RUTHFULLY YOURS

Samantha Power was unmasking United States citizens at an astonishing rate in the final months of the Obama administration, Fox News reported Wednesday evening.

The former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations unmasked at such a rapid pace that she ended up “averaging more than one request for every working day in 2016,” multiple sources said to Fox. And she continued to seek identifying information about Americans caught up in incidental surveillance right up to President Trump’s inauguration:

Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 last year. One source indicated this occurred in the final days of the Obama White House.

The details emerged ahead of an expected appearance by Power next month on Capitol Hill. She is one of several Obama administration officials facing congressional scrutiny for their role in seeking the identities of Trump associates in intelligence reports – but the interest in her actions is particularly high.

In a July 27 letter to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said the committee had learned “that one official, whose position had no apparent intelligence-related function, made hundreds of unmasking requests during the final year of the Obama Administration.”

That one official is widely believed to be Power.

Her lawyer, David Pressman, had no comment on this story, but in a previous statement said:

While serving as our Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Power was also a member of the National Security Council responsible for advising the President on the full-range of threats confronting the United States. Any insinuation that Ambassador Power was involved in leaking classified information is absolutely false.

But nobody accused her of leaking classified information. (Not that there aren’t suspicions.) All she’s being accused of doing is seeking a freakishly large number of unmaskings for someone in her position.

It is not unprecedented for a UN ambassador to make an unmasking request, but according to Fox’s sources, the number is normally in the low double digits. Power allegedly requested over 260 unmaskings in Obama’s last year.

During congressional testimony since the unmasking controversy began, National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers has explained that unmasking is handled by the intelligence community in an independent review.

“We [the NSA] apply two criteria in response to their request: number one, you must make the request in writing. Number two, the request must be made on the basis of your official duties, not the fact that you just find this report really interesting and you’re just curious,” he said in June. “It has to tie to your job and finally, I said two but there’s a third criteria, and is the basis of the request must be that you need this identity to understand the intelligence you’re reading.”

Senators Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham have publicly complained that they think they were surveilled. CONTINUE AT SITE

This week CNN is reporting more details on the Obama Administration’s 2016 surveillance of people connected to the presidential campaign of the party out of power. It seems that once President Obama’s appointee to run the FBI, James Comey, had secured authorization for wiretapping, the bureau continued its surveillance into 2017. CNN reports:

US investigators wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort under secret court orders before and after the election, sources tell CNN, an extraordinary step involving a high-ranking campaign official now at the center of the Russia meddling probe.

The government snooping continued into early this year, including a period when Manafort was known to talk to President Donald Trump.

Some of the intelligence collected includes communications that sparked concerns among investigators that Manafort had encouraged the Russians to help with the campaign, according to three sources familiar with the investigation. Two of these sources, however, cautioned that the evidence is not conclusive.

This means the wiretapping was authorized more than ten months ago and perhaps more than a year ago. It was presumably a tough decision for a judge to issue a secret warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, enabling the administration to spy on someone connected with the presidential campaign of its political adversaries.

One would presumably only approve such an order if the request presented by the executive branch was highly compelling and likely to produce evidence that the subject of the wiretap was in fact working with Russia to disrupt U.S. elections. Roughly a year later, as the public still waits for such evidence, this column wonders how this judge is feeling now, especially now that CNN has reported that at least two of its three sources believe the resulting evidence is inconclusive.

One would also presume—or at least hope—that seeking to wiretap associates of the leader of the political opposition is not an everyday occurrence in any administration. At the very least, it seems highly unlikely that such a decision would be made by a mid-level official. CNN notes, “Such warrants require the approval of top Justice Department and FBI officials, and the FBI must provide the court with information showing suspicion that the subject of the warrant may be acting as an agent of a foreign power.”

It seems reasonable for the public to know exactly which officials made this decision and who else they consulted or informed of their surveillance plans. Was the President briefed on the details of this investigation?

And as for the information showing suspicion, where did the FBI come up with that? A September 7 column from the Journal’s Kim Strassel raises disturbing questions, based on recent events and a Washington Post story from last winter. Ms. Strassel writes:

The House Intelligence Committee’s investigation took a sharp and notable turn on Tuesday, as news broke that it had subpoenaed the FBI and the Justice Department for information relating to the infamous Trump “dossier.” That dossier, whose allegations appear to have been fabricated, was commissioned by the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and then developed by a former British spook named Christopher Steele. ..

The Washington Post in February reported that Mr. Steele “was familiar” to the FBI, since he’d worked for the bureau before. The newspaper said Mr. Steele had reached out to a “friend” at the FBI about his Trump work as far back as July 2016. The Post even reported that Mr. Steele “reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work.”

Hillary Clinton should have paid more attention to her husband’s former adviser Paul Begala, who once said, “Never interrupt your opponent when he’s destroying himself.” And even if the former Democratic nominee resists that strategy, her party might want to insist on it. Because Clinton’s highly publicized and problematic book tour is rescuing President Trump from a political corner into which he had largely painted himself.

Trump has had a bumpy month with his base, thanks to some surprise engagements with Democratic leadership and a continuing reshuffle of White House personnel. His core group of populist voters have become restive, with anxiety growing over the president’s commitment to the border wall and immigration enforcement. Isolationists drawn to his primary campaign have expressed dismay over his escalation of personnel in Afghanistan. When Trump undercut Republicans in their attempts to leverage the debt ceiling for budget cuts, many hardcore Trump supporters flipped out.

Thus far, the president’s base has still mostly held together even through these twists and turns, but not everyone has remained on the “Trump Train.” Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter has repeatedly offered harsh criticisms of Trump as he looks to broaden his appeal, especially after a tweet that indicated the much-ballyhooed border wall might be more of a renovation and beefing up of existing barriers on the southern border, at least in the near term. After White House director of legislative affairs Marc Short announced that Trump would cut a deal to enshrine the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in statute, Coulter blasted Trump for allowing “the swamp” to overwhelm his presidency.

In any administration, the transition from campaigning to governing presents challenges. Presidents find that promises made might not be realistic after all. But voters expect to see results quickly, and it takes some finesse and salesmanship to keep them in the fold while negotiating through a three-branch federal system designed explicitly to force cooperation on policy.

For Trump, the challenge is even more difficult, as he ran as an outsider who could “drain the swamp” and disrupt business as usual in Washington, D.C. Eight months into office, his supporters still back him, but some of them have begun to doubt him. Until this month, Trump repeatedly cast Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer as villains blocking his initiatives in order to delegitimize his presidency. His direct negotiations with the two Democratic leaders on the debt ceiling and DACA robbed him of that argument, at least for the near future, and raised questions about whether Trump might start aligning with liberals to get some legislative wins.

Things were looking bad for the president … until Hillary elbowed her way back onto the national stage.

In an NPR interview Monday for her campaign memoir What Happened, Clinton seemed to suggest to Terry Gross that she might launch a legal fight to contest the 2016 election results.

“Would you completely rule out questioning the legitimacy of this election,” Gross asked, “if we learn that the Russian interference in the election is even deeper than we know now?”

“No,” Clinton replied, “I would not.” When Gross persisted, Clinton reiterated, “No, I would not rule it out.”

Now, none of this should be read as Clinton insisting on a do-over, or even planning to challenge the nearly year-old election results. But the fact that she won’t rule it out is illustrative of her ongoing delusions.

Let’s remember that no one has ever suggested that votes got changed via outside interference, nor did vote-counting machines get corrupted. Thanks to Jill Stein’s challenges in the so-called Blue Wall states that gave Trump his victory, we have recounts that validated the Election Night totals in both Michigan and Wisconsin. Other than recounts on a state-by-state basis, there are no legal means to change election results, let alone throw out a presidential election and demand a do-over.

Remember, too, that Clinton herself demanded that Trump accept the outcome of the election in a presidential debate last October. When Trump said he’d wait and see how the election was conducted, Clinton called the remark “a direct threat to our democracy.” In further remarks, Clinton added, “He’s denigrating — he’s talking down our democracy. I for one am appalled that somebody who is the nominee of one of our major two parties would take that kind of position.”

My, how one’s position changes when the ox that gets gored is one’s own.

Wiretapping: The U.S. government under President Obama wiretapped former Trump campaign Chair Paul Manafort in New York’s Trump Tower under “secret court orders before and after the election,” CNN reported, citing “three sources familiar with the investigation.” Assuming CNN’s report is true, it means President Trump, who was ridiculed earlier this year for claiming that his iconic building had been wiretapped, has been massively vindicated. But don’t hold your breath waiting for an apology.

Just months ago, Trump was called a liar and worse for his tweets alleging that Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped.

“Terrible!” Trump tweeted on March 4. “Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”

Some suggested he was paranoid, had lost his mind or was flat-out lying, and CNN — which, to its credit, broke the wiretapping story — was among the worst in the mainstream media.

Actor James Woods, active on Twitter, compared the shifting headlines from CNN on the allegations over the past six months:

CNN, Sunday, March 5, 2017: “Trump’s baseless wiretap claim”

September 5, 2017: “Donald Trump just flat-out lied about Trump Tower wiretapping”

September 18, 2017: “Exclusive: US government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman”

That about says it all. And on that last headline, it’s important to note that not only was Manafort working out of Trump Tower, he was living there. So the claim, again if true, means Trump was 100% correct about being wiretapped.

This is more than just “I told you so.” The entire investigation into alleged Trump campaign ties to Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election appears to center on the wiretaps of Manafort, whose consulting work included some foreign political groups, including in Ukraine.

Even so, top U.S. intelligence officials have steadfastly and adamantly denied any wiretap of Trump. CONTINUE AT SITE

Behind his political espionage of Trump, which benefited Hillary, lay an enormous sense of entitlement.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign memoir rests on an astonishingly audacious lie: that the very FBI director who made her campaign possible by improperly sparing her from an indictment doomed it. A normal pol who had mishandled classified information as egregiously as Hillary would have felt eternal gratitude to Comey. Only an entitled ingrate like Hillary would have the gall to cast her savior as the chief thorn in her side.

Nor does Hillary acknowledge another in-kind contribution to her campaign from Comey: his willingness to serve as a cog in Obama’s campaign of political espionage against Trump. Obama’s team of Hillary partisans, which included among others John Brennan, Susan Rice, and Loretta Lynch, wanted Comey to snoop on Trumpworld and he duly did.

It was reported this week that the FBI had until as recently as earlier this year been intercepting the communications of Paul Manafort, one of Trump’s campaign chairmen. This means that Comey, contrary to his lawyerly denial of Trump’s wiretapping claim, had the means to eavesdrop on any communications between Manafort and Trump.

Even at this late date, quibbling partisans in the media say that is insufficient proof of Trump’s claim. But could anyone imagine the Maggie Habermans bothering with such pedantry if George Bush’s FBI director had been snooping on David Axelrod? The same generation of reporters who watched All the President’s Men breathlessly now shill for the propriety of political espionage. They rush to offer what they consider high-minded reasons for wiretaps of Trump campaign officials. But those reasons, at least as this point, amount to nothing more than the haziest gossip. One of the supposed reasons for the wiretaps, rich in irony given Hillary’s complaint that foreigners interfered in the election, is that an ex-Brit spy, probably on Comey’s payroll (the FBI still won’t address this matter) and certainly on the payroll of pro-Hillary partisans, told U.S. government officials that Manafort was colluding with the Russians.

Here Hillary benefited from the election-tipping of a foreigner, whose idiotic whisperings entertained by the FBI would turn up on the front pages of the New York Times at crucial moments in the campaign. This, by the way, throws light on another outrageously dishonest Hillary claim: that Comey never told anyone of his investigation into the Trump campaign. Of course, he did — through leaks. That was bad enough but Comey made the leaks worse by not telling reporters that the investigation into the Trump campaign excluded Trump as a target. Comey let reporters think that Trump was one. Again, no gratitude from Hillary.

Another recent revelation is that Susan Rice, one of Hillary’s most fervent supporters, spied on a post-election meeting between a prince from the United Arab Emirates and Trump aides. The media shrugged at the revelation, as if such snooping falls within the bounds of a blameless norm. An even slightly curious press, were it not in the tank for the Dems, would be agog at the news that one administration was spying on an incoming administration and demand an accounting of such an abuse of power. Had the George Bush administration, out of post-election spite, spied on pre-inauguration meetings between Obama’s people and officials from a Middle Eastern country, the press would still be talking about it as a historic abuse of power. But in Rice’s case, they hastily inform their audience that “such unmaskings are perfectly legal.”

The media’s customary double standard for Democrats, combined with its treatment of Trump as a singularly monstrous Republican candidate (and then incoming president), served as a safety net beneath such high-wire political espionage. Rice knew that even if she fell in her attempt to nail Trump the media would catch her.

“I don’t just mean the ordinary corruption of the swamp variety. I mean something fundamental, something that suggests major elements in our government believe they, and not the people, are sovereign.Which brings us back to the ultimate test: Did Obama or somebody working for him put Trump under surveillance during or after the election for the purpose of a political coup?It’s a frightening question, all the more so because I suspect the answer will be yes — if we can ever get to the truth.”

Over the years, a curious habit has taken hold at the United Nations. A body designed to strengthen the best of humanity has too often become a font of doublespeak and appeasement that protects the worst of humanity .That tragic comity was shattered when President Trump played the skunk at the garden party and dared to tell the truth. Many truths, in fact.

Among them, that Islamic terrorism is a scourge that must be stopped. That Iran is controlled by a “murderous regime” bent on getting nukes.

That North Korea’s “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission” and the United States “will have no choice but to totally destroy” that country if war begins. And that socialism and communism have failed everywhere, including Cuba and Venezuela.

The delegates and heads of state got The Full Trump, including what it means to put America First. It was the president’s finest, most complete expression of his worldview and, thankfully, contained no apologies for American power or history.

Yet even as Trump spoke, a threat to his presidency gained new steam. Reports that special counsel Robert Mueller had wiretapped former Trump campaign boss Paul Manafort and plans to indict him sent Washington into a new tizzy of speculation.

According to CNN, which first carried the wiretapping report, Manafort was surveilled under a FISA warrant, meaning the FBI suspected he was operating as a foreign agent. The network said it is possible G-men listened to the president talking to Manafort because the wiretap continued into this year and Trump and Manafort often talked in 2017.

If so, that would mark an infamous history — an American president being overheard by secret agents of his own government.

It would also be additional support for Trump’s charge that former President Barack Obama “had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory.”

It was in March when Trump made that explosive claim, and the Democratic media rushed to denounce him even before Obama did. Subsequent denials from then-FBI boss James Comey and other Obama aides all were rock-solid in declaring that no such thing had happened. There was no wiggle room in their denials, some of which were made under oath before Congress.

But something certainly happened. And what if it was the worst imaginable something? What if the Republican candidate for president was put under surveillance by a Democratic administration that was trying to elect another Democrat?

There was reason to suspect that was true before the Manafort reports added fuel to the fire.

For seven years Republicans promised to repeal ObamaCare, and now they have one last chance to deliver. A bill recently introduced by Sens. Lindsey Graham, Bill Cassidy, Dean Heller and Ron Johnson would eliminate some of ObamaCare’s most unpopular provisions and enact reforms that would lower costs, expand choices, promote federal fiscal responsibility, and give power back to states and consumers. Democrats have been unwilling to support any legislation that would roll back parts of ObamaCare, so Republicans have until Sept. 30—the deadline for avoiding a filibuster by using budget reconciliation—to act on their own.

The Graham-Cassidy bill’s biggest strength is the idea that states are uniquely equipped to design and implement health care programs that suit their residents. The bill would consolidate much of the federal funding given to states under ObamaCare’s coverage provisions—including money for its Medicaid expansion and subsidies to help people buy private insurance—into a single block grant, which states could use for a wide variety of health reforms.

The block grant would help address the dramatic state inequities that ObamaCare’s optional Medicaid expansion created in federal health-care funding. According to the proposal’s authors, Washington in 2016 sent states anywhere from about $400 (Mississippi) to over $10,000 (Massachusetts) per beneficiary whose annual income was between 50% and 138% of the federal poverty level. In contrast, the size of the Graham-Cassidy block grant would not depend on whether a state chose to expand its Medicaid program. Thus, it would equalize the base per-person amount the federal government gives states. In 2026 it would be about $4,400 for each qualified beneficiary. The bill then adjusts these payments to compensate for factors such as demographic differences and various levels of illness among the states.

These block grants would give states significant latitude to institute reforms. Some would decide to continue ObamaCare’s regulatory and coverage provisions. Others would create high-risk or reinsurance pools to help provide affordable coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, while making insurance cheaper for everyone else. Federal funds could be used to provide additional benefits for people in traditional Medicaid. States also could waive some of ObamaCare’s regulatory requirements to encourage greater competition, expand consumer choices and lower premiums.

Not everyone will like the reforms states pursue. But what Graham-Cassidy creates is a competition of ideas. The best programs would be emulated and the worst discarded—which is how policy making should work in a federalist system.

Equally important, the Graham-Cassidy proposal includes the structural Medicaid reforms from earlier Republican bills to replace ObamaCare. It would establish per capita caps on federal Medicaid expenditures to states, varying based on the needs of different categories of beneficiaries. The elderly and disabled would get higher allocations (which would grow faster over time) than healthy adults or children. The bill would create financial incentives for states to improve the quality of care provided through Medicaid and then to report the data.