Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do you ever post when you are informed? I can answe that for you: no. You never post after you are informed. Here is Susan Rice explaining it:Do you think before you type? Why on Earth would she request having names unmasked if she was given "un-redacted intelligence?"
Do you ever post when you are informed? I can answe that for you: no. You never post after you are informed. Here is Susan Rice explaining it:Do you think before you type? Why on Earth would she request having names unmasked if she was given "un-redacted intelligence?"
Do you ever post when you are informed? I can answe that for you: no. You never post after you are informed. Here is Susan Rice explaining it:Do you think before you type? Why on Earth would she request having names unmasked if she was given "un-redacted intelligence?"
I received those reports as did each of those other officials and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which a U.S. person was referred to. Name not provided, just, "U.S. person." ~ Susan Rice
Do you ever post when you are informed? I can answe that for you: no. You never post after you are informed. Here is Susan Rice explaining it:Do you think before you type? Why on Earth would she request having names unmasked if she was given "un-redacted intelligence?"
She's not denying it. When asked, she said hasn't done it for "political purposes".
She did it, basically for some other purposes.
For what purposes she requested unmasking names of people that were not subject to any existing investigation?
It was part of her job to spy on the Trump transition team?Of course she's not denying it. It was part of her job...
Can I quote you on that when the subpoenas roll in and the indictments come down?It was part of her job and she did nothing illegal.
Clearly you didn't watch the video. She admitted it. Oops...Which also explains why you're so rightarded that you actually believe Rice was seeking to have names unmasked on reports which were already unmasked.
Right after the Hillary special prosecutor, superdupe.Can I quote you on that when the subpoenas roll in and the indictments come down?It was part of her job and she did nothing illegal.
LOLIt was part of her job to spy on the Trump transition team?Of course she's not denying it. It was part of her job...
Can I quote you on that when the subpoenas roll in and the indictments come down?It was part of her job and she did nothing illegal.
She admitted having names unmasked that were already unmasked?Clearly you didn't watch the video. She admitted it. Oops...Which also explains why you're so rightarded that you actually believe Rice was seeking to have names unmasked on reports which were already unmasked.
Evelyn Farkas inadvertently admits to the Obama Administration spying on Donald Trump and his transition team...
No, that's not what I said. What I said was that the deputy national security adviser determines what information is briefed to the president (and the National Security Adviser), and helps to define the content. NSA does not work FOR the nsa, but works with him/her.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.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.
Do you think before you type? Why on Earth would she request having names unmasked if she was given "un-redacted intelligence?"Grasping at straws, don't you think:?LOLbilly billy billyWE now have evidence that there was both legal and illegal surveillance by the Obama administration.
For over a year there was illegal surveillance that had noting to do with Russia.. Since July of last year the legal incidental surveillance was also done.
Rice demanded the unmasking of Trump and his associates. She then had the transcripts of conversations sent out to senior Obama staff and included John Podesta and Farkas in the Clinton campaign because they retained their security clearances.
Rice did not have a warrant to do what she did. So all of what she did was illegal, Reverse targeting Trump and his team.
It was clearly political espionage using US government intelligence assets.
This makes Watergate look like kids play.
Riddle me this,
IF Rice asked for certain foreign intelligence that had listed US PERSON #1 in it, and she needed to know who this US person #1 is and she requested from the intelligence agency head to UNMASK who this US PERSON #1 is,
HOW in the world did she KNOW she was REQUESTING the UNMASKING of a Trump employee when the whole reason for unmasking is because the US PERSON'S Identity was MASKED.
So when she requested the unmasking of the identities of the US PERSON #1 or #2 or #3 etc. she did NOT know they were Trump employees.
As the deputy National Security Adviser, she didn't need to ask for the "unmasking" - because she receives the initial intelligence report BEFORE it is redacted. In fact, her position can authorize the masking. So, she knew the names all along.
Where she messed up is when she ordered the names to be unmasked (within her authority, but done without adequate justification), and then released those names to 17 intelligence agencies who did NOT have authority to see them.
Sorry - but this lady is going down.
In fact, I'm guessing she is the one that Obama will throw under the bus in order to protect the rest of his administration. We should see a news release from obama in about 10 days that expresses shock and dismay that Ms Rice would step so far outside her authority, claim that he had no knowledge whatsoever of what she's done, and is pleased that the investigation was able to uncover the culprit.
She won't be prosecuted - this whole thing will blow over - and we'll go right back to the government spying on the citizens. Whatever makes you think the government is going to give up that kind of power????
Typical rightie, no evidence she saw any of those transcripts with U.S. citizens unmasked before she requested the NSA unmask them; but don't let that stop you from making the claim anyway.
And for what should she be prosecuted? For doing her job? A function of her job was to review transcripts from intercepted communications when they might contain threats to national security. That includes unmasking names of incidentally intercepted U.S. citizens depending on the contents of the foreigners captured in the intercept.
The national security adviser receives un-redacted intelligence. In fact, she is one of the few who can authorize masking (remember, somebody has to make a conscious decision to redact the names). She has to make a conscious decision to: 1) request the names be unmasked in the final report, and 2) authorize release of the information to the 17 intelligence collections agencies.
Her hands are dirty - live with it.
I suggest that you do just like Obama is going to do ---- sell her down the river, and move on as fast as you can.
You have absolutely no concept of what "unmasking" means, do you?She admitted having names unmasked that were already unmasked?Clearly you didn't watch the video. She admitted it. Oops...Which also explains why you're so rightarded that you actually believe Rice was seeking to have names unmasked on reports which were already unmasked.
Quote her......
It's the process of revealing the identities of U.S. persons whose identity is concealed on FISA intercepted communications.You have absolutely no concept of what "unmasking" means, do you?She admitted having names unmasked that were already unmasked?Clearly you didn't watch the video. She admitted it. Oops...Which also explains why you're so rightarded that you actually believe Rice was seeking to have names unmasked on reports which were already unmasked.
Quote her......
