Intelligence official who 'unmasked' Trump associates is 'very high up'

[james_1957]

The U.S. intelligence official who “unmasked,” or exposed, the names of multiple private citizens affiliated with the Trump team is someone “very well known, very high up, very senior in the intelligence world,” a source told Fox News on Friday.

Intelligence and House sources with direct knowledge of the disclosure of classified names told Fox News that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., now knows who is responsible -- and that person is not in the FBI.

The White House, meanwhile, is urging Nunes and his colleagues to keep pursuing what improper surveillance and leaks may have occurred before Trump took office. They’ve been emboldened in the wake of March 2 comments from former Obama administration official Evelyn Farkas, who on MSNBC suggested her former colleagues tried to gather material on Trump team contacts with Russia.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Friday her comments and other reports raise “serious” concerns about whether there was an “organized and widespread effort by the Obama administration to use and leak highly sensitive intelligence information for political purposes.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...p-associates-is-very-high-up-source-says.html

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I thought Spicer was going to get the knife in the back...

 

[james_1957]

I thought Spicer was going to get the knife in the back...

It appears Trump changed his mind.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

*chuckle*



Makes one not want to trust fake news...

 

[Rightguide]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...p-associates-is-very-high-up-source-says.html

This story eclipses all others in importance to the security of the election process, the credibility of Fouth Amendment protections in our law. It was the Democrats and their deep state conspirators, not the Russians, who were threatening our elections and the Constitution of the United States.

Nunes said the other day this story will rock the nation and it's only in its infancy, what is known, and it is big, is but the tip of the iceberg.

 

[james_1957]

*chuckle*



Makes one not want to trust fake news...

From what I've read, the Trump team wanted her as press secretary.

But Trump was pissed when she went public & bragged about having the job before actually having the job.

Perhaps she had a premature articulation.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

This story eclipses all others in importance to the security of the election process, the credibility of Fouth Amendment protections in our law. It was the Democrats and their deep state conspirators, not the Russians, who were threatening our elections and the Constitution of the United States.

Nunes said the other day this story will rock the nation and it's only in its infancy, what is known, and it is big, is but the tip of the iceberg.

Let's try to stay focused and precise here with the appropriate language.

"Unmasking" the identities of U. S. persons coincidentally collected by intelligence officials TO authorized personnel WITH the appropriate security clearance (i.e. Susan Rice) IS LEGAL. Public revelation of those identities is NOT LEGAL and should not EVER BE DESCRIBED AS "UNMASKING."

Because it ISN'T!

 

[Rightguide]

Let's try to stay focused and precise here with the appropriate language.

"Unmasking" the identities of U. S. persons coincidentally collected by intelligence officials TO authorized personnel WITH the appropriate security clearance (i.e. Susan Rice) IS LEGAL. Public revelation of those identities is NOT LEGAL and should not EVER BE DESCRIBED AS "UNMASKING."

Because it ISN'T!

Go here and scroll down to where it says FISA Court Opinion and click the orange "read" box and see what the FISA Court itself says about that:

http://circa.com/politics/barack-ob...s-of-illegal-nsa-searches-spying-on-americans

I don't believe it is legal to unmask Americans for political purposes.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I don't believe it is legal to unmask Americans for political purposes.

I believe no one should be allowed to give a candidate any material support in secret.

 

[Rightguide]

I believe no one should be allowed to give a candidate any material support in secret.

The FISA Court is saying this unlawful process now being used is a significant Fourth Amendment violation.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The FISA Court is saying this unlawful process now being used is a significant Fourth Amendment violation.

If we have to amend the Constitution to make it so, I believe no one should be allowed to give a candidate any material support in secret.

 

[Rightguide]

If we have to amend the Constitution to make it so, I believe no one should be allowed to give a candidate any material support in secret.

Federal statutes already exist. All that's needed is the will of an attorney general to impanel a jury to investigate and prosecute it. Prosecutions would go a long way in bringing discipline back into the process and it might help those looking for enough trust in the system to justify voting to continue this vital intel program this Fall.

 

[HisArpy]

If we have to amend the Constitution to make it so, I believe no one should be allowed to give a candidate any material support in secret.

Define "material support". From there; does this include campaign donations from campaign donors who give <$100? From there, does your mandate come into conflict with the 1st Amendment (forced speech)? Does it prohibit THIS FORUM from discussing political campaigns since we use screen names and keep our real names secret?

 

[bb4ever]

I believe no one should be allowed to give a candidate any material support in secret.

you mean like CuntClinton KNOWING the questions before a DEBATE?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Define "material support".

Money or influence or connections.

From there; does this include campaign donations from campaign donors who give <$100?

Absolutely.

Does it prohibit THIS FORUM from discussing political campaigns since we use screen names and keep our real names secret?

No, this is what amounts to letters to the editor, and those can always be sent anonymously or pseudonymously.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Federal statutes already exist. All that's needed is the will of an attorney general to impanel a jury to investigate and prosecute it.

Not good enough. It should all have to be public record from the start.

 

[HisArpy]

Not good enough. It should all have to be public record from the start.

So, when the media reports that an anonymous source said something bad about a candidate the media should be required to use the source's name and not hide behind "an anonymous source said"?