Image 01 Image 03

Former UN Ambassador Samantha Power claims others were “unmasking” in her name

Former UN Ambassador Samantha Power claims others were “unmasking” in her name

“…that’s her testimony, and she was pretty emphatic in it.”

The Melania Trump body double hoax and the politicization of President Trump’s phone call to the widow of a fallen soldier has distracted from some important news.

ISIS has now been ejected from its stronghold in the Syrian city of Raqqa. Evidence has been revealed that show President Barack Obama’s administration covered for failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her family on a few occasions, including the connection to a Russian uranium deal.

Perhaps the most interesting bit of under-reported news that may have failed to cross your screen relates to the unmasking of President Trump’s supporters and family members in intelligence reports. Samantha Power, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was implicated in “‘unmasking’ at such a rapid pace in the final months of the Obama administration that she averaged more than one request for every working day in 2016 – and even sought information in the days leading up to President Trump’s inauguration.

Powers recently testified that that others made so-called unmasking requests in her name, according to House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy.

“Her testimony is they may be under my name, but I did not make those requests,” Gowdy said of former Ambassador Samantha Power during an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier on “Special Report with Bret Baier.”

Power is among the Obama administration figures who made requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking.

…”I think if she were on your show, she would say those requests to unmask may have been attributed to her, but they greatly exceed by an exponential factor the requests she actually made,” Gowdy said. “So, that’s her testimony, and she was pretty emphatic in it.”

The South Carolina Republican added, “So, we’ve got to get to the bottom of that. If there is someone else making requests on behalf of a principal in the intelligence community, we need to know that because we’re getting ready to reauthorize a program that’s really important to the country, but also has a masking component to it.”

It would be fascinating to learn who is responsible for these unmasking requests. Here’s to hoping someone in Congress or the administration is interested enough to follow the trail to its end. One can deduce, I think, that it is a person who would not have been authorized to unmask these records.

I think American people need to know exactly who was doing what in the Obama Administration. There used to be a time the press was willing to ask, “who knows what” and “when did they know it.” Perhaps if the press reported real news, it wouldn’t be so easy to mock it as #FakeNews.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Isn’t that a more serious Note all Security violation?

If she unmasked people she could always maintain there was a reason. That makes it a judgement call.

If someone else did it illegally using her name it is clearly a national security felony violation.

    stevewhitemd in reply to MattMusson. | October 20, 2017 at 9:04 am

    Did I miss something? Did no one ask the most appropriate NEXT question?

    That question being this: “Dr. Powers, you say other people were doing the unmasking using your name. Please identify those people. Who were they?”

    And if she doesn’t answer, she’s in contempt.

    We have all these lawyers representing us in the Congress. It’s by far and away the most common profession of all our representatives. None of them asked this question?

      The legal guild has failed us.

      To be fair to Powers, she may not know. I do not think team Obama picked her because she was the brightest bulb in the fixture.

        Okay, maybe she doesn’t “know, know,” but she would have a really good idea who. The number of people who could pull that off is got to be really small.

        …which, if true, means she allowed her security credentials to be used for things which she did not personally approve, which is ANOTHER violation of national security.

        She’s in a really deep hole with no way out. If she abused her clearance to unmask Republican political opponents, she’s toast. If others did it on her behalf, she’s toast. If others did it using her credentials without her knowledge, she’s toast for not immediately reporting it.

        Just ask anybody in the military who leaves their CAC card unattended in their computer in a SCIF while they leave to use the bathroom.

          tlcomm2 in reply to georgfelis. | October 20, 2017 at 2:14 pm

          Her security password was probably “password” – as was common among the brain trust that was running the White House til recently. The janitor might have been unmasking with that level of security.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Leslie Eastman. | October 20, 2017 at 2:20 pm

        I don’t believe a word she says. She’s deflecting, stalling.

        Power, Brennan, Clapper, Holder, Lynch, obastard or Hillary can be believed about so much as the time of day.

National security violation. I hate spell check.

If someone was doing something so seriously wrong, and using my name to do it, I would do all I could to find out who it was.

And she had the power to find out. So her story (first given a year later) comes across a false as everything else she said in her White House days.

“…‘unmasking’ at such a rapid pace in the final months of the Obama administration that she averaged more than one request for every working day in 2016…”

Yet, no one in the FISA court was puzzled as to why Obama’s UN Ambassador made such volumonous unmasking requests; nor asked for clarifications from the intelligence community about Mrs. Powers’ activity; nor questioned Mrs. Powers directly as to her motives in this year long pursuit in exposing classified information?

Some anon simply committed a felony in her name for over a year??

I call horse crap on this entire former administration of lying liars who habitually lie all the time.

Impotent Congressional hearings all around so the newspapers and blogs have something to sell, and the congress critters can justifu their phoney baloney jobs, then it all goes down the memory hole, and no one will be held to account.

Your tax dollars at work. We’re being played, people. Pathetically played.

The size of the criminal conspiracy required to falsify 200+ unmasking records by forging Power’s name upon them is quite impressive. A whole bunch of people had to have done a lot of very corrupt things over a prolonged period of time for her story to be true.

I’m not going to bother wondering which version is worse.

The fact that none of these people ever go to jail speaks volumes.

What others? Did she name names?

I assume there’s a paper trail. I assume these things are not done verbally. So she must be claiming someone forged her signature.

I assume the FBI will immediately be all over this, right? I assume Powers will submit to a lie detector test, right?

But, I shouldn’t hold my breathe, right?

Virtually all the unmasking is done by the NSA, as they are the agency intercepting the calls. And, they do not unmask US citizen’s names without a written, signed request. If requested or subpoenaed, the NSA will make all of that documentation available to the House Oversight Committee. I doubt that Trey Gowdy will request that, however. Because the Committee does not really want to know who is responsible.

By accepting Powers’ word that she did not request all of these unmasking requests and that they were done using her name without her knowledge, we now have a very serious breach of our national security laws. This is HUGE. There should be several criminal investigations under weigh at this very moment. Instead, all we will hear is crickets. Move along, nothing to see here.

    regulus arcturus in reply to Mac45. | October 20, 2017 at 12:48 pm

    Exactly right.

    Power knew or had reason to know if someone was illegally using her identity for such purposes, because there is a paper trail for these requests.

    Further, I believe there is an ethics lawyer for NSA who personally must vet all of these requests, so who and where was that person?

    This whole thing reeks of illegal surveillance of private citizens and 4th Amendment violations galore, and gives further credence to conspiracy theories about a massive surveillance effort including GCHQ and US intel to spy on Trump’s campaign.

    This paper trail for Power’s requests should be a no-brainer line of inquiry.

Obviously, all the people in Washington, including Trey Gowdy, have no idea how INFOSEC works, or they think the rest of us are all ignoreant and can’t see through lies.

The unmasking wasn’t done by writing a memo and saying “Hey, George, unmask this person.” The requests were done by computer. On a computer that was logged in to a secure government intranet system. Accessed with with a PIV or CAC card, whatever you want to call it, or a login name with password that changes every 90 days. (The unmasking were done over the course of a year- minimum 3 password changes…) Each request has a date/time stamp that also identifies the sender, the computer it was sent from, and probably the office the computer was in when the request was sent.

And, Samantha Powers was high enough in the food chain that her office has a secretary sitting outside it. Who records all visitors into the office, and the records are maintained. (Except for Hillary, who burned them daily in violation of federal law…)

If you want to know who sent the unmasking requests, easy peazy. get some computer security IT people together at 0800 equipped with necessary clearances, doughnuts and coffee, and tell them you want to have the answers by the end of the workday. They’l probably be done by noon.

But then there’s the first part of that: If you want to know…” It’s almost becoming obvious nobody does want to know.

Some say the dog ate their homework ,Powers implies the Dog Did Her homework.

Samantha Power is one sick woman.

Rememnber: among other insane things, she called for a US invasion of Israel:

Let’s not forget the sicko who appointed her.

I think she’s lying. I think she knowingly used her credentials as cover for others who wished to remain hidden, and is not an innocent victim as she’s claiming now.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to randian. | October 21, 2017 at 12:24 pm

    Remember that psychopaths and sociopaths always lie.

    Even if they mix the lies with a litte truth, they’re still all lies all the time.

Well, that’s very Demoncrat, Deep State and Grubernment of you!

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | October 21, 2017 at 12:23 pm

Sam, you Lie.