BREAKING: Obama's NSA Advisor Susan Rice Requested The Unmaskings Of Incoming Trump Officials

[flacaltenn]

That kind of domestic intelligence MISUSED to spy on political opposition by the Executive Branch will NEVER get "declassified and released"..

Because it doesn't exist. Or it exists so much Trump can't show you unless it's in 120 characters

Of course it exists. It was continuously leaked during the campaign and transition. Every leftist rag reported it daily. From transcripts of Flynn's conversations to info on other "associates" of the election team.

If it exists then Trump would release it. Or it exists so much that he's hiding his proof.

Just gave you TWO superb reasons why that can never happen. Is there something wrong with you where you don't understand those reasons.

The PATRIOT Act domestic spying operation is PROTECTED by 96% of the DC Leadership. They will use it for purposes NOT AUTHORIZED under that 9/11 inspired legislation. And also because only 50 or 60 people are now cleared to ACCESS those collections by making REQUESTS for analysis, transcripts, unmasking etc..

You will NEVER see the raw evidence. But like I told you Evelyn Farkus virtually copped to treason when she explained that the Exec Branch conducted their OWN investigation of team Trump as a political "opposition research" project USING those MASSIVE AWESOME resources.

I don't think you give a damn about that abuse. That's why you're not following carefully enough here.

 

[Iceweasel]

They overhear a conversation between an American & these Russians in which a discussion of using Russian hackers to help Trump win the Presidency.

You people are disgusting maggots & should all be shot for treason.

Back it up, maggot breath.

We will see. What were the Trump people talking about with the Russians?

We know Trump hired two Russian hacks & put them in his campaign & one in his White House security advisor.

We know Trump rents out space in Trump Tower to Russian mobsters.

We know Trump lied about his people talking & meeting with the Russians.

We know Trump praised Putin.

We know Trump said it was OK for Putin to murder his enemies because evidently we do it all the time.

We know Trump & Tillerson have millions invested in that Russia oil deal that Obama stopped with his sanctions.

We know Trump's wife was a communist.

Just what I thought. You had a massive reach around and tried to sell it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Trump throw's out the wildest shit without proof then demands that everyone muses on what if it did happen and what it would mean.

Instead of searching for his red herrings and asking what they mean if it's real how about the news refuses to cover any of it until Trump acts to prove the allegations?

excellent point, this is just a routine smoke screen, Bannon's probably got about 10 more lined up

So Nutsack, did Comey perjure himself, or is he just woefully incompetent and doesn't know what his agency is doing?

 

[RealDave]

More proof of how easily duped the Trumpettes really are.

Let's review.

Our intelligence Agencies are spying on the Russians.

They overhear a conversation between an American & these Russians in which a discussion of using Russian hackers to help Trump win the Presidency.

Upon learning of this, the NSA (Rice) is concerned & wants to learn who is doing this.

Whiners & dumbfucks think that is a crime or plot. Whiners don't giv a shit that their orange buddy won because the Russians helped him.

They don't care that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians.

'Just like the writer of thois thrreasd, rthey only care that Trumpo won & they don't give a shit about this country.

You people are disgusting maggots & should all be shot for treason.

Twit.....it has already been reported that things she looked at had nothing to do with the Russians.....and even if she looked at it legally, the crime was unmasking the American Citizen..that is a felony...

She was the national Security adivsor to obama...this goes right into the Oval Office......It would be a good time to be a D.C. lawyer.....

No it is not illegal with good cause.

Unmaksing the Americans involved is a felony.....and we need to wait and see how she exlpains what she did....since this had nothing to do with Russia....she really needs a lawyer.....

NO NO No NO No No No No No No

"The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice’s unmasking requests were likely within the law."

The Atlantic.

No will, you ever quit being such a lying jerk? Will you ever become informed?
'

"Likely".

Will you ever learn the English language? How can you be informed if you don't comprehend what you read?

Articles: Benghazi Liar Susan Rice's Treachery Continues

Either post the truth for a change or quit posting Bible verses as if an ignorant lying fuck like you knows anything about the Bible.

 

[The Original Tree]

She is directing her minions to release the final report (to 17 agencies - are you fucking kidding me?) with the names unmasked. There is a definitive procedure, and a paper trail, of that request. There isn't a bureaucrat in the intelligence business that would unmask those names, or release those names to other agencies, without authorization from above.

There isn't a bureaucrat in the intelligence business that would unmask those names, or release those names to other agencies, without authorization from above.

So the FBI has to check with the WH to get those reports?

If the national security adviser directs masking, only the national security adviser can authorize unmasking. The FBI request for information would be received by NSA, and passed to the national security adviser for approval - NSA would do nothing without the approval from the national security adviser. In this instance, NSA has no decision making authority. Welcome to the wonderful world of bureaucracy inside the Beltway.

If the national security adviser directs masking, only the national security adviser can authorize unmasking.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
Rice had to make a request to the originating agency to have reports unmasked. That means she does not have the authority to unilaterally unmask. It also means there is a protocol for doing so and would have had to meet the requirements for her request to be granted.

The NSA is not under the National Security Advisor, fool.

Here's some remedial reading.
What Is the Role of the National Security Advisor? - dummies

Rice is a henchman for Obama, always has been. If they tell her to lie, no lie is too big for her to distribute.

Nope. She was busted for releasing information she inadvertently picked up while doing her job, for the express purpose of shifting an election and obstructing the president from performing his duties.

Treason, in other words.

no she wasn't, that's just another routine lie, whose name did she release???

y'all clutching at every straw, and there will be plenty more as Trump nears conviction

"Former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/susan-rice-ordered-spy-agencies-to-produce-detailed-spreadsheets-involving-trump/#ixzz4dIZRqGdz

AND? You said they used it to influence the election. That's not true. The information wasn't leaked or even reported widely by the feds until AFTER the election.

You don't have to release Classified Information to THE PUBLIC to damage President Trump's election campaign.

You simply illegally share your illegal intelligence with Hillary Clinton and let her know exactly what The Trump Campaign is discussing.

EXAMPLE: Let's say President Trump was planning a rally in California in a particular city. They pick a date a 2 or 3 months in advance. They don't plan on announcing this appearance until 2-3 weeks before.

This "Intel" is shared with Clinton and then she calls her Political Mobsters to arrange some Violent Protests at The Next Trump Rally, and they have plenty of time to organize, make signs, and make it look like a random grass roots protest, bus people in, & pay people to commit violent acts etc. They have months to do this, not just a couple weeks....months.

That is just one example of what seems to be something rather mundane that can be used to damage a campaign.

WikiLeaks: Peter Kadzik Leaked Email Investigation Intel to Hillary Clinton Campaign
A Near Future Headline: OBAMA SHARED TRUMP INTEL WITH CLINTON CAMPAIGN
BUSTED: Hillary Clinton Tweet Proves She Received Trump Tower Illegal Wiretap Intel During Presidential Campaign
Obama Engaged in Spying on Trump Campaign & May have Shared Intel with Schummer & Hillary | Armstrong Economics
Clinton camp supports Electoral College members' request for intel briefings

No matter which way Lefty Tries To Cook This, It Comes up Smelling like a Shit Sandwhich for him.

This is what Losing Looks Like Lefty. Get used to it.

And why would the Trump campaign be discussing their rallies with the Russians???????

You really aren't paying attention are you?
You also aren't a very good poster.
Your rating is a 56% which is an "F" average.
Perfect Democrat Drone.
But not built for intelligent discussion.

 

[RealDave]

Absolutely true ---- it is also illegal to release unmasked names to other intelligence agencies that don't need it in the course of a particular investigation.

It's not illegal, It's just against protocol.

No, as a matter of fact, the release of classified information to unauthorized personnel, regardless of their security clearance, is illegal. Thus, the "need to know": requirement.

Just ask Trump's extremely vetted NSA advisor Flynn.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Just gave you TWO superb reasons why that can never happen.

You can make an unlimited number of excuses why he can't prove what he's saying i's true. But the fact is that he alone can prove it and he can't because he doesn't have any evidence.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just gave you TWO superb reasons why that can never happen.

You can make an unlimited number of excuses why he can't prove what he's saying i's true. But the fact is that he alone can prove it and he can't because he doesn't have any evidence.

Are you totally UNAWARE of the statement by Farkus? Totally unaware of the substantial legal/tech diff between "wiretap" and "pre-authorized bulk domestic spying by collection and recording?

NEED AN ANSWER to the 2 questions above.... .

 

[imawhosure]

That kind of domestic intelligence MISUSED to spy on political opposition by the Executive Branch will NEVER get "declassified and released"..

Because it doesn't exist. Or it exists so much Trump can't show you unless it's in 120 characters

Of course it exists. It was continuously leaked during the campaign and transition. Every leftist rag reported it daily. From transcripts of Flynn's conversations to info on other "associates" of the election team.

If it exists then Trump would release it. Or it exists so much that he's hiding his proof.

You've been TOLD that reports on Trump associates had been "collected", transcripted, unmasked and analyzed and aggregated into a folder with serial numbers on each report. And that the contents of such of spying reports show no disturbing criminal activity or national security issues. Ask Evelyn Farkus how they did it. She basically copped to felony treason on the matter.

Don't expect to see any of this -- There's only 50 people in the country authorized to see the product of our Domestic Spying operations. Used to be a much SMALLER GROUP before Obama cynically expanded the network of POLITICAL OPERATIVES that could request data from the PATRIOT Act collection and recording system.

Lets all face reality----->it is over for the Democrats. They keep changing the narrative, but what is actually coming out is.............what we have been saying all along. Yes, they keep trying to put Pandora back in the box to make it fit their version, but it isn't working. Somebody(s) is going to get prosecuted for sure, and I have a buck 3.80 that says it will be someone from the last administration, and not this one!

 

[J.E.D]

So, this story comes from Mike Cernovich, the conspiracy theorist behind the debunked 'pizza gate' lie. Yeah there's a credible source

 

[ClosedCaption]

Just gave you TWO superb reasons why that can never happen.

You can make an unlimited number of excuses why he can't prove what he's saying i's true. But the fact is that he alone can prove it and he can't because he doesn't have any evidence.

Are you totally UNAWARE of the statement by Farkus? Totally unaware of the substantial legal/tech diff between "wiretap" and "pre-authorized bulk domestic spying by collection and recording?

NEED AN ANSWER to the 2 questions above.... .

You can ask all the silly questions you like buto asking questions is not proof. Imy asking why Trump, who can release the proof hasn't released the proof. The only logical answer is because he has no proof.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just gave you TWO superb reasons why that can never happen.

You can make an unlimited number of excuses why he can't prove what he's saying i's true. But the fact is that he alone can prove it and he can't because he doesn't have any evidence.

Are you totally UNAWARE of the statement by Farkus? Totally unaware of the substantial legal/tech diff between "wiretap" and "pre-authorized bulk domestic spying by collection and recording?

NEED AN ANSWER to the 2 questions above.... .

You can ask all the silly questions you like buto asking questions is not proof. Imy asking why Trump, who can release the proof hasn't released the proof. The only logical answer is because he has no proof.

So you're not answering those 2 simple questions because you don't KNOW -- or you don't CARE.. Pick one.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well then, kindly tell us professor, why in the world did she need to request that they be unmasked?

She is directing her minions to release the final report (to 17 agencies - are you fucking kidding me?) with the names unmasked. There is a definitive procedure, and a paper trail, of that request. There isn't a bureaucrat in the intelligence business that would unmask those names, or release those names to other agencies, without authorization from above.

There isn't a bureaucrat in the intelligence business that would unmask those names, or release those names to other agencies, without authorization from above.

So the FBI has to check with the WH to get those reports?

If the national security adviser directs masking, only the national security adviser can authorize unmasking. The FBI request for information would be received by NSA, and passed to the national security adviser for approval - NSA would do nothing without the approval from the national security adviser. In this instance, NSA has no decision making authority. Welcome to the wonderful world of bureaucracy inside the Beltway.

If the national security adviser directs masking, only the national security adviser can authorize unmasking.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
Rice had to make a request to the originating agency to have reports unmasked. That means she does not have the authority to unilaterally unmask. It also means there is a protocol for doing so and would have had to meet the requirements for her request to be granted.

The NSA is not under the National Security Advisor, fool.

Here's some remedial reading.
What Is the Role of the National Security Advisor? - dummies

Rice is a henchman for Obama, always has been. If they tell her to lie, no lie is too big for her to distribute.

Yep.

And the fake news is doing all they can to hide this.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You say she "released" them to 17 agencies who didn't have authority?

Those were reports from those very agencies, fool.

See how the your logic falls apart???

That information was collected by a single agency - most probably, NSA - was collated, and sent to the national security adviser for review. At that point in time, they (in this case, she) would have to review the data to determine 1) its significance, 2) its disposition, and 3) whether the names should be masked.

It is NOT automatically disseminated to other agencies - that has to be a conscious decision (I'm pretty sure the Coast Guard Intelligence Service didn't collect that data)

In fact, I would suggest the possibility exists that the "decision" for greater sharing of intelligence data made by Obama in December 2016 was a belated attempt to camouflage their previous actions, but we'll never know for sure.

See how the your logic falls apart???

Not at all.
I was going to say the same about you. You are using supposition to fill gaps in your logic.

You don't know a damned thing about the process. If you did, you would know that this was entirely routine.

You say she "released" them to 17 agencies who didn't have authority?

Those were reports from those very agencies, fool.

See how the your logic falls apart???

That information was collected by a single agency - most probably, NSA - was collated, and sent to the national security adviser for review. At that point in time, they (in this case, she) would have to review the data to determine 1) its significance, 2) its disposition, and 3) whether the names should be masked.

It is NOT automatically disseminated to other agencies - that has to be a conscious decision (I'm pretty sure the Coast Guard Intelligence Service didn't collect that data)

In fact, I would suggest the possibility exists that the "decision" for greater sharing of intelligence data made by Obama in December 2016 was a belated attempt to camouflage their previous actions, but we'll never know for sure.

See how the your logic falls apart???

Not at all.
I was going to say the same about you. You are using supposition to fill gaps in your logic.

You don't know a damned thing about the process. If you did, you would know that this was entirely routine.

I can assure you that I know that process very well - I was directly involved in it, at various levels, for about 9 years (and an additional 20 years on the collection side of the house).

No supposition here.

Tell us some more about how the NSA reports to the National Security Advisor.

Is THAT what I said?

Damn, you're dumb.

Is THAT what I said?

Hmm...let's see.

If the national security adviser directs masking, only the national security adviser can authorize unmasking. The FBI request for information would be received by NSA, and passed to the national security adviser for approval - NSA would do nothing without the approval from the national security adviser. In this instance, NSA has no decision making authority. Welcome to the wonderful world of bureaucracy inside the Beltway.

It seems you did.

Damn, you're dumb.

Mmhm.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So the unmasking wasn't illegal then?

It was a felony.

It was?
Rice did it on her own?
Who knew?

Rice was "just following orders," but the all-in media will never allow Obama to be pulled in, hence Rice will take the fall alone.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Just gave you TWO superb reasons why that can never happen.

You can make an unlimited number of excuses why he can't prove what he's saying i's true. But the fact is that he alone can prove it and he can't because he doesn't have any evidence.

Trump is in the WH. He has access to everything the last folks in the WH had. If there were anything to be found, Trump has all the access he needs.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So the unmasking wasn't illegal then?

It was a felony.

It was?
Rice did it on her own?
Who knew?

Rice was "just following orders," but the all-in media will never allow Obama to be pulled in, hence Rice will take the fall alone.

Pulled into what?
What did Rice do?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Just gave you TWO superb reasons why that can never happen.

You can make an unlimited number of excuses why he can't prove what he's saying i's true. But the fact is that he alone can prove it and he can't because he doesn't have any evidence.

Are you totally UNAWARE of the statement by Farkus? Totally unaware of the substantial legal/tech diff between "wiretap" and "pre-authorized bulk domestic spying by collection and recording?

NEED AN ANSWER to the 2 questions above.... .

You can ask all the silly questions you like buto asking questions is not proof. Imy asking why Trump, who can release the proof hasn't released the proof. The only logical answer is because he has no proof.

So you're not answering those 2 simple questions because you don't KNOW -- or you don't CARE.. Pick one.

I'm not answering those questions because you fail to make a point. Those questions have nothing to do with why Trump can't produce any proof. You're attempting to draw connections without making the point and using question marks for covver.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just gave you TWO superb reasons why that can never happen.

You can make an unlimited number of excuses why he can't prove what he's saying i's true. But the fact is that he alone can prove it and he can't because he doesn't have any evidence.

Trump is in the WH. He has access to everything the last folks in the WH had. If there were anything to be found, Trump has all the access he needs.

And he CAN'T and WON'T compromise those classified systems and reports that APPARENTLY the last Admin did have the restraint or the ethics to do the same... You'll never know..

 

[flacaltenn]

Just gave you TWO superb reasons why that can never happen.

You can make an unlimited number of excuses why he can't prove what he's saying i's true. But the fact is that he alone can prove it and he can't because he doesn't have any evidence.

Are you totally UNAWARE of the statement by Farkus? Totally unaware of the substantial legal/tech diff between "wiretap" and "pre-authorized bulk domestic spying by collection and recording?

NEED AN ANSWER to the 2 questions above.... .

You can ask all the silly questions you like buto asking questions is not proof. Imy asking why Trump, who can release the proof hasn't released the proof. The only logical answer is because he has no proof.

So you're not answering those 2 simple questions because you don't KNOW -- or you don't CARE.. Pick one.

I'm not answering those questions because you fail to make a point. Those questions have nothing to do with why Trump can't produce any proof. You're attempting to draw connections without making the point and using question marks for covver.

Those questions HAVE EVERYTHING with what KIND of proof can be LEGALLY disclosed. You're not following close enough if you CAN'T or WON'T acknowledge that you can answer and understand them.