Susan Rice Requested Unmasking of Incoming Trump Administration Officials

[SyKoKo]

https://medium.com/@Cernovich/susan...g-trump-administration-officials-30085b5cff16


StrongHorse Trump proven right!

 

[NOIRTRASH]

I predicted it was Rice. She was the Bengazi patsy. And a fool never learns. Yjays what Hillary cock will do to a girls head.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Brennan and Lynch too...



They were all in on it.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Brennan and Lynch too...



They were all in on it.

Naaah, Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice

 

[NOIRTRASH]

FOX says Rice, prolly Clapper, too.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

FOX is focusing on the wrong issue: The only story here is how Russia stole the election away from Hillary...

 

[Rightguide]

FOX says Rice, prolly Clapper, too.

FOX's Adam Housely just reported that Rice and Clapper may not have ordered the unmasking of names but they definitely were receiving intel with unmasked names.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I believe that order probably came from the top...


Valerie Jarret, the man in charge of the White House.

 

[Rightguide]

I believe that order probably came from the top...


Valerie Jarret, the man in charge of the White House.

So do I. The unmasking could have involved Brennan or Clapper, the order to use it politically could have come from Obama himself. I remember back a few months ago Maxine Waters was bragging:

“The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life...”

“That’s going to be very, very powerful....” “That database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it’s never been done before and whoever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that. They’re going to go down with that database and the concerns of those people because they can’t get around it. And he’s [President Obama] been very smart. It’s very powerful what he’s leaving in place.”

This statement to Roland Martin by Maxine Waters proves how widely this classified information may have been disseminated among Democrats. Obama set up the tools to pretty much blackmail political opponents guarded by a compliant Deep State constituency.

https://youtu.be/d69X20HhEQg

 

[needit700]

One word for Rice

Jail!!!!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So do I. The unmasking could have involved Brennan or Clapper, the order to use it politically could have come from Obama himself. I remember back a few months ago Maxine Waters was bragging:

“The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life...”

“That’s going to be very, very powerful....” “That database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it’s never been done before and whoever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that. They’re going to go down with that database and the concerns of those people because they can’t get around it. And he’s [President Obama] been very smart. It’s very powerful what he’s leaving in place.”

This statement to Roland Martin by Maxine Waters proves how widely this classified information may have been disseminated among Democrats. Obama set up the tools to pretty much blackmail political opponents guarded by a compliant Deep State constituency.

https://youtu.be/d69X20HhEQg

Probably not too far off the mark.

Maxine wanted to Socialize all oil companies. She would not hesitate to unleash the government of Republicans just like Lois "I'm still not in jail" Lerner did.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I'm fairly certain it is a huge waste of time trying to educate people who aren't the least bit interested in making legal distinctions......but since I have time to waste.

Please pay attention to the obvious contradictions in the bold face phrases of BusyBooties link:

“Unmasking” is the process of identifying individuals whose communications were caught in the dragnet of intelligence gathering. While conducting investigations into terrorism and other related crimes, intelligence analysts incidentally capture conversations about parties not subject to the search warrant. The identities of individuals who are not under investigation are kept confidential, for legal and moral reasons.

Under President Obama, the unmasking rules were changed. Circa originally reported:

As his presidency drew to a close, Barack Obama’s top aides routinely reviewed intelligence reports gleaned from the National Security Agency’s incidental intercepts of Americans abroad, taking advantage of rules their boss relaxed starting in 2011 to help the government better fight terrorism, espionage by foreign enemies and hacking threats, Circa has learned.

Three people close to President Obama, including his “fall guy” for Benghazi (Susan Rice), had authorization to unmask.

Among those cleared to request and consume unmasked NSA-based intelligence reports about U.S. citizens were Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice, his CIA Director John Brennan and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Not even mainstream outlets denied that some Trump officials had been spied on, with the NY Times reporting:

WASHINGTON — A pair of White House officials helped provide Representative Devin Nunes of California, a Republican and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, with the intelligence reports that showed that President Trump and his associates were incidentally swept up in foreign surveillance by American spy agencies.

According to WaPo, there were three sources for the reports, with Michael Ellis ultimately being blamed by WaPo and AP.

What’s striking about the Times story is the spin it took. Trump had previously claimed he had been “wire tapped” (quotation marks in his original Tweet), leading to media screams that he prove it. The Times’ own reporting proves that President Trump and his associates were spied on.

It is as simple as this. Any American, including President Trump or anyone in his campaign, who is INCIDENTALLY captured while foreign targets of U. S. intelligence are being spied upon are themselves NOT being "spied upon." The phones of those Americans are not being "tapped" and were NEVER tapped. It is the foreign intelligence targets who are being spied upon and whose phones and other communications vehicles are being tapped.

This is precisely why President Trump's claim about having his phones tapped was so outlandishly inaccurate. He was, in effect, claiming to be the TARGET of an illegal intelligence operation. That charge was blatantly false.

The incidental capture of "U. S. persons'" Fourth Amendment protected information during surveillance of foreign intelligence targets is not uncommon. In fact, it is common enough to have the stringent rules about the masking and unmasking of the identities of those U. S. persons in place.

President Obama was fully within his power to designate Susan Rice as his agent through which HE could request unmasking of U. S. persons according to law. However, both HE AND Susan Rice are restricted by law with respect to public disclosure of those persons unmasked to the Executive Branch.

Those public leaks of Mike Flynn's identity are the ONLY illegalities committed in this whole kerfluffle.

The surveillance of Soviet diplomatic personnel was thoroughly lawful.

The incidental capture of Trump campaign personnel was inevitable and equally lawful.

Having said all of that, here are two speculative, unproven conclusions that could possibly flow from the above discussion.

1. If any incriminating evidence of a crime by Mike Flynn (or any other U. S. person) was "incidentally captured" as a result of lawful intelligence gathering against a foreign target, then that information could be the basis for "probable cause" standard criminal warrants sought for investigation and prosecution of Flynn by the Department of Justice.

2. If the Obama administration, quite apart from the illegal leaking of the identity of an "unmasked" U. S. person, actually used the product of an otherwise lawful foreign intelligence surveillance for domestic political purposes, i.e. sharing generic political intelligence with the Democratic Party or Hillary Clinton, then THAT misuse of U. S. intelligence capability would also be illegal and an obvious major scandal.

And just to complicate the speculation further, any motivation by the outgoing Obama administration to "preserve the record" out of fear that the factual basis for a legitimate DOJ prosecution of Flynn (or anyone else) might "soon disappear" with the incoming Trump administration WOULD NOT be an illegal or inappropriate political use of the "incidentally captured" information as discussed in item #2 above. Preserving the factual basis for a legitimate potential criminal prosecution is NOT (blatantly at least) "political."

And, oh, yeah, I guess we should toss in the possibility of that collusion crap between Trump and the Russians.

But so far, these latter points are non-existent.

All we have right now is a recklessly mouthy President -- and, of course, the illegal exposure (by somebody) of the legally acquired identity of a "U. S. person" from a legal surveillance of a foreign intelligence target.

Yeah, I know, BB. "Blah, blah, blah." Because. You cannot. Read.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yes, Trump's allegation was outrageous and over the top making it the perfect answer to the serious charges being leveled by the Democrats about Russia colluding with Trump to influence the election.

It was that "deplorable" woman.

Get over it.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

I'm fairly certain it is a huge waste of time trying to educate people who aren't the least bit interested in making legal distinctions......but since I have time to waste.

Please pay attention to the obvious contradictions in the bold face phrases of BusyBooties link:


It is as simple as this. Any American, including President Trump or anyone in his campaign, who is INCIDENTALLY captured while foreign targets of U. S. intelligence are being spied upon are themselves NOT being "spied upon." The phones of those Americans are not being "tapped" and were NEVER tapped. It is the foreign intelligence targets who are being spied upon and whose phones and other communications vehicles are being tapped.

This is precisely why President Trump's claim about having his phones tapped was so outlandishly inaccurate. He was, in effect, claiming to be the TARGET of an illegal intelligence operation. That charge was blatantly false.

The incidental capture of "U. S. persons'" Fourth Amendment protected information during surveillance of foreign intelligence targets is not uncommon. In fact, it is common enough to have the stringent rules about the masking and unmasking of the identities of those U. S. persons in place.

President Obama was fully within his power to designate Susan Rice as his agent through which HE could request unmasking of U. S. persons according to law. However, both HE AND Susan Rice are restricted by law with respect to public disclosure of those persons unmasked to the Executive Branch.

Those public leaks of Mike Flynn's identity are the ONLY illegalities committed in this whole kerfluffle.

The surveillance of Soviet diplomatic personnel was thoroughly lawful.

The incidental capture of Trump campaign personnel was inevitable and equally lawful.

Having said all of that, here are two speculative, unproven conclusions that could possibly flow from the above discussion.

1. If any incriminating evidence of a crime by Mike Flynn (or any other U. S. person) was "incidentally captured" as a result of lawful intelligence gathering against a foreign target, then that information could be the basis for "probable cause" standard criminal warrants sought for investigation and prosecution of Flynn by the Department of Justice.

2. If the Obama administration, quite apart from the illegal leaking of the identity of an "unmasked" U. S. person, actually used the product of an otherwise lawful foreign intelligence surveillance for domestic political purposes, i.e. sharing generic political intelligence with the Democratic Party or Hillary Clinton, then THAT misuse of U. S. intelligence capability would also be illegal and an obvious major scandal.

And just to complicate the speculation further, any motivation by the outgoing Obama administration to "preserve the record" out of fear that the factual basis for a legitimate DOJ prosecution of Flynn (or anyone else) might "soon disappear" with the incoming Trump administration WOULD NOT be an illegal or inappropriate political use of the "incidentally captured" information as discussed in item #2 above. Preserving the factual basis for a legitimate potential criminal prosecution is NOT (blatantly at least) "political."

And, oh, yeah, I guess we should toss in that collusion crap between Trump and the Russians.

But so far, these latter points are non-existent.

All we have right now is a recklessly mouthy President -- and, of course, the illegal exposure (by somebody) of the legally acquired identity of a "U. S. person" from a legal surveillance of a foreign intelligence target.

Yeah, I know, BB. "Blah, blah, blah." Because. You cannot. Read.

20 people had authority to unmask. This was disclosed in the televised hearing.

But you cant release unmaked names to all, and definitely not the Opposition Party, I mean Press.

As I always say, GIVE HOGAN AN INCH AND HE'LL HAVE TWO.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

20 people had authority to unmask. This was disclosed in the televised hearing.

But you cant release unmasked names to all, and definitely not the Opposition Party, I mean Press.

Gee, I thought that is what I just said.

 

[Rightguide]

I'm fairly certain it is a huge waste of time trying to educate people who aren't the least bit interested in making legal distinctions......but since I have time to waste.

Please pay attention to the obvious contradictions in the bold face phrases of BusyBooties link:


It is as simple as this. Any American, including President Trump or anyone in his campaign, who is INCIDENTALLY captured while foreign targets of U. S. intelligence are being spied upon are themselves NOT being "spied upon." The phones of those Americans are not being "tapped" and were NEVER tapped. It is the foreign intelligence targets who are being spied upon and whose phones and other communications vehicles are being tapped.

This is precisely why President Trump's claim about having his phones tapped was so outlandishly inaccurate. He was, in effect, claiming to be the TARGET of an illegal intelligence operation. That charge was blatantly false.

The incidental capture of "U. S. persons'" Fourth Amendment protected information during surveillance of foreign intelligence targets is not uncommon. In fact, it is common enough to have the stringent rules about the masking and unmasking of the identities of those U. S. persons in place.

President Obama was fully within his power to designate Susan Rice as his agent through which HE could request unmasking of U. S. persons according to law. However, both HE AND Susan Rice are restricted by law with respect to public disclosure of those persons unmasked to the Executive Branch.

Those public leaks of Mike Flynn's identity are the ONLY illegalities committed in this whole kerfluffle.

The surveillance of Soviet diplomatic personnel was thoroughly lawful.

The incidental capture of Trump campaign personnel was inevitable and equally lawful.

Having said all of that, here are two speculative, unproven conclusions that could possibly flow from the above discussion.

1. If any incriminating evidence of a crime by Mike Flynn (or any other U. S. person) was "incidentally captured" as a result of lawful intelligence gathering against a foreign target, then that information could be the basis for "probable cause" standard criminal warrants sought for investigation and prosecution of Flynn by the Department of Justice.

2. If the Obama administration, quite apart from the illegal leaking of the identity of an "unmasked" U. S. person, actually used the product of an otherwise lawful foreign intelligence surveillance for domestic political purposes, i.e. sharing generic political intelligence with the Democratic Party or Hillary Clinton, then THAT misuse of U. S. intelligence capability would also be illegal and an obvious major scandal.

And just to complicate the speculation further, any motivation by the outgoing Obama administration to "preserve the record" out of fear that the factual basis for a legitimate DOJ prosecution of Flynn (or anyone else) might "soon disappear" with the incoming Trump administration WOULD NOT be an illegal or inappropriate political use of the "incidentally captured" information as discussed in item #2 above. Preserving the factual basis for a legitimate potential criminal prosecution is NOT (blatantly at least) "political."

And, oh, yeah, I guess we should toss in the possibility of that collusion crap between Trump and the Russians.

But so far, these latter points are non-existent.

All we have right now is a recklessly mouthy President -- and, of course, the illegal exposure (by somebody) of the legally acquired identity of a "U. S. person" from a legal surveillance of a foreign intelligence target.

Yeah, I know, BB. "Blah, blah, blah." Because. You cannot. Read.

According to latest reports much of the surveillance shown to Nunes had nothing to do with Russia, and according to Nunes, of little intelligence value, only political value.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

According to latest reports much of the surveillance shown to Nunes had nothing to do with Russia, and according to Nunes, of little intelligence value, only political value.

And all I am trying to do is to get people to understand that lawful surveillance of a foreign diplomat does not suddenly becoming "unlawful" merely because the subsequent intelligence is found to only have "political value." That result AND the incidental collection of "political intelligence" from an untargeted U. S. person DOES NOT impeach the original targeting and collection of intelligence from a foreign diplomat as an illegal act. It is HOW that incidental intelligence is handled, including the unmasking and/or public disclosure of a U. S. citizen's identity that is the key issue here.

People are apparently determined to blur this fact, and condemn the entire surveillance as a wantonly illegal act. And that simply is not true.

 

[Rightguide]

And all I am trying to do is to get people to understand that lawful surveillance of a foreign diplomat does not suddenly becoming "unlawful" merely because the subsequent intelligence is found to only have "political value." That result AND the incidental collection of "political intelligence" from an untargeted U. S. person DOES NOT impeach the original targeting and collection of intelligence from a foreign diplomat as an illegal act. It is HOW that incidental intelligence is handled, including the unmasking and/or public disclosure of a U. S. citizen's identity that is the key issue here.

People are apparently determined to blur this fact, and condemn the entire surveillance as a wantonly illegal act. And that simply is not true.

That is correct. It's how that unmasked American citizen's name is improperly used and if leaked can get you ten years of making little ones out of big ones in Leavenworth.

 

[water505]

Does it really matter? Nobody is going to jail.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Does it really matter? Nobody is going to jail.

Book deals for everyone!

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Gee, I thought that is what I just said.

I write better than you.

 

[SyKoKo]

Hogan,

Blah, Blah....Strong Horse Trump NEVER said he was wiretapped, as you allege

Did he?

 

[SyKoKo]

so Trump was right

he was spied on before and after the election

and both HE and MERKEL were.....

just as he said

Obama belongs in jail

No wonder the DUMZ scream RUSSIA

 

[water505]

Book deals for everyone!

Like OJ's.......If I Did It!

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Hogan,

Blah, Blah....Strong Horse Trump NEVER said he was wiretapped, as you allege

Did he?

Yes. He did.

http://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2017/03/04/780/438/694940094001_5347628793001_trump-tweet.jpg