Let’s talk “unmasking” and the latest Fox News bullshit tornado, shall we?
It’s no secret that the US intelligence community routinely—and lawfully—collects the communications of foreign persons of interest.
So what happens when a US person is caught up in that collection? 1/X
There are strict minimization requirements in place to protect the identity of any United States citizen or permanent resident that is incidentally collected while monitoring a foreign national.
This shows up as “US Person 1,” etc. on intercepts. 2/X
If a senior official feels that the identity of one or more of the minimized US persons is necessary to understand the context of the communications, they can request that the originating (read: collecting) agency reveal (‘unmask’) their identity. 3/X
There is a strict process in place at each collecting agency to determine whether or not they will comply with such a request. They typically only comply in specific instances where the name of the US person is critical for context, or there are national security concerns. 4/X
So, while Fox is spinning up the outrage machine, I’m far more interested in:
1. Why didn’t they reach out to the legitimate Kremlin channels used to set up an interview with Putin?
2. What did Tucker say that spooked senior officials enough to unmask him? 5/X
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
According to the Guardian, they have a directive with Putin’s signature on it, confirming kompromat on a “mentally unstable” Donald Trump, and ordering Russia’s intelligence agencies to do everything possible to get him elected.
The document refers to Trump as an ‘impulsive, mentally unstable and unbalanced individual who suffers from an inferiority complex,’ and someone they judge could help promulgate ‘social turmoil’ in the United States.
All true. 2/X
With that being said, it’s important to understand how Russia operates, and, as always, I would urge everyone to not immediately give in to confirmation bias. 3/X
With the first Presidential trip in the books, we just witnessed a master class in statesmanship from Biden.
Sure, it’s easy to say the bar was set low by Trump, but let’s take a look at some of what was accomplished.
Thread:
First, and perhaps most importantly, Biden gave a full-throated, unequivocal statement of support for Article 5 and the collective defense of our NATO partners.
He also publicly committed to the defend Ukraine’s interests against further Russian incursions.
He and the other world leaders came to an agreement on a *massive* vaccine sharing plan — at least 870 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine from G7 countries to help ease the worldwide pandemic.
There was also never a possibility for Pence to “send the results back” to the states — that Trump/Flynn/Powell crock of shit came entirely too close to getting Pence killed.
Lies are always dangerous, but particularly so coming from people who had/have power.
At first, I thought maybe the QAnon cult would realize they’re being scammed after literally none of “Q’s” predictions came true.
Then, they started counting flags on a stage, seeing signs in clouds, and using Trump’s verbal flubs as “evidence” and I knew it was hopeless.
I think it’s also important to set realistic expectations for the American people.
There are things we can do quickly. Expanded background checks, mandatory waiting periods, closing gun show loopholes, etc.
An assault weapons ban is more complicated. 1/x
There is approximately a zero percent chance a 50/50 Senate that includes Manchin and Sinema would ever be able to pass an assault weapons ban.
It’s also not clear how helpful an assault weapons ban would ultimately be. If you use Clinton’s ban as a reference: 2/X
A ban would likely encompass semiautomatic firearms and/or high-capacity (over 10 rounds) magazines.
It would also almost certainly—as Clinton’s did—include a grandfather clause that would exempt the millions of weapons and magazines that are already in circulation. 3/X