Sean Hannity Just advised Evelyn Farkas To Hire The Best Attorney In DC

[Rightguide]

Wonder why, is it because she's a leaker?


"Evelyn Farkas: “…Frankly speaking the people on The Hill..get as much information as you can. Get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people who left so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy…

Ummm that the Trump folks if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians that they would try to compromise the sources and methods meaning that we would no longer have access to that intelligence.”

 

[Rightguide]

She was an Under Secretary of Defense under Obama.

 

[Rightguide]

She just admitted to the world that the Obama administration did surveil the Trump campaign.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-rush-to-get-intelligence-on-trump-team.html

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Where are you getting your information from?



I'm watching American Dad reruns.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Democrats are just going to say she was right...



:shrug:

 

[Rightguide]

Where are you getting your information from?



I'm watching American Dad reruns.

I just heard him on the radio, when I got home I checked it out and provided a FOX link.

 

[Rightguide]

The Democrats are just going to say she was right...



:shrug:

She's basically admitting to felony behavior.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Preserving evidence?


Nothing there speaks to the acquisition of the evidence.

 

[KingOrfeo]

She just admitted to the world that the Obama administration did surveil the Trump campaign.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-rush-to-get-intelligence-on-trump-team.html

“I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration,” Farkas, who is now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, said.

“Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy ... that the Trump folks – if they found out how we knew what we knew about their ... the Trump staff dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.”

<snip>

Aside from questions over whether communications were improperly gathered during the transition and before, there is speculation over how widely such information was disseminated. Farkas described a rush to spread the material before Trump took office.

"So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia," she said. "So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill."

She's basically admitting to felony behavior.

That ain't felony behavior, that's civically responsible behavior.

 

[Rightguide]

Preserving evidence?


Nothing there speaks to the acquisition of the evidence.

This sounds like she's admitting to a leak campaign:

"So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia," she said. "So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill."

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

This sounds like she's admitting to a leak campaign:

"So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia," she said. "So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill."

Uhmmm, you're going to get a lot of pushback on this and on this one, I can't really get behind it, because I see no smoking gun in her comments. There's nothing here about what intelligence she was referring to or how it was gathered.

 

[Rightguide]

Uhmmm, you're going to get a lot of pushback on this and on this one, I can't really get behind it, because I see no smoking gun in her comments. There's nothing here about what intelligence she was referring to or how it was gathered.

That's ok, let'em push. It's pretty clear she was talking about electronic intelligence gathering, "sources and methods." She's talking about leaking to the "Hill" and "Hill people" but we all know it was leaked to the press. We know that violates the espionage Act. She talking about "Trump staff" so she knows they've been unmasked, another violation. She's admitting to the Obama administration surveillance of a presidential campaign, a first in history. Nunes has already said what he's seen has no intelligence value and there was no evidence of Russian/Trump collusion or cooperation to violate the laws.

Sounds like conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act, under the cover of foreign intelligence gathering, maybe misprision of felonies. Could be a long stretch for some.

“I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration,” Farkas, who is now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, said.

“Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy ... that the Trump folks – if they found out how we knew what we knew about their ... the Trump staff dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.”

 

[Sean]

Watching someone adding two and two and making a hundred and seventeen in real time. This is entertainment, people.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I don't want to pick a fight, but you have to read between the lines to come to that conclusion based on what she said. You may infer, I may infer, but stepping back and examining that as a separate piece of the puzzle does not lead me to the Hannity conclusion.

 

[Rightguide]

I don't want to pick a fight, but you have to read between the lines to come to that conclusion based on what she said. You may infer, I may infer, but stepping back and examining that as a separate piece of the puzzle does not lead me to the Hannity conclusion.

No problem. It would only take a few questions under oath to make the determination one way or the other. The Intel Committee is holding another hearing tomorrow maybe it might come up. Her statement made in early march must be well known to authorities though not being reported on by much of the press.

Tell me what you think she was talking about.

 

[KingOrfeo]

This sounds like she's admitting to a leak campaign:

"So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia," she said. "So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill."

“I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration,” Farkas, who is now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, said.

“Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy ... that the Trump folks – if they found out how we knew what we knew about their ... the Trump staff dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.”

There is nothing illegal, or improper, or dishonest, or even in any way less than admirable about any of that.

 

[Rightguide]

There is nothing illegal, or improper, or dishonest, or even in any way less than admirable about any of that.

I know your all too familiar replies before you make them. But let me ask you this, how would she as an under secretary of Defense be on the list of people who would be privy to electronic telephone intercepts prior to EO 12333?

 

[KingOrfeo]

I know your all too familiar replies before you make them. But let me ask you this, how would she as an under secretary of Defense be on the list of people who would be privy to electronic telephone intercepts prior to EO 12333?

Don't know that EO, but I'm sure an UnderSecDef would have very high security clearance.

 

[HisArpy]

Don't know that EO, but I'm sure an UnderSecDef would have very high security clearance.

The problem is that an Undersecretary of Defense is not in the loop to RECEIVE, HANDLE, OR VIEW that classified information. Not until after EO12333 was signed by Obama that is.

She made her comments before the EO was signed.

That means she had actual knowledge of classified materials she was not supposed to have. From there, she urged her co-workers to engage in transmitting that CLASSIFIED MATERIAL amongst themselves BEFORE the EO was signed.

Very serious offenses. She'll probably skate but she's got to be quaking in her boots right about now.

 

[lovecraft68]

It kills me that a "leak" somehow negates facts. So it's fine trump is owned by the Russians because we're not supposed to know it?

It doesn't matter. He'll take one between the eyes long before the Russian treason will be proven.

 

[KingOrfeo]

It kills me that a "leak" somehow negates facts. So it's fine trump is owned by the Russians because we're not supposed to know it?

It doesn't matter. He'll take one between the eyes long before the Russian treason will be proven.

Fired by whom?

 

[HisArpy]

It kills me that a "leak" somehow negates facts. So it's fine trump is owned by the Russians because we're not supposed to know it?

It doesn't matter. He'll take one between the eyes long before the Russian treason will be proven.

It really bothers me that some people just can't seem to hear facts when they're told them again and again and again.

The House Intelligence Committee has said repeatedly that there is NO EVIDENCE of collusion between Trump and Russia. Comey, Clapper, et al have ALL said that there is no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.

At some point you have to believe the intel community when they say something. So, focus and read the following carefully.

There. Is. No. Evidence. Of. Collusion.

 

[Hard_Rom]

It kills me that a "leak" somehow negates facts. So it's fine trump is owned by the Russians because we're not supposed to know it?

It doesn't matter. He'll take one between the eyes long before the Russian treason will be proven.

One in the leg maybe. A little polonium pellet not a lead bullet. Courtesy of the SVR.

 

[doowdniw]

Spoliation of evidence has significant implications. I've never heard of taking action to prevent it as a "thing" before.

 

[Conager]

Spoliation of evidence has significant implications. I've never heard of taking action to prevent it as a "thing" before.

If the "taking action" involved violations of protocols regarding classified information it could be. Having even the highest classification security clearence does not get you cleared for specific information that you, personally, do not have a clear need to know.

Some of that, though obviously violated, is fungible. It can be argued that the person bringing you into the closed loop, decided you did have the need to know and presumedly has the authority to make such a determination.

What cannot be defended is the unmasking. We have walls erected in intelligence forbidding surveilance of US citizens by those agencies whose charter looks outward and not inward. This is to prevent a police state and try to comply with the barely recognizable now, formerly clear language and intent of the 4th amendment.

Courts do not make you throw out the valuable foreign intell with the bathwater just because some American traipses through the scene and gets picked up by the boom mike. Courts severely frown on doing anything with such information gathered in what would otherwise be highly illegal surveilance if directed at US citizens. Hence the requirement that if any such relevant data is collected, the identitiy of the (assumed to be) non-target be masked. Unmasking is a specific, federal crime for good reason.