“Samantha Power, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was ‘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”
“Gowdy: Do you recall any U.S. ambassadors asking that names be unmasked?
Brennan: I don’t know. Maybe it’s ringing a vague bell but I’m not — I could not answer with any confidence.”
All facilitated by Susan Rice https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/un-ambassador-samantha-power-unmasked-americans-almost-daily-obamas-last-year
Power’s a piece of work.
If you read her testimony she unmasked a company on her last day in office.
She says she couldn’t recall the company or why she unmasked them.
I was thinking that Power would be a soft target to flip, but then I refreshed my knowledge of her background.She's married to Cass Sunstein, who was also in the Obama administration. He's a Harvard and Columbia lawyer, so he'd be a strong protector of his wife.
She was born in London to Irish parents, and naturalized in 1993.
She supports Palestine over Israel, and was the first American UN Ambassador to refuse to block a resolution against Israel.
She was the strongest advocate for the Obama Administration to intervene in Libya, resulting in the death of Khaddaffi.
Her husband Sunstein wrote a 2008 paper on conspiracy theories. From Wikipedia:
Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled "Conspiracy Theories," dealing with the risks and possible government responses to conspiracy theories resulting from "cascades" of faulty information within groups that may ultimately lead to violence. In this article they wrote, "The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government's antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be." They go on to propose that, "the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups",[37] where they suggest, among other tactics, "Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."[37] They refer, several times, to groups that promote the view that the US Government was responsible or complicit in the September 11 attacks as "extremist groups."The authors declare that there are five hypothetical responses a government can take toward conspiracy theories: "We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help." However, the authors advocate that each "instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5)."
Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of recruiting "nongovernmental officials"; they suggest that "government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes," further warning that "too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed."[37] Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, "might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts." This position has been criticized by some commentators[38][39] who argue that it would violate prohibitions on government propaganda aimed at domestic citizens.[40] Sunstein and Vermeule's proposed infiltrations have also been met by sharply critical scholarly critiques.[41][42][43][44]
When reading my bolded portions of the Sunstein paper, doesn't it seem to be the blueprint for the entire Obama conspiracy against Trump?
We have:
- The claim that Russian bots infiltrated Facebook and planted disinformation during the election.
- The hiring of Steele to prepare the Trump disinformation dossier.
- Hiding the Clinton and DNC involvement behind Perkins Coie, who fronted to Steele.
- Using the American media to offer the "independent rebuttal" against the Trump administration's claims of a witch hunt.
Now I think that both Power and Sunstein were deep into the planning of the whole thing, based on Sunstein's own paper on the subject.
Power's name was used to illegally unmask hundreds of American citizens' phone calls with foreigners. I think she's a True Believer who is deep into this conspiracy, and would be willing to go to jail over it.
-PJ
Power maintains she did not request the number of unmasking that is attributed to her. She is claiming someone else used her authority.