ambassador’s line. They don’t need one for each person who calls it (how would they know anyway?) and the FBI, as a domestic law enforcement agency, doesn’t need to mask the names of citizens.

Are you sure about that? I might be mistaken but I believe that a FISA warrant is obtained for ONE person and if a US person is caught in the communication the identity of that person is required to be "minimized" or withheld unless there is approval to disclose it through "unmasking".
 
Michael Flynn’s name was never masked in FBI document on his communications with Russian ambassador

r

American Traitor - Michael Flynn.



Apparently Leningrad Lindsey Graham wasn't aware that the FBI and not the NSA had wiretapped the phone of Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Flynn's name was never masked in the FBI report.

Vote for your Democrat candidate for US Senate on November 3[sup]rd[/sup]
Sorry, no. You're mixing apples and oranges again. Flynn's name was NOT masked for this particular case; however the DNI produced a list of OTHER unmasking requests for Flynn's name. Obama was out to get this guy, you think he was going to settle for some piddly-ass falsified charge?
 
Are you sure about that? I might be mistaken but I believe that a FISA warrant is obtained for ONE person and if a US person is caught in the communication the identity of that person is required to be "minimized" or withheld unless there is approval to disclose it through "unmasking".

Yes, I’m sure. Masking is required of an agency if it has no legal jurisdiction. The FBI is a domestic law enforcement agency so it doesn’t have to mask the names of any American citizens.
 
Well, if the FBI was monitoring Flynn's conversations then I'd sure like to see the warrant authorizing that surveillance. The FBI doesn't have carte blanche to search anyone it likes and if they were tapping Flynn's conversations then there damned well better be a warrant.

If only Trumpists' outrage at injustice wasn't feigned for hyperpartisan reasons. We really could make America a better place. We could make the constitution actually mean something for everyone, not just the well-off.

There are so many poor criminal defendants, especially minorities, who are railroaded to conviction. So many plead guilty to drug crimes they did not commit because the alternative is spending months or a year in jail, and losing everything; apartment, possessions, employment. Everything. (How do I know? Because there have been efforts to test backlogs of drug samples and in some places like Texas, about a third of the field tests leading to arrest were FALSE positives, because the field tests are crap). Or maybe they did something wrong but the prosecutor throws everything imaginable at them, and the jury concludes that at least some of it must be true and convicts. or maybe it's in one of those states that intentionally and massively underfunds its public defense system so even if the lawyer cares deeply he simply cannot give the case the attention it needs, not even if he puts in 18 hour days.

There's an endless litany of abuses. Cops grabbing a black dude, searching him, and if he has nothing tell him to go. (What's he gonna do? Sue the police? Virtually impossible). But if he has something, he just makes a bunch of **** up in the police report to make it sound like it was a proper stop, followed by a patfrisk, which then provided probable cause. Hell this kind of thing has happened to me as a teenager. They only play by the book when they're on tape and they know it (there even are exceptions to that). They'll simply go through your pockets. Resist? They'll beat you down and/or taze you, then charge you with resisting arrest and disorderly.



You lot don't care about any of that.

You never post about it, let alone start a thread.

You don't care about justice at all. All you care about is defending Team Trump.

So, in essence, all that is your way of saying "I'm not interested in discussing the topic at hand and I'd really prefer to discuss something else so let me try to change the subject", right?

There's no "So, in essence". There's what I said. It's right there. See, on the screen? Words to read.



The credibility of a speaker is always essential to interpreting their speech.

The only time you've ever cared about "justice" was when someone on Team Trump is a suspect or convict. Therefore, your credibility is extremely suspect. I might have also mentioned out the moment it turned out your whole "unmasking" narrative was BS, you just switched to trying to spin other things to try to imply guilt. The same thing goes for pretty much every Trumpist.

Or maybe you can show me all those times you cared about the average poor minority defendant getting screwed? (I say that because I'm sure you've said a few things to defend a cop who shot someone in questionable circumstances).

Where's the great concern for justice and fairness when the subject isn't Team Trump?




If you are naturally afraid to address that, then why don't you go dig up some facts and argue them. Why is the surveillance unconstitutional and if it is, why didn't Flynn's lawyers win a motion to suppress?

Do you know? Of course not. Because this isn't about facts or justice. It's about loyalty.

I wish it were about justice. I wish this concern was directed where it matters most: to the poor who get screwed. The poor who plead guilty despite innocence because they cannot afford to even wait in jail for trial, because bail is used by prosecutors as a way to get at least part of a jail sentence in even if they lose at trial. Because American's worship authority and shrink from questioning the police.

That's where it matters. Those of means and political connections do not plead guilty despite innocence. And as I've shown you elsewhere, none of your CTs about how Flynn didn't do anything wrong matter when it comes to obstruction. But you never address that. After all, you're not the lawyer. You're the Trumpist.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I’m sure. Masking is required of an agency if it has no legal jurisdiction. The FBI is a domestic law enforcement agency so it doesn’t have to mask the names of any American citizens.

Is the FBI allowed to conduct searches of Americans without a warrant?
 
Sorry, no. You're mixing apples and oranges again. Flynn's name was NOT masked for this particular case; however the DNI produced a list of OTHER unmasking requests for Flynn's name. Obama was out to get this guy, you think he was going to settle for some piddly-ass falsified charge?

Good thing somebody "was out to get" this traitorous scum. If you want to credit Obama, fine by me. I really don't care who "got" him.

However, out of context unmasking requests can't support this. Unless we see the reports in which the requests were made, you can only speculate what the reports contained or why the requests were made.

Typical Trump tactic. Twist something into a tid-bit and create doubt where none would be. It's a shell game. A stupid shell game.
 
Michael Flynn’s name was never masked in FBI document on his communications with Russian ambassador

r

American Traitor - Michael Flynn.



Apparently Leningrad Lindsey Graham wasn't aware that the FBI and not the NSA had wiretapped the phone of Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Flynn's name was never masked in the FBI report.

Vote for your Democrat candidate for US Senate on November 3[sup]rd[/sup]

Seems you're saying that the criminal investigation into who leaked the Flynn story to the WaPo just got wider.
 
Last edited:
Good thing somebody "was out to get" this traitorous scum. If you want to credit Obama, fine by me. I really don't care who "got" him.
Traitorous? The man's a hero that served his country for over thirty years. His only mistake was calling Obama's Iran Deal bull****.
Michael Cole said:
However, out of context unmasking requests can't support this. Unless we see the reports in which the requests were made, you can only speculate what the reports contained or why the requests were made.
We already know the "who". Don't be surprised if Durham or another investigator digs into the why.
Michael cole said:
Typical Trump tactic. Twist something into a tid-bit and create doubt where none would be. It's a shell game. A stupid shell game.
Nonsense.
 
No one was monitoring Flynn. They were monitoring the Russian Ambassador under a FISA warrant per standard practice.

God. These Rush/Sean Republicans are so friggin dishonest.
 
Traitorous? The man's a hero that served his country for over thirty years. His only mistake was calling Obama's Iran Deal bull****.
We already know the "who". Don't be surprised if Durham or another investigator digs into the why.
Nonsense.

He's a stinking traitor. You don't know what or why, which I already stated, so you're only speculating. Not very convincing.

And no, it's standard Trump MO
 
He's a stinking traitor. You don't know what or why, which I already stated, so you're only speculating. Not very convincing.

And no, it's standard Trump MO
So, you got nothing but slobber slinging. Ok. have a good one.
 
So, you got nothing but slobber slinging. Ok. have a good one.

You're the one making assertions, not me. I'm saying your assertions are speculative, for the reasons already stated. Why can't you just admit this and try a different angle?
 
You're the one making assertions, not me. I'm saying your assertions are speculative, for the reasons already stated. Why can't you just admit this and try a different angle?
You're the one asserting Flynn is a traitor - I'm just pointing out there's lots of questions and mysteries yet to be solved about the Obama administrations actions.
 
You're the one asserting Flynn is a traitor - I'm just pointing out there's lots of questions and mysteries yet to be solved about the Obama administrations actions.

Being a traitor is my opinion which you disagree with. That's fine. I'm talking about forming some conclusion based only on the names who requested unmaskings. When someone is reading a report, they don't know who American #1 is. There is a near infinite amount of intelligence and thousands of unmaskings take place every year. We don't know what the reports said nor why the unmaskings were requested. It would appear unlikely that Obama officials would frantically search for reports that may include Flynn's masked identity, in a virtual hit or miss operation. Makes no sense.

The unmasking hoax is a hoax.
 
Being a traitor is my opinion which you disagree with. That's fine. I'm talking about forming some conclusion based only on the names who requested unmaskings. When someone is reading a report, they don't know who American #1 is. There is a near infinite amount of intelligence and thousands of unmaskings take place every year. We don't know what the reports said nor why the unmaskings were requested. It would appear unlikely that Obama officials would frantically search for reports that may include Flynn's masked identity, in a virtual hit or miss operation. Makes no sense.
That's the point. Unmasking is supported to be a high level, tightly controlled process.
Michael Cole said:
The unmasking hoax is a hoax.
We won't know that until we know who they are and WHY they requested it. If it's for legitimate intelligence or counterintelligence, fine, but if it's for getting vengeance for political rivals, not so much. Given the disclosures recently and investigate is, IMHO, necessary.
 
Back
Top Bottom