More Susan Rice News that apparently is not "News"

HoustonHusky

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

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.

“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”
Other knowledgeable official sources with direct knowledge and who requested anonymity confirmed to TheDCNF diGenova’s description of surveillance reports Rice ordered one year before the 2016 presidential election.

I love how all the "Liberals" seem to think this is ok now...

doogie

Didn't a United States President get impeached once for political spying one time at a Hotel?

RaceBannon

Yeah but Don Kirshner is going to iraq

TierbsHsotBoobs

If you change the word Trump to Clinton, every post on this bored would be LOCK HER UP!

I think this story legitimately helps Trump by the way. His campaign was being legally monitored for national security threats and no threats were apparently found.

If I was a Troomp, I would be emphasizing that part of this story.

doogie

Disagree. Trump was sent to Washington to drain the swamp. It's imperative he expose the guilty along with the messengers in their propaganda arm. It's important for the nation to witness the prosecutions and elimination of the perps from the public stage.

AZDuck

https://mediamatters.org/research/2017/04/03/latest-wiretap-bombshell-turns-out-be-another-dud/215900

Former CIA Acting Director Michael Morrell: “Senior Officials In The U.S. Government … Can Go Back To NSA And Ask, ‘Who Is That Person?’ They Have To Have A Good Reason For Asking That Question.” Former acting CIA Director Michael Morrell noted that, “The unmasking of the names of U.S. persons happens all the time.” Morrell explained that “Senior officials in the U.S. government” can view intelligence reports “and ask, ‘who is that person?’ They have to have a good reason for asking that question, and they have to explain that reason to NSA. Once the request is made, NSA says yes or no. … And when that gets approved, it only gets approved for the individuals who specifically requested the unmasking. It is not unmasked broadly.” From The Cipher Brief’s March 23 interview:

TCB: What about the issue of “masking,” which Chairman Nunes talked about at length?

When incidental collection gets gets disseminated, the identity of the U.S. person is usually – but not always – redacted, or masked. If it’s anybody but a senior most official of the U.S. government, it is masked. It’s masked by saying, “U.S. person 1, U.S. person 2, U.S. person 3,” depending how many U. S. officials were referenced in the disseminated report.

So [a report], in the first type of incidental collection might say something like “intelligence target, in a conversation with another intelligence target, talked about U.S. person 1.” They don’t name the person.

Or, in the second type of incidental collection, a report could say “intelligence target, in a conversation with U.S. person 1, said the following.”

That’s for most U.S. persons. But, for the senior most people in the U.S. government, like the President of the United States and probably the President-elect of the United States, they don’t mask those names. You see intelligence reports all the time with foreign intelligence targets having a conversation about the President of the United States, and the President is not masked to be U.S. person 1 or U.S. person 2. The President is just said to be the President of the United States.

It is quite possible that these are some of the reports that Chairman Nunes saw. And there would be nothing inappropriate about that.

TCB: It does raise the question of unmasking U.S. persons – although Congressman Schiff says Nunes told him most of the names were masked, but Nunes was able to figure out for himself who it involved. Is there anything irregular or improper here?

MM: The unmasking of the names of U.S. persons happens all the time too. And, the unmasking is a whole different process.

Senior officials in the U.S. government, when they see one of these intelligence reports that say U.S. Person 1 or U.S. Person 2, can go back to NSA and ask, “who is that person?” They have to have a good reason for asking that question, and they have to explain that reason to NSA. Once the request is made, NSA says yes or no. There’s only a small number of people at NSA — I think [NSA]Director Rogers said 20 the other day on the Hill — 20 people at NSA can actually approve an unmasking. And when that gets approved, it only gets approved for the individuals who specifically requested the unmasking. It is not unmasked broadly. [The Cipher Brief, 3/23/17]

doogie

So, Rice's insistence everyone be unmasked is not the normal way intelligence is disseminated. Got it and thanks!

AZDuck

The NSA has to approve the unmasking. HTH

TierbsHsotBoobs

The silence of @NSA_Dawg in this thread speaks volumes.

Doogles

Surely there must have been some serious Intel gathered if it was worth unmasking us citizens.

Sounds like business guys meeting with business guys. Or spying on a political opponent (possibly legally by word of the Law). Or the Russians.

The bigger story is the clear divide in how national news is covered. I browse sites from every side and I've never seen it so unbalanced and combative.

The world is losing its mind.

AZDuck

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/04/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-unmasking/

Here's the problem for Trump: Even if you believe that Rice did something that was wrong -- and virtually every intelligence official insists unmasking is a commonplace procedure -- it still doesn't address his claim that he had evidence that Obama has authorized the wiretapping of Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign.

Trump's phones being tapped -- and that order coming from the commander in chief -- is simply not the same thing as the national security adviser asking for the names of Trump transition aides in contact with Russian intelligence officials.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/what-unmasking-did-susan-rice-do-anything-wrong-n742476

Rice's role was first discussed by Mike Cernovich, who is also known for promoting a false story that a Washington, D.C. pizza parlor was a nest of pedophiles connected to Hillary Clinton.

So, this pretty much tinfoil hat territory.

GrundleStiltzkin

Sledog

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

If you change the word Trump to Clinton, every post on this bored would be LOCK HER UP!

I think this story legitimately helps Trump by the way. His campaign was being legally monitored for national security threats and no threats were apparently found.

If I was a Troomp, I would be emphasizing that part of this story.

If recording every phone call made in the US and world for that mater is legal I'd like to know how. 4th amendment violation IMHO at least on American soil. If Obozo tapping Trump to get dirt for Clinton and then leak it all to the press isn't a crime what is?

dhdawg

It was legal but the law is wrong. Surveillance has been out of control for years and I would have more sympathy for trump if he showed any interest in reigning it in

AZDuck

Sledog said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

If you change the word Trump to Clinton, every post on this bored would be LOCK HER UP!

I think this story legitimately helps Trump by the way. His campaign was being legally monitored for national security threats and no threats were apparently found.

If I was a Troomp, I would be emphasizing that part of this story.

If recording every phone call made in the US and world for that mater is legal I'd like to know how. 4th amendment violation IMHO at least on American soil. If Obozo tapping Trump to get dirt for Clinton and then leak it all to the press isn't a crime what is?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/180/end-warrantless-wiretaps/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(2001–07)

Started under GW Bush, Obummer limited the scope of the program, but @NSA_Dawg still has access to metadata, which is tantamount to actually having the data itself. What will be fun is finding out who Trump's people were talking to, and why they were being surveilled.

Sledog

AZDuck said:

Sledog said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

If you change the word Trump to Clinton, every post on this bored would be LOCK HER UP!

I think this story legitimately helps Trump by the way. His campaign was being legally monitored for national security threats and no threats were apparently found.

If I was a Troomp, I would be emphasizing that part of this story.

If recording every phone call made in the US and world for that mater is legal I'd like to know how. 4th amendment violation IMHO at least on American soil. If Obozo tapping Trump to get dirt for Clinton and then leak it all to the press isn't a crime what is?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/180/end-warrantless-wiretaps/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(2001–07)

Started under GW Bush, Obummer limited the scope of the program, but @NSA_Dawg still has access to metadata, which is tantamount to actually having the data itself. What will be fun is finding out who Trump's people were talking to, and why they were being surveilled.

It will be more fun, since no allegations of criminal conduct have been reported, seeing those that ordered it for no reason and leaked it go to prison.

HoustonHusky

This thread is classic Trump Derangement Syndrome from AZDuck...quoting Media Matters for starters.

And then saying via the joke that is CNN (i.e. that says its illegal to view Wikileaks and the Susan Rice revelations are now a conspiracy they won't cover) that even through sources pointed at Susan Rice (Obama's NSA) and sources said the intelligence had nothing to do with Russia (wait...what?) then it doesn't matter because there is no "evidence that Obama has authorized the wiretapping of Trump Tower". This, from the same guy who in a different thread said that some guy not in Trumps campaign meeting some Russian after the election was over means that "things are starting to look suspicious".

I apologize in advance if you don't see the humor those leaps of logic...

Sledog

HoustonHusky said:

This thread is classic Trump Derangement Syndrome from AZDuck...quoting Media Matters for starters.

And then saying via the joke that is CNN (i.e. that says its illegal to view Wikileaks and the Susan Rice revelations are now a conspiracy they won't cover) that even through sources pointed at Susan Rice (Obama's NSA) and sources said the intelligence had nothing to do with Russia (wait...what?) then it doesn't matter because there is no "evidence that Obama has authorized the wiretapping of Trump Tower". This, from the same guy who in a different thread said that some guy not in Trumps campaign meeting some Russian after the election was over means that "things are starting to look suspicious".

I apologize in advance if you don't see the humor those leaps of logic...

Liberal leaps are always humorous.

dhdawg

Sledog said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

If you change the word Trump to Clinton, every post on this bored would be LOCK HER UP!

I think this story legitimately helps Trump by the way. His campaign was being legally monitored for national security threats and no threats were apparently found.

If I was a Troomp, I would be emphasizing that part of this story.

If recording every phone call made in the US and world for that mater is legal I'd like to know how. 4th amendment violation IMHO at least on American soil. If Obozo tapping Trump to get dirt for Clinton and then leak it all to the press isn't a crime what is?

We don't have 4th amendment rights anymore.

AZDuck

This thread is classic Trump Derangement Syndrome from AZDuck...quoting Media Matters for starters.

And then saying via the joke that is CNN (i.e. that says its illegal to view Wikileaks and the Susan Rice revelations are now a conspiracy they won't cover) that even through sources pointed at Susan Rice (Obama's NSA) and sources said the intelligence had nothing to do with Russia (wait...what?) then it doesn't matter because there is no "evidence that Obama has authorized the wiretapping of Trump Tower". This, from the same guy who in a different thread said that some guy not in Trumps campaign meeting some Russian after the election was over means that "things are starting to look suspicious".

I apologize in advance if you don't see the humor those leaps of logic...


Liberal leaps are always humorous.

You mean the brother of Trump's education secretary? The guy who gave a quarter-million dollars to pro-Trump superpacs? Yeah, I'm sure nobody in the campaign ever talked to him. Nosiree.

Say what you will about Media Matters, but that is just a cut-and-paste from an interview with a guy who used to be a director of the CIA, and nowhere does it ever posit that a pedophile ring was being run from a pizza parlor in Washington DC.

RaceBannon

The only payoffs we have proof from Russia is to Podesta and his brother

doogie

Susan Rice is the one who pumped the Administration cover up that B3nghazi was the result of some obscure YouTube video, right?

RaceBannon

*pimped

AZDuck

doogie said:

Susan Rice is the one who pumped the Administration cover up that B3nghazi was the result of some obscure YouTube video, right?

Sounds like the CIA wrote her talking points.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

On September 16, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice appeared on five major interview shows to discuss the attacks. Prior to her appearance, Rice was provided with "talking points" from a CIA memo,[174] which stated:

The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated. The investigation is ongoing, and the U.S. government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.[175]

Using these talking points as a guide, Rice stated:

Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy—sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that— in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent. We do not—we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned. I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine.[176][177][178][179][180]

doogie

So, the CIA wrote talking points and forced her to spew their propaganda on 5 different networks, and even though knowing it to be false, felt powerless to do anything but comply and stay silent?

HoustonHusky

The CIA? Rewriting history now (love the Wiki...).

Try the State Dept (um....gee...wonder if a Susan Rice was involved in that).

Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

Doogles

So when asked a few weeks ago about the finding Trump associates were incidentally caught in surveillance, she says " I know nothing about this. I'm surprised to see reports by Nunes on that account"

But now she's just doing her job. So did she know and just forgot or what. She seems believable.

It's pretty fucking embarrassing at this point.

RaceBannon

Doogles said:

So when asked a few weeks ago about the finding Trump associates were incidentally caught in surveillance, she says " I know nothing about this. I'm surprised to see reports by Nunes on that account"

But now she's just doing her job. So did she know and just forgot or what. She seems believable.

It's pretty fucking embarrassing at this point.

But Roy Wilson isn't going to the White House

TierbsHsotBoobs

Sledog said:

AZDuck said:

Sledog said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

If you change the word Trump to Clinton, every post on this bored would be LOCK HER UP!

I think this story legitimately helps Trump by the way. His campaign was being legally monitored for national security threats and no threats were apparently found.

If I was a Troomp, I would be emphasizing that part of this story.

If recording every phone call made in the US and world for that mater is legal I'd like to know how. 4th amendment violation IMHO at least on American soil. If Obozo tapping Trump to get dirt for Clinton and then leak it all to the press isn't a crime what is?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/180/end-warrantless-wiretaps/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(2001–07)

Started under GW Bush, Obummer limited the scope of the program, but @NSA_Dawg still has access to metadata, which is tantamount to actually having the data itself. What will be fun is finding out who Trump's people were talking to, and why they were being surveilled.

It will be more fun, since no allegations of criminal conduct have been reported, seeing those that ordered it for no reason and leaked it go to prison.

Unmasking isn't leaking.

Some of you need to learn the difference.

BearsWiin

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

Sledog said:

AZDuck said:

Sledog said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

If you change the word Trump to Clinton, every post on this bored would be LOCK HER UP!

I think this story legitimately helps Trump by the way. His campaign was being legally monitored for national security threats and no threats were apparently found.

If I was a Troomp, I would be emphasizing that part of this story.

If recording every phone call made in the US and world for that mater is legal I'd like to know how. 4th amendment violation IMHO at least on American soil. If Obozo tapping Trump to get dirt for Clinton and then leak it all to the press isn't a crime what is?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/180/end-warrantless-wiretaps/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(2001–07)

Started under GW Bush, Obummer limited the scope of the program, but @NSA_Dawg still has access to metadata, which is tantamount to actually having the data itself. What will be fun is finding out who Trump's people were talking to, and why they were being surveilled.

It will be more fun, since no allegations of criminal conduct have been reported, seeing those that ordered it for no reason and leaked it go to prison.

Some of you need to grow the hell up and learn the difference between unmasking and leaking.

dnc

Doogles said:

So when asked a few weeks ago about the finding Trump associates were incidentally caught in surveillance, she says " I know nothing about this. I'm surprised to see reports by Nunes on that account"

But now she's just doing her job. So did she know and just forgot or what. She seems believable.

It's pretty fucking embarrassing at this point.

This is where it's at for me. If it wasn't wrong she wouldn't have denied it.