Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the contradictions revealed in recent disclosures, including the list of officials seeking to “unmask” the identity of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. There seems a virtual news blackout on these disclosures, including the fact that both former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden followed the investigation. Indeed, Biden’s name is on the unmasking list.
Here is the column:
The declassification of material from the Michael Flynn case has exposed more chilling details of an effort by prosecutors to come up with a crime to use against the former national security adviser. This week, however, a letter revealed another unsettling detail. Among over three dozen Obama administration officials seeking to “unmask” Flynn in the investigation was former Vice President Joe Biden. This revelation came less than a day after Biden denied any involvement in the investigation of Flynn. It also follows a disclosure that President Obama was aware of that investigation.
For three years, many in the media have expressed horror at the notion of the Trump campaign colluding with Russia to influence the 2016 election. We know there was never credible evidence of such collusion. In recently released transcripts, a long list of Obama administration officials admitted they never saw any evidence of such Russian collusion. That included the testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former White House adviser who was widely quoted by the media with her public plea for Congress to gather all of the evidence that she learned of as part of the Obama administration.
The media covered her concern that this evidence would be lost “if they found out how we knew what we knew” about Trump campaign officials “dealing with Russians.” Yet in her classified testimony under oath, she said she did not know anything. Farkas is now running for Congress in New York and highlighting her role in raising “alarm” over collusion. As much of the media blindly pushed this story, a worrying story unfolded over the use of federal power to investigate political opponents.
There is very little question that the response by the media to such a story would have been overwhelming if George Bush and his administration had targeted the Obama campaign figures with secret surveillance. That story would have been encompassing if it was learned that there was no direct evidence to justify the investigation and that the underlying allegation of Russian collusion was ultimately found to lack a credible basis.
But the motives of Obama administration officials are apparently not to be questioned. Indeed, back when candidate Donald Trump said the Obama administration placed his campaign officials under surveillance, the media universally mocked him. That statement was later proven to be true. The Obama administration used the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court to conduct surveillance of Trump campaign officials.
Yet none of this matters as the media remains fully invested in the original false allegations of collusion. If Obama administration officials were to be questioned now, the coverage and judgment of the media may be placed into question. Even this latest disclosure of the unmasking request of Biden will not alter the media narrative.
Unmasking occurs when an official asks an intelligence agency to remove anonymous designations hiding the identity of an individual. This masking is a very important protection of the privacy of American citizens who are caught up in national security surveillance. The importance of this privacy protection is being dismissed by media figures, like Andrea Mitchell, who declared the Biden story to be nothing more than gaslighting.
While unmasking is more routinely requested by intelligence officials, with a reported 10,000 such requests by the National Security Agency last year alone, it is presumably less common for figures like Biden or White House chief of staff Denis McDonough. Seeking unmasking information that was likely to reveal the name of a political opponent and possibly damage the Trump administration raises a concern. More importantly, it adds a detail of the scope of interest and involvement in an investigation that targeted Flynn without any compelling evidence of a crime or collusion.
The media portrayed both Obama and Biden as uninvolved. But now we know they both actively followed the investigation. According to former acting attorney general Sally Yates, she was surprised that Obama knew about the investigation and knew more than she did at the time. Obama called upon former FBI director James Comey to stay after a meeting to discuss the investigation. Comey had mentioned using the Logan Act to charge Flynn, even though the unconstitutional law has never been used successfully in a prosecution since the country was founded.
Biden has repeatedly denied knowledge of the investigation. Just a day before the latest disclosure, George Stephanopoulos asked Biden in an interview what he knew of the Flynn investigation. Biden was adamant that he knew nothing about “those moves” and he called it a diversion. But that is not true if he took the relatively uncommon action for a vice president of demanding the unmasking of Flynn information.
Yet none of this matters. A Democratic administration using a secret court to investigate the opposing political campaign does not matter to many in Congress or in the media. An investigation continuing despite the lack of credible information supporting collusion does not matter. A president and a vice president who take personal interest in the surveillance of their political opponents also does not matter.
There was a time, however, when all of this did matter. There was once a time when this would be viewed as the story of the century, including the unmasking of Biden himself in this investigation. But these are not those times, and this cannot be the story. Russian collusion is the story and, as Biden stressed, the rest is just a diversion. It is up to the public to decide who has been ultimately unmasked by the Flynn investigation.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.
(music to tune of Mrs. Robinson)
Here’s to you…dummy Democrats..
Jumping Joe has up and gone astray…
Way hey hey!
His brain is a barnacle…
Both sides are covered in grey.
Hey, hey hey.
It is hard to imagine that Turley can take the position that what Trump does every day – tweet demanding investigations of his political enemies explicitly is AOK. And that if Trump withholds military aid from a foreign country until they agree to announce a bogus investigation into a political enemy’s son – that is also OK, because Trump is the President and can do what he wants.
But when Obama was President, if he even wanted to know who that guy was talking to the Russians then really, this is the major, major scandal.
Does Turley think that if Obama was doing what Trump is doing now he would be getting away with it like Trump is? I mean, he just fires everyone investigating him and hires people who agree to go after his political enemies, and somehow Turley is promoting the Trump narrative that Trump is somehow the victim here.
Disturbing to say the least. We walk among zombies.
Why do you come here if all you ever do is say nasty things about Turley and his blog? You’re the zombie.
They
1. get paid by the character to troll for David Brock / George Soros
2. miserable people
3. personality disorders
4. no one to love
5. combination therein
I like to argue. You both apparently prefer CJs and require confirmation to believe the BS.
btb:
Given the magnitude and frequency, one would think you’d be better at it.
Biden was bought by the Ukraine gas company through his son. He did the gas company’s bidding by threatening the Ukraine if it did not fire the prosecutor who was investigating the gas company. It both right and good government for the administration to go after, fully, the Biden family. Joe, his son and his brother.
“…Turley is promoting the Trump narrative that Trump is somehow the victim here.”
No, Turley is not. Nowhere does Turley excuse Trump for his mishandling of the Office POTUS.
Until the American people are able to see their leaders for what they are – fallible humans – the media and the concerns of our government will be able to use our emotional attachments to our chosen leaders to manipulate us.
It’s easy for us to see this emotional, seemingly irrationally, devoted mindset in the case of Trump supporters…right? Is it so hard for us to believe that our support for Obama was just as ‘blind’.
During the 2016 campaign, Obama stood on a stage and declared that if Trump won the election he would see that as an “…insult to my legacy.” A bit egotistical, don’t you think? What if Trump declared the same thing about Biden winning?
I don’t like Trump, didn’t vote for him, but the media has done a lot of damage by not addressing the faults of our government objectively and from ALL sides.
“A bit egotistical, don’t you think? What if Trump declared the same thing about Biden winning?”
SHM. Trump makes egotistical comments on a daily basis. FFS, in the midst of a pandemic, he rated his totally inadequate response a 10 out of 10:
Reporter: “Mr. President, the other day, you said that you were not responsible for the testing shortfall. A very simple question: Does the buck stop with you? And on a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate your response to this crisis?”
Trump: “I’d rate it a 10. I think we’ve done a great job.”
Do *you* think he’s “done a great job”? Over 85,000 people have died. Notice how he couldn’t bring himself to say whether the buck stops with him. He deflects responsibility all the time, lying about Obama having left him “broken tests” for a virus that didn’t even exist when Obama left office, saying that it’s not his fault that the NSC pandemic response team was disbanded in 2018, … He focuses all the time on ways to build up his ego, and half the time he’s lying about things (like his job approval) to do it. And on top of that, he expresses no real empathy for the many people who’ve died and those who are grieving or in other distress.
“Do *you* think he’s “done a great job”? Over 85,000 people have died. ”
Very poor argument devoid of any reasonable comparison. Is Trump responsible for the 50% death rate in NJ that were in senior living facilities? The 80% death rate in senior facilities in Michigan? How about the death rate in NY nursing homes? Was Trump resonsible for sending Covid patients to nursing homes in these states and in Pennsylvania where the health department head did the same but knew she should put her own mother into a hotel.
Who was responsible for not disinfecting the subway trains?
Why are all these states Controlled by Democrats.
Why are half the deaths from Covid from three Democrat states?
My question wasn’t addressed to you, but since you quoted it and then asked me a bunch of questions, if you want me to answer your questions, you’ll first need to answer my question that you quoted — “Do *you* think he’s ‘done a great job’ [in dealing with the U.S. response to the pandemic]?” — as my question came first.
After you answer mine, I’ll answer yours.
Re: “Very poor argument,” just to be clear:
a) I think the number of people who’ve died is itself evidence that he hasn’t done “a great job” with the national response — a job he rated 10 out of 10.
b) I wasn’t trying to make a strong argument that he’s done a “totally inadequate” job. (I was responding to a claim about an “egotistical” comment from Obama by noting that Trump has said much worse.) But I absolutely can make a strong argument that Trump’s response has been totally inadequate. If you want me to, say so.
Committ – the model was that 2 to 2.5 million would die and under 90k are dead and you are saying he is not doing a good job?
Where is your goalpost for “good job”?
*One* model (not “the” model, as if there is only one) predicted that ~2.2 million would die in the U.S. “In the (unlikely) absence of ANY control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour” (emphasis added, https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf )
That’s saying that if the government did absolutely nothing, and if citizens did absolutely nothing on their own spontaneously, that many people would likely die.
Of course the government has done more than nothing (and of course, the government’s actions aren’t limited to federal government actions, but also include state and local government actions). Of course many people have spontaneously chosen to do things that minimize their own risk. It’s absolutely ludicrous to compare the result of Trump’s actions to everyone doing absolutely nothing.
Did he do a good job given what a President can actually do? Absolutely not. The first case in the U.S. and South Korea were diagnosed on the same day. We’ve had ~273 deaths per million to date, and they’ve had ~5 deaths per million. We’ve had more than 50 times as many deaths/million as they have. We’re the wealthiest country. We were supposed to be the best prepared for a pandemic. My goalpost for a good job is “at least as good as the best responses from other developed countries.” What’s *your* goalpost? “Better than nothing?”
“beyond a doubt, that the level of polarization on these comment threads has increased dramatically”
That is why a considerable number of deaths can be blamed on blue state governors, in particular NY.
Compare Democratic NY # of deaths 28,328 to Republican Florida # of deaths 1,997. Democrat NY lost more nursing home lives than Florida lost in total deaths and Florida has a larger population than NY.
The % death rate of nursing home residents in Democrat NY is ~5% while in Florida where the largest number of senior citizens reside is 0.6%.
You have just proven your earlier response to Whitiker false.
The above is Allan.
I don’t know who you’re quoting about “polarization,” but it isn’t me. I also have no idea what you meant by “You have just proven your earlier response to Whitiker false,” as you haven’t quoted anything from me that was false.
If you think it doesn’t pertain to you don’t worry about it.
Committ – so then, why did Obama leave the cupboards bare?
Paul, Congress set the budget for our national storehouse and it was GOP controlled in the later years of the Obama administration. The administrator of that budget weighed and chose priorities within it’s limitations. Trump had been in office 3 years when this crisis hit and with a GOP Congress for the 1st 2 years.
Paul, all you can do is laugh at this guy.
Your question, “why did Obama leave the cupboards bare?,” assumes that’s true, but you haven’t shown it’s true
You should know that it isn’t true. Obama left Trump with a Pandemic Playbook (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6819258-Playbook.html ), with an NSC pandemic response team that Bolton disbanded in 2018 (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/white-house-pandemic-response-john-bolton-global-health-team-disband-nsc-a8346346.html ), and more.
Committ – have you read the Obama plan? We would all be dead now. Start on p. 17 and work your way down, checking off the problem areas.
No Paul, only the crackers would be dead, The brothers and hipsters would be taking over your abandoned house and car and looking for the white women. How did you get a copy?
Anon – this is AZ and I am heavily and legally armed.
“have you read the Obama plan?”
Yes.
“We would all be dead now.”
A claim you don’t substantiate. Don’t tell me to read the playbook again. Quote whatever you think would lead to us all being dead.
The fact remains that you implied “Obama [left] the cupboards bare,” and you haven’t substantiated that, and there’s evidence it’s false.
Commmitt – I told you to start reading the Obama Plan at p.17 and just start ticking off boxes. We would all be dead now.
“After you answer mine, I’ll answer yours.”
Comparing the job to what I believe others in his place would have done and considering the fact that he was being impeached until Feb 5 where most Democrat eyes were averted away from anything but impeachment I would say he did a good job.
“a) I think the number of people who’ve died is itself evidence that he hasn’t done “a great job” with the national response.”
IMO very poor critical thinking.
This is a natural disaster or at least a CCP disaster that according to models could have killed 2.5 million people. I don’t agree with the models, but that is what the President had to deal with. One half of the deaths occurred in 3 Democrat states where at least 2 of those states demonstrated severe failures in the way they handled the virus. If NY doesn’t maintain the subway and a train crashes killing many it is NY that is at fault not the President.
As I just pointed out to Paul, models predicted millions of deaths in the U.S. “in the (unlikely) absence of ANY control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour” (emphasis added, citation in my post to Paul).
So that’s a ludicrous comparison. That he’s done better than nothing does not suggest that he’s done a good job.
He’s made serious mistakes over and over and over again. Here’s one good list of the many, many times that Trump ignored relevant information (like the Obama Admin. pandemic playbook and early warnings about the spread of COVID-19), attempted to cut needed funding (like pandemic-preparedness funding), cut positions that would have helped us respond in a more timely way (like disbanding the NSC pandemic response team and eliminating an American public health position in China that was designed to detect disease outbreaks there), and more: https://www.justsecurity.org/69650/timeline-of-the-coronavirus-pandemic-and-u-s-response/
He refused to take the illness seriously in January and February and immediately make sure that there would be widespread effective testing available, sufficient PPE available for healthcare workers, capacity to do contact tracing, checking for symptoms in people returning to the U.S. from areas where the virus was already known to be infecting people, etc., and he’s endlessly lied about the situation (e.g., in March: “We’re having to fix a problem that, four weeks ago, nobody ever thought would be a problem,” when he was literally handed a playbook years earlier and had received warnings months earlier). He crows about having shut down travel from China, but ignores that 40,000 Americans who’d been in China returned and he made no attempt to test them or advocate that they self-quarantine. When Americans were finally flown back from the infected Diamond Princess cruise ships, he mixed infected passengers and healthy passengers on the flight home (letting the State Dept. take control of this, where they chose to act against CDC guidance) and then didn’t provide PPE or guidance to the people meeting them in the U.S. When he created the Europe travel ban, there were no plans for how to keep the thousands of returning Americans sufficiently far apart in the airports (and airplanes are themselves a context that increases spread, because air is recirculated). He kept talking about the Defense Production Act but hasn’t invoked it to produce PPE. He lied over and over about sufficient tests being available (e.g., “Anybody that wants a test [for the coronavirus] can get a test.”) and when asked if he took responsibility for the lag in testing, responded “No, I don’t take responsibility at all.” He has frequently tried to shift responsibility to governors for things that could more effectively and cheaply be done by the federal government (e.g., PPE production and distribution), forcing states to compete with each other and sometimes seizing supplies that states had ordered. He’s allocated items from the national stockpile not on the basis of state need but as a reward to the states where he has more political support. He’s advocated magic solutions (like all of his claims that COVID-19 would just “go away” and “It’s going to disappear. One day it’s like a miracle, it will disappear,” his later comment “I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning …,” etc.).
The bottom line is: until there is a vaccine, then testing / tracing / self-quarantine for exposed people is the primary means of reducing the number of infected people, and he has squandered MONTHS refusing to deal with this, months during which tens of thousands of people have become infected and many have died unnecessarily and many others now have other longterm health and economic harm. It’s been over 4 months since he became aware of this pandemic and we STILL don’t have an effective test and trace program.
“he was being impeached until Feb 5”
And how do you account for him doing next to nothing for the rest of February, even holding rallies that enabled spread, going golfing, …?
“I would say he did a good job.”
And my question was if he had done a _great_ job. I take it that you don’t think he did a great job either, since you say “good,” not “great.” I don’t think he’s done a good job either, perhaps because I’ve paid more attention to all of the things he’s done wrong by both comission and omission.
“One half of the deaths occurred in 3 Democrat states”
He’s President of the entire country, including states governed by Democrats. Is he the only elected official who has made mistakes? Absolutely not. But other people’s mistakes don’t excuse Trump’s mistakes.
As for your questions:
“Is Trump responsible for the 50% death rate in NJ that were in senior living facilities? The 80% death rate in senior facilities in Michigan? How about the death rate in NY nursing homes? …”
My opinion is that he is partly but definitely not wholly responsible for all of the spread of infection that occurred after he got the first warning and did nothing.
“Who was responsible for not disinfecting the subway trains?”
You’ll need to present evidence that the trains weren’t disinfected. AFAIK, the trains have been disinfected for quite a while, and the main change was that they used to do it at the end of the line, while keeping the system open, but then they shifted to closing the entire system for a few hours. I could be wrong about that. But even if I’m wrong, Trump is still responsible for not sounding the alarm immediately and working immediately with governors and mayors of big cities to start addressing the issues outlined in the Pandemic Playbook. That playbook says “The U.S. Government will use all powers at its disposal to prevent, slow, or mitigate the spread of an emerging infectious disease” and then outlines the various departments that are relevant and what they should be doing. Our federal government did NOT do everything at its disposal. It still isn’t doing everything at its disposal.
“Why are half the deaths from Covid from three Democrat states?”
I don’t know. My guess is that it’s linked to JFK being the airport with the most international flights, and it’s in 1 of those 3 states and near the other two. Just a guess.
“So that’s a ludicrous comparison. That he’s done better than nothing does not suggest that he’s done a good job.”
Instead of 2.5 million deaths we have 2.4 million people alive that wouldn’t have been. I’m using the logic you used in an earlier post.
That article you are posting is trash. There is such a thing as lying by commission which we can argue about but there is also a thing as lying by omission which that report surely did. I won’t waste my time posting much better timelines that more accurately state what transpired.
Needless to say during the earliest days when Trump already ordered the Chinese Traveller Ban the Democrats were in the process of impeaching him so the article is really full of cr-p.
I see that you and CK both specialize in the Gish Gallop which is a waste of time.
“And my question was if he had done a _great_ job. I take it that you don’t think he did a great job either, since you say “good,” not “great.” “
Let’s put it this way. He had to deal with Democrats. ½ the deaths were in 3 Democrat states. Therefore one might conclude that had the Democrats been in control we may have lost 2.5 million and our economy. If that is the comparison you are talking about then he didn’t do just a great job but a fantastic job. When you add his fantastic job and subtract the lousy job Democrats would have done one is left with a good job which is far more than satisfactory.
>>“One half of the deaths occurred in 3 Democrat states”
>”He’s President of the entire country, including states governed by Democrats.”
From your perspective he could act like Xi. I understand your autocratic mindset. I so happen to believe in the pillars this country was founded on.
“You’ll need to present evidence that the trains weren’t disinfected.”
No I don’t because I don’t care if you get the news or not. You seem to filter the news so only that part of it that you like is recalled. I had the exact same problems with CK07 so you can go back to my discussions with him to fill in any of the details you filtered out.
Here’s your leader. Would you buy a used mask from this guy?
https://twitter.com/funder/status/1258742453441617920
I wouldn’t buy a used mask from anyone, but you would buy misused opinions as long as they reflected today’s Democratic viewpoint (that would contrast greatly with prior Democrats.)
V Whitaker – Trump voters already know that voting for Biden would spit in the face of Trump’s legacy. They are not as dumb as the presstitutes think they are.
“But when Obama was President, if he even wanted to know who that guy was talking to the Russians then really, this is the major, major scandal.”
Obama just wanted to know who was talking to the Russians? That’s funny. As if he didn’t cynically direct the FBI to use the Logan Act to destroy Flynn’s life. As if he didn’t illegally direct the entire Russia Hoax using foreign and domestic spies to destroy the lives of many others.
This is the biggest scandal in American history and Obama can’t hide forever.
The IG report on Crossfire Hurricaine found nothing that you claim Ivan.
Not true.
Post it.
You are the one who runs away when facts are presented. Then despite the facts you repeat the foolishness again and again. I’m not playing that game with you. Beside, you haven’t read the entire IG report or read a transcript of the IG at the House hearing.
Let me know when you actually have a copy of both. Then we can discuss the facts. Right now you can’t say what it doesn’t. That makes your statement to Ivan erroneous.
Obama just wanted to know who was talking to the Russians? That’s funny. As if he didn’t cynically direct the FBI to use the Logan Act to destroy Flynn’s life.
____________________________________________________
The FBI did not use the Logan Act to destroy Flynn’s life. There is no evidence that the FBI ever even discussed the Logan Act with Flynn.
There is no evidence that the Trump DOJ that prosecuted Flynn ever contemplated the Logan Act as a possible offense that Flynn might be charged for violating.
Why are you liberals always so bloody poorly informed? Tully wrote about this in the hill just last week… “As Strzok overruled career officials to keep the case open, he raised the Logan Act as a possible way to charge Flynn. We know that former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates also raised the Logan Act for the case, and we know that McCabe pushed the Logan Act with the absence of other crimes.”
Obama may be able to hide forever. There has never been a guy with more enablers than him. Except maybe Bill Clinton.
If Obama was scrutinized and treated like Trump he would be in jail.
This must be big! It is 11:00PM CST, and the shills are still at it! Correct The Record must be paying overtime!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky – it is all that Soros money.
They hate Turley and his blog yet they come back everyday. It’s obvious they’re not genuine.
You left out the criminality, which was the leaking of Flynn’s name to the media.
Wait till Biden finds out he’s running for president and not the senate.
Joe Biden probably thinks unmasking has something to do with Halloween.
Thanks for the notice, Allan.
You will note within the lawsuit that not a single physician is named amongst the plaintiffs.
https://www.mackinac.org/archives/2020/Grand_Health_vs_Whitmer_Complaint_and_Exhibits.pdf
Physicians have no power these days in America. If any physician were to speak against the govt authorities, he / she would lose their job since physicians today depend on employment from revenue driven organizations or academia
Americans do not realize just how broken our health system is. Not surprisingly physician suicide has increased in recent decades. Physicians have the highest rate of suicide compared to other professionals
https://donoharmfilm.com/
Americans seek medical care from professionals who have the highest suicide rate of any profession. Physicians have no power to push back on America’s COVID-19 lockdown. Connect the dots
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/896257
Physicians Experience Highest Suicide Rate of Any Profession
With one completed suicide every day, US physicians have the highest suicide rate of any profession. In addition, the number of physician suicides is more than twice that of the general population, new research shows.
A systematic literature review of physician suicide shows that the suicide rate among physicians is 28 to 40 per 100,000, more than double that in the general population.
The review showed that the physician suicide rate was 28 to 40 per 100,000; in the general population, the overall rate was 12.3 per 100,000.
Estovir – this will make dentists happy. They used to head the list.
Paychiarists at one time, but they are physicians. I wonder if they are skewing the total?
Psychiatrists lead the pack
Estovir – is their any reason for their competitiveness?
Psychiatry was once the bottom of the barrel when it came to physician residency training programs. New MD grads fell into Psych because they could not match into their preferred area. Today Psych is a hot field and MD grads are now gunning for Psych because of pediatric psych needs for reasons we all know. Today’s kids are a hurting population
I do not have any physician friends who have committed suicide but I do have acquaintances who did so: Emergency Medicine, Surgery and a few others. It used to be that Anesthesiologists had the highest addiction and suicide rates because they felt no one took them seriously within medicine. They also had access to all of the opiates, ketamine, etc. Not anymore: it is tightly monitored
As for Psych, my experience has been (N=1) that they were “interesting” people but none of whom I cared to befriend. Just my take
Psychiatry’s Match Numbers Continue to Climb
https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2019.4b24
The increasing numbers of medical school seniors entering psychiatry is likely to continue, a result of both the profession’s rising status and popularity as well as heightened competition forcing many students to apply to more than one specia
Estovir – psychiatrists are only writing scripts now and doing little actual therapy.
Addressing the escalating psychiatrist shortage
https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/addressing-escalating-psychiatrist-shortage
U.S. Seniors Matching to Psychiatry Increases For Sixth Straight Year
https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2018.4a3
Estovir – the following is why we have a problem.
“Our whole society is affected by untreated mental illness,” says Anna Ratzliff, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Washington (UW) School of Medicine. “It affects people’s ability to work, build relationships, and contribute to their communities.”
I wonder what drugs Anna uses to get out of bed in the morning?
In a sane world one would opine that we already had too many psychiatrists and too many lawyers. (I have nothing against either group)
No, we have too many law school graduates. The ratio of working lawyers to the annual graduation cohort is (compared to other licensed occupations with long training times) so low that it suggests that about 1/3 of all law school graduates fail to build a career as a working lawyer.
The courts are scandalously inefficient, but if I’m not mistaken, interactions with the courts take up only a modest share of the legal manpower in the United States. Back in the day, there might have been 1,900 working lawyers in town I grew up in. There were about 200 who were prosecutors, salaried public defenders, f/t judges, or judge’s clerks. The firm my family used (since dissolved) had about two-dozen lawyers. My recollection is that they had one partner who specialized in trial work.
I would wager it is true that our body of statutory law and regulation is barnacle encrusted and uninformed by microeconomics. The fault there doesn’t lie with lawyers-in-general, but with legislators and lobbyists, with an assist from judges).
==
What we really should work on is dismantling monster law, which has no analogue in Britain (to take one example). Firms like Jones, Day should not exist.
I had an acquiantance who said in med school she was going in to psych and then go to Africa to help with their mental health issues. She actually did go there long enough to learn there was no interest in her skills. Last I heard she was practicing in the US.
I couldn’t imagine how those African sessions could have gone.
Culturally inept.
Take note I believe fewer future physicians are going into neurology and areas are deficient in trained neurology. If I am correct there are good reasons for that.
I recall reading that a few years ago.
I wouldn’t expect a named physician to be on the complaint. The money is in the hands of businesses or hospitals that own the physicians. Not a good situation. As you say the healthcare system is broken but IMO it becomes more broken as government controls more and more of the healthcare sector. You might think me crazy but I was involved in discussion with a bunch of economists years ago and at the time I said if we went back to a market healthcare system we could save 30% without any change in quality. The economists corrected me and said 50%.
We are wasting a lot of talent, spending a lot of money and look at what happens when a crisis arises.
The rest of the developed world provides universal coverage at on average 60% of our per capita costs and with different but essentially equal ratings for health and patient satisfaction. Various systems achieve this result from UK’s socialized medicine to France and Germany;s mix of private and government care and insurance. The one feature they all share is strong government involvement in setting prices. There are no “market” systems that provide universal coverage or reasonable pricing.
Anon, if the rest of the world was busy jumping off of roofs killing themselves would you also throw yourself off the roof.
Outcomes are best in the US. Citizens in the US not only spend more money on healthcare (much of it wasted because of too much government intervention in the wrong places) but Americans spend more money on television sets, more bathrooms, bigger refrigerators, more square feet of living facilities, etc. Now do you think you can reach into the recesses of your brain and come to us with a better argument?
UK health system has many complaints by the Brits
Check the NICE website and prepare to read lots of complaints by Brits about National institute for health and care excellence
Americans have got it made
https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?q=patient%20satisfaction%20survey
I am familiar with the British health system and it isn’t pretty. I once read a news article about how one hospital was saving money by turning the sheet over when one patient left and another to his place. I questioned the validity of the article but it did come from a reputable British source. In my estimation socialized medicine guarantees a ticket to wait on line.
“Americans have got it made”
If one is born in America it is like winning a lottery ticket. A lot of fools think this country is a terrible country and want to correct it in the fashion of Stalin or Mao (even though they don’t have the slightest idea what those leaders did to their people). I would like to give them one way tickets to Venezuela with a roll of toilet paper.
We even have Functional Medicine, thank heavens.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-start
No, we don;t have it made and we can’t afford it anyway.
What country provides the best outcomes (do I live or die; do I get better or worse)
Take Breast cancer. US has a better survival rate than all countries. We can work our way down the common cancers in the US and see that in the end the US overall has the best outcomes.
Estovir, Hi.
Yes, Brit/Commie care sucks.
I’m in the middle of US healthcare right now/Live.
It’s got some major ph’in problems, but…
But what? If you want to live get to the Coppers? LOL:)
We’re down going to intravenous mega dose vitamin C, etc….
Or we can just take some Bug Poison Ph’in Big Pharma Chemo that’s never worked it seems! LOL:)
Sarc Off.
Sorry typo/ Get to the Choppers if you want to live……..
BTW: Estovir, a lot of people need to stop being so full of themselves.
Modern Plumbers greatly improve most peoples health the last 100 or so years.
Mechanics, engineers, etc… the same
Quit with all the hero warship crap, I’m a ph’in hero, I got a white lab coat…..
Enough of that Crap, this is American, it’s expect, demanded, we all rush to the aid of our countrymen when need calls.
So wipe your azz with those Toxic mask you people wore all day & plush it all ready. LOL;)
Estovir,
I don’t know I’ll see this thread later if you do reply, if I don’t I’ll catch you down the road. G’nite 😉 Chin up always, give’m something to aim at.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/03/u-s-pays-more-for-health-care-with-worse-population-health-outcomes/
What’s behind high U.S. health care costs
But commonly held beliefs for these differences appear at odds with the evidence, the study found.
Key findings included:
Belief: The U.S. uses more health care services than peer countries, thus leading to higher costs.
Evidence: The U.S. has lower rates of physician visits and days spent in the hospital than other nations.
Belief: The U.S. has too many specialists and not enough primary care physicians.
Evidence: The primary care versus specialist mix in the U.S. is roughly the same as that of the average of other countries.
Belief: The U.S. provides too much inpatient hospital care.
Evidence: Only 19 percent of total health care spending in the U.S. is spent on inpatient services — among the lowest proportion of similar countries.
Belief: The U.S. spends too little on social services and this may contribute to higher health care costs among certain populations.
Evidence: The U.S. does spend a bit less on social services than other countries, but it is not an outlier.
Belief: The quality of health care is much lower in the U.S. than in other countries.
Evidence: Overall, quality of care in the U.S. isn’t markedly different from that of other countries, and in fact excels in many areas. For example, the U.S. appears to have the best outcomes for those who have heart attacks or strokes, but is below average for avoidable hospitalizations for patients with diabetes and asthma.
” below average for avoidable hospitalizations for patients with diabetes and asthma.”
I don’t know what that means or its significance. Dismissing this, the question should be whether or not the US has better outcomes for asthma and diabetes. Then one would have to break that down into population groups, environment, etc.
When people compare healthcare systems from one country to the next more frequently than not they are comparing totally flawed surveys, social problems, genetics and many other things rather than the delivery of modern healthcare. This confuses much of our population.
Medical school is a costly proposition. Some MD schools like Wake Forest costs $90k per year. Frankly Wake isnt all that.
https://school.wakehealth.edu/Education-and-Training/MD-Program/Costs-and-Financial-Aid
Im against our current CMS based medical system. Private payers follow the lead of CMS. There is no incentive for PP to pay more or do much better than CMS so private payers use CMS as their competition. That is setting the bar low.
OTOH greed is a very real problem and physicians of the 1970s and 80s caused the problem we currently have. I entered medicine afterwards. I did a stint in industry and it paid well but I do not recommend kids go into medicine unless if they have a specific plan as a physician and can promote themselves.
Med education is also revenue driven.
Subscribing to socialized medicine ala UK, Canada, Spain, Italy….not fulfilling, no autonomy
Estovir, I am very familiar with the costs of medical school. Far higher than the costs should be in this nation. The full pay student is paying for a lot of other things than his own education. I am not happy with such inflated costs but don’t worry too much about those costs because physicians as a whole earn far more than the general population. I am not saying they are not worth a high income but the cost is like a train ticket to get one across the country to a much higher paying job.
“Im against our current CMS based medical system. “
It sucks.
“OTOH greed is a very real problem”
I take issue with the overuse of the word “greed”. If a person works twice as much because of greed and earns twice as much there is nothing wrong. The cause of the problems was not the physician who was following the law, it was the government who created inadequate laws. Most physicians didn’t earn “that much” but some did and some took advantage by not fulfilling their obligations. However, blaming the fox after WE put him in the hen house isn’t the foxes fault . It’s ours.
I once did a speadsheet comparing income and costs of a full pay medical student and a new trainee as a plumber. It took years for the doctor to draw even with the plumber.
White Coat Investor is a site specifically aimed at helping physicians get out from under the enormous debt from med school.
Yes, Doc mags specialize in ads for investmant companies. Strangely enough plumber’s magazines don’t.
Plumbers have magazines?
😲
David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-four citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after seventy-six weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. The Harvard Plumber’s Review and the Cornell Plumbing Quarterly are peer-reviewed.
So they do:
https://www.plumbermag.com/
🔧🚿🚙
David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-four citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after seventy-six weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – I’ll stick with my peer-reviewed mags.
BT Commie/Nazi B,
If you/others don’t comply with plumbers demands, you’ll likely be swimming in Chit City. lol
I’ve been a bit of a Sarc Mf’er for decades, but truly believe you’ve all screwed the pooch for the last time.
Just do a gut check, look at the Airports….
How many planes were fly months back Vs now?
All most nothing flying here or elsewhere.
A not unexpected doltish remark.
Bythebook,
White Coat investor is run by a doctor who is interested in helping his fellow docs deal manage their finances and dealing with debt by providing information he himself found/finds helpful.
Sorry for the double post. The above comment was delayed in posting.
Sure you did. That’s why you don’t want your kids going to college. Right?
Plumbers begin earning much earlier than physicians do and they don’t incur massive debt.
So, you have counselled your kids to work under sinks?
Tell the truth.
This is a conservative talking point that one suspects is not followed by those saying it. It’s intended for the working class and black and brown kids who are crowding our little Johnny’s campus, not for Johnny.
That is the way an idiot thinks. If I became a plumber my goal would be to learn everything I could about plumbing, business and marketing. The intent would be to create a client base to expand the business. Gradually other excellent plumbers would be hired to do the ever increasing work. This could lead to a large company that would make more money than the vast majority of physicians.
Many years ago in a McDonalds I met a smart young black man who owned the McDonald’s. He did not have a college degree and started off flipping hamburgers working his way to become a manager and then an owner. He knew what he was doing so McDonalds was already permitting him to buy his second McDonalds in the inner city. I can almost guarantee that he eventually earned much more than most physicians.
I don’t think people realize how smart most physicians actually are. They are also willing to work long hours and study at other times. That means if they went into other fields many could earn far more than they do in medicine.
” I do not recommend kids go into medicine unless if they have a specific plan as a physician and can promote themselves.”
Functional medicine. Many do not accept insurance and they have a great deal of autonomy. Plus, at least in my experience, they actually help patients with chronic health problems feel better.
The average MD Grad owes ~ $200k upon graduation. Concierge medicine wont get them out of debt
I remember a person who had terminal pancreatic cancer. He was told the treatments would add some life but could make him feel sick. He was uninsured. Instead of bankrupting his wife after his death he decided to forgo the treatments that were lousy at best.
Instead he spent a bit of extra money going out to dinner, movies and shows with his wife. That was what one could call “functional medicine” because he felt better than he would have.
Allan – my brother was just treated for bladder cancer. He is also stage 4 COPD, with a maximum of 2 years to live. Now, if he take the radiation treatment for the bladder cancer he will live for 10 years, but the COPD is still going to kill him in 2. Guess what choice he made?
The poor choices offered the elderly are not getting better
The one choice that they’ve had added to the menu the past decade is the “Black pill”
i bet a lot more are going to be taking that option too, tired ot it all.
before you know it, give it a decade, the black pill won’t even be an option, it will be mandatory
you can see the trendline and that’s where it’s going
Allan,
Well, that’s not quite how I’d characterize Functional Medicine.
The Institute for Functional Medicine provides additional training for doctors who wish to treat the problems underlying chronic illnesses. The regular doctors I saw when I was sick only threw medication at me. Not one suggested dietary changes, like removing gluten. Not one wondered why I was getting sick so often and requiring antibiotics. The Functional Medicine doctor took a better health history and provided far better care. I made the necessary changes, took the prescribed supplements, and lo and behold, a bunch of the health problems I was told I’d have to deal with for the rest of my life by regular doctors went away. I do need to take thyroid medication, but my skin problems, sleep problems, eye problems, memory problems etc etc are resolved. Heck, the last time my thyroid was checked, the antibodies against it were gone, too.
That is a nice anecdote and I have no objections to living a healthy life. The movies that cancer patient went to left him with a better appetite, less discomfort, less anxieties etc.
In fact a placebo can provide positive results as well so don’t forget the placebo effect.
I collect odd things and part of my collection contains machines used by quacks. They all depend on one thing, the ability of the person to believe in the cure. That doesn’t mean that changes in diet can’t have more than a placebo effect. If it works enjoy it and don’t worry about why as long as it can’t hurt you.
Allan,
“That doesn’t mean that changes in diet can’t have more than a placebo effect.”
Yep, diet and targeted supplements definitely do more than placebo effect. To have really bad rosacea and super-annoying blepharitis, among other things, just go away was a huge relief.
One has to be careful that a high price isn’t being paid for marketing rather than science. Howevere, if a quack helps a person take better care of himself then that quack had value for that patient even if there was zero science behind anything he said.
Allan,
Why do you think Functional Medicine doctors are quacks? It seems that you think they are not using science to treat patients. If so, why do you think that?
I didn’t say they were quacks. I did indicate that there is such a thing as the placebo effect. I go for results. The healthcare industry is loaded with people that can market themselves, ideas and products. In the past some of these people were called snake oil salesmen. If they are marketing something that works that’s great if they aren’t then that is not so great. If it’s harmful it’s bad. Remember how many people went on certain vitamins only to stop them when research found they were harming rather than helping.
Allan,
I agree that there are some issues with empty marketing in the healthcare industry, particularly for anything presented as a silver bullet.
If you go for results, then there are a bunch of problems in mainstream medicine. Rosacea is managed. It doesn’t just go away. Blepharitis is managed. It doesn’t just go away. That is my experience. I realize I am one case study, yet interesting things can be learned from case studies.
There is science underlying why both these (and other) problems went away for me. It took a systems approach rather than drugs and creams and eyelid washing.
What happened with me is most certainly not a placebo effect.
People have also been put on prescribed drugs that were harming rather than helping.
Prairie, I am glad things worked out for you. I just know where ever there is a lot of money there will be marketers inventing a reason for their existence.
A very good way of getting information (needs to be verified as not harmful or dangerous) are disease groups of ordinary people that talk together as to how they have been managing their problems. It is amazing how frequently low tech care can help individuals in need.
Allan,
“I just know where ever there is a lot of money there will be marketers inventing a reason for their existence.”
Heh. Sounds like you are talking about the pharmaceutical industry.
I agree about the benefits of people discussing how they are managing chronic conditions and improving their health. I did appreciate the targeted guidance of the FM doctor. The more personalized guidance was extremely helpful. I have friends with Hashimoto’s who manage their health differently with success, though we each have found some overlapping similarities (such as gluten-intolerance).
The FM docs I see/have seen do not ‘market’ themselves. I am distrustful of those who particularly market themselves and I have steered clear of anyone who does. If the information and care is good, the merit and value of that doctor will stand up on its own.
“Heh. Sounds like you are talking about the pharmaceutical industry.”
Prairie, prices might be higher than one would like but that industry produces life saving drugs and vaccines. Right not the industry is trying to produce a vaccine for Covid along with treatments. Do you put them in the same category as snake oil salesmen.
Most of the industry has been pretty good though there are some real stinkers. The reasons for such high prices I believe has more to do with factors external to the industry rather than internal factors. Think of middlemen, billion dollar costs, oppositional forces to liquidity constraint, FDA problems etc.
“I did appreciate the targeted guidance of the FM doctor.”
I’m happy if you are happy.
Allan,
“Prairie, prices might be higher than one would like but that industry produces life saving drugs and vaccines. Right not the industry is trying to produce a vaccine for Covid along with treatments. Do you put them in the same category as snake oil salesmen.”
It is complicated. I recognize that the pharmaceutical industry does indeed produce some fantastic, life-saving medicine.
I also understand some of the reasons why some medications are expensive, much of which centers on the high cost of producing drugs, the high cost of trials, etc.
I do think there are issues with the pharmaceutical industry marketing directly to consumers, however.
I do not think they are entirely in the same category as snake oil salesmen. I do have concerns about the true efficacy of many of the medications. So many of them are for ‘management’ of disease rather than for returning patients to health.
There is a place for many pharmaceuticals in healthcare, but that should not be the sole solution and pharmaceuticals are most definitely the go-to solution for a great many chronic health problems.
Patients’ micronutrient deficiencies are not addressed (and with things like diabetes there are quite a few); dietary change is not really, effectively addressed; lifestyle factors like exercise is not really addressed. People need to take responsibility for their health, but they also need effective guidance.
How to fix that? It’s complicated with the interference of any kind of insurance (yes, I include the government insurance in that, too). Why dictate who can be seen, for how long, how many patients doctors can see in an hour, etc? I’d lean towards a functional medicine/health coach model for some elements of medicine, if at all possible.
There seems to be an unfortunate bias towards pharmaceuticals in medicine when unpatentable things like combinations of minerals (along with other changes) can restore health. In my case, a boatload of creams and pills did not fix the nasty case of rosacea I had; it actually seemed to make my overall health worse.
Many of those medications were, effectively, bandaids for what was primarily diet and lifestyle-induced illness. While my thyroid is damaged such that it is underactive and I do need to take medication to fill in the gap, my thyroid is no longer going to burn itself out with antibodies against it. At least at present, I am not up to my eyeballs with inflammation like I had been.
The coronavirus seems like a pretty good reason to really address chronic health conditions like obesity, diabetes, and hypertension that are the main comorbidities that occur with Covid-19 fatalities.
Really addressing the problem, not just giving people drugs, is going to take some serious discussion and work on the part of the citizenry, medical professionals, and within the government.
If Americans want to really be the land of the free and the home of the brave, they’re going to need to step up to the plate. The chronic health problems of Americans is not in the best interest of our nation as a whole, not to mention the terrible suffering of people at an individual level.
“I’d lean towards a functional medicine/health coach model for some elements of medicine, if at all possible.”
Prairie, I don’t think anyone is preventing that so you already have what you are asking for. Everyone has the opportunity to choose a diet of their choice, walk into a vitamin store and buy countless varieties of vitamins.
One of the problems with free choice is people can make bad choices. Does anyone think those ~70,000 overdose deaths didnt know the risk they were taking? I think almost everyone knows the dangers of smoking and excess drinking. Add to the big three an appropriate diet along with excercise and I think we have covered most of the bases.
Darren,
WordPress has decided to snarf down another one of my posts. Would you be able to find and free it? Thank you for all your help!
Prairie Rose
The system snagged it but it is now restored.
Thank you so much, Darren!
Ornery WordPress anyway!
Darren,
WordPress ate another one. Would you be able to find and free it?
Allan,
“Prairie, I don’t think anyone is preventing that so you already have what you are asking for.”
I never said it was being prevented. There are lots of excellent functional medicine doctors. However, patients pay out of pocket to see them since they typically do not accept insurance. The care I received and occasionally continue to receive has been worth every penny, but many people are not able to afford them (particularly the low income people who really struggle with many chronic health problems brought on by poor diet, exercise, etc).
The care is also different from that delivered by PCPs and doctors with specialties. Doctors with specialties in particular look for dysfunction within their system of specialty, even if the symptoms they see may be prompted by dysfunction in another system(s).
Functional medicine doctors ask for symptoms across systems. The body is one big system; dysfunction in one area can easily lead to problems in another area. Poor digestion or a poor diet means poor absorption of nutrients/micronutrients means insufficiency for optimal cellular function (and eventually poor organ function).
Patients are expected to take responsibility for their own care to an extent–they are in charge of putting the doctor’s recommendations and prescriptions into play. That’s where the health coaches can come in. They can provide guidance and support for patients who feel overwhelmed or who are struggling with motivation.
The initial visit I had with my FM doctors was easily an hour; after that 15-30 minutes so go over tests, additional concerns, progress.
Doctors are doing their level best to care for patients with complex chronic conditions, but at least in my experience, they were missing some additional knowledge to really treat chronic problems. Like a few missing pieces to help solve a puzzle. It was like they needed a little bit more or a little bit different training. I do not know whether the training doctors receive could be modified to pattern more closely to functional medicine.
“Everyone has the opportunity to choose a diet of their choice, walk into a vitamin store and buy countless varieties of vitamins.”
This is so. However, picking and choosing vitamins without professional guidance and observation is not necessarily helpful and could potentially be harmful. Professional guidance is important. Depending on someone’s personal health history, one diet may be better than another or a diet should be eased into rather than jumping in feet first.
For example, someone could be deficient in zinc, selenium and vitamin D, but without professional guidance, building up an excess of any of them can be seriously detrimental.
Guidance is needed on testing, too. For example, people cannot necessarily easily find out whether they have H. pylori in their guts, and then, if they do, what is the best way to handle it and why. In addition to eliminating H. pylori, what are potential downstream problems from having had that infection (e.g., subpar status of minerals that require adequate HCl in order to be absorbed effectively)? Why was it able to take up residence in the first place? Stress? Deficiency?
You mentioned free choice. We are both big proponents of free choice. That said, should people who need government support for food have the same degree of free choice or should the government get to direct to a greater extent what can or cannot be purchased with food stamps?
Are there incentives people could earn for becoming healthier?
What about processed food being so cheap, so cheap that people often buy it instead of healthier options? Should ingredients in such things be subsidized?
Many of the health problems in our nation stems from the two issues brought up by Charles Dickens in A Christmas Carol–Ignorance and Want spell our Doom. There are other factors, too. It’s complicated…
“However, patients pay out of pocket to see them”
Prairie, that is a good thing.
“What about processed food being so cheap, so cheap that people often buy it instead of healthier options?”
Good question. I wonder if instead of food stamps we can’t mail them a lot of rice and a rice cooker. That could be accompanied by can’s of Tuna Fish, bottles of Peanut butter and carton’s of eggs. Stop throwing out all the vegetables that don’t look good and sell them at the cheap market. Add a multivitamin if you wish. The rest can be paid for out of pocket.
I am being a bit sarcastic though what I say sarcastically isn’t bad.
Darren,
A post of mine was eaten by WordPress. Would you be able to free it? Either that, or it is just slow again to post for whatever reason.
I found one of the comments that was flagged. I restored it.
Thank you, Darren!
Medpage is reporting:
“…whistleblower Rick Bright isn’t a knight in shining armor.”
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86485
Estovir,
On a side note, I did look into zinc fingers a bit on pubmed.
Estovir,
The Politico article about Bright has a bunch of garbage in it. They are echoing the stupid claim that hydroxychloroquine does not work against the coronavirus, and, that it’s dangerous when the dang studies on it didn’t bother to use zinc in conjunction with the zinc ionophore. The media is in Big Pharma’s pocket.
NEWSFLASH
___________
LA County Sheriff says that convicts and hardened criminals know the truth.
“The China Flu And Great American Democrat Melodrama”
is the hoax, the whole hoax and nothing but the hoax.
Prisoners were videotaped sharing a cup of warm water to deliberately spread COVID-19 in order to obtain early release.
They know the democrats have perpetrated a scam on the American people – they know that COVID-19 is not going to hurt them.
You can run but you can’t hide.
A definite number of Americans is going to die from the “China Flu” no matter what measures are taken.
The elderly and immune-compromised must self-quarantine.
The country must go back to creating wealth so that the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) can spend it.
Last week the trumpsters were all hot and bothered because Flynn had been ambushed about the phone call to to the Russians.
This week the trumpsters are all hot and bothered because the call to the Russians had been revealed to the public long before Flynn talked to the FBI.
Doesn’t this weeks bombshell kind of shoot a big hole in last weeks bombshell?
can’t wait to see what they do to shoot themselves in the foot next week.
Judge Sullivan can clean it up. He’s obligated to under rule 48 (a).
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3599674
Your an idiot, hold your breath on That one and for Biden to come out of Hiden and do a Dementia Rally !
Obongo is all hot and bothered contemplating his future in the Federal Supermax Facility – he will be pardoned from the guillotine as “Turkey of the Year!”
Grenell’s Document Release Lacks Context
This week, Richard Grenell, the acting director of national intelligence and a Trump loyalist, sent Senate Republicans a declassified list of Obama-era officials who may have received intelligence on Flynn during the presidential transition. Senate Republicans released that list.
Remember, Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak were discovered as part of the routine surveillance of Russian officials’ communications by the National Security Agency. Usually, the identities of any US citizens who happen to show up in these intercepted communications are protected, since the NSA isn’t supposed to spy on Americans unless they get a special warrant.
But US officials — including members of Congress — can ask the NSA to “unmask” the names of these US citizens to better understand the foreign intelligence intercepts.
The list Grenell provided shows the names of top Obama administration officials who had been authorized to access the intelligence, though NSA chief Paul Nakasone could not confirm that the individuals on the list actually saw “the unmasked information.”
Before you shout “bombshell!”: Unmasking is standard practice. The Obama administration did it. The Trump administration does it. According to NSA data, from August 2015 to August 2016, about 9,000 US citizens were unmasked in communications. In 2017, more than 9,500. In 2018 — Trump’s first full year as president — more than 16,700 US persons were unmasked.
The memo from the NSA that reveals the names of the Obama officials who might have seen intelligence on Flynn also says that “each individual was an authorized recipient of the original report and the unmasking was approved through the NSA’s standard process, which includes a review of the justification for the request.”
Again, unmasking is supposed to happen when US officials legitimately need to know an individual’s identity to better understand an intelligence report they’re getting, as the New York Times’s Charlie Savage explains.
But Grenell’s declassified document lacks this context. It doesn’t say which intelligence reports about Flynn were unmasked or why. The dates on the document provided extend from the specific time period of November 8, 2016, to January 31, 2017; at least when it comes to the Russia investigation, Flynn had conversations about sanctions with Kislyak in December of 2016. Some of those intel reports predate that, so it’s not even clear it had anything to do with the Russia investigation. (Flynn was also up to some strange stuff with Turkey.
Edited from: “Obamagate: Trump’s Latest Conspiracy Theory Explained”
Vox, 5/15/20
“Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak were discovered as part of the routine surveillance of Russian officials’ communications by the National Security Agency” is mistaken.
Ellen Nakashima: “As we [the Washington Post] first reported here https://t.co/eusNgeUPGG, it was the FBI– not the NSA–that collected on Kislyak’s call with Flynn. And the FBI’s summary of that call included Flynn’s name in the open. So there was NO NEED to request an unmasking.”
A better explanation: https://www.justsecurity.org/70199/anticipating-phase-two-of-the-trumped-up-obamagate/
emptywheel.net also has helpful analysis supported by data.
Captain, not standard for so many people without need to know to be involved, especially those in political positions. Reverse the circumstances to see if you’d be fine with this unmasking if political hacks of Bush had unmasked Obama people.
I have other more pressing concerns with Biden. His senility is front and centre. Vote for him at the GE and you are voting for his nominated VP as President. Kamala Harris anyone? Susan Rice? More than worrisome…
So Peter you’re saying we should vote for the even more senile Trump whose Twitter feed gives us a real time look at his senality.
Captain
Yes. I much prefer Trump.
I’ll give you the short version. Kamala Harris will NEVER be eligible for the U.S. presidency. Kamala Harris will NEVER be a “natural born citizen.”
Oh, and Susan Rice cannot both and simultaneously serve America in the office of the president and the cell of a federal “Supermax” prison.
George – being a federal prisoner is not a barrier to being VP
Yes. I concur. But her time there may be physically exhausting. Rumor has it that traitors get a real workout.
#Methinks Joke Biden “UNMASKED” Tara Reade in an alcove of the Russell Senate Office Building.
George – technically, Biden tried to penetrate Tara Reade’s security. He was at least partially successful.
Oh my!
Turley, forgets that what the Obama Administration did is exactly what the trump administration has done for the past three years.
What is the crime exactly? Nothing has been described as what particular crime has been committed. The DOJ’s own legal opinions shield any Obama administration staff from prosecution unless they are willing to admit that trump’s staff is almost immune from prosecution.
My impression is that Professor Turley fully grasps that it is unconstitutional and illegal to commit a Coup D’etat in America or, otherwise, subvert or challenge the authority of the duly constituted government and that type of crime is capital.
UnMasking: Obama and Trump Administrations
There were 9,217 unmasking requests in the 12-month period between September 2015 and August 2016, the first period in which numbers are publicly available. The period was during the latter years of the Obama administration.
The number rose during the Trump administration. The 9,529 requests in 2017 grew to 16,721 in 2018 and 10,012 last year.
From The Associated Press
George, the left lectured us that Trumps request of the Ukrainian president to investigate a political opponent was unethical, immoral, and quite possibly, illegal. Why the double standard, er, indifference now that Biden has been unmasked for doing the very same thing?
They used the Logan Act as an excuse to go after Flynn! That’s some Keystone cops level stuff and all you really need to know although there’s much more. As Turley said, the Logan Act is the last refuge for legal scoundrels. Anyone who defends the use of the Logan Act is outing themselves as a corrupt liar or a useful idiot, take your pick.
Listening to Matt Taibbi’s “Useful Idiots” podcast…
He points to this important detail in McCabe’s 12-19-17 HPSCI testimony
GOWDY: Why did you interview Flynn?
MCCABE: Because “the record of his conversation with Ambassador Kislyak had become widely known through press reporting”…
In other words, a conversation that was leaked by a government official to The Washington Post was used as the pretext to interview Flynn, according to Andrew McCabe. – @VinceCoglianese
Listen in at 4:23 mark where Matt Taibbi talks about McCabe using the illegally leaked conversation as the pretext to interview Flynn —->
Here’s a more complete quote of the exchange:
MR. GOWDY: “Why did the Bureau interview General Flynn when they did? What was the reasoning for the interview?”
MR. MCCABE: “Because the — I’m trying to reassemble this chronology in
my mind, but to the best of my recollection, we interviewed General Flynn at that
time because of the existence of the — of his conversation, the record of his
conversation with Ambassador Kislyak had become widely known through press reporting. And at that point, there was really — there was no — that part of the
investigation had become so widely known there was no — there was no reason to
continue, kind of, in a covert investigative posture and so we wanted to sit down
with General Flynn and understand, kind of, what his thoughts on that conversation were.”
pp. 136-137 of intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/am33.pdf
So McCabe wasn’t answering the question “Why did you interview Flynn?,” but “Why did the Bureau interview General Flynn __when they did__?” (emphasis added).
Your claim that “a conversation that was leaked by a government official to The Washington Post was used as the pretext to interview Flynn” is false. They already knew about the conversation, and they’d been investigating (the “covert investigative posture” McCabe refers to), but after it became public, it made sense to ask Flynn explicitly in an interview. It wasn’t a “pretext.”
So before talking to Flynn the FBI already knew everything that was said in Flynn’s conversation because they had a transcript of the call. They knew Flynn had done nothing wrong.
But then the story was illegally leaked to the press.
Then McCabe says: “And at that point, there was really — there was no — that part of the investigation had become so widely known there was no — there was no reason to continue, kind of, in a covert investigative posture and so we wanted to sit down with General Flynn and understand, kind of, what his thoughts on that conversation were.”
Did you catch that? McCabe said since the story was now in the news, they wanted to ask him “kind of, what his thoughts on that conversation were”……in order to…set a perjury trap….to catch Flynn in a lie??
If that is not a “pretext” then what is it, in your estimation? I’m so curious to know….
Flynn had done something wrong, which is why he lied about it twice to the FBI and allegedly to Trump and Pence, though dollars to donuts at least Trump knew – Flynn spoke to campaign higher ups after his calls with the Ambassador which set up ignoring Obama’s sanctions for election interference.
“Flynn had done something wrong, which is why he lied about it”
If Flynn had done something wrong that is what they would have charged him with.
What were the lies?
“They knew Flynn had done nothing wrong.”
Actually, they knew that Flynn was trying to undermine the foreign policy of the current president. They also knew that Flynn seemed not to have been honest with Pence and the transition team about the content of his conversations with Kislyak.
The Post article came out on Jan. 12, but Flynn wasn’t interviewed until Jan. 24, and Pence was on TV on Jan. 15 claiming that Flynn and Kislyak “did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia.” The FBI knew that that was false and that Flynn had apparently lied to Pence about it.
Have you read the exhibits appended to the DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss? They include 302s from Mary McCord and Sally Yates that go into a lot of relevant details.
“in order to…set a perjury trap”
It wasn’t a perjury trap, which requires having someone testify for no valid reason (the FBI had valid reasons) and where you attempt to trick the person into lying (you’ve provided no evidence of that). And McCabe didn’t suggest it was a perjury trap.
So, no, it was a “pretext.” Apparently you just haven’t taken time to learn all of the relevant details. You can read the 302s here: usatoday.com/documents/6884020-Dismiss-Case/
“Actually, they knew that Flynn was trying to undermine the foreign policy of the current president.”
It would be nice to know what Flynn said that undermined the foreign policy of the President that was leaving office in a very short time. One can’t figure out what Flynn did that undermined Obama unless Obama was intending war with Russia.
We know exactly what Kerry did which was meant to undermine a sitting President who would be in office for years rather than days or weeks.
“One can’t figure out what Flynn did that undermined Obama unless Obama was intending war with Russia.”
Yeah, clearly sanctions = war, and clearly the U.S. has no foreign policy except with respect to Russia. /s
“It would be nice to know what Flynn said …”
Trump could declassify the transcripts, but that probably doesn’t serve Trump or the country. So we’ll have to rely on what Flynn pleaded and testified to.
The FBI report had some statements that Flynn made and also summarized some of it. Nothing wrong there. His big statement was not to escalate. Of course we know that the Obama administration and Democratic House had been playing games from what has already been revealed. Very unseemly. Flynn had a right to talk to the Ambassador and you can tell me if there was something wrong in his advice not to escalate.
Tell me again, what did Flynn do that undermined Obama?
You think it is easy to reveal telephone discussions. Trump did that with Ukrains permission but such discussions being revealed make the US government look bad and that one cannot trust the inherent secrecy of diplomatic relationships, telephone discussions etc. Releasing the FBI taped calls doesn’t sound like a good idea either. It doesn’t appear you think about the effects such things have on how foreign nations will deal with the US in the future.
“So we’ll have to rely on what Flynn pleaded and testified to.”
Flynn has already told us, ‘not guilty’ and his former pleading was due to coercion. Additionally he wasn’t provided with esculpatory evidence that should have been released years ago.
“His big statement was not to escalate.”
I’m not sure how you decided that only that was “big” and the rest (such as the discussion of the U.N. Security Council vote) wasn’t.
“Of course we know …”
No, we don’t “know” that. *You* believe it, and it’s your opinion, not knowledge.
“You think it is easy to reveal telephone discussions”
No, I don’t.
“It doesn’t appear you think about the effects such things have on how foreign nations will deal with the US in the future.”
It doesn’t appear that you pay attention to what I actually wrote: “that probably doesn’t serve Trump __or the country__.” I didn’t think that I needed to spell out how it could be bad for the country.
It’s also striking that you keep ignoring the main part of my initial response: “They also knew that Flynn seemed not to have been honest with Pence and the transition team about the content of his conversations with Kislyak.” Why was that a concern? Because Russia knew that Flynn had lied to Pence and others, which made Flynn vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians. That was a key reason to interview him.
Keep in mind that I wasn’t even giving Anonymous a complete list of why “They knew Flynn had done nothing wrong” was false. For ex., I didn’t mention that they knew about Flynn’s FARA violations.
“Flynn has already told us, ‘not guilty’ ”
AFAIK, he hasn’t said that under oath; instead, he only had his attorneys file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He did plead guilty under oath more than once.
As for the exculpatory evidence, AFAIK, that was filed under seal, so we can’t tell if it’s material. As Judge Sullivan earlier noted about other evidence, “‘[E]vidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ … (‘A ‘reasonable probability’ is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’). Mr. Flynn cannot overcome this hurdle.” Will the new evidence overcome that hurdle? We don’t know.
Bottom line: he made material lies to the FBI, he violated FARA, and the investigation was predicated. But I’ll always keep an open mind to new information, and I’m curious to see what Judge Sullivan rules and why.
“I’m not sure how you decided that only that was “big” and the rest (such as the discussion of the U.N. Security Council vote) wasn’t.”
Let us hear the quotes from the “big” discussion.
“It doesn’t appear that you pay attention to what I actually wrote”
I paid close attention to what you wrote here and elsewhere and that is why I said what I did. Your emphasis was on “Trump could declassify the transcripts” when you knew it would be improper yet you felt compelled to add that phrase to your case.
“Flynn seemed not to have been honest with Pence”
Another red herring. Flynn’s relationship to Pence had nothing to do with the charges Flynn faced.
“Because Russia knew that Flynn had lied to Pence and others, which made Flynn vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians.”
Provide us with the quote that is pertinent to this claim.
You are throwing everything into the kitchen sink to make an argument. Deal with the charges instead of expanding the discussion to hide your lack of a case. We can deal with any of your secondary complaints against Flynn in a completely different thread though I see very little merit in them.
““‘[E]vidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ “
In this case one has to deal with Flynn’s mindset not the mindset of the people minding the law. Yes things would certainly have been different but this is another red herring because it doesn’t prove anything.
Bottom line, forgetting materiality, he didn’t lie to the FBI. It is a he-said she-said issue so for you to say he lied you have to prove it and to date you haven’t even come close.
“Let us hear the quotes from the “big” discussion.”
I don’t understand what you’re asking for. You’re the one who said “big,” and we agree that we don’t have a transcript, so I don’t see how I can give you quotes. If you’re referring to some other discussion, you need to be clearer about what you’re referring to.
“you felt compelled to add that phrase to your case”
My point was that we don’t have access to the call transcripts, so we have to rely on what’s public. If you don’t like how I communicated that, OK.
“Provide us with the quote that is pertinent to this [‘Russia knew that Flynn had lied to Pence and others, which made Flynn vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians’].”
I’m not sure where you want me to quote from, but here are a few examples:
From McCord’s and Yates’s 302s (released by the DOJ as part of their Motion to Dismiss), both describing discussions that took place prior to Flynn being interviewed:
“Priestap told the group the goal of the interview was to determine whether or not Flynn was in a clandestine relationship with the Russians. … Yates explained to them that her concerns were twofold – first, the Vice President needed to know he’d been misled, and second, the Russians themselves knew that what the Vice President said was not true. This posed a potential compromise situation for Flynn.”
“Yates believed Flynn put the Vice President in a position to lie to the American people [in saying on Face the Nation that ‘he’d spoken to Flynn and had been told there had been no discussion of sanctions with Kislyak’], creating a compromise situation for Flynn.”
From the Mueller Report:
“When Priebus and other incoming Administration officials questioned Flynn internally about the Washington Post column, Flynn maintained that he had not discussed sanctions with Kislyak. Flynn repeated that claim to Vice President-Elect Michael Pence and to incoming press secretary Sean Spicer. In subsequent media interviews in mid-January, Pence, Priebus, and Spicer denied that Flynn and Kislyak had discussed sanctions, basing those denials on their conversations with Flynn.
“The public statements of incoming Administration officials denying that Flynn and Kislyak had discussed sanctions alarmed senior DOJ officials, who were aware that the statements were not true. Those officials were concerned that Flynn had lied to his colleagues—who in turn had unwittingly misled the American public—creating a compromise situation for Flynn because the Department of Justice assessed that the Russian government could prove Flynn lied.
“… On January 23, 2017, Spicer delivered his first press briefing and stated that he had spoken with Flynn the night before, who confirmed that the calls with Kislyak were about topics unrelated to sanctions. Spicer’s statements added to the Department of Justice’s concerns that Russia had leverage over Flynn based on his lies and could use that derogatory information to compromise him.
“On January 24, 2017, Flynn agreed to be interviewed by agents from the FBI. …”
So there was plenty of discussion in the DOJ and FBI prior to Flynn being interviewed that the Russians knew he’d lied to Pence and others and could use that to compromise him.
“In this case one has to deal with Flynn’s mindset not the mindset of the people minding the law.”
No, actually, this is in Judge Sullivan’s lap right now, and his mindset and the caselaw he was quoting from matter a great deal.
“for you to say he lied you have to prove it ”
He stated under penalty of perjury multiple times that he lied to the FBI, both in his plea agreement and to the Judge (more than once to the Judge). You’re rejecting that and demanding that I somehow provide more evidence, knowing that some of the relevant evidence has not been declassified. Even the things I’m quoting from have sections that remain redacted. Do you want me to quote from the unredacted part of the FBI 302 on the interview? I seriously don’t know what additional proof you’re looking for. What would you take as proof? (Are you waiting for classified material to be unclassified? …)
“he didn’t lie to the FBI.”
As you said: prove it.
“I don’t see how I can give you quotes. “
(It is difficult to converse because you are not adhering to basic principles of law in your attempt at proving Mike Flynn guilty in a court of law. Context is also being lost.)
You are saying that Mike Flynn lied but you can’t give the quotes and context? Ask yourself, what is wrong with the logic?
“If you don’t like how I communicated that, OK.”
It is not a matter of how you communicate rather how you define what is or isn’t proof. A he-said she-said discussion isn’t proof of anything. Innocence until proven guilty is the accepted norm in this country.
Re Flynn:
Third party impressions are not proof. You are putting a lot of words to paper when all you need to do is limit those words to what is provable. Then your paper would be empty.
>>“he didn’t lie to the FBI.”
>”As you said: prove it.”
Once again you mix up the law. A man is innocent until proven guilty. Your argument is that a man must prove his innocence. That might be the fashion of the day in fascist or socialist nations but fortunately that is not the law in the US.
(Is your intention to change the law so the individual has to prove his innocence to the state?)
“It is difficult to converse because you are not adhering to basic principles of law in your attempt at proving Mike Flynn guilty in a court of law.”
a) You don’t say what “basic principles of law” I’m not adhering to. Please say.
b) It’s not my job to “prov[e] Mike Flynn guilty in a court of law.” He already pleaded guilty in a court of law, and his guilty plea was already accepted by the court.
“You are saying that Mike Flynn lied but you can’t give the quotes and context? Ask yourself, what is wrong with the logic?”
I have no idea why you’re saying that I cannot give “context,” nor do I know what context you think I’ve omitted. So that’s an evidenceless claim on your end. As for quotes, you know that I’ve quoted from multiple relevant sources, including the 302s and the Mueller Report. I cannot quote from the FBI interview (AFAIK, it wasn’t audio- or videotaped, and is instead stardard FBI practice to have more than 1 agent in the interview, with one carrying out the interview and the other simultaneously taking notes on what’s said) or the Kislyak call transcripts (which are still classified). Are you suggesting that the only time people should be convicted of false statements is if there are recordings of them giving false statements and that contemporaneous note-taking, eye-witness testimony, etc. can never be sufficient? Because if that’s what you’re suggesting, then you’re throwing out a whole lot of convictions over the decades.
“A he-said she-said discussion isn’t proof of anything.”
a) This isn’t a “he-said she-said” situation. The DOJ said Flynn made material lies to the FBI, and Flynn *agreed* multiple times under penalty of perjury that he made material lies to the FBI. AFAIK, he has not stated under oath that he didn’t make material lies. If you have evidence that he stated under oath that he didn’t make material lies to the FBI, present it. But otherwise, what we have is both the FBI and Flynn agreeing under penalty of perjury that he made material lies, and nothing under penalty of perjury saying that he didn’t. For that matter, can you even quote from the defense motion to withdraw the guilty plea (that is, quote a statement from them claiming that Flynn didn’t make material lies to the FBI)?
b) Our courts *often* rely on juries to resolve conflicting testimony. Juries consider things like eye-witness testimony, contemporaneous notes, contemporaneous statements to other people, number of witnesses, judgements about witness reliability, … Are you demanding audio/videotapes for everyone who is accused of a crime? Are you ready to free everyone in jail for whom there wasn’t a recording of the crime and the conviction was instead based on witness testimony under oath and/or a guilty plea? If not, why are you demanding it here?
“Innocence until proven guilty is the accepted norm in this country.”
That’s if it goes to a jury. If the person pleads guilty — which is over 90% of all of the felony convictions in the country — then the person is, in essence, proving himself guilty. Flynn pleaded guilty under penalty of perjury. More than once, he told the judge he was guilty under penalty of perjury, also testifying under oath that he’d been adequately represented, that he understood he was permanently giving up his right to challenge the circumstances under which he was interviewed, … (Have you read the sentencing proceedings transcript to see all of the questions Sullivan asked Flynn under oath? If not, you really should: https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/121818am-USA-v-Michael-Flynn-Sentencing.pdf )
“Third party impressions are not proof.”
It’s striking that you keep referring to “proof” rather than “evidence.” And the people whose 302s I quoted are all witnesses to different parts of this (perhaps what you called “context” earlier), not “third parties.” The DOJ wouldn’t have appended their 302s as exhibits in the Motion to Dismiss if they weren’t relevant witnesses. Are you suggesting that people whose testimony is relevant to the Motion to Dismiss are not relevant to the question of whether Flynn lied?
Also, I explicitly asked you “Do you want me to quote from the unredacted part of the FBI 302 on the interview?” and you didn’t answer. Surely you agree that the agents who interviewed Flynn are first-person witnesses to whether he lied, right?
“You are putting a lot of words to paper when all you need to do is limit those words to what is provable. Then your paper would be empty.”
No, I quoted **evidence**.
You: “he didn’t lie to the FBI.”
Me: ”As you said: prove it.”
You: “Once again you mix up the law. A man is innocent until proven guilty.”
In that exchange, I wasn’t asking you to prove that he is innocent in court. I’m asking you to prove **that your claim is justified**. That’s not a legal matter. It’s a matter of burden of proof: the person who makes a claim has the burden of proof for demonstrating that the claim is warranted. If you’re not familiar with concept of burden of proof for claims (not just legal claims, but T/F claims in all sorts of matters), let me know, and I’ll give you some background reading.
“a) You don’t say what “basic principles of law” I’m not adhering to. Please say.”
What constitutes evidence in a court of law.
” This isn’t a “he-said she-said” situation. “
Then you will be able to provide the accurate statements in context that were made. That has been requested over and over but you haven’t provided them. Once again you are asking the innocent until proven guilty individual to prove his innocence. That is another error you make regarding our basic principles of law. The burden of proof is on you.
>>“Innocence until proven guilty is the accepted norm in this country.”
>That’s if it goes to a jury. If the person pleads guilty
Flynn reversed his plea which is totally permissible and has been done by many others that have plead guilty in order to get a shorter sentence. However, when data was produced that demonstrated innocence they changed their plea to not guilty and were freed.
This reply is reliant on the Gish Gallop along with not recognizing that I don’t have to prove anything and Flynn doesn’t have to prove anything either. The burden of proof lies with the accuser (That is a basic principle of law.)
You sound like CK07 to such a degree that there is a high likelihood that you are the same.
“[The ‘basic principles of law’ you’re not adhering to are] What constitutes evidence in a court of law.”
On the contrary, I’m quoting evidence that has already been introduced in court, like McCord’s 302.
“Then you will be able to provide the accurate statements in context that were made. That has been requested over and over but you haven’t provided them.”
I have no idea what statements you’re asking for. If you’re asking for quotes from Flynn’s FBI interview or the Kislyak calls, I already addressed that, and if that’s what you’re referring to, it’s ludicrous to say that I “will be able to” provide those.
“Once again you are asking the innocent until proven guilty individual to prove his innocence.”
No, I’m not, nor have you quoted me doing so.
“Flynn reversed his plea”
I think what you mean is that he had his attorneys submit a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He has not stated anything under oath about this.
“I don’t have to prove anything”
Again, **every person** who makes claims has the burden of proof for their own claims. I have the burden for *my* claims, and you have the burden for *your* claims.
“Flynn doesn’t have to prove anything either.”
I’m not asking Flynn to. You aren’t Flynn. Also, if his lawyers assert something to the court (which they’ve definitely done), they do need to provide valid evidence for their claim, or the court can treat it as an unfounded claim.
“You sound like CK07 to such a degree that there is a high likelihood that you are the same.”
I have no idea what “CK07” refers to.
Principles of law is not a synonym for evidence. I think you have to get your terms straight.
You seem to be telling me that you don’t know what evidence is needed that a person lied. It’s simple, quote the lies in context.
>>“Once again you are asking the innocent until proven guilty individual to prove his innocence.”
>No, I’m not, nor have you quoted me doing so.
You keep asking for proof from Flynn or his defenders so obviously you are.
“Again, **every person** who makes claims has the burden of proof for their own claims.”
No. I have agreed with Flynn’s lawyers. He didn’t lie. Why? Because no proof has been shown that he lied.
State the proof and stop playing silly games.
Flynn’s already pled guilty to lying to the FBI. That proves it.
Clearly Flynn did not hide the contents of his discussion with the Russian from those trusted within the new administration. That may or may not have included Pence, Priebus , and Spicer. He wasn’t doing this for himself. He did it for Trump and almost certainly took a bullet on the guilty plea for Trump. We know that he talked with campaign higher ups after his call with the Ambassador.
Await Sullivan’s hearing. Should be a gas!
It’s been explained to you why this is a misleading statement. You keep repeating it because dishonest.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3599674
Well there you have it….”McCabe didn’t suggest it was a perjury trap” so it wasn’t a perjury trap!
What I said is that the definition of perjury trap doesn’t support your claim, and your quote from McCabe doesn’t support it either.
But don’t let that prevent you from trying to twist what I actually argued.
“If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.”
– Douglas Adams
______________
Hello, Mr. Shill.
Fortunately Judge Sullivan can sort it out. It’s his obligation under rule 48 (a)
Please provide a link. There is a lot of Matt Taibbi stuff out there.
Thanks!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
How This UnMasking Came About
The FBI was surveilling the Russian Ambassador and heard when he made contact with Flynn. So the FBI also knew that Flynn asked Russia’s then-ambassador to ask the Kremlin not to retaliate against the punitive measures the outgoing Obama administration was imposing.
But when Flynn talked about that conversation after it was revealed by The Post, he said he hadn’t discussed sanctions. Vice President Pence repeated as much.
The FBI and Justice Department knew that wasn’t true and worried Flynn could be opening himself up to blackmail, because the Russians could threaten to expose what really had been said. Subsequent investigations also have revealed a number of issues with the procedures, or lack thereof, observed by the FBI and Justice Department at this time.
Were other people in the Trump camp swept up like Flynn was?
Probably, but there is no definitive accounting as the intelligence community has provided about Flynn. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Wednesday he wants to know about all the people in the Trump camp who might have been swept up or unmasked in this kind of surveillance.
With Trump’s allies holding the reins of the intelligence community, that could be forthcoming.
Was this “unmasking” illegal?
No. It’s common for officials of sufficient seniority. The intelligence agencies get thousands of unmasking requests every year. And the relevant agencies keep records about who makes the requests, as this week’s developments have confirmed.
What may have been illegal was when an official in the White House, reviewing these reports and having unmasked Flynn, revealed some of that information to The Washington Post’s David Ignatius for a column published Jan. 12, 2017. That sparked the series of events that led to Flynn’s defenestration.
Will anyone be charged?
The groundwork has been laid, but it isn’t clear if there is any criminal investigation underway.
Investigators, however, could try to use this now-public material to try to link people in the list to Ignatius. Trump has cited what he called the “crimes” from the Obama era and promoted a hashtag, “Obamagate,” suggesting that some kind of reckoning might be coming.
Trump also may conclude the better strategy is simply to try the case in the court of public opinion, lumping Biden in with the alleged abuse of power and lawbreaking.
That was the approach taken by Trump’s campaign manager, Brad Parscale, who said: “Americans have a right to know the depth of Biden’s involvement in the setup of Gen. Flynn to further the Russia collusion hoax.”
Regarding Above:
Edited from: “What You Need To Know About The Flynn, Biden And UnMasking Story”
NPR, 5/14/20
OMG!
Are Mr. Shill’s novel noms de déguisement “John Elder” and “CommitToHonestDiscussion?”
As one ponders, they must be.
FACTS TO KNOW ABOUT UNMASKING
Background Of Incident In Question:
In 2016, Obama administration officials received intelligence reports that were concerning, but incomplete. Surveillance of Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. revealed he had interacted with an unnamed American who may have been undercutting efforts to pressure Vladimir Putin’s government.
Using a common process known as “unmasking,” they asked intelligence agencies to reveal the American’s name. It was Michael Flynn, an adviser to President-elect Donald Trump.
The unmasking of Flynn has become Exhibit A in Trump’s unsubstantiated claim that he and his aides were the targets of a scandalous Obama administration “witch hunt.”
The top intelligence official, Richard Grenell, now has stepped into the unmasking issue, declassifying the names of the Obama administration officials who may have requested the unmasking. Those names, disclosed Wednesday by two Republican senators, included Trump’s Democratic presidential rival Joe Biden.
UnMasking Is Routine And Legal
There is nothing illegal about unmasking and the declassified document states that proper procedures were followed. While Trump casts unmasking as sinister, his administration has used the process more frequently than Obama’s.
UnMasking Explained
During routine, legal surveillance of foreign targets, names of Americans occasionally come up in conversations. Foreigners could be talking about a U.S. citizen or U.S. permanent resident by name, or a foreigner could be speaking directly to an American. When an American’s name is swept up in surveillance of foreigners, it is called “incidental collection.” In these cases, the name of the American is masked before the intelligence is distributed to administration officials to avoid invading that person’s privacy.
Unless there is a clear intelligence value to knowing the American’s name, it is not revealed in the reports. The intelligence report would refer to the person only as “U.S. Person 1” or U.S. Person 2.” If U.S. officials with proper clearance to review the report want to know the identity, they can ask the agency that collected the information — perhaps the FBI, CIA or National Security Agency — to “unmask” the name.
UnMasking Requests Are Common
Unmasking requests are common, according to Michael Morell, former CIA deputy director and host of “Intelligence Matters” podcast.
“Literally hundreds of times a year across multiple administrations. In general, senior officials make the requests when necessary to understand the underlying intelligence. I myself did it several times a month and NSA adjudicates the request. You can’t do your job without it,” he said.
Morell emphasized that unmasking is not the same as declassification. “When a name is unmasked, the underlying intelligence to include the name remains classified so leaking it would be a crime.”
UnMasking Helps Clarify Intelligence
The request is not automatically granted. The person asking has to have a good reason. Typically, the reason is that not knowing the name makes it impossible to fully understand the intelligence provided.
The name is released only if the official requesting it has a need to know and the “identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance,” according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s latest report, which includes statistics on unmasking. “Additional approval by a designated NSA official is also required.”
Former NSA Director Mike Rogers has said that only 20 of his employees could approve an unmasking. The names are shared only with the specific official who asked. They are not released publicly. Leaking a name, or any classified information, is illegal.
UnMasking Occurs Thousands Of Times Per Year
The number of unmasking requests began being released to the public in response to recommendations in 2014 from the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.
There were 9,217 unmasking requests in the 12-month period between September 2015 and August 2016, the first period in which numbers are publicly available. The period was during the latter years of the Obama administration.
The number rose during the Trump administration. The 9,529 requests in 2017 grew to 16,721 in 2018 and 10,012 last year.
Obama Officials Had Reason To Monitor Russian Ambassador
It’s not unusual for the U.S. government to use intelligence collected from foreigners to get a sense of how other countries view the administration.
Also, at the end of the Obama administration, the FBI and the NSA were looking into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. One aim of the probe was to find out whether any Trump associates had colluded with Russia to help Trump get elected.
Because of that review, intelligence agencies were generating more reports that were shared with senior Obama officials.
UnMasking Issue Is Misrepresented By Trump
Trump and his supporters have made the unmasking of Flynn one of their major talking points and discussions of it have become a fixture on conservative media. They claim it proves that Obama administration unfairly — and maybe illegally — targeted Flynn and other Trump associates.
But there’s no evidence the unmasking of Flynn was illegal. The memo released by the Republican senators notes that it was approved through the NSA’s “standard process.”
Democrats see the unmasking issue as aimed at energizing Trump’s base at a time when the president’s response to COVID-19 has been called into question and he faces the prospect of running for reelection with the worst economy since the Great Depression.
The role of Grenell, the acting director of national intelligence and a Trump loyalist, in declassifying the names of Obama officials who had unmasked Flynn, will likely add to criticism that Trump has bent nonpartisan national security agencies to serve him politically. The decision follows the Justice Department’s move to drop charges against Flynn, who had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contact with the Russian ambassador.
Edited From: “What Does ‘UnMasking’ Someone In An Intelligence Report Mean?”
The Associated Press (featured in Washington Post)
This is where the world is going. It is off topic, but hilarious! When you see Peter Shill or bythebull post here, think this. Do not have any liquid in your mouth when you watch this or you will soak your keyboard. And yes, it is for real!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjW9O-wGegE
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky, what makes you so credible?? You’re just a trashy racist and everybody knows it.
Can you define racism and racist for me???
Thank you!
Squeeky Fromm
Trashy Girl Reporter
One person’s ‘trash’ is another’s ‘treasure’….keep ’em coming, Squeeky! 🙂
Squeeky– Apparently some forms of racism are okay. Why are there historically black colleges but no historically white colleges? Why are there federal loans and contracts acvailable to blacks but not to whites? Why do blacks get promoted over whites despite not scoring as well on job related tests? Why are there black student unions but no white student unions? Why are there black graduation ceremonies but no white graduation ceremonies? I could go on but you already know about it.
But apparently it is racist when you and I dare to mention these things.
Anyone notice this?
Whites move from a black area and its racist ‘white flight’.
Whites move to a black area and its racist ‘gentrification’.
Finally, why is it blacks can’t gentrify any place they move to?
Because they are too dang busy popping out illegitimate babies, brawling, shooting, and acting up. Like Arberry’s mother. You know, I want to feel sorry for her but she basically raised two criminals. I read one was in prison and the other had a record, before he was shot. I have to wonder if they brought the proceeds home to momma like so many black thugs to?
If so, then to heck with her. If not, then I can feel some compassion for her. I see a lot of this with some of Penelope’s criminal clients. With some, Mammy is sharing in the loot, and with others, the mother is simply in over her head. It’s sad, but it’s their own darn fault. Black women are dropping their britches for food stamps and housing vouchers. No pride whatsoever.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The only curious detail in this is that they were still associated with their mother. Often it is the grandmother who takes the load while the daughter/mother continues to take dope and drop kids.
If anyone dares to actually describe the situation in those communities he is shut up with a charge of racism, but I don’t see how the core issues will ever be resolved until they can be discussed truthfully.
The telling statistic is the neighborhood “minority” percentage.
Communists (i.e. liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) are compassionate and philanthropic until the population of minorities reaches about 10%. At that point, Americans perceive the impending conversion, actively consider greener pastures then “vote with their feet;” some are held in place by economic concerns.
Funfact: Asians enthusiastically enjoy the 100% Asian neighborhoods which result from Asian invasions of those neighborhoods. For whatever reason, Americans can’t grasp the concept of holding and defending their territory. They hastily jump on “Old Paint” and get the —- where they ain’t. Those brand new houses in brand new neighborhoods every ten years are compelling.
Anonymous – you are a poor judge of character. Squeeky backs up her opinions with data, not sure how that makes her racist or trashy. Seems to me it makes her more accurate than Benson.
Judge for yourself, Paul:
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:April 20, 2020 at 9:42 AM
So here’s another problem. The article says he was arrested when he was 16 years old, and that he taught himself to read and write while in prison. How come he didn’t learn to read and write while he was in school??? Heck, I could read pretty well by second grade, and and write too.
Was he the product of a single black mother???
I am curious how he got to be 16 years old and couldn’t read or write.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Here’s Squeeky Referring To Black Academic Brittany Cooper of Rutgers:
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:May 1, 2020 at 11:38 AM
Sooo, you have to have these stupid courses and majors for all those dweebs. Plus, what other kind of high paying job could Professor Cooper get??? I don’t know her, but she sounds downright stupid. I would not trust her having a job at a fried chicken joint because she would probably forget to thoroughly cook the chicken and people of color (and me) would be dying left and right of salmonella. Plus, how would she keep whatever mess that is on the top of her head under a hair net??? She would be shedding that stuff off like crazy into all the food. She looks like one of those Predators from the sci-fi movies.
Here’s Squeeky On Joy Reid:
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:April 15, 2020 at 8:36 AM
Joy Reid is an affirmative action moron and she is on TV precisely for the purpose of spewing out idiocies to support the DNC.
I think FOXNews should fire her immediately!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Here’s Squeeky Condemning White Liberals With Potshots At Blacks:
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:April 13, 2020 at 9:49 AM
What is really sick is that I suspect that White Liberals are far more racist than White Deplorable Conservatives. Look at it this way – White Liberals can’t stand White Conservatives because they see as stupid credulous rubes who hate readin’ and writin’ and maps, and because we cling bitterly to our guns and our Bibles. In other words, it is pretty much a city vs. country class thing.
So if they hate our kind of White folks so much, do you really think they have love and respect for a bunch of Black yahoos out their with their “baby momma and baby daddy” language, a ton of high school dropouts, with Red Velvet Cake fake hair in their heads, and tats everywhere, and a wide spread of criminality, ignorance and trashy behavior, and lots of guns, and lots of religion, — do you really think White Liberals have anything but contempt for them??? As least us Deplorables can read and write, and speak passable English.
I don’t think they do. I think they hate Blacks with a passion and they try to compensate by calling everybody else racist because they know in their heart-of-hearts that they are racists, and they project that onto everybody else. That, and they like to virtue-signal and race-bait for votes
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Here’s Squeeky On Living Near Blacks:
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:April 8, 2020 at 2:43 PM
I suspect that if you lived around a large number of blacks, you would be obsessed with race too. You kinda have to be. Even Southern Liberals don’t live in black areas, or send their kids to black schools, or fill up their cars at night in black areas. There is a reason why you see so many iron security bars on doors and windows in black neighborhoods.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Here’s Squeeky On Black Women:
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:April 6, 2020 at 5:00 PM
Tommy Sotomayor is always complaining about black women and how masculine-ish they are. He says that is why it is so easy for black men to pass as women, because you often can not tell the difference. Particularly if they have a good wig.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Anonymous – I do not know the truth or falsity of this statement, however Squeeky is just passing on something that Tommy Sotomayor said. If you have a problem with a statement, and have proof it is not true, take it up with Tommy.
Anonymous – is she right or wrong? Or racist for stating the truth?
I think she is right.
Paint Chips who is now pretending to be anonymous can’t answer that question. All Paint Chips (Seth warner, Peter Shill, Patriot, John Elder etc.) can do is complain but when did he ever give a hoot about the black youth deaths in the inner cities controlled by Democrats.
Anon- Apparently you have never lived in a black area. I have. Squeeky is right.
Anonymous – I could not agree with Squeeky more. Joy Reed is an AA twit.
But, Anon, SHE’S RIGHT!
Anonymous – so you do not thing people of color or whites should be protected from food service workers like Brittany Cooper?
Anonymous – as someone who spent his career teaching at-risk students, Squeeky makes a good point. When I was the Instructional Specialist for the last school I taught at, I convinced them to get a testing implement to pre-test the students as we got them from the local public high school system. Although I asked to get the test which would allow us to test to a kindergarten level, the powers in charge of the money decided we could do it if it tested to the 2nd grade. We had years of high school students entering who tested at the 2nd grade level and it was our job to get them to pass a high stakes high school test in English, Algebra and Geometry.
95% of our student population was either Hispanic or black. The Hispanic students were illegals and functionally illiterate in both Spanish and English. The blacks students were illiterate in English. The huge majority of black students came from single mother homes. The huge majority of Hispanic students came from two parent homes.
Paul, if anyone is having trouble seeing Anonymous’ point of view, perhaps we are having the same trouble as Senator Kennedy with Speaker Pelosi: “My fellow Republicans in the Senate have tried to see things from the speaker’s point of view, but we can’t get our heads that far up our rear ends, and I think any fair-minded American would agree.”
??
Not everyone is tuned in to Fox News 24/7:
“Sen. Kennedy on GOP response to Heroes Act: ‘We can’t get our heads that far up our rear ends'”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen-kennedy-on-gop-response-to-heroes-act-we-cant-get-our-heads-that-far-up-our-rear-ends
Anonymous– I do try to see what is being covered on the networks and cable channels and if something seems interesting I’ll read what is said. As a rule though, I don’t pay any attention to MSNBC because it strikes me as the kiddie porn of politics. Those who produce either are disgusting and devastatingly harmful to their victims and viewers.
About MSNBC:
Agreed, hlm. I don’t watch it either.
HonestLawyer – Sen Kennedy was most respectful in his comments about the Speaker. 😉
Paul– OT, how do you tell the various anonymouses (or is it anonymice?) apart?
honestlawyer – mostly by what they say. Actually, their icons are different, however I have never taken the time to memorize them. So, in general. I respond in kind.
Thank you PaulCS and everybody else! I think the things I say are mostly true, although I wish it wasn’t so. There are plenty of good blacks out there. For example, the blacks who told the truth about Michael Brown attacking Darren Wilson. Or some of my acquaintances. But there are just so darn many who ain’t nothing but savage, stupid, violent trash. So many that you have to be careful where you go and when.
If you could get rid of the bad half or two thirds. or whatever, then everybody black and white would be better off. But in the meantime, places like Detroit, Baltimore, Killadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Newark, Memphis, etc etc are lost. Too many of the bad ones.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“There is no place like home.”
– L. Frank Baum
_____________
Moses had the Israelites out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers.
“Martin Luther King had two women for his last supper.”
– Ralph Abernathy, King’s Closest Associate
___________________________________
Compassionate Repatriation and Happiness are only a plane ticket away.
“If all earthly power were given me,” said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” After acknowledging that this plan’s “sudden execution is impossible,” he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this,” he said, “and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”
– “Crazy Abe” Lincoln
If the world can have a decimating global pandemic, it can have corrective and compassionate repatriation.
Trash and racism are fully constitutional.
Americans enjoy the freedom of enterprise, commerce, consumption, rubbish disposition, thought, speech, belief, religion,
assembly, etc.
Dictatorship and mandate of discrimination and choice are antithetical, anti-American and unconstitutional.
One must adapt to the outcomes of one’s being and endeavor, now mustn’t one, understanding that statutes prohibiting property
damage and bodily injury are appropriate and extant.
Even President Carter grasped that freedom of assembly intrinsically includes freedom of disassembly (i.e. segregation).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
“Jimmy Carter Defends Racism”
By Christopher. Lydon Special to The New York Times
April 7, 1976
SOUTH BEND, Ind., April 6 — Jimmy Carter said today that the Federal Government should not take the initiative to change the “ethnic purity” of some urban neighborhoods or the economic “homogeneity” of well‐to‐do suburbs.
‘If he wins the Presidency, the Georgia Democrat said at a news conference here, “I’m not ‐going to use the Federal Government’s authority deliberately to circumvent the natural inclination of people to live in ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods.”
Similarly, he said, “To build a high‐rise, very low‐cost housing unit in a suburban neighborhood or other neighborhoods with relatively expensive homes, I think, would not he in the best interest of the people. who live in the high‐rise or the suburbs.
“Any exclusion of a family because of race or ethnic background I would oppose very strongly and aggressively as President,” he said. “But think it’s good to maintain the homogeneity of neighborhoods if they’ye been established that way.”