When would an intelligence agency unmask a name?

Tulsa World ^ | AP FILE May 14, 2020

[11th_VA]

The request is not automatically granted. The person asking has to have a good reason. Typically, the reason is that not knowing the name makes it impossible to fully understand the intelligence provided.

The name is released only if the official requesting it has a need to know and the "identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance," according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence's latest report, which includes statistics on unmasking. "Additional approval by a designated NSA official is also required."

Former NSA Director Mike Rogers has said that only 20 of his employees could approve an unmasking. The names are shared only with the specific official who asked. They are not released publicly. Leaking a name, or any classified information, is illegal.

NSA Director Mike Rogers speaks at a Heritage Foundation event on Section 702 of FISA on Friday, Oct. 13, 2017 in Washington.

[11th_VA]

The Real Story Behind The Illegal Surveillance

[11th_VA]

I think every official the made an unmasking request, should have to answer why they had a need to know.

Personally, I believe many people were authorized to make the request, so it would be difficult to determine who leaked it to the Washington Post.

[stanne]

When?

Well, as in this case, when the requesters were trying to frame someone who would get in the way of their framing a president they were trying to unseat.

That’s when.

[Moonlighter]

When said name has an (R) after it.

[bhl]

Since when is the US Ambassador to Italy an Intelligence agency?

Why was the Vice President doing intelligence agency investigations?

[palmer]

Great link.

Once they created the surveillance door, Fusion-GPS was then needed to get the FBI known commodity of Chris Steele activated as a pipeline. Into that pipeline all system users pushed opposition research. However, one mistake from the NSA database extraction during an “about” query shows up as a New Yorker named Michael Cohen in Prague.

That misinterpreted data from a FISA-702 “about query” is then piped to Steele and turns up inside the dossier; it was the wrong Michael Cohen. It wasn’t Trump’s lawyer, it was an art dealer from New York City with the same name; the same “identifier”.

[luvbach1]

Slow Joe can credibly say he doesn’t remember.

[rlmorel]

I posted this on another thread, hope you don't mind my posting it here:

*************************************************************************

I am of the opinion that the nexus of the Obama Administration's decision to target Flynn to get him ousted has something intimate to do with the fired WhistleBlower Adam Lovinger. This is even more significant, I think than their longstanding dislike and distrust of him for his opposition to Obama Administration policies. On this, I think Flynn was getting too close for comfort.

From this Washington Times article discussing contacts between James A. Baker:

Pentagon official spoke regularly with Washington Post columnist, records show

---

"...On the Lovinger matter, Mr. Lovinger and Flynn had known each other for more than 10 years when Mr. Trump won the election and Flynn joined the transition team.

Mr. Lovinger had complained to Flynn that Mr. Baker’s office was failing in its job to write classified net assessments and outline new military strategies. He complained that ONA had become a money-pot for analysts such as Mr. Halper to write academic-style research papers.

Once in office as national security adviser, Flynn had Mr. Lovinger transferred to the security council to perform assessments.

Around that time, Mr. Baker initiated an investigation for alleged security violations.

Mr. Baker testified at Mr. Lovinger’s administrative trial that he was aware of a rumor that the new administration might replace him as ONA director..."

---

Remember who James A. Baker is? He was the DIRECTOR of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessments who was paying Stephan Halper.

As described in an article by the ever Excellent Clarice Feldman: The Office of Net Assessment paid Stefan Halper...why?

Having Lovinger and Flynn kibitzing about the goings on at the Office of Net Assessments at the Pentagon was, in my opinion, much too close of a thing for the plotters to handle.

Also, the fact that taxpayer money was used (I state that as a fact, because I believe it to be so) to target a Presidential candidate, and then a President Elect (not to mention the surveillance abuses and seditious plotting) makes this the most explosive political scandal in the history of our country.

[timestax]

bttt

[Texas Fossil]

Here is the list of those asking to Unmask Gen. Flynn that Acting DNI declassified

From Senator Grassley:

Here is the actual .pdf from Senator Grassley

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05-13%20ODNI%20to%20CEG%20RHJ%20%28Unmasking%29.pdf

(SHNF-) Below is a list of recipients who may have received Lt. Gen Flynn’s identity in response to a request processed between 8 November 2016 and 31 January 2017 to unmask an identity that had been generically referred to in an NSA foreign intelligence report. Each individual was an authorized recipient

[Ann Archy]

WHY would Ambassadors???

[Ann Archy]

Slow Joe is now FAST FINGER JOE! ugh.

[ExNewsExSpook]

Here’s another one: according to the list, at least one request for unmasking Gen Flynn’s name came from the Department of Energy Intelligence Division Executive Briefer, i.e., the person who puts together the daily update for the Secretary.

I was an intel briefer at the command (three and four star-level) twice in my career. It’s a bit different at the three-letter agency level, but needless to say, I did not have the authority to request the unmasking of names of American citizens picked up in COMINT collection, inadvertently, or through a FISA warrant.

The DOE briefer (whose name was redacted) is not an SES position. Most likely, not even a GG-15—probably a GG-13/14 at most. Yet, this individual had the authority to request unmasking and it was granted. If I’m not mistaken, the Secretary of Energy was also on the list of those requesting the unmasking of General Flynn, so perhaps the briefer felt he needed more information to answer queries from his boss.

My guess is something Obvious (and more nefarious): the plot to get Flynn was far-reaching and involved many people throughout the bureaucracy, not just at the senior levels, but at the worker bee (GS/GG) levels as well.

Adam Housley, the former FNC reporter who is now running his family vineyard in California, had some solid reporting on this before he left the network. He tweeted out the other day that his sources tell him that Flynn was just the tip of the iceberg. When the full extent of the political spying is revealed (if it is every revealed), it will be jaw-dropping.

I only hope Barr, Durham and their team can get the job done.

[Bookshelf]

In my day unmasking of a US citizen in a highly classified cable required the analyst (almost certainly holding a high clearance or clearances) to jump through hoops. First the Office had to approve the request; then the Department; then the Agency (e.g., NSA, etc.). If the information once approved appeared in an analysis the approval process for publication was repeated. By the time the study made the rounds it was often so highly classified that only a selected few could read it.
My, how times have changed.

[11th_VA]

I know of at least one other situation like this Gen Flynn was involved in. It’s a tangled web.

[TBP]

Apparently, when it’s a political opponent.

[Candor7]

When would an intelligence agency unmask a name?

When that intelligence agency possesses a valid, non fraudulently obtained FISA warrant for surveillance of an illegal conduct of a foreign person, and with whom an American masked citizen is communicating.

In this ase the FISA warrant was illagally obtained by predicating it on the Steele Teport that was pure
oppositional research paid for by Hillary Clinton, as well as fiction.

The bogus Steele Report originated n Russia, and was the actual Russian initiative that interfered with the 2016 election.And the Democrats bought that interference lock, stock and barrel and continue to blame President Trump for their own gullibility.

Meanwhile Vladimir Putin is smirking into his tea cup.

[stuckincali]

when a corrupt president hires a fellow muslim to head the department and orders them to do it.

[Fred Nerks]

[elpadre]

Surely the FISA judges knew what was going on. Why didn’t they take action to protect the program?