Obamagate and Unmasking Flynn

[_Res Ipsa]

in fact, it makes clear that the Obama-era unmaskings happened by the book.

Unmasking requires an imminent military/terrorist threat to the United States or a clear act of sabotage. You can't unmask a citizens private conversation just because you don't like the results of the last election and want to find a way to undo it.

Still waiting for that law that you said requires a warrant. Add to your to do list the law that requires an imminent military/terrorist threat. I'll be waiting.

[_ajax18]

Ajax, suppose while spying on Saudi Arabian officials our intelligence uncovers an American citizen who is having conversations with those officials about plans to circumvent American rules for transferring over sensitive nuclear technology to them.

I suppose so. Are you saying this is what Flynn did? How do you know he did this for sure? I'm still unclear on why the ambassador to the UN needs this information.

At first I thought you were talking about Bill Clinton but then I remembered it was China to whom he was circumventing American rules for transferring over sensitive nuclear technology.

[_Icarus]

Ajax: unmasking requires a warrant

Fact: No it doesn't

Ajax: unmasking requires an imminent military/terrorist threat

Fact: No it doesn't.

I'm just wondering ajax, at what point you'll begin to realize that your preferred sources are constantly lying to you.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ajax likes to parrot the totally-not-fake-news he's consuming's tactic of asking leading questions that leave the reader to fill in the blanks with their own paranoia. The only difference I see between Ajax and subgenius and LDSFAQs is that Ajax can actually form sentences, which, at this point, is a damned amazing accomplishment when interacting with a Conservaspiratard.

- Doc

[_ajax18]

Thus, it remains a question as to who initially unmasked Flynn’s name and how Comey was allowed to share that information to those who did not have to specifically request to unmask him, and why the unmasking request is not on the declassified list of unmaskers after the December 29 phone calls.

It also remains a question as to who exactly leaked the calls to the Post. Since the unfinished intelligence is still classified intelligence, sharing or speaking about it to the Post still would have been illegal.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020 ... his-calls/

This seems to fit with EAllusions point about who illegally leaked this intelligence to the Post being a crime. I thought leaking was illegal by definition. Why would you call it leaking if it's not illegal? It's just a press conference then right?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

As long as the disclosure does not involve classified information or is not otherwise a crime federal employees are entitled to relief from any disciplinary action taken in retaliation for leaks to the press, which they reasonably believe evidence is a violation of law, rule, or regulations, gross mismanagement, a gross abuse or misuse of government funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. <- This is one sentence long, and should fall within Ajax’s attention span, BUT, it’s also wordy and fairly technical which may shut his brain off within two lines.

- Doc

[_Icarus]

Ajax you've been proven to be wrong several times now so why do you continue to rely on the source that has been lying to you?

[_EAllusion]

It's not all that unclear *why* the information about the Flynn call was leaked to the Post. Flynn was caught, on tape, attempting to work with Russians to reward them for a recent attack on our democracy. It's quite likely that whomever leaked that information wanted to alert the public about such behavior given that Flynn was up to become the national security advisor and thwarting such influence in our government would be a reasonable motive for a person to have. Flynn said he did not recall if Trump ordered him to have that call or not, because that's totally something somebody forgets, but we know our government reacted internally by trying to warn the Trump admin, which is both hilarious and depressing when you think about it. The Trump admin, if you recall, claimed not to know about this and acknowledged Flynn's guilt when he lied about it in public and to the FBI. Strange that even though this underlying fact hasn't changed, they're now treating Flynn as a hero-victim, isn't it?

Why the person did it is a separate question from whether it was illegal. There's a good chance it was, but we don't know enough to know for sure. It's a perfectly justified whistleblow in any case as far as I'm concerned, but if Barr's goons ever get that person, that's where the focus is going to go because then at least there's actual illegal behavior to attack. All this vague innuendo based on lies right now just lays the ground work for the press to run with an explosive scandal story if they find that person in order to be "fair" and "balanced." Then that inevitable irresponsible press attention can be used, ala "emails!" to imply that there's something to all the charges being leveled in the alternative universe of crazy conspiracy theories and that Trump is an innocent victim of a witch-hunt. It's obvious deception, but our press is quite bad and people have a hard time keeping track of facts, so that doesn't mean it won't work as much as it needs to.

[_ajax18]

Why the person did it is a separate question from whether it was illegal. There's a good chance it was, but we don't know enough to know for sure.

I guess every voter should know that there was nothing illegal about this leak. If not then they're stupid and uninformed. Or perhaps they just lack the correct political bias, which is the same as low IQ, stupid, redneck, hillbilly, country boy, southerner, etc.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Skim. Stop. Browse a couple of sentences. Then write something nonsensical.

Yep. Perfect.

- Doc