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.
OT: A public service announcement to end the chatter by Paint Chips and Anon that there isn’t enough testing. They can reduce their anti-psychotics and perhaps trend towards normality.
Today’s Washington Post front page might confuse some readers: “As coronavirus testing expands, a new problem arises: Not enough people to test.”
That’s odd. After months of claiming that America lagged the world in testing capacity, the partisan media never corrected itself. It just changed the story and moved on.
Evelyn Farkas is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), flagship of the “liberal world order” which has dominated US policy since WW2. Fellow CFR members include Andrea Mitchell and George Stephanopoulos. See lists at the CFR website.
Did you see Jake Tapper’s tweets whining about “unprecedented smear campaign” by Trump’s team? Unbelievable lack of self awareness. Does Jake NOT remember the “unprecedented smear campaign” he and his media allies, the Democrat Party, ran against Justice Kavanaugh? Or the “wild and false allegations” they blasted every day on their airwaves smearing Trump and his associates and family? I do not know how any intelligent, fairly normal person can stand to listen to CNN or BSNBC. It is literally Nothing But Crap. (And classic psychological projection)…
Jake Tapper is also a member of the CFR, along with many other corporate media propagandists. Division and distraction is part of the job discription.
Oooooh! Do tell.
What address do we send a thank you for keeping us out of WWIII, the expansion of democracies around the world, and the transformation of Maoist China and Soviet Russia into crony capitalism states?
Why do you fancy any of that is attributable to the Council on Foreign Relations?
“beyond a doubt, that the level of polarization on these comment threads has increased dramatically”
Does this sentence structure sound familiar? I think it is something one might hear at the nail salon.
Allan-
That’s what I thought too.
Paint Chips has a characteristic style to his posts and whenever I read them I feel as if I just came from the nail salon.
The folks in West Hollywood give five stars to Seth’s Lovely Nails.
Jonathan Turley continues to SMACKDOWN the lefty/establishment types while shedding his milquetoast persona with today’s post. There are too many quotes to pull out:
———
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“…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 media remains fully invested in the original false allegations of 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.”
“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.”
“A Democratic administration using a secret court to investigate the opposing political campaign does not matter to many in Congress or in the media anyway. An investigation continuing despite the lack of credible information supporting collusion does not matter to them either. 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”
———-
These posts must drive the shills up the wall. Turley’s posts/tweets are showing up in many parts of the media these days. The whole Russia “collusion/conspiracy theory” was a sham according to Turley and the left are full of it. Ouch!
One wonders if the number of unmasking requests is akin to what happened in Agatha Christie’s “Murder on the Orient Express.” Who can accuse anyone of the crime when so many stuck a knife in the victim?
Yep.
I have a suspicion that Power may be telling the truth – that someone did steal her credentials.
Thousands more unmasking under the Trump Admin.
Why crime is Biden guilty of?
I got bored with idiotic repetition when I got to Collusion which for the undeducated is NOT a crime. The rest was just smetya.
Thanks for the straight uncolored analysis. Very refreshing in this day and age when so many have lost their way.
“bythebook says:
May 18, 2020 at 8:00 AM
I like to argue. You both apparently prefer CJs and require confirmation to believe the BS.”
—————–
If so, btb may have an Argumentative Personality Disorder! Remember, he said ARGUE, not discuss or interact with, or even learn. This is a personality of Control Freaks. Sooo from an article on these unhappy and disturbed individuals:
The Argumentative Personality
Negatives
Here’s what’s not so great about the Argumentative Personality:
Habitual ‘argument stokers’ can drive you crazy, especially when you live or work with them; it’s hard to have a conflict-free conversation with them, even about trivial matters.
Many, if not most, of them have strong narcissistic tendencies; in other words, they are very self-absorbed.
They have little, or hardly any, insight into how their behaviours impact others.
When they come across people whose views differ from their own, they feel threatened, and go on the defensive.
They are chronic blamers: others, or the world, [or Trump] are always at fault.
It’s almost impossible to get them to consider your views – in their mind they are always right.
People who constantly argue seek control and power over others. You cannot reason with them, so it’s best to withdraw from an argument than try to prove them wrong
What can I do if I am an Argumentative Personality?
Seek professional help from a counsellor. You can change if you are willing to explore the deeper meaning behind your argumentative nature. It is possible that you lack confidence and a sense of self-worth, and seek it through aggression and arguments; counselling can help you resolve this.
When you begin to feel true confidence, the need for arguments and conflict will start to abate. Everyone uses some type of defence mechanism to protect themselves emotionally, so there’s nothing wrong with this; the problem is that your defence mechanism is an outdated one that probably served you well in the distant past. The challenge is in unlearning this old defence mechanism and replacing it with a new, constructive one.
https://healthpsychologyconsultancy.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/the-argumentative-personality/
—————-
In other words, bythebook is a control freak a-hole, who “argues” just to make himself feel better. He will not listen to others, and arguing with him is like arguing with hormonal woman – pointless. He argues to fill an emotional need, and the whole point for him is to keep an argument going for the sake of argument, not as a means of resolution. Most of here are from Mars, and bythebook is from Venus. Or Uranus.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Blah, blah, blah…from the little ‘girl reporter’.
Turley is a fake lawyer. He begged for supreme court nomination but he is pathetic fool writing blog and hoping to be a judge. What a FOOL!
ok, so what did he say in his article that was incorrect? Or is a personal attack your way of saying he was correct but you don’t like that he is correct?
He may be everything you say, but you offer no evidence, and your puerile ad hominem attack destroys your credibility.
Darren previously posted that the closures of Washington State schools was unconstitutional under the terms of the state constitution. I said a couple of days later that I thought a challenge to the closures was unlikely to succeed in the face of a pandemic of the magnitude we then thought we faced.
This weekend he posted that the closures are being challenged along the lines he proposed.
I am glad for the challenge if for no other reason than that it is an interesting legal issue and it is the type of question that it would nice to have resolved before the next great challenge like this.
“I am glad for the challenge if for no other reason than that it is an interesting legal issue…”
Good lord, listen to yourself. For you this is an “interesting legal issue,” but to others it’s about feeding themselves and their family.
Ivan, you might want to take note that most Americans named fear ahead of “stay in place” rules for their staying home. Whether staying at home is smart or not – and I understand that is not even an option for many and for those who can it is definitely smart – removing a stay at home order is not going to cause business and the economy to suddenly snap back.
One assumes good citizens would not be fomenting revolution over questioning the authority of responsible government officials charged with responding to a crisis. Did the coastal residence of the US during WWII declare a revolution over having to keep lights down?
“removing a stay at home order is not going to cause business and the economy to suddenly snap back.”
Boy are you dumb. (1) If we go from a state where it is illegal to conduct any business to a state where it is legal, then of course the economy will in fact suddenly snap back. (2) While the snap back may not bring us back to where we were before, that decision must be left to the people rather than to “mommy.”
“One assumes good citizens would not be fomenting revolution over questioning the authority of responsible government officials charged with responding to a crisis.”
Our elected officials are charged with staying within the laws, always. When they don’t they are
not being “responsible” and it is the duty of the citizenry to stand up to them. Only frightened
children don’t understand that politicians love to use any “crisis” to advance their power and agenda.
I haven’t made payroll every week for 40+ years by being dumb, you schmuck.
The decision to turn off the lights on the coasts, ration food and fuel, and crank up production of tanks and fighter planes during WWII was not made by the “citizenry” nor was DDay organized by the governors. Ignorant paranoids like you would have been crying for your “rights” like spoiled children. Get in line, wear a mask, and shut up. This isn’t about you and your right to party.
Bythebook,
Ivan isn’t just paranoid. He may or may not be wrong in his concern about government overreach. The government has provided plenty of examples of thwarting democracy and pulling the wool over the eyes of the citizenry. The overthrow of the Guatamalan president back in the 1950s via the United Banana Company, our government, and Edward Bernays is just one example.
Prairie, so you want to tie Government actions to protect us from corona virus with an apology to Guatamala?
Anything else?
Bythebook,
Such a response does make for an effective discussion about the concerns in our country.
You didn’t even address my point. People do not trust the government for good reason.
To what degree should a government protect its people?
When does ‘protection’ turn into undemocratic coercion?
Should the government manipulate people?
Are there some things they are manipulating right now?
We don’t agree Prairie and I doubt we are going to.
With all it’s faults, you and I live under one of the most free and representative societies in the several hundred thousand years of human existence. While we possess individual rights never imagined before – “privacy”? what’s that? – our success was created by and depends on cooperation. Is it too much to ask that in a period of crisis which can hit any of us, and where unified action helps us all, that for once for a short period we think of the greater good instead of our “rights” and what “plan” Gov Whitmer has for taking over our churches shopping malls and homes, never to give them back? Give me a break.
Our government operates by the consent of the governed. It is not our enemy. It is us and we are responsible for it. If you know a better one, maybe go there or suggest changes. But denying it legitimate functions because it’s not perfect is the way teenagers think.
Book– “privacy”? what’s that?”!
Actually book, in Griswold v Connecticut and Roe v Wade privacy was established as a constitutional right. Someday someone may remember that.
Bythebook,
On what do we disagree exactly? I already agree with you on this point:
“our success was created by and depends on cooperation.”
“Is it too much to ask that in a period of crisis which can hit any of us, and where unified action helps us all, that for once for a short period we think of the greater good instead of our “rights” and what “plan” Gov Whitmer has for taking over our churches shopping malls and homes, never to give them back?”
I agree that thinking of the good of a community as a whole (local, state, and national) is an important element to consider. Sometimes that means setting aside our individual desires. Does that necessitate setting aside our rights?
“Our government operates by the consent of the governed.”
Yes, that is how it is supposed to work.
“It is us and we are responsible for it.”
That is so. It seems people have shirked the responsibility of keeping our governance accountable for far too long. That said, might there be elements within government that seek to operate inappropriately secretly, without the consent of the governed, or, by gaining consent through deceptive means?
“If you know a better one, maybe go there or suggest changes.”
There is no better place to go. I have suggested changes and am part of suggesting changes at the local and state level in the midst of this mess.
“But denying it legitimate functions because it’s not perfect is the way teenagers think.”
We are lacking clarity on this point. What ‘legitimate functions’ were you thinking of when you wrote this?
Prairie – glad we agree on so much – taking emergency actions of limited duration during a serious crisis are among the legitimate functions of government, Having idiots pretend those actions are an assault on their precious rights which should be blocked is an assault on our common and legitimate interests on life and death matters and is born of a decadent paranoia.. If in declining pandemic numbers Gov Whitmer or whoever Ivan thinks is a new Hitler fails to remove emergency orders he’ll have a point and he won’t be the only one saying so. Does anyone sane think that will happen?
Bythebook,
I really am curious about your thoughts regarding the engineering of consent. To what degree does our government do this, in your estimation?
I think how we have processed the information presented by the government and the media is different. Some emergency actions are appropriate and some are not.
I would rather my governor behave more like Iowa’s governor. Gov. Reynolds gave guidance and expected people to demonstrate responsibility, which most have.
Also, our rights are precious. We allow their erosion at our peril.
“Does anyone sane think that will happen?”
Why is it insane to think it could? Leaders at universities have eroded free speech rights, our federal government allowed unreasonable search and seizure of phone calls and emails.
Many on the left think that Trump is essentially the next Hitler. If that is potentially a real concern, then Ivan’s wariness at any erosion of the government’s recognition and protection of our inalienable rights is warranted. I would hazard, as I did prior to the election, that it isn’t just Trump whose intentions we should be wary of.
On a side note, do you think there has been any manipulation in the media regarding the coronavirus?
Young,
I thought privacy was also established in the 4th and 10th amendment.
Prairie Rose — Yes, it was in the 4th and, if I remember correctly, in other parts of the Constitution but not expressly under the term ‘privacy’ as an identified right. Griswold argued that a right to privacy can be inferred as part of the penumbra of other explicit rights. When I read it long ago I thought the argument was persuasive.
However, as a right it seems to have slipped deeper into the ‘penumbras’ and not acknowledged as a right protected by the Constitution which may be unfortunate.
There are also common law rights to privacy that can lead to civil liability at the state level if the privacy is invaded.
In time we might want to extend these Constitutional and common law rights to protect against the loss of privacy due to technology.
Private industry doesn’t worry about it and, as we have seen, the federal government ignores even the clear laws meant to protect us from unwanted intrusions.
Prairie Rose — Another thought to add. I have long suspected that when CNN and others dox someone who says or does something anonymously that they don’t like they, CNN in the example, may well be opening themselves to common law liability for invasion of privacy. Clearly the individual means to remain private and has taken small steps to protect that privacy. If a suit like that could get past a motion for summary judgment and in front of a jury it could lead to a decent award. CNN would not be an attractive defendant to many juries. Just thinking….
Ivan– Please read the latter half of the sentence: “it would be nice to have (the question) resolved before the next great challenge like this.”
I did. You’re concerned about the next crisis while ignoring the plight of those who need work now and you describe this as an “interesting legal issue.” You sound like a typical lefty/establishment type with your head firmly up your butt.
Ivan– That’s nice. I bet By the Book wouldn’t say that. He thinks I am a racist Trump-loving nutter.
Interesting legal questions, like most legal questions, involve pain to some and gain to others. That isn’t what makes them interesting.
What makes them interesting is whether they present novel issues that require thought and logic addressing fundamentals. The issue could be great or small. It is the problem itself that counts; rather like solving a math problem. Approaching it emotionally is more of a hindrance than an aid.
I want judges to be analytical rather than emotional.
Look what a mess Sullivan has created by being emotional.
Young, the left’s ideology has become its faith based false religion and such faith without moral basis is based on emotions of the wrong type.
Allan
Yes, it seems so. How many times does socialism have to fail and cause misery and loss of freedom before people understand it is a poisoned apple- bright, shiny, tempting, and deadly.
Young, Book has it right:
“By the Book wouldn’t say that. He thinks I am a racist Trump-loving nutter”.
I have noticed, beyond a doubt, that the level of polarization on these comment threads has increased dramatically since you became a regualar.
Anon. Could have a point. With Ivan’s input I am taking fire from both dirrctions.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.