“Please Stop Trying To Gaslight Us”: MSNBC Host Dismisses Biden “Unmasking” Story

Blessed_effects_of_gas_lights_(1814)In a tweet that reflects a common spin in the media, MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell yesterday dismissed the importance of the disclosure that former Vice President Joe Biden requested the “unmasking” of former national security advisor Michael Flynn. Mitchell called Biden’s action “routine” and the story “gaslighting.”  What is striking about this spin is that ignores the fact that Biden, only the day before, denied any involvement in the Flynn investigation or more than passing knowledge of its existence. It also adopts a misleading statistic on the occurrence of such unmasking requests. (I had to share this cartoon entitled “The Blessed Effects of Gas Lights” from London in 1813 on the perceived dangers of gaslighting. It appears the danger remains much the same in the 21st Century).

Mitchell was responded to a tweet from New York Times reporter and MSNBC contributor Charlie Savage that stated:

“Under US surveillance rules, unmasking an American’s identity in a report derived from foreign-intelligence surveillance is routine when necessary to understand (e.g., who was the Russian ambassador talking to?). The NSA did so 10,000 times last year, nearly 17,000 times in 2018.”

I have also pointed out that unmasking is routine among intelligence agencies but it is less routine for political figures like Joe Biden.  Among those asking for the unmasking were not just Biden but then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power and Obama’s then-chief of staff Denis McDonough.  The unmasking also occurred shortly before the opposing party was set to take over the White House.  Moreover, we now know that there was no credible evidence of Russian collusion supporting the investigation.

Mitchell, the chief foreign affairs correspondent for NBC News, however, criticized those who have raised such concerns, tweeting “10 thousand unmasking last year, 17 thousand in 2018. Necessary and routine. Can people please stop trying to gaslight us?” Mitchell pleaded.

Once again, the news element of the story was enhanced by Biden’s earlier denial. Moreover, as I argue in a column this morning in the Hill, the new information adds to the concern over the use of national security systems by the Obama Administration to investigate the campaign and various officials with the opposing party. The media continues to dismiss such concerns despite recent evidence showing that a long list of Obama figures testified that they never saw any evidence of Russian collusion by the Trump campaign.  The Flynn investigation remains controversial for many Americans and Biden’s conflicting answers on his knowledge and involvement magnify the importance of this story. Some of us remain very concerned over the investigation by the Obama Administration based on flimsy and later rejected evidence, including a dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

There was nothing unlawful or even strange about Flynn speaking with Russian diplomats as the incoming National Security Adviser, particularly after the Obama Administration imposed sanctions just before the Trump Administration came into office. Once again the date is important. These unmasking requests occurred between November 8, 2016, and January 31, 2017 – literally as the Obama Administration was packing up to leave the White House.  It also occurred when the Flynn’s name was leaked to the media.  It would seem a matter of media interest if Democratic political appointees not only unmasked Flynn as they were leaving office but his identity was then leaked to the media from a classified document.

I believe that Savage’s data (and Mitchell’s use of such data) is legitimate to point out that unmasking is a routine practice. However, the more relevant data is the requests for such unmasking by individuals like Biden, Power, and McDonough.  I do not have that data, but I think that it would be useful before portraying any coverage or commentary as gaslighting.

203 thoughts on ““Please Stop Trying To Gaslight Us”: MSNBC Host Dismisses Biden “Unmasking” Story”

  1. ‘Clapper spied on Americans and lied. Brennan spied on Senate and lied. Holder spied on FoxNews & AP. DOJ spied on Iran-deal opponents in Congress. Is it really outlandish to believe they would spy on political opposition?’ @DavidHarsanyi

    1. “Democrats and their allies, who like to pretend that President Obama’s only scandalous act was wearing a tan suit, are going spend the next few months gaslighting the public by focusing on the most feverish accusations against Obama. But the fact is that we already have more compelling evidence that the Obama administration engaged in misconduct than we ever did for opening the Russian-collusion investigation.”


  2. There are three kinds of liars at msnbc.

    There are the younger ones who just read the copy and have no idea that they are lying. Think Katy Tur. They often have no idea what they are speaking about but are able to advance ideas that they are instructed to advance.

    There are the experienced older employees like Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd that are full-time operatives who have a narrative to advance. Those two and others might as well be on the payroll at DNC. Maybe the best Meet the Press moment of the Chuck Todd era was when Rick Santelli accused Chuck and Andrea of having a horse in the race in the 2016 election. Their denial was priceless.

    And, then there are the former government employees who use msnbc as a means to enhance their pension income, and they too knowingly lie to get an extra check.

    1. CRITICAL READ on VAN GRACK (Flynn prosecutor)

      Techno Fog @Techno_Fog · May 8
      Van Grack’s misrepresentations are serious and should be dealt with. Not only violate Sullivan’s Brady order and deny Flynn what was due… But he induced Judge Sullivan to reach conclusions now contradicted by the evidence.

      Van Grack has lied to Judge Sullivan. – No other way to put this.


      1. I read the same thing. That’s how Sullivan can save face after calling Flynn a traitor…if he decides to use it. His current course of action with inviting amicus briefs and bringing in another prosecutor are not going to end the way the anti-Trump crowd thinks. The house is already burning and what Sullivan is doing now is just fanning the flames.

  3. Remember when Obama told Romney that he could keep his 1980s foreign policy. Just when you think you know all the answers, they change the questions.

  4. Maybe Trump should have used a reset button. That would have worked right!

  5. I remember the Russian Secretary of State telling Andrea Mitchel that she had poor manners and that was a sign of poor home upbringing. I haven’t heard that line since Catholic grammar school.

  6. Just curious, do 8 agencies have more power than the Secretary of State? Do you really think this was a good idea?

  7. Ironically, Andrea Mitchell gets the definition of gaslighting reversed. Gaslighting is where someone pretends that their bad acts didn’t happen, and that the victim merely imagined it.

    In this case, Mitchell gaslighted American on national television. Biden et al did lie about not being involved in the unmasking. He blew off that this was important, as well as the bad acts committed against General Flynn. They all lied about the process behind unmasking.

    Obama used intelligence systems to spy upon his political successor from an opposing political party. This is akin to Nixon.

    Stop gaslighting us, Andrea Mitchell.

    1. All administrations engage in unmasking. The Trump Administration has done this tens of thousands of times over the last 3 years. There is no way to know that the person being unmasked is working for the successor administration until the name has been unmasked.

      “Biden et al did lie about not being involved in the unmasking.”

      This is a mischaracterization. Person X can be unmasked multiple times for different reasons. Biden et al said that they weren’t involved in unmasking *for the Kislyak conversation*. Grenell’s records don’t show otherwise.

      1. There is a procedure in place for unmasking that was circumvented.

        What this amounted to was spying on a political opponent, and then lying about it.

        The narrative has changed from denying there was spying, to denying they were involved in unmasking Flynn, to declaring that since unmasking even exists, it was perfectly fine to do so. Once they are reminded that they broke the rules in unmasking, they will come up with some other deflection.

        Don’t you remember that the unmasking rules were already discussed before? That’s why they were all denying they had anything to do with it, because it was against the rules? Otherwise, everyone in the United States could be spied upon without a warrant.

        If you don’t want to look up the rules, or don’t think they should apply, here is a simple way to tell if the unmasking was wrong:

        If a Democrat won the White House, would it be OK for an outgoing Republican president to use intelligence agencies to spy upon, and unmask, officials in the incoming administration, and use that information to undermine and sabotage that new presidency, all while lying about their involvement?

        General Flynn was the incoming NSA. It was entirely appropriate for him to be in contact with Russian diplomats. He spoke with Kislyak on 12/22/16. Most of the unmasking requests from Obama officials and appointees occurred between 12/14/16 and 12/16/16, before the phone call that was the basis of James Comey sending two guys over to speak to him casually, ignoring procedure to notify White House council.

        You are to consider that James Comey admitted that he wanted Flynn fired, before the FBI agents ever interviewed him.

        1. Karen, you offer no proof pr examples for your claims. The IG report in November found no evidence of spying on the Trump campaign. What illicit unmasking are you claiming occurred? You understand that when “US Citizen 1” is unmasked, by definition the request is made about an unknown person, right?

          1. Was the IG looking for spying ON the Trump campaign? Anyway, good to know that DJT and his crew can freely access supposedly protected information about Biden and his group!

          2. We are talking about the unmasking of Flynn, which was used to spy on the Trump campaign.

            What the report said was that there were no FBI plants or employees. Don’t you remember the whole Clapper “it was the least untruthful thing I could say?”

            No, it does not mean the request was made about an unknown person. The content of the conversation could be a clear indication of who it was.

            For instance, if someone wanted to know if you used a previous handle here on the blog, they could unmask you.

        2. Karen,
          It should be obvious to you by now that we have basically 2 types of commenters on this blog. 1. Partisans that support anything against their political enemy and 2. Rule of law defenders. The former group will not be moved by facts and evidence that undercuts what they feel is true. Book is such a person. He either can not, or more likely will not piece together facts and evidence that might prove what he feels is false. It’s likely will not, because he will not hesitate to draw conclusions Adam Schiff-style. He’s in so deep, I don’t believe he would be persuaded to change his opinion, even if the Democrats/FBI/DOJ/IC folks involved in this hoax held a press conference to admit it.

      1. And Slim Whitman sold more records than the Beatles — in 1959. Timing and new information matters, bookworm. You know, nobody admires a bad liar. Being one equates with stupid.

      2. Bythebook –

        did you know the article you posted was disproven long ago? For instance, it reads that the upcoming report (which they had not read yet) was anticipated to say that there was no phone surveillance.

        The topic of this very blog post is in regards to phone surveillance. Then there was Comey admitting he wanted to get Flynn fired.

        Remember the FISA court? Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? Fake Russina propaganda in a dossier Hillary Clinton bought as an October surprise was used as the basis to get a FISA court order. Remember when Page and Strzok texted back and forth about altering the 302 for Flynn? Now that original 302 is missing. Missing. When the subject was one of the highest level targets of surveillance in the country.

        “In one text, dated February 10, Strzok tells Page he is heavily editing Pientka’s 302 form to the point he’s “trying not to completely re-write” it. Other messages reveal that Page, who did not attend the interview, reviewed the 302 form and made editing suggestions. On February 14, Page texts Strzok, “Is Andy good with the 302?” – presumably referring to FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. The next day, February 15, the Flynn 302 was officially submitted and filed with the FBI.

        FBI supervisors like Strzok, however, are not supposed to rewrite other agents’ 302 forms. Nor are 302 forms supposed to be edited by FBI personnel who were not present at the interview, and both of these things happened in the Flynn case. “I’ve probably written in the close to the low thousands of 302s. I’ve probably supervised or overseen thousands upon thousands of more of those,” James Gagliano, retired 25-year veteran of the FBI and current CNN analyst, told RealClearInvestigations. “This is not how we do business as an FBI supervisor. I never, ever materially altered a 302.”

      3. bytehbook:

        I’m wondering if you read this excerpt from your own article that you posted:

        “Sources told The Post and The Times that while the report undermines the president’s most extreme claims, it also finds fault with how the FBI handled its surveillance of the former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.”

        Not inserting FBI spooks undercover to work for the Trump campaign DOES NOT mean they didn’t spy upon him. You, yourself, have commented many times on all the people in the Trump campaign that the FBI spied on. Plus the recorded telephone conversations, the unmasking.

        How can you comment on spying and then pretend it didn’t happen? That’s not reason. That’s hoping no one really thinks about what you’re saying.

        1. Yes, and it also found a lower tier lawyer forged some documents. It did not find systemic politicalization, spying, or bad faith beginnings or execution of the investigation.

  8. If Hilary was instrumental in helping the Russians get control of 25% of our uranium output, why would the Russians help Trump?

    1. Oh God, that one again. No, Hillary didn’t help Russians get control of US Uranium. 8 different agencies approved this sale. Stop watching Fox. it will rot your brain

      1. Russia paid APCO to get a favorable decision from the Obama Administration to allow them to buy the uranium company. One of the actions they took was to contribute to the Clinton Global Initiative with the understanding it would help get the deal through.

        That’s a bribery allegation. Perhaps they bribed officials in some of the other agencies that approved it, too. Perhaps State was one of the major approvers and others followed suit.

        “The Hill reported that Russian officials engaged in a “racketeering scheme” to further its energy goals in the U.S. And an FBI informant recently told congressional committees that Russia paid millions to a U.S. lobbying firm in an effort to influence then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to make sure the deal was successful.”

        It is true that multiple agencies had to approve this deal.

        Here’s what’s also true:

        “Some investors reportedly donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Former President Bill Clinton also received a $500,000 speaking fee in Russia and reportedly met with Vladimir Putin around the time of the deal, Republicans, who are largely critical of the deal, have said.
        The FBI had looked into the agreement and uncovered that some Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in nefarious dealings, which included extortion,
        bribery and kickbacks, The Hill reported. Evidence of wrongdoing by Vadim Mikerin, the Russian official overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion in the U.S. who was eventually sentenced to prison, was discovered by the FBI before the deal was approved, according to The Hill.
        Author Peter Schweizer – who wrote about the deal in his 2015 book “Clinton Cash” – told Fox News that there is no evidence that the people involved with approving the agreement knew that the FBI had an ongoing investigation into it.
        But White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told Fox News “if anyone colluded for a foreign government in [the 2016] election, it was the Clinton campaign [and] the Democrats.””

        “Douglas Campbell, the FBI informant, alleged that Moscow paid millions of dollars to a lobbying firm to help Bill Clinton’s charities in order to influence Hillary Clinton, who was then former President Barack Obama’s secretary of state.

        Campbell made the claims in a 10-page statement given to the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Intelligence Committee and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

        Campbell said Russian nuclear officials “told me at various times that they expected APCO to apply a portion of the $3 million annual lobbying fee it was receiving from the Russians to provide in-kind support for the Clinton’s Global Initiative.””

        “The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over twelve months,” Campbell
        said in the statement. “APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the US-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement.


        1. Payola was most cetainly going on. After Hillary lost the donations pretty much dried up, one of the very few donations coming via Trudeau who plays loose and free with Canada’s wallet.

          1. If Hillary Clinton was not selling access through her foundation, then why did donations drastically reduce when she lost her bid to be president? The foundation’s work, and therefore charitable value, should have remained the same.

            What were these foreign nations buying, that they were no longer interested when she lost?

            1. Karen, no doubt many donating where looking for recognition and a favorable eye from Hillary. That is the case with much of charitable donations made in the public eye by corporations and individuals – PR. The problem with your conspiracy is that the Clintons never made a dime on the Foundation and it has been rated a 4 star charity by the organizations who do the ratings to protect donors from being ripped off. By benefiting the charity, the true beneficiaries were those who were being helped.

              Thinks about it.

              1. How stupid do you think we are??? There are all kinds of ways to use a charity for your own benefit. If you fly somewhere, then it is on “charity” business. If you have a girlfriend, you get her a “job” at the charity. If you have a big campaign donor, you give their kid a job at the charity. If there is some group you want to support you, you throw some charity money at them. Or you give them a charity contract, There are all kinds of ways to benefit from a slush fund/charity.

                You idiot!

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

      2. But the Witch was the overseer and suddenly Bill goes to Russia and gets a huge payoff. Maybe you have a bit of judgedement? What about Benghazi and the poor video guy who lost his civil rights–had the first trashed– by Barry and the Witch. No problem for types like you, we suppose.

      3. Yes, and those agencies are not loaded with clinton/Obama-ite communists and muslims and would never approve anything just because they were directed to by their communist lords. As usual, the CommieDems projected their crimes onto their political enemies. Andrea Mitchel denying it means nothing, except their is a$$ covering going on.

      4. I am 2/3 of the way through Eichmann Interrogated, and that is the smokescreen he kept throwing up. “I was just running a transportation department and trains and things.” Somebody else decided which Jews to kill when. Somebody else decided what to do with the children of Liddice. That was other agencies and the Foreign Ministry, etc. etc.etc.”

        Nope, the deal would not have gone down without Hillary and Bill getting their cut. Notice how the “donations” dried up after she lost???

        Pull your stupid head out of your stupid a$$. And quit trying to gaslight us!

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Squeeky – have you ever read the examination of Herman Goering at the Nuremburg Trials? While the American was examining him, Goering ran huge circles around him. Finally, they put in the British prosecutor, added some film and nailed him. He still cheated the hangman.

      5. The Uranium One thing I never understood. There are tons of uranium in Russia. Mines and plenty of raw uranium and enriched uranium, you name it they got it, already. So there is no need for Russia to do anything much to buy our uranium. And they have plutonium breeder reactors and an arsenal of nuclear weapons which could annihilate all our major cities already.

        This was a “scandal” that didn’t deserve ten minutes time to try and figure out. I can think of 100 worse things to say about Hillary than that one. Perhaps some corruption or profiteering, but not of any grand significance compared to her other mischief.

        I suspect it was disinformation planted to wind people up and send them running down the wrong alleyway. Maybe there was some profiteering or corruption involved but it had no geopolitical significance. With respect to my Republican friends who got wound up over it, they wasted your time on that one already, so, dont waste time on it anymore, perhaps? .

    2. Andrea used to be a good journalist, these days’ she’s nothing but a mouth piece for DEMOCRAPS. she doesn’t care about facts, truth, morals or justice. she only cares about the democrap party period.

  9. “In a tweet that reflects a common spin in the media, MSNBC anchor Andrew Mitchell yesterday”

    Yeah. Andrew Mitchell. That guy from Philly.

    Oh, what care Mr. Turley takes with facts.

    Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks

    1. Hart Williams:

      “Yeah. Andrew Mitchell. That guy from Philly.”


      If I wrote like that, I would not be criticizing another’s grammar.

  10. If any charges are filed against Joe Biden, could he get off by pleading insanity or maybe the fact that he is not in total control of his facultys?

  11. Turley says: ” Moreover, we now know that there was no credible evidence of Russian collusion supporting the investigation.” Uh, Turley, WE know nothing of the sort. Read the Mueller Report. Read Flynn’s written guilty plea. Read the transcript of Flynn’s testimony wherein he says: “I am pleading guilty because I am guilty.” Note also the fact that Flynn pleaded guilty to not registering as a foreign agent on behalf of Turkey while he was acting national security advisor–another crime. His plea bargain was that the latter charge would be dismissed if he pleaded guilty to lying, which he did.

    Turley also says: ” The Flynn investigation remains controversial for many Americans and Biden’s conflicting answers on his knowledge and involvement magnify the importance of this story. Some of us remain very concerned over the investigation by the Obama Administration based on flimsy and later rejected evidence, including a dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.”

    Once again, the Mueller Investigation did NOT rely on the so-called “Steele Dossier”. That’s a Fox News/Kellyanne talking point, and it is a lie. The American Intelligence community says Russia interfered with the election to sway voters in key states where Trump could pull of an Electoral College win despite losing the popular vote. The Trump campaign provided Russian hackers with insider polling information for their use in a social media smear campaign containing lies against Hillary Clinton directed to swing voters. This is why Trump is not, and never will be, legitimate. He cheated.

    Turley says: “There was nothing unlawful or even strange about Flynn speaking with Russian diplomats as the incoming National Security Adviser, particularly after the Obama Administration imposed sanctions just before the Trump Administration came into office.” More distortions of fact, so we’ll explain it one more time: FLYNN WAS CHARGED BECAUSE HE LIED, not because he spoke to Kislyak. LYING TO THE FBI was, and still is, a crime. Flynn was fired for lying to Pence, but now, Trump claims he was “exonerated”, and even that he is an “American hero”.

    Lastly, why don’t you comment about Fox News harping to the TDS disciples that President Obama is going to prison for “unmasking”, which they’ve been beating the drum about over the past couple of days?

    1. Why do I suspect that you have lots of dreams about being molested over-sexed right-wing militiamen???

      Oh I know! It is because you live in a fantasy world where facts intrude not. This would be obvious to you if you had to express a coherent thought. For example, in your own words, can you explain what collusion took place with specific evidence?

      I am betting you can’t.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. Natacha says: “The American Intelligence community says Russia interfered with the election to sway voters in key states where Trump could pull of an Electoral College win despite losing the popular vote.”

        Wow. That’s quite an accomplishment — pulling off an Electoral College landslide as Trump did. So you’re saying the Intel community knew that the Russians knew exactly which states and counties to target with social media smear campaigns in order to help Trump “cheat to win” by changing voters’ minds on behalf of Trump? Holy cow. Can you even hear yourself??

        But Natacha, really, isn’t this essentially what the “media” does daily on behalf of the Democrat party? That is, interfere to “sway voters” by telling outright lies, smearing Trump and Republicans, while pushing out Dem propaganda talking points?

        Yes, yes it is.

        1. It wasn’t any landslide–Trump was NOT the choice of the American people, and the swing votes he obtained were gotten by fraud. I didn’t say “the Intel community” told hackers where the lies against HRC would do the most good–this information was obtained from private polling conducted by the Trump campaign, which fed the information to Russian hackers. Russians put ads on social media containing lies about Hilary Clinton, with content they knew would help sway certain voters. That’s called cheating. Read the Mueller Report. This sort of behavior shouldn’t be surprising–Trump has cheated his entire life, including cheating his way out of the military, cheating contractors, cheating on his 3 (so far) wives, the list goes on.

          The only “media” that spreads lies to sway voters on a daily basis are Fox News, Sinclair Broadcasting and Limbaugh. Since Trump has all of the power now, why would mainstream media attack him, since kissing his ample ass gets rewards? It doesn’t make sense, but since you are a starry-eyed Trump devotee who believes Hannity, et al when they tell you mainstream media can’t be trusted, you really, truly believe this. It’s called speaking truth to power, and it comes at a price.

          1. Natacha,

            The above was inadvertently marked by the system as Spam so I restored it.

              1. Squeeky – glad that you mentioned something about it. I think about 99.99% of Natacha posts belong in the spam folder. But, that is just me. 😉

                1. Amen, PaulCS, amen!

                  I sometimes wonder is somebody smart is pretending to be a stupid Democrat. But with all the Democrat stupidity, it is hard to tell sometimes.

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

          2. Wrong,

            the Russians gave some helpful disinformation to Hillary in the form of the pee pee dossier that was used to prop up the bogus FISA warrants, that was one part of their meddling, and the other was the small Russian spend on FB ads favoring trump

            both were part of a dual pronged strategy — this was a forked attack. not on the candidates but on the legitimacy of the elections as such. i can tell you dont play chess but look it up

            today putin will say whatever he deems will give putin the advantage. he now says he wanted trump. and indeed perhaps he did. so what? foreigners from all over the world are pulling for one horse or another. mexicans yet hiding out in the US hate trump, but they are entitled to an opinion too.

            see this is the frame of context that the press never explains. foreigners can say quite a bit about our elections and it is not usually deemed all that consequential. actually foreigners in the US have free speech too. they can participate on our social media. for all we know some of these fakers on here are some foreigners who for their own reasons are Chicom collaborators out to slur trump every day, for example. but they get a say too.

            the attack was not to favor either candidate, it was to discredit the system., it could not have succeeded so wildly well, had the Dem leadership not taken up the chance to exagerrate it for 3 years, as an excuse for their own sabotage and illegal acts against the incoming Trump administration.

            1. Kurtz, you left out Wikileaks which the Mueller report confirmed with tech detail and the fact that our intelligence agencies concluded Russia intended to help Trump. The reasons are obvious and he’s been worth the investment.

              1. The fellow from Crowdstrike offered testimony three years ago to the effect that they couldn’t prove a thesis that the DNC servers had been hacked by anyone.

            2. Outstanding comment. Here you add some of the info and nuance that is rarely discussed.

          3. Natacha- I know huh, remember when Fox News was featuring and promoting day in and day out that Michael Avenitti was the greatest thing since sliced bread and a great presidential candidate!

            And how they pushed Jussie Smollett as a victim of nasty Trump racist, homophobic supporters ?

            How Fox News could continue to allow Chris Cuomo a nightly show with his quarantined in the basement hoax as he travelled who knows how many places and spread the virus to who knows how many people including his own family members is just shameful.

            And how that Fox News ran story after story trying to destroy Kavanagh life based on a claim by a woman who could not even offer any proof they ever met and yet tried to bury Tara Reade who no doubt actually worked for Biden and if they just did a bit of due diligence who have found
            back up to her story in their own archives.

            And don’t even get me started on the Fox News Benghazi was a “Film Protest” story and you must be a racist if you say otherwise BS that first really woke me up to just how sleazy Fox and the Obama admin they constantly defended really was.

            I could go on and on, but certainly no one should pay attention to any of those who pushed such nonsense.

            1. Because of the way the hypocrite media is ignoring Tara Reade story, word is some staffers who worked on the Kavanaugh nomination are considering dropping the big juicy oppo file they have on Christine Ballsy Ford. I say do it. Drop that bomb. Get it all out there on the air waves. Should have been done at the time.

        2. “pulling off an Electoral College landslide as Trump did” is nonsense. If you list all presidential elections by percent of the E.C. vote, Trump comes in 46th out of 58 elections.

          “isn’t this essentially what the “media” does daily on behalf of the Democrat party?”

          No. Moreover, the U.S. press is protected by the 1st Amendment, whereas Russian interference is illegal interference by a foreign country. No patriot should want a foreign country interfering in our elections.

          Russia interfered to help elect Trump. Don’t take my word for it. Read what the DNI concluded (dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf) or what the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded (intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf and intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf). You may not want to believe it. The question is: are you open to changing your mind based on that evidence, or will you refuse to consider it?

          1. Russia and other countries have been interfering in US elections forever. Barack Obama regularly interfered in other country’s elections. Russia helped Hillary far more than Trump. That’s a fact. As for the mainstream media, they are virulently anti-Trump.

            1. It’s illegal every time foreign countries interfere.

              Your claim that “Russia helped Hillary far more than Trump. That’s a fact” is not a fact. The non-partisan DNI’s report and the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee’s report agree that Russia interfered to help Trump. (FWIW, there are two other volumes in the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report: intelligence.senate.gov/publications/report-select-committee-intelligence-united-states-senate-russian-active-measures )

              And there’s a range of media, some of whom are pro-Trump and some of who are anti-Trump.

              1. How, specifically, did Russia interfere to help Trump?

                Also, let’s more accurately state that *most* in the mainstream media are virulently anti-Trump and they do not try to hide it anymore.

      2. I’ve asked before, and I ask again: where does a convenience store employee get the gall to launch ad hominem attacks against attorneys and others who aren’t disciples in the Church of Trump and who point out inconvenient truths that you have no intelligent answer for? Where do you get the nerve and chutzpah to talk about being motivated by sexual fantasies, while ignoring reality? Talk about living in a “fantasy world”.

        1. I think Sadie Mae Glutz was projecting from here sexual fantasies.

        2. Natacha – the answer to all you questions, you pretend lawyer, is the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

        3. You’re not even close to being accurate , your sources are bad sources . My guess is you get your info from one of the below

          : Cnn, Msnbc,Abc,Cbs, Nbc, HuffPost, NYT, WashPost, The AP, BuzzFeed, Politico, NewsWeek, The Hill, Rolling Stone, Sky News, USA Today, Time, LA Times, Reuters, BBC, Boston Globe, Vox, The Miami Herald, Mother Jones, HLN Yahoo, MSN, NY Daily News, Vice, Univision, People, PBS, NPR, New Yorker, Wall Street Journal, Daily Beast, Bloomberg, Aurn, National Journal, BI ,

      3. Even though my initial response was stricken, I’ll try once more. You work in a convenience store, and have the chutzpah to accuse a lawyer of living in a sexual fantasy world”where facts intrude not”, and wanting to be sexually assaulted by oversexed right-wing militiamen because you disagree with what I have to say. You have cited no facts to even make an intelligent counter discussion to points I raise because there aren’t any. So, like your hero, Trumpy Bear, you lash out with insults. Your insults are particularly amusing and say more about you than you realize: you probably look at that bald, bloated, lying, narcissist and see a real he-man, self-made billionaire who has the privilege of grabbing womens’ genitals, lying and caging young children who happen to be brown. You probably look at those shaved-head losers waving the American flag and carrying their assault rifles and see a display of powerful masculinity. This is laugh-out-loud funny, but pathetic at the same time.

        You want to know “what collusion took place”? Have you read the Mueller Report? That’s where the facts are located.

        1. Natacha – where is that BMI score. Two, you are the absolute Queen of the Gish Gallop. Three, want those GRE and LSAT scores, too.

          1. What an idiot. This is to “I don’t know my…from a hole…” Paulie.

            1. Marky Mark Mark – you are out during daylight. SURPRISE!!! I know you are hurt I picked Natacha as my number one Gish Galloper, however, in my heart of hearts, you are numero two.

              1. And you are our #1 Idiot, Paulie, though it was a close call. You have a lot of competition on this blog.

                1. commenting anonymously while seeking attention.

                  No ballz, no courage, just a shill, a cowardly one at that.

                2. Marky Mark Mark – I do not know why in these diseased times you have to hide away. Still, I am not an idiot.
                  Since this is a legal blog, we shall (must) use a legal definition.

                  Search Results
                  Web results

                  Idiot legal definition of Idiotlegal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com › Idiot
                  IDIOT, Persons. A person who has been without understanding from his nativity, and whom the law, therefore, presumes never likely to attain any. Shelf. on Lun.

        2. There are no facts in the Mueller report !!!!! You liberals are going to have your world turned upside down , Mueller report was 100% propaganda and illegal and it was reported yesterday that Mueller will likely be indicted on multiple felony counts .

    2. Tic Toc. Zer0 is going down. And not in the way he’s used to.

    3. “Turley says: “There was nothing unlawful or even strange about Flynn speaking with Russian diplomats as the incoming National Security Adviser, particularly after the Obama Administration imposed sanctions just before the Trump Administration came into office.”

      Natch says…. More distortions of fact

      NO, not distortions of fact, we call that context. you refer to your own distortions and call them fact

      this is like the pot calling the kettle black, and you do it to Turley every day. Shame!

      1. Kurtz, Flynn lied about the event – that is indisputable – and it was because he was telling the Russians to keep cool because Trump had their back. The next day Putin announced he would keep cool. That’s the full context.

    4. But you admit the whole ‘collusion’ investigation was a spurious, partisan farce that, despite a couple of years of expensive huffing and puffing turned up nothing of any signficance? And why demand a high standard of Fox when CNN creeps like Rachel lied about the progress of the investigtion all day long for years?

  12. Question for Andrea Mitchell: How many of those routine unmaskings you referenced resulted in illegal leaks to the media of classified information?

    1. More honest and accurate for Andrea to say —-> Illegal leaks to the media of classified information was “routine” during the Obama administration.

  13. “As long as we argue with how the information keeps coming out, we never have to acknowledge the information itself.” That’s the same lamestream media position since rumors of the coup first started coming out.

  14. Flynn was actively subverting the foreign policy of the US, without the knowledge of Obama or Trump. Then he lied about it to Pence and the FBI. All of this he admitted. Russia was actively working to get Trump elected, the Senate Report and the Mueller Report confirms this (even if Trump himself was unaware of it). This is a major counterintelligence issue and the Obama administration would have been grossly negligent to ignore it. Trump already won, so there could be no electoral issues with the investigation anyhow.

    1. Flynn was actively subverting the foreign policy of the US, without the knowledge of Obama or Trump.

      Thanks for the fantasy. Always entertaining.

    2. Are you truly that clueless or just hitting the kool-aid heavily this early in the day?

    3. “Flynn was actively subverting the foreign policy of the US, without the knowledge of Obama or Trump.”

      How many incoming National Security Advisors, prior to Flynn, were ever denied contact with our foreign adversaries? The precedent was set long ago. Flynn was doing what every incoming Nat Sec Advisor does.

      “Then he lied about it to Pence and the FBI. All of this he admitted.”

      Predictably, you omit the threat to his son that “coerced” his so-called admission.

      “Russia was actively working to get Trump elected”

      There is zero evidence that their efforts affected the election at all.

      “the Obama administration would have been grossly negligent to ignore it”

      They were, because they did.
      “Politico spoke with more than a dozen current and former officials from across the national security spectrum, including intelligence agencies, the State Department and the Pentagon. Almost all said they were aware of Russia’s aggressive cyberespionage and disinformation campaigns — especially after the dramatic Russian attempt to hack Ukrainian elections in 2014 — but felt that either the White House or key agencies were unwilling to act forcefully to counter the Russian actions.”

      “Trump already won”

      I AGREE!

      1. Flynn was requested by the White House to call key Ambassadors and make introductions… the call was ‘exemplary’ – nothing in the call was every in question.

        The FBI questioning Flynn was all made up. They had the call, the entire transcript – no reason to talk to Flynn at all.

        1. The FBI had an ongoing investigation on a possible conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. As a member of the campaign who talked to the Russian Ambassador immediately after Obama imposed sanctions for election meddling. Remember, that before the FBI interviewed him, Pence misrepresented what Flynn and the ambassador discussed, later saying Flynn had lied to him.

          Of course they would talk to Flynn.

          1. My God man just stop , you’re not even remotely close to being accurate .

  15. Astroturfers call government records gas lighing. Punch a hole in a piece of bread, put in hot skillet with butter in the center, crack in an egg. The result is called a gas house egg aka, one eyed egyptian. Take with grains of salt and pepper.

  16. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. The big news was that Acting DNI Grenell declassified and made public “the existence of previously-unknown intercepted foreign communications that identified Flynn.” Mueller wouldn’t have said anything about that, as Grenell did this yesterday.

    As for Simpson’s conjecture that these requests were connected to “the nuclear reactor deal that Michael Flynn was texting his business partners about during Trump’s inauguration,” you say “after investigation by Mueller and gang nothing was discovered,” but I don’t see anything in the Mueller Report suggesting that that was part of his investigation. Can you quote what you’re referring to in the Report (www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf )?

    And when you say “your reason for the suspicion is totally unfounded,” it’s not *my* reason, as I am not Susan Simpson. That I quote someone doesn’t imply that I agree with them. I haven’t investigated it enough to agree or disagree. I quoted that part for context of the news that Acting DNI Grenell had declassified and made public “the existence of previously-unknown intercepted foreign communications that identified Flynn.”

    1. Sorry, this was intended as a reply to someone on the previous page. Not sure why it was unthreaded from that.

  17. Great editorial by Dan Hennigner this morning. Got this copy from a scraping site, so some grammar errors.
    Barack Obama is popping into the reverse Oracle of Delphi. He generally will get it proper for the flawed causes.

    Sensing the populist temper in 2008, he intoned about individuals “who get bitter, they cling to weapons or faith.” Missed in translation was that these “individuals” thought elites like him have been those who had separated culturally and politically from mainstream People.

    Now he says the Justice Division’s determination to drop the case in opposition to Mike Flynn due to a number of prosecutorial violations of guidelines defending defendants’ rights means “the rule of regulation is in danger.” Proper topic, flawed lecture.

    Herewith a tutorial. Again within the 1980s, writers for the Journal’s editorial web page coined the phrase “contained in the Beltway” to explain the moatlike freeway across the nation’s capital, whose inhabitants had grow to be politically and psychologically remoted from the remainder of the nation.

    Many People then got here to imagine presidential elections have been the a technique they might ship the Beltway a message. In 2016, we had an Earth-to-Beltway election, whose message was about greater than Donald Trump.

    Subsequent yr or 4½ years from now, Mr. Trump’s presidency will cross into historical past. Left behind, although, shall be a everlasting Washington institution by which many People right this moment don’t have any belief. None.

    In early 2017, the Flynn case wandered out and in of the information, but it surely all the time had a nasty odor. What seemed like a low-grade mistake by Mr. Flynn received constructed right into a high-stakes prosecution, with particular counsel Robert Mueller’s legal professionals pressuring him with household and financial ruin except he took a plea and helped them fry greater fish in a Beltway-wide venture—Donald Trump and Russian collusion.

    Final week, after U.S. Legal professional Jeffrey Jensen examined the Flynn file on the request of Legal professional Normal William Barr, the Justice Division concluded that the abuse of Mr. Flynn’s rights was so egregious that it dropped the case.

    What are People imagined to conclude when this occasion comes within the wake of Inspector Normal Michael Horowitz’s embarrassing report of how senior officers on the FBI and Justice used overseas intelligence warrants to crush Carter Web page, a Trump marketing campaign functionary?

    Earlier than that, the general public dutifully learn limitless newspaper column inches in regards to the pursuit by James Comey’s FBI of the manifestly preposterous Steele file (if this wasn’t a conspiracy principle, the phrase has no that means), adopted by Mr. Mueller’s staff of Beltway legal professionals ransacking lives to output a thick quantity of unproven collusion suspicions, then handing it off to Adam Schiff’s Home Intelligence Committee for extra iterations of dragnet subpoenas, culminating within the wasted weeks of a Senate impeachment trial.

    It has been fairly a show of uncorked institutional firepower by the Beltway’s finest and brightest. One might ask: What didn’t they know in regards to the rule of regulation, and when did they cease understanding it? They grew to become what they thought Mr. Trump was—subverters of the American system.

    Brains snapped all over the place when Trump the Terrible grew to become the Republican Occasion’s presidential nominee. However Trump-driven derangement isn’t ample rationalization for what occurred. The deeper purpose for these excesses is that the individuals who administer the American system misplaced religion within the American system. So that they debauched the establishments they have been charged with defending for all of us.

    The system they so distrusted has held. Lawsuits have been filed in opposition to Mr. Trump’s coverage initiatives, and courts at each federal degree wrestled with competing interpretations of the regulation. Midterm elections returned political management to Democrats within the Home and a number of governorships.

    For 3 years the financial system and employment boomed, for which Mr. Trump rightly took credit . Then the coronavirus pandemic put his management expertise to a extreme, and once more the American individuals will cross judgment on that this fall.

    In spite of everything, what’s [strange] is the dearth of regret throughout the Washington institution. Unapologetic vanity on this scale means that unmaskings, intelligence abuses and leaks are prone to return as off-the-books weapons in opposition to people disliked by the everlasting bureaucracies. In a telling touch upon Justice’s dismissal of the Flynn case, Mr. Comey tweeted: “Profession individuals: please keep [faith]as a result of America wants you.” Comeyist careerism was the issue.

    Legal professional Normal Barr—now being carpet-bombed by the Beltway—deserves credit and help for pushing again in opposition to the concept that establishments with such monumental investigative and prosecutorial energy can grow to be devices of not way more than political self-righteousness. Whether or not Mr. Barr’s pushback is sufficient to clear up the place is one other matter.

    U.S. Legal professional John Durham’s investigation of the origins of those occasions, whereas the Obama administration was nonetheless in workplace, modified final October from an administrative assessment to a legal inquiry. Indictments and prosecutions can be a crude software to proper this ship, however perhaps that’s what it takes.

    As to the inconsolable haters of the 45th president: Hold hating if you’d like. That’s anybody’s proper. However take into consideration rejoining the system that protected the person rights of each American earlier than this presidency and can achieve this after he’s gone.
    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  18. It’s a reasonable wager that Biden would have no memory of something he’d done last month, much less three years ago.

    Another observer has floated the idea that contractors hired by John Brennan are responsible for the unmaskings, having stolen the credentials of a number of officials to do it. Have no clue if this is even technically possible. However, Samantha Power has said in the past she drew a complete blank about the unmasking and that someone must have stolen her credentials. It would not surprise me if Power is telling the truth. (She’s always struck me as a Eurotrash ideologue, not a scam artist).

      1. Do you have any clue what’s real news and fake news ? The below is an actual list of confirmed FAKE NEWS SOURCES .

        Cnn, Msnbc,Abc,Cbs, Nbc, HuffPost, NYT, WashPost, The AP, BuzzFeed, Politico, NewsWeek, The Hill, Rolling Stone, Sky News, USA Today, Time, LA Times, Reuters, BBC, Boston Globe, Vox, The Miami Herald, Mother Jones, HLN Yahoo, MSN, NY Daily News, Vice, Univision, People, PBS, NPR, New Yorker, Wall Street Journal, Daily Beast, Bloomberg, Aurn, National Journal, BI ,

Comments are closed.