Abuse of Power by Obama’s WH

THE number is so large that it explodes everything we were led to believe about how tightly controlled our government’s surveillance programs are.

The number is 260, and that’s how many times Samantha Power, the ambassador to the United Nations under President Obama, reportedly requested the names of American citizens who were included in intelligence reports covering foreign officials.

The story, by respected Fox News journalists Bret Baier and Catherine Herridge, said Power made the requests to “unmask” the 260 names in one year alone, including the period between the presidential election and the inauguration.

The first obvious question is this: Why would she need those names? Power had no operational duties for either intelligence-gathering or counterintelligence investigations, yet her requests apparently were approved.

The second obvious question: What did Power do with those names? Having no clear official reason to get them, any use she made of them would be suspicious and possibly criminal.

It is not a minor point that the names of some people who were involved in President Trump’s campaign or his administration were unmasked and then leaked to the anti-Trump media, which breathlessly reported them as evidence of collusion with Russia and even treason. It is not a stretch to wonder if Power was behind any of those leaks.

While the first two questions go to the heart of the simmering scandal about whether Obama’s FBI targeted Trump and his associates to help elect Hillary Clinton, Question No. 3 is, in its own way, more farreaching.

How much spying is there on foreigners here that 260 Americans, that we know of, were caught in the net? Are so many Americans really engaging in suspicious activity with foreign officials, or does a guy who delivers a pizza to a Russian diplomat instantly become a person of interest to our government, making it open season on his privacy?

I have no answers to any of these questions but, more troubling, neither does congress nor the administration. Similarly, the media that was so hot and bothered when our intelligence gatherers used international banking regulations to follow terrorist financing, show zero concern when information collected on American citizens by those same techniques becomes public.

Of course, if Trumpsters were the villains instead of the victims, that would be giant news. This is a perfect example of how media bias blinds left-wing news organizations and leads to double standards.

As I wrote last week, it is possible we are witnessing the unfolding of one of the great scandals in American political history. It seems increasingly likely that Trump’s claim that Obama tapped his phones is close to the truth.

How else to explain the report that Paul Manafort, now in the crosshairs of special counsel Robert Mueller, was the target of a FISA warrant and that his communications had been intercepted? If nothing else, it means the claim by Obama officials that Manafort and other Trump associates had been “incidentally” picked up in intelligence gathering is exposed as a lie.

It may also be a criminal lie, because some of those assertions were made under oath to congress.

Besides Manafort, who had been Trump’s campaign chairman before being forced out, Carter Page, briefly a campaign advisor, also reportedly was the target of a FISA warrant, meaning the FBI suspected he was acting as a foreign agent or spy.

That makes two lies — that we know of. Were others whose names were leaked, such as Gen. Mike Flynn and Jared Kushner, also targeted by the FBI during or after the 2016 campaign?

The implications are enormous, especially with so much of the public already distrustful of government and wary of eroding privacy protections. The outrage at the hacking of Equifax and other commercial firms is understandable, but it is a far more serious breach of trust if government surveillance programs were abused for political dirty tricks.

That would undermine public support for those programs, which many in the intelligence community argue are vital in the war on terror.

No doubt they are, but that’s all the more reason why those entrusted with that power must safeguard its use. Given what we know already about how the Obama administration spied on journalists to learn their sources, the issue is not whether but how often did the former president abuse his power to spy on American citizens.

Even members of congress have been “unmasked,” leading them to demand notification when their names surface.

All other Americans are out of luck and in the dark until the FBI comes banging on their door.

Samantha Power is scheduled to testify before both House and Senate intelligence committees next month — in secret. That’s not good enough.

She should be required to explain her unmasking requests and actions in public, with no immunity from potential prosecution.

If she refuses, count that as more evidence that the Obama administration used the FBI’s surveillance power as a political weapon.