The former ambassador to the United Nations under President Barack Obama, Samantha Power, testified in a closed door meeting before the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 13. The meeting was regarding the ambassador’s hundreds of requests to “unmask” United States citizens’ names that were caught in foreign intelligence intercepts. A member of the House Intelligence Committee, Trey Gowdy, weighed in on October 17 to reveal the substance of Samantha Power’s testimony: “Her testimony is, they may be under my name, but I did not make those requests.”

The former UN Ambassador’s testimony is extremely troubling and also raises many more questions. Who made the requests if not Samantha Power? Why are people making requests in HER name? How could she of not have known this was happening? Why did she not raise questions when unmasking information was provided to her without so much as submitting a request? If and when she became aware of the requests, what steps did she take to prevent further violations?

If her testimony can be accepted as “accurate” then we must consider how other business had been conducted under her leadership; or lack there-of. We must also consider what other complications could be lurking since the former ambassador’s testimony reveals one of three things: outright incompetence, abject ignorance, or willful ignorance.

The unmasking show’s an all-out assault on the Fourth Amendment rights of those Americans that were violated. Instead of getting real answers from the very person who oversaw all UN business as ambassador, we got an answer a toddler would give after spilling milk, “It wasn’t me.”

Did we accept a similar answer from former CEO of Goldman Sachs, John Stumpf, after unauthorized accounts were issued under uninformed customer’s names? Of course not, he resigned in disgrace. Would the IRS accept this excuse from an American citizen being charged with tax evasion? “I know the tax return was sent under my name in an attempt to defraud the government, but it wasn’t me,” is not an excuse the IRS will entertain.

Are we to believe that anyone at the United Nations can submit an unmasking request under the UN Ambassador’s name to effectively strip an American citizen of their Fourth Amendment rights? Even worse, are we to believe that those very requests would be blindly honored? It is extremely difficult to believe the United Nations operates in such a loose manner. Any corporation in America requires a physical signature on so much as a purchase order, but the United States Ambassador’s Office to the UN does not require one when stripping away Constitutionally-protected rights from Americans.

Samantha Power’s testimony leaves Americans asking more questions and logging more concerns of how things operate in the swamp of Washington DC. It also adds to the vast amount of Americans that prefer to see Washington “drained” of the power hungry-elitists who continue to dither instead of act.