Clapper: ‘I Don’t Recall What Prompted a Request That Was Made on My Behalf for Unmasking’ Flynn

https://www.breitbart.com/clip...for-unmasking-flynn/

Thursday on CNN’s “New Day,” former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper discussed the report that Obama administration officials wanted to “unmask” former President Donald Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

“New Day” host John Berman asked Clapper why he made three specific requests to unmask the name of an individual on December 2, December 28 and January 7.

Clapper said he does not remember why he made those three specific requests, nor does he remember what prompted the request that was made on his behalf.

“No, I don’t,” Clapper told Berman. “I don’t recall what prompted a request that was made on my behalf for unmasking. I don’t remember the specifics or what it was in the second report that was suggestive enough that I was concerned and felt that I should know who was actually involved.”

He added of his concerns with Flynn, “There was general concern about the number of engagements with Russians that we were seeing happening. We may not necessarily have known what the content of these engagements were, but there were numerous engagements by representatives of the Trump camp with Russians. So, that was of … general concern anyway. So that, I think, is what attracted the attention of me and other then-serving national security officials.”

Clapper went on reiterate he never saw direct evidence of collusion between Trump, Flynn or any other Trump officials, but did reveal there could have been a threat to national security, which would be a reason to unmask.

“There could have been, as I say, other reasons why you would unmask,” Clapper stated. “Again, when you read the report, it may not tell you what exactly is going on, so whether it was collusion or what, what you’re trying to determine [is] does this pose a threat to national security?”

Sen Burr (R) steps down as chair of Sen Intel Comm during the investigation

xxxxxxxxxxx

I assume the investigation is Burr selling his stock

xxxxxxxxxxxxx


https://www.breitbart.com/poli...sider-trading-probe/

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) is temporarily stepping aside as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee amid a Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into his decision to unload upwards of $1.72 million in stock ahead of the coronavirus outbreak.

Burr, who is facing not only a DOJ probe, but also one by the Securities and Exchange Commission, informed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) this morning of his decision to relinquish his committee gavel temporarily due to ongoing controversy.


“We agreed that this decision would be in the best interests of the committee and will be effective at the end of the day tomorrow,” McConnell said in a statement Thursday.

Although it is unclear who will replace Burr at the helm of the Intelligence Committee, on Thursday, Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-SD) floated the idea of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) as the panel’s next most senior member, Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), was already chairing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was questioned by federal agents in recent days over her husband’s decision to sell stock ahead of the outbreak, according to NBC News.

The decision to step down comes one day after Burr was served a warrant at his Washington, DC, residence by federal agents, according to the Los Angeles Times. Law enforcement officials purportedly seized Burr’s cell phone in hopes of establishing a communications timeline between the senator and his stockbroker as they probe into his decision to unload hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock this past February.

Trey Gowdy says there was unmasking of Trump family members on the morning of the inauguration.

https://theconservativetreehou...ait-wha/#more-191755

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
If you had to name one person who was most responsible for exposing the coup attempt, Devin Nunes wouldn't be a bad choice.

I have two other names to put forward:

Thomas Fitton – President, Board Member, Officer at Judicial Watch

Chris Farrell – Director of Research and Investigation, Board Member at Judicial Watch

It has been Judicial Watch's relentless pursuit of documents and depositions that opened this can of putrid ooze, starting with Benghazi.

Benghazi > Clinton email server > FBI cabal test messages > targeting of Flynn > targeting of President Trump

Admiral Rogers. But God bless those you mention for doing the investigative work, those that cover this, and sdy for compiling it.

https://thefederalist.com/2020...nmasked-him-7-times/

Samantha Power Claimed She Never Tried To Unmask Michael Flynn, But Records Show She Unmasked Him 7 Times

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power testified to Congress in 2017 that she never sought to unmask records containing information about former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Newly declassified documents from the National Security Agency (NSA), however, show that her name appeared on at least seven separate requests to unmask Flynn’s name between Nov. 30, 2016, and Jan. 11, 2017.

Power was asked explicitly during sworn 2017 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) whether she had ever attempted to unmask information related to Michael Flynn, a retired general and former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency who later briefly served as national security adviser under President Donald Trump.

“The number of unmasking requests by yourself began to go up dramatically in 2014,” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., noted during his questioning of Power to explain why the topic of unmasking had been raised. “[L]et me then ask you about, sort of, maybe the gravamen of how this came about. And I think it came about over a concern about the leaking of Mike Flynn’s name.”
“So, to your knowledge, did you ever make [redacted]?” Schiff asked, likely referring to intercepts of Flynn’s conversations.
“I don’t recall making such a request,” Power said.
“And I just want to be clear that there’s no indication you ever made a request or that there necessarily was even a report on the subject. But I did want to get you on the record on that, because at the end of the day that’s sort of where this came from,” Schiff said.
“Yes, I have no recollection of making a request related to General Flynn,” Power again claimed.
“Okay,” Schiff said. “And I take it you never leaked Mr. Flynn’s name in any way, General Flynn’s name?”

“I have never leaked classified information,” Power said. “I have never leaked names that have come back to me in this highly compartmented process. I have, in fact, never leaked, even unclassified information.”
According to NSA documents declassified last week and released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to the U.S. Senate on Wednesday, Power made seven separate requests to unmask Flynn’s name over a six-week period between the end of November 2016 and Jan. 11, 2017. The list of unmasking requests shows that Power requested unmaskings of information related to Flynn on Nov. 30, 2016; Dec. 2, 2016; Dec. 7, 2016; two separate requests on Dec. 14, 2016; Dec. 23, 2016; and Jan. 11, 2017.

On Jan. 12, 2017 , Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported an illegal leak that he received detailing conversations that Flynn had with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak in late December 2016. Washington Post reporter Adam Entous also received illegal leaks about Flynn’s conversations, but chose not to publish reports on the calls because he said he did not believe it was newsworthy that an incoming national security adviser was speaking to foreign leaders during a presidential transition following an election.

xxxxxxxxx

The Flynn / Kislyak call was 29 Dec 2016

^^^^^ So, Ms. Powers lied under oath. Does that carry a penalty anymore?

seen at CTH

quote:

Clapper: ‘I Don’t Recall What Prompted a Request That Was Made on My Behalf for Unmasking’ Flynn

You're a liar, a coward and a traitor, and at a minimum, you should be imprisoned for the rest of your life.

The Wall Street Journal opinion piece.
================================

Judge Sullivan vs. Justice Ginsburg

In his runaway zeal to convict Michael Flynn of something, federal Judge Emmet Sullivan is soiling his own reputation. He’s also violating the law, as he’d know if he had read Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s opinion last week overturning the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Wednesday Judge Sullivan appointed an ex-judge to explore whether former Mr. Flynn should be held in criminal contempt for perjury even though prosecutors have sought to drop the charges against the former national security adviser. The relevant case is U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith, in which the Supreme Court reversed a Ninth Circuit ruling striking down a criminal statute involving immigration as unconstitutionally overbroad. The case was overturned because instead of adjudicating the issues raised by the parties, the Ninth Circuit panel invited outside groups to brief them about a defense the defendant never raised.

This is akin to what Judge Sullivan is trying to do with Mr. Flynn by asking outside parties to make new arguments for prosecution—and even appointing former judge John Gleeson, who has shown clear public bias (in an op-ed) against Mr. Flynn, to make the case. Judge Sullivan’s abuse is more egregious given that the real prosecutors now say they don’t believe they can honestly prosecute Mr. Flynn. Justice Ginsburg’s argument is that the job of judges is to judge, not to substitute for prosecutors. As she wrote in a 2008 case, in our system of justice “courts follow the principle of party presentation, i.e., the parties frame the issues for decision and the courts generally serve as neutral arbiters of matters the parties present.” Last week in Sineneng- Smith, she wrote that “the appeals panel departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion.”

The 9-0 ruling doesn’t bode well for Judge Sullivan on appeal, and it makes us wonder if in his rage at the prosecution he has lost his legal, and maybe emotional, bearings. Judge Sullivan is acting like Justice Ginsburg said the Ninth Circuit judges did: “beyond the pale.”

LINK

Flynn's Lawyer Excoriates Obama In Open Letter

Last week, former President Barack Obama reacted to the DOJ's move to end its case against Michael Flynn by declaring in a leaked private phone call that the "rule of law is at risk," and that "there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free."

"That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places," said the former President.

On Wednesday, Flynn's lawyer Sidney Powell punched back - correcting Obama's inaccurate diatribe, while managing to drop MOABs on his "wingman" - former Attorney General Eric Holder, Andrew McCabe, Loretta Lynch and others. It's quite the read.

authored by Sidney Powell via sidneypowell.com (emphasis ours)

To: Barack Hussein Obama
From: Sidney Powell
www.SidneyPowell.com

Date: May 13, 2020

Re: Your Failure to Find Precedent for Flynn Dismissal

Regarding the decision of the Department of Justice to dismiss charges against General Flynn, in your recent call with your alumni, you expressed great concern: “there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.”

Here is some help—if truth and precedent represent your true concern. Your statement is entirely false. However, it does explain the damage to the Rule of Law throughout your administration.

First, General Flynn was not charged with perjury—which requires a material false statement made under oath with intent to deceive.1A perjury prosecution would have been appropriate and the Rule of Law applied if the Justice Department prosecuted your former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for his multiple lies under oath in an investigation of a leak only he knew he caused.

McCabe lied under oath in fully recorded and transcribed interviews with the Inspector General for the DOJ. He was informed of the purpose of the interview, and he had had the benefit of counsel. He knew he was the leaker. McCabe even lied about lying. He lied to his own agents—which sent them on a “wild-goose-chase”—thereby making his lies “material” and an obstruction of justice. Yet, remarkably, Attorney General Barr declined to prosecute McCabe for these offenses.

Applying the Rule of Law, after declining McCabe’s perjury prosecution, required the Justice Department to dismiss the prosecution of General Flynn who was not warned, not under oath, had no counsel, and whose statements were not only not recorded, but were created as false by FBI agents who falsified the 302.

Second, it would seem your “wingman” Eric Holder is missing a step these days at Covington & Burling LLP. Indelibly marked in his memory (and one might think, yours) should be his Motion to Dismiss the multi-count jury verdict of guilty and the entire case against former United States Senator Ted Stevens. Within weeks of Mr. Holder becoming Attorney General, he moved to dismiss the Stevens prosecution in the interest of justice for the same reasons the Justice Department did against General Flynn—egregious misconduct by prosecutors who hid exculpatory evidence and concocted purported crimes.

As horrifying as the facts of the Stevens case were, they pale in comparison to the targeted setup, framing, and prosecution of a newly elected President’s National Security Advisor and the shocking facts that surround it. This case was an assault on the heart of liberty— our cherished system of self-government, the right of citizens to choose their President, and the hallowed peaceful transition of power.

Third, the inability of anyone in your alumni association to find “anybody who has been charged [with anything] just getting off scot-free” would be laughable were it not so pathetic.

Many of your alum feature prominently in the non-fiction legal thriller published in 2014: Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice. A national best- seller, it focusses on the egregious prosecutorial misconduct of your longest serving White House Counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler; your counter-terrorism advisor Lisa Monaco; Loretta Lynch’s DAG for the Criminal Division Leslie Caldwell; and Mueller protégé Andrew Weissmann. While they worked as federal prosecutors on the Enron Task Force—under the purported supervision of Christopher Wray—they destroyed Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs; sent four Merrill Lynch executives to prison on an indictment that criminalized an innocent business transaction while they hid the evidence that showed those defendants were innocent for six years. Both cases were reversed on appeal for their over-criminalization and misconduct. Indeed, Andersen was reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court.

Fourth, even if your many alumni don’t remember multiple cases that had to be reversed or dismissed for their own misconduct, Judge Emmet Sullivan should remember dismissing the corrupted case against Ted Stevens. Judge Sullivan is the judicial hero of Licensed to Lie. It is that case that caused Judge Sullivan to enter the strong Brady order the Mueller and D.C. career prosecutors violated repeatedly in the Flynn prosecution.

Fifth, there is precedent for guilty pleas being vacated. Your alumni Weissmann and Ruemmler are no strangers to such reversals. At least two guilty pleas they coerced by threats against defendants in Houston had to be thrown out—again for reasons like those here. The defendants “got off scot-free” because—like General Flynn—your alumni had concocted the charges and terrorized the defendants into pleading guilty to “offenses” that were not crimes. Andersen partner David Duncan even testified for the government against Andersen in its trial, but his plea had to be vacated. Enron Broadband defendant Christopher Calger had his plea vacated. There are many others across the country.

Sixth, should further edification be necessary, see Why Innocent People Plead Guilty, written in 2014 by federal Judge Jed Rakoff (a Clinton appointee). Abusive prosecutors force innocent people to plead guilty with painful frequency. The Mueller special counsel operation led by Andrew Weissmann and Weissmann “wannabes” specializes in prosecutorial terrorist tactics repulsive to everything “justice” is supposed to mean. These tactics are designed to intimidate their targets into pleading guilty—while punishing them and their families with the process itself and financial ruin.

Most important, General Flynn was honest with the FBI agents. They knew he was—and briefed that to McCabe and others three different times. At McCabe’s directions, Agent Strzok and McCabe’s “Special Counsel” Lisa Page, altered the 302 to create statements Weissmann, Mueller, Van Grack, and Zainab Ahmad could assert were false. Only the FBI agents lied—and falsified documents. The crimes are theirs alone.

Seventh, the D.C. circuit in which you reside vacated a Section 1001 case for a legal failure much less egregious than those in General Flynn’s case. United States v. Safavian, 528 F.3d 957 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Safavian sought advice from his agency’s ethics board and did not give them all the relevant info. The jury convicted him on the theory it was a 1001 violation to conceal the information from the government ethics board. The court disagreed: “As Safavian argues and as the government agrees, there must be a legal duty to disclose in order for there to be a concealment offense in violation of § 1001(a)(1), yet the government failed to identify a legal disclosure duty except by reference to vague standards of conduct for government employees.” General Flynn did not even know he was the subject of an investigation—and in truth, he was not. The only crimes here were by your alumni in the FBI, White House, intelligence community, and Justice Department.

These are just a few obvious and well-known examples to those paying any attention to criminal justice issues.

Finally, the “leaked” comments from your alumni call further evinces your obsession with destroying a distinguished veteran of the United States Army who has defended the Constitution and this country “from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” with the highest honor for thirty-three years. He and many others will continue to do so.

1As a “constitutional lawyer,” surely you recall that perjury (or false statements) also requires intent to deceive. In Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973), the Supreme Court reversed a conviction of perjury. In Bronston, the defendant’s answer was a truthful statement, but not directly responsive to the question and ultimately misled federal authorities. The Court determined: “A jury should not be permitted to engage in conjecture whether an unresponsive answer, true and complete on its face, was intended to mislead or divert the examiner; the state of mind of the witness is relevant only to the extent that it bears on whether “he does not believe [his answer] to be true.” To hold otherwise would be to inject a new and confusing element into the adversary testimonial system we know.” Id. at 359. The FBI agents who interviewed General Flynn specifically noted that his answers were true or he believed his answers to be true—completely defeating criminal intent. Furthermore, General Flynn knew and remarked they had transcripts of his conversations.

Click here to read a PDF version of Sidney’s Open Memorandum to Obama
https://sidneypowell.com/wp-co...-Edits-NEW-FINAL.pdf

^^^^^^^^

While I seriously doubt Obama will ever be prosecuted, I can hope that he will be called to testify, under oath. And, I hope Sidney Powell gets to examine/cross-examine him. Put him in the same trap his cronies used for years against others.

quote:

Originally posted by DrDan:
I hope Sidney Powell gets to examine/cross-examine him.

I believe I could shuffle off this mortal coil in peace if that happened. It would not change what a single one of his fans thinks of him today, but it might get mentioned in a future history book.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Flynn's Lawyer Excoriates Obama In Open Letter

Thanks for posting, excellent read.

Dang, she beat him down with an aluminum baseball bat.

Rightfully and deservedly so, but doubt he will notice because of:

a)-malignant narcissism

b)-he sounded baked out of his mind on the recent call

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Dang, she beat him down with an aluminum baseball bat.

That open letter brightened my day, thank you.

For a world renowned constitutional scholar he certainly got schooled like he is on the JV team. What a stoner marxist pos.

It's good to see a real fighter take it to that smug bastard. Sidney Powell is a fighter.

quote:

Originally posted by 2012BOSS302:
For a world renowned constitutional scholar he certainly got schooled like he is on the JV team. What a stoner marxist pos.

HE'S A COMPSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR!!!!

Spineless Republicans will not prosecute the Krimson Kenyan.

But I fear the dems will drum up more phony charges on Uncle Trump whenever he leaves office. Creepy Joe is setting the stage for that. He told an MSDNC audience that he would not issue a pardon to Trump if he is charged after leaving office. Showing their cards there.

God protect DJT from these criminals. Regards 18DAI