Getty Images and AARP present the Disrupt Aging Collection, a searchable photo collection that redefines what it means to get older. Take a look.

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
240
Views

Re: 'Unmasker in Chief' Samantha Power

240 Views
Message 11 of 14

The American Center for Law and Justice recently obtained new documents revealing former United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power exchanged anti-Trump emails with top media officials and was communicating with former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page.

 

Strzok and Page were investigated by the FBI and the Department of Justice after anti-Trump text messages were found on their government cell phones. The pair were also on the Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team early in his investigation into President Trump. Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team after the discovery of the text messages and was later fired from the bureau.

 

Page, who worked directly with former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, left the Mueller investigation and later resigned from her work at the bureau. McCabe was also fired from the bureau by former Department of Justice Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Strzok and Page led the now debunked FBI investigation into the Trump campaign and Russia.

 

John Solomon with The Hill first posted the email exchanges obtained by the ACLJ. The organization was founded by Jay Sekulow, who is also serving as Trump’s defense attorney.

 

Power had unmasked nearly 300 names in her final days as United Nations Ambassador during 2016 and early 2017. The information was discovered by then congressman Trey Gowdy, who questioned both Power and former CIA Director John Brennan about the unmasking of American names.

 

It is almost unheard of for a U.N. official to unmask American names in highly classified communications obtained by the National Security Administration, as previously reported by SaraACarter.com. 

 

Powers emails are very telling.

 

Power bashed Trump after the 2016 presidential election on her official government account, as posted by Solomon.

 

“I am discouraged and frightened. Electing a right-wing president is something, but such a morally repugnant bully!” read a Nov. 14, 2016, email to Power from a sender whose name the State Department redacted for privacy reasons. The email referred to former Trump strategist Steve Bannon as “an avowed racist” and predicted, “The worst is coming.”

 

BY Sara Carter

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
240
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
230
Views

Re: 'Unmasker in Chief' Samantha Power

230 Views
Message 12 of 14

Unmasking? With trump giving the keys to our intelligence vaults to barr, how much unmasking do you think will take place from trump and barr to supplement their illegal power grab program. How can anyone support two more dishonest people who are trying to ruin many lives and our Country?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
230
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
298
Views

Re: 'Unmasker in Chief' Samantha Power

298 Views
Message 13 of 14

@jimc91 wrote:

'Unmasker in Chief' Samantha Power spewed anti-Trump bias in government emails

 

Former United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power may share an unflattering stage with a text-loving FBI agent and his Donald Trump-hating paramour from the bureau.

 

Fired agent Peter Strzok and ex-FBI lawyer Lisa Page are infamous today for texting on FBI phones their anti-Trump sentiments while allegedly having an affair. They played key roles in the now-debunked Russia collusion investigation.

 

It turns out that Power — the diplomat whose authority inexplicably was used to unmask hundreds of Americans’ names in secret intelligence reports during the 2016 election — engaged in similar Trump-bashing on her official government email, according to documents unearthed by an American Center for Law and Justice lawsuit. The conservative legal group is run by Trump defense attorney Jay Sekulow.


The discovery could add a new dimension — a question of political bias — to a long-running congressional investigation into why Power's authority was used to unmask hundreds of Americans' names in secret National Security Agency intercepts during the 2016 election. That practice of unmasking continues to grow today.

 

Power’s barbs toward Trump started as early as the GOP primaries, when she used her email to connect Oskar Eustis, the artistic director at the Public Theater in New York, with oft-quoted think tank scholar Norman Ornstein, the memos show.

 

“Oskar, Norm will explain our political system, in a way that will fleetingly make it seem rational, though maybe not after Trump and Sanders win NH,” she wrote, predicting the future president and upstart socialist senator, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), would win the esteemed New Hampshire primary.

After Trump stunned the world with his general election win over Hillary Clinton, the observations of Power and those emailing her on her official government account turned more vitriolic.

 

“I am discouraged and frightened. Electing a right-wing president is something, but such a morally repugnant bully!” read a Nov. 14, 2016, email to Power from a sender whose name the State Department redacted for privacy reasons. The email referred to former Trump strategist Steve Bannon as “an avowed racist” and predicted, “The worst is coming.”

There is no evidence in the released documents that Power responded or chastised the sender for using government email for such political animosity.


But there is ample evidence she engaged in similar Trump-bashing.

In December 2016, for example, when sent a news story about Trump’s effort to communicate a new policy direction for the U.N., Power snarkily replied: “This reflects the lack of understanding of history.”

 

When Trump announced his intent to withdraw the U.S. from a global climate deal, Power emailed a colleague: “Lord help us all.”

 

And when a routine diplomatic issue with Japan arose in late November 2016, Power emailed another colleague: “It is unreal how the Trump dynamic has changed things.”

 

Perhaps most telling are Power’s efforts to arrange media interviews and speeches during her final days in office, clearly aiming to counter the incoming president’s agenda and fan the narrative that Trump might be dangerously soft on matters involving Russia and mercilessly hard on immigrants.

 

When Jorge Ramos, news anchor for the Spanish-language network Univision, floated an idea for an exit interview, Power suggested her anguish at seeing Democrats lose the election was receding the more she watched Trump in action.

“If we do something, we will make it good,” Power wrote Ramos. “PTSD in retreat — Trump has vanquished it.” 

 

Power and her staff spent time brainstorming a possible CBS “60 Minutes” interview as Trump’s transition period began. The idea was to parlay Power’s remarks at an upcoming citizenship event and the TV news magazine interview into forums to shame the president-elect on immigration.

 

“Ambassador: Have a draft for your remarks for the naturalization ceremony on Tuesday, which has proven a useful and somewhat cathartic vessel to channel some post-Trump messages about who we are,” fellow State Department official Nikolaus Steinberg wrote on Nov. 11, 2016.

 

Power responded: “Need to move out on 60 mins idea to seek maximum amplif.”

 

Soon, CBS’ Bill Owens, then executive editor of “60 Minutes,” and Power’s staff exchanged a series of emails about how a prospective interview could include the Syrian refugee crisis to focus attention on Trump’s immigration stance.

 

“We think they might still be interested because this shows the flip side of the story, how refugees are actually contributing to American communities, with the hook being the foreshadowing that Trump and Company may try to undo all this,” Steinberg wrote Power.

 

She responded, “Yes, unfortunately. Will see what else I can put up w.”

Owens replied a few days later that perhaps they could discuss the interview after the Thanksgiving holiday. “I can only imagine the conversations you are having with some of our allies now and I would love a chance to brainstorm,” he wrote.

 

At first blush, the Power emails may seem to be nothing more than political screeds from government elitists exhibiting their disbelief that America elected Trump. But the president’s defenders and congressional investigators see reason for concern.

 

“The sheer political panic evidenced in Samantha Power’s emails shows that ‘the fix was in’ against the incoming administration even before the 45th president was sworn into office,” said Sekulow, one of Trump’s lawyers and founder of the center that successfully sued to obtain the documents.

One thing clear from Power’s emails is an effort to turn a burgeoning Russia scandal against Trump during her final days in office. 

 

For example, when a reporter emailed that he was working on a story advancing the Trump-Russia collusion theory, she asked Barack Obama’s deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, to assist. “Sounds serious. Can you follow up, Ben?” she emailed.


And on Jan. 17, 2017, three days before she and Obama left office, Power worked into the wee hours of the morning to make her final speech one that would warn Trump might have the wrong formula for addressing Russia aggression.

 

“Trump’s interviews over the weekend with the foreign press questioning R sanctions and the value of NATO will be helpful for relevance of speech,” Steinberg wrote Power.

Power’s final draft of the speech obliged, suggesting it was “flawed” for Trump to think he could “put recent transgressions aside and announce another reset with Russia,” and that “easing sanctions” would be a mistake. She took aim at Trump’s credibility with one of his own favorite lines, writing: “Making up fake news — ask the reporters here today — is a lot easier than reporting the facts.”  

 

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a member of the House Government Oversight Committee, told me that the emails’ expressed bias and the use of government speeches, interviews and events to counter Trump might warrant an investigation into whether any conduct violated the Hatch Act’s prohibition on engaging in political activities on government time.

 

But the most important impact of the emails may lie in the ongoing investigation into the Obama administration’s unmasking of American names in secret foreign intelligence reports.

 

Congressional investigators confirmed more than two years ago that there was a massive spike between 2014 and 2016 in the number of names Obama officials asked be unmasked, including dozens involving Trump campaign and transition officials.


Though Power’s U.N. job did not have regular intelligence-gathering responsibilities, her name was invoked as the authority for unmasking hundreds of American names in 2016 — averaging more than one American name per day, the investigation found.

 

When Power was questioned last summer, she gave congressional investigators an unsettling answer: She claimed that she did not specifically request many of the unmaskings and that other government officials must have used her name as a justification.

 

Multiple congressional investigations continue to pursue how and why those unmaskings occurred, and whether any led to damaging leaks such as the January 2017 publication of secret intercepts between Russia’s ambassador and then-Trump national security adviser Mike Flynn.

Power’s obvious anti-Trump predisposition in the emails raises questions about a political motive for the unmaskings done under her authority, several congressional investigators told me.

 

The truth is, neither political party has done a good job of resolving the troubling question of why thousands of Americans’ names are unmasked each year when they are incidentally intercepted by the National Security Agency during overseas phone calls.

 

The redacting, or masking, of names — known as minimization — is supposed to protect those Americans’ privacy from unlawful intrusion under the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, and U.S. officials are supposed to have a compelling reason for requesting an unmasking.

 

In her congressional testimony last year, Power did not provide a compelling reason for the hundreds of unmaskings done in her name. And each time a U.S. official unmasks a name, he or she essentially is overruling an intelligence professional’s assessment that there wasn’t a national security reason to violate that American’s privacy.

 

While lawmakers in both political parties bicker over unmasking, the practice has ticked up under Trump. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence tells me that in fiscal 2018, unmasked names rose nearly 70 percent to 16,721, compared to 9,529 in 2017.

 

Bias or no bias, Americans deserve an answer to the question of why privacy-busting unmasking has become so widespread.

 

BY: John Solomon

 

 


Here we go again. The story is written by an opinion writer, and even the Hill puts a disclaimer on the story, but our far right think it is gospel. We see Jay S quoted in this story to. Looks like Jay is the up and coming one in the Trump mob world now. What is really unmasked is how the far right never tells the truth on anything. Their new approach seems to be the bigger the lie more people will think it is true. Now we know that is true in far right land, but not everywhere yet. This story has been posted at least 20 times by these same far right people, but just a little different slant each time to try and make it seem new and important. Well nothing has changed in the base story and it is right from Trump Mob world.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
298
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
298
Views
13
Replies

'Unmasker in Chief' Samantha Power

298 Views
Message 14 of 14

'Unmasker in Chief' Samantha Power spewed anti-Trump bias in government emails

 

Former United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power may share an unflattering stage with a text-loving FBI agent and his Donald Trump-hating paramour from the bureau.

 

Fired agent Peter Strzok and ex-FBI lawyer Lisa Page are infamous today for texting on FBI phones their anti-Trump sentiments while allegedly having an affair. They played key roles in the now-debunked Russia collusion investigation.

 

It turns out that Power — the diplomat whose authority inexplicably was used to unmask hundreds of Americans’ names in secret intelligence reports during the 2016 election — engaged in similar Trump-bashing on her official government email, according to documents unearthed by an American Center for Law and Justice lawsuit. The conservative legal group is run by Trump defense attorney Jay Sekulow.


The discovery could add a new dimension — a question of political bias — to a long-running congressional investigation into why Power's authority was used to unmask hundreds of Americans' names in secret National Security Agency intercepts during the 2016 election. That practice of unmasking continues to grow today.

 

Power’s barbs toward Trump started as early as the GOP primaries, when she used her email to connect Oskar Eustis, the artistic director at the Public Theater in New York, with oft-quoted think tank scholar Norman Ornstein, the memos show.

 

“Oskar, Norm will explain our political system, in a way that will fleetingly make it seem rational, though maybe not after Trump and Sanders win NH,” she wrote, predicting the future president and upstart socialist senator, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), would win the esteemed New Hampshire primary.

After Trump stunned the world with his general election win over Hillary Clinton, the observations of Power and those emailing her on her official government account turned more vitriolic.

 

“I am discouraged and frightened. Electing a right-wing president is something, but such a morally repugnant bully!” read a Nov. 14, 2016, email to Power from a sender whose name the State Department redacted for privacy reasons. The email referred to former Trump strategist Steve Bannon as “an avowed racist” and predicted, “The worst is coming.”

There is no evidence in the released documents that Power responded or chastised the sender for using government email for such political animosity.


But there is ample evidence she engaged in similar Trump-bashing.

In December 2016, for example, when sent a news story about Trump’s effort to communicate a new policy direction for the U.N., Power snarkily replied: “This reflects the lack of understanding of history.”

 

When Trump announced his intent to withdraw the U.S. from a global climate deal, Power emailed a colleague: “Lord help us all.”

 

And when a routine diplomatic issue with Japan arose in late November 2016, Power emailed another colleague: “It is unreal how the Trump dynamic has changed things.”

 

Perhaps most telling are Power’s efforts to arrange media interviews and speeches during her final days in office, clearly aiming to counter the incoming president’s agenda and fan the narrative that Trump might be dangerously soft on matters involving Russia and mercilessly hard on immigrants.

 

When Jorge Ramos, news anchor for the Spanish-language network Univision, floated an idea for an exit interview, Power suggested her anguish at seeing Democrats lose the election was receding the more she watched Trump in action.

“If we do something, we will make it good,” Power wrote Ramos. “PTSD in retreat — Trump has vanquished it.” 

 

Power and her staff spent time brainstorming a possible CBS “60 Minutes” interview as Trump’s transition period began. The idea was to parlay Power’s remarks at an upcoming citizenship event and the TV news magazine interview into forums to shame the president-elect on immigration.

 

“Ambassador: Have a draft for your remarks for the naturalization ceremony on Tuesday, which has proven a useful and somewhat cathartic vessel to channel some post-Trump messages about who we are,” fellow State Department official Nikolaus Steinberg wrote on Nov. 11, 2016.

 

Power responded: “Need to move out on 60 mins idea to seek maximum amplif.”

 

Soon, CBS’ Bill Owens, then executive editor of “60 Minutes,” and Power’s staff exchanged a series of emails about how a prospective interview could include the Syrian refugee crisis to focus attention on Trump’s immigration stance.

 

“We think they might still be interested because this shows the flip side of the story, how refugees are actually contributing to American communities, with the hook being the foreshadowing that Trump and Company may try to undo all this,” Steinberg wrote Power.

 

She responded, “Yes, unfortunately. Will see what else I can put up w.”

Owens replied a few days later that perhaps they could discuss the interview after the Thanksgiving holiday. “I can only imagine the conversations you are having with some of our allies now and I would love a chance to brainstorm,” he wrote.

 

At first blush, the Power emails may seem to be nothing more than political screeds from government elitists exhibiting their disbelief that America elected Trump. But the president’s defenders and congressional investigators see reason for concern.

 

“The sheer political panic evidenced in Samantha Power’s emails shows that ‘the fix was in’ against the incoming administration even before the 45th president was sworn into office,” said Sekulow, one of Trump’s lawyers and founder of the center that successfully sued to obtain the documents.

One thing clear from Power’s emails is an effort to turn a burgeoning Russia scandal against Trump during her final days in office. 

 

For example, when a reporter emailed that he was working on a story advancing the Trump-Russia collusion theory, she asked Barack Obama’s deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, to assist. “Sounds serious. Can you follow up, Ben?” she emailed.


And on Jan. 17, 2017, three days before she and Obama left office, Power worked into the wee hours of the morning to make her final speech one that would warn Trump might have the wrong formula for addressing Russia aggression.

 

“Trump’s interviews over the weekend with the foreign press questioning R sanctions and the value of NATO will be helpful for relevance of speech,” Steinberg wrote Power.

Power’s final draft of the speech obliged, suggesting it was “flawed” for Trump to think he could “put recent transgressions aside and announce another reset with Russia,” and that “easing sanctions” would be a mistake. She took aim at Trump’s credibility with one of his own favorite lines, writing: “Making up fake news — ask the reporters here today — is a lot easier than reporting the facts.”  

 

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a member of the House Government Oversight Committee, told me that the emails’ expressed bias and the use of government speeches, interviews and events to counter Trump might warrant an investigation into whether any conduct violated the Hatch Act’s prohibition on engaging in political activities on government time.

 

But the most important impact of the emails may lie in the ongoing investigation into the Obama administration’s unmasking of American names in secret foreign intelligence reports.

 

Congressional investigators confirmed more than two years ago that there was a massive spike between 2014 and 2016 in the number of names Obama officials asked be unmasked, including dozens involving Trump campaign and transition officials.


Though Power’s U.N. job did not have regular intelligence-gathering responsibilities, her name was invoked as the authority for unmasking hundreds of American names in 2016 — averaging more than one American name per day, the investigation found.

 

When Power was questioned last summer, she gave congressional investigators an unsettling answer: She claimed that she did not specifically request many of the unmaskings and that other government officials must have used her name as a justification.

 

Multiple congressional investigations continue to pursue how and why those unmaskings occurred, and whether any led to damaging leaks such as the January 2017 publication of secret intercepts between Russia’s ambassador and then-Trump national security adviser Mike Flynn.

Power’s obvious anti-Trump predisposition in the emails raises questions about a political motive for the unmaskings done under her authority, several congressional investigators told me.

 

The truth is, neither political party has done a good job of resolving the troubling question of why thousands of Americans’ names are unmasked each year when they are incidentally intercepted by the National Security Agency during overseas phone calls.

 

The redacting, or masking, of names — known as minimization — is supposed to protect those Americans’ privacy from unlawful intrusion under the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, and U.S. officials are supposed to have a compelling reason for requesting an unmasking.

 

In her congressional testimony last year, Power did not provide a compelling reason for the hundreds of unmaskings done in her name. And each time a U.S. official unmasks a name, he or she essentially is overruling an intelligence professional’s assessment that there wasn’t a national security reason to violate that American’s privacy.

 

While lawmakers in both political parties bicker over unmasking, the practice has ticked up under Trump. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence tells me that in fiscal 2018, unmasked names rose nearly 70 percent to 16,721, compared to 9,529 in 2017.

 

Bias or no bias, Americans deserve an answer to the question of why privacy-busting unmasking has become so widespread.

 

BY: John Solomon

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
298
Views
13
Replies
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Are you new to the online community? Say Hi and tell us a bit about yourself, your interests, and how we can help make this community a great experience for you!


close-up group of seniors smiling at camera

Top Authors