Profile picture
, 3 tweets, 1 min read
My Authors
Read all threads
My latest: FCC Commissioner @BrendanCarrFCC takes on Schiff's surveillance state, slapping him for secret subpoenas for call records that invade privacy and deny targets judicial review.
wsj.com/articles/adam-… via @WSJ
FCC's Carr: Schiff "created out of whole cloth a secret and effectively unreviewable and unchecked mechanism for obtaining call records on any and all Americans." This "secret and partisan process" "deprives Americans of their legal rights."
FCC's Carr calls on Congress to address Schiff's snooping as part of its surveillance debate, and also holds out possibility of FCC action.
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Keep Current with Kimberley Strassel

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @KimStrassel see all

Profile picture
Kimberley Strassel
@KimStrassel
1) Here's an interesting ruling from one (former) Judge John Gleeson, the guy who Sullivan just appointed to oppose the motion to withdraw Flynn's case. It's from United States v. HSBC Bank USA in 2013:
2)"The government has near-absolute power . . . to extinguish a case that it has brought." He then goes to quote U.S. v Pimentel: "A court is generally required to grant a prosecutor's Rule 48(a) motion unless dismissal is 'clearly contrary to manifest public interest.'"
3) Gleeson, by his own standards, should have turned down this job. Better yet, he should have advised Judge Sullivan as to how inappropriate these moves are.
Read 3 tweets
Profile picture
Kimberley Strassel
@KimStrassel
1) A key question in the Flynn unmaskings is "how" they were done, and whether he was the victim of a sort of "reverse targeting." Remember, we eavesdrop on foreigners, who sometimes talk to Americans. We "mask" the U.S. names to protect U.S. privacy.
2) Intel professionals normally unmask in order to better understand an intel situation. But given huge # of Flynn unmaskings, question is whether FBI/political people were purposely combing transcripts, looking specifically for Flynn conversations, as part of investigation.
3) After all, it wouldn't be that hard to make educated guess that it was Flynn on the line on the basis of who was calling and words in the transcripts--especially during transition.
Read 6 tweets
Profile picture
Kimberley Strassel
@KimStrassel
1) The sheer number of people who unmasked, and the number of times, is stunning. Meanwhile, assume that black outs are intel people with a more "legit" call to unmask. And compare ratios. grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/…
2) Also look at timing. The McDonough (obama chief of staff) unmasking is Jan 5--same day as infamous Oval Office meeting. And Biden comes a whole week after that.
3) Also, let's note that Flynn conversation with Kislyak was last days of December 2016. Yet nearly every one of these unmasking requests came before that... The earliest (end Nov.) only about 10 days after Trump named Flynn NSA.
Read 3 tweets

Embed code for your website

×
Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!