Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, October 13, 2020

The federal prosecutor appointed by Attorney General William P. Barr to review whether Obama-era officials improperly requested the identities of individuals whose names were redacted in intelligence documents has completed his work without finding any substantive wrongdoing, according to people familiar with the matter.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

MFA:

The revelation that U.S. Attorney John Bash, who left the department last week, had concluded his review without criminal charges or any public report will rankle President Trump at a moment when he is particularly upset at the Justice Department. The department has so far declined to release the results of Bash's work, though people familiar with his findings say they would likely disappoint conservatives who have tried to paint the "unmasking" of names--a common practice in government to help understand classified documents--as a political conspiracy.

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-10-13 08:07 PM | Reply

Beat you to it by 2 minutes.
drudge.com

#2 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2020-10-13 08:12 PM | Reply

Boy, I can't wait for the investigations into the origins of the Obamagate probes and to whether they were properly predicated.

Greatest political scandal of all time!

#3 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-13 08:15 PM | Reply

I did check first but must have just missed your post.

#4 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-10-13 08:15 PM | Reply

I wondered about this earlier, and now I know:

I don't know what the significance--if any--of this might be, but this happened earlier in the week:

Texas U.S. Attorney John Bash, tapped to investigate Obama administration for "unmasking," resigns

Earlier this summer, Attorney General William Barr tapped Bash to investigate the Obama administration for allegations of "unmasking" before and after the 2016 presidential election. U.S. intelligence routinely conceals the identities of Americans whose communications are intercepted in the course of monitoring foreigners. Those names are anonymous in intelligence reports, but can be "unmasked" to provide more information for intelligence. Trump allies in Congress pledged to investigated the practice which led to the unmaking of former national security adviser Michael Flynn's identity in certain intelligence documents related to the investigation into Russian election interference.


drudge.com

PS OCU was right:

Actually the so-called "unmasking" scandal is a non-starter. The only time someone like the head of an intelligence service, including the FBI and even the Executive office (i.e. President and Vice-President) need to get a warrant to "unmask" someone recorded on a wiretap is if the only people on the call were Americans. If one or more individuals on the call is a foreign national, even if others on the call were Americans, there is no need to "unmask". The "masking" law is to protect Americans who are recorded as part of an investigation, but if they're recorded on a call in which they were not the target of the investigation, there is no protection, their identity is available to anyone who has the need to know what the content of the conversation was. In other words, we were recording the Russian officials, as is standard practice, so when someone like Michael Flynn is heard on the call, that's just tough for him. He said he never talked to the Russians, but they had tapes, so the FBI knew is was lying, and no one needed him to be "unmasked" for the FBI to know that, or for that matter, the President or Vice-President.
OCU

#3 | POSTED BY OCUSER AT 2020-10-09 02:01 PM | FLAG: (CHOOSE) | NEWSWORTHY 3


#5 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-10-13 08:27 PM | Reply

Greatest political scandal of all time!

How do you keep track when there's a new one every 15 minutes?

#6 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-10-13 08:37 PM | Reply

No way... Trump's been lying about this the whole time, and will keep lying about it?
And he's teed off at Barr for not finding something, anything?
So surprising.

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2020-10-13 08:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How long after Biden is sworn in will it take for an arrest warrant to be issued for Trump?

#8 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2020-10-13 08:53 PM | Reply

Barr can always pull a Comey and re-open the investigation in a couple of weeks on new found non-evidence.

#9 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-10-13 09:08 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort