As I have previously explained, the CIA, NSA, and FBI are the investigative components of the 17-component “community” of intelligence agencies. It is those three agencies that collect raw intelligence and that make decisions about what identities should be unmasked. Those decisions are reflected in the content of the polished intelligence reports that are generated from the raw intelligence.
Under the rules that apply to foreign-intelligence-collection, there is a presumption against revealing the names of American citizens. But there are significant loopholes: The names may be unmasked if intelligence officials determine that knowing the identity of an American is necessary in order to understand and exploit the intelligence value of the information collected.
Thus, as I’ve also outlined, it is unlikely that any single instance of unmasking would be found to be a violation of law — and, indeed, it would not violate any penal statute (it would violate court-ordered “minimization” procedures). Nevertheless, were a pattern of unmasking established, divorced from any proper foreign-intelligence purpose, that would be a profound abuse of power in the nature of a “high crime and misdemeanor” — the Constitution’s predicate for impeachment.
Which is a moot point, since they’re now out of office. But as I’ve often said, the Obama administration boldly got away with things that Nixon could only dream of.
[Update a while later]
Mark Levin to Congress: Investigate Obama’s “silent coup” against Trump.
And more thoughts from the Journal‘s editors:
Ms. Power’s job was diplomacy. Unmaskings are supposed to be rare, and if the mere ambassador to the U.N. could demand them, what privacy protection was the Obama White House really offering U.S. citizens? The House subpoenas should provide fascinating details about how often Ms. Power and her mates requested unmaskings, on which Trump officials, and with what justification. The public deserves to know given that unmasked details have been leaked to the press in violation of the law and privacy.
Meantime, we learned from Circa News last week of a declassified document from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which excoriated the National Security Agency for an “institutional lack of candor.” The court explained that Obama officials had often violated U.S. privacy protections while looking at foreign intelligence but did not disclose these incidents until the waning days of Mr. Obama’s tenure.
So they spied, and lied.
[Late-morning update]
Andrew McCarthy is on fire today: The real collusion:
There is abundant cause for concern that the Obama administration tore down the wall between the missions of law-enforcement and foreign-intelligence, on one side, and partisan politics, on the other. The White House and its politicized security services wanted Hillary Clinton to become president, and they do not want to let Donald Trump be president.
There’s a collusion story here, but it’s got nothing to do with Russia.
Can we expand Mueller’s charter to look into that?
it is unlikely that any single instance of unmasking would be found to be a violation of law — and, indeed, it would not violate any penal statute (it would violate court-ordered “minimization” procedures). Nevertheless, were a pattern of unmasking established, divorced from any proper foreign-intelligence purpose, that would be a profound abuse of power in the nature of a “high crime and misdemeanor” — the Constitution’s predicate for impeachment.
So much of our country relies on people acting in good faith even when things are not explicitly illegal. Our friends to the left have spent the better part of forty years tearing down our institutions and societal norms of how we act and treat each other.
The goal of this marxist movement is the de-legitimization of of the ideological ideals our country was founded on and the introduction of year zero and the creation of the new man. In other words, to expunge the past from memory and replace it with a new system.
Under this new system, the guiding principle is by any means necessary. There is no equal protection under the law. There is the law the Democrats follow and the law they make everyone else follow. But they assume they will always be in power. What happens when everyone has the ethical center of the Democrat party?
The stupidity of the right is letting the left off the hook (“since it doesn’t matter anymore”) which allows the left to rewrite history by correctly claiming “it was never proved in court.” They don’t have to make it a public spectacle which the public soon gets bore with, but they should follow through with indictments. Crimes have been committed included most heinously by law enforcement.
We need to be perp walking judges.
Indeed. Just because they can’t be impeached anymore doesn’t mean they can’t be indicted and brought to trial. Ford’s pardon of Nixon was bad precedent for a million reasons and certainly doesn’t deserve to be a perpetual get-out-of-jail-free card for every officeholder now and forever.
Being soft hearted shouldn’t require being soft headed. I never thought Nixon was that bad (especially now with current examples) but Ford’s action were unforgivable. I realize as I get older that Nixon’s main crimes were economic. But progressives like that precedent.
Why, this is just a big nothing burger.
– Jim
Something something Romeny’s emails.
I would prefer for Jim to say his own words; we don’t need to be putting them in his mouth for him.