C
Cathoholic
Guest
foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/03/susan-rice-requested-to-unmask-names-trump-transition-officials-sources-say.html
Emphasis in above story mine
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Susan Rice requested to unmask names of Trump transition officials, sources say
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Emphasis in above story mine
C
Cathoholic
Guest
And related (from the Washington Examiner) . . .
** GOP Rep: Susan Rice should face criminal investigation
**
By JOEL GEHRKE 4/3/17 7:03 PM
washingtonexaminer.com/gop-rep-susan-rice-should-face-criminal-investigation/article/2619244. . . . “That Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice is alleged to have been responsible for this unmasking is troubling given her history of deceit and her close relationship with then-President Obama,” DeSantis said. “We need to know whether the material gleaned from the Rice unmasking is the material fed to the media in an attempt to do political damage to the Trump administration and, if so, who was responsible for leaking it.” . . .
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
It would likely be legal for Rice to request the unmasking— 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.
Nothing uncovered lends credence to President Trump’s outlandish and unsupported claim that Obama ordered surveillance of him at Trump Tower prior to the election. Nor does the new story suggest any illegal behavior on Rice’s part. Many experts seem to think the story does not imply anything improper or unusual.
“In a situation where there’s incidental collection and it appears that they’re discussing U.S. incoming or current officials, it would not be unusual for a national security adviser to try to understand what it is this foreign government is trying to do to manipulate their position against the U.S.,” said Nada Bakos, a former CIA analyst and national-security commentator. “That’s how the game is played.”
One possibility as to why Rice would have wanted the names unmasked is that Rice was acting in connection with a joint investigation into Russian meddling in the election. The government had already concluded, based on the assessments of multiple intelligence agencies, that Russia was meddling in the election. There were also ongoing investigations into potentially illegal behavior by Trump staffers. Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, was reportedly already being examined for his contacts with Russia, as were other Trump aides, current and former.
A second possibility is that it was simply the course of business to try to figure out what foreign governments were thinking. If foreign officials were seeking to shape U.S. policy or get a leg up, intercepts could have been useful to the national security adviser, and Rice might have wanted names unmasked to make those intercepts intelligible.
According to Bradley Moss, a lawyer and national security expert, it would be nearly impossible to prove Rice was guilty of a crime. Assuming Rice didn’t literally send her request with the language ‘I am doing this for only purely partisan political purposes and to harm Donald Trump’s political fortunes’, it’s virtually impossible to prove that politics had anything to do with her motivation. She certainly had legitimate, non-political reasons to request the unmasking.
theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/did-susan-rice-ask-to-unmask-trump-officials/521688/
lawnewz.com/high-profile/did-obama-advisor-susan-rice-break-law-by-requesting-unmasking-of-trump-officials/
Nothing uncovered lends credence to President Trump’s outlandish and unsupported claim that Obama ordered surveillance of him at Trump Tower prior to the election. Nor does the new story suggest any illegal behavior on Rice’s part. Many experts seem to think the story does not imply anything improper or unusual.
“In a situation where there’s incidental collection and it appears that they’re discussing U.S. incoming or current officials, it would not be unusual for a national security adviser to try to understand what it is this foreign government is trying to do to manipulate their position against the U.S.,” said Nada Bakos, a former CIA analyst and national-security commentator. “That’s how the game is played.”
One possibility as to why Rice would have wanted the names unmasked is that Rice was acting in connection with a joint investigation into Russian meddling in the election. The government had already concluded, based on the assessments of multiple intelligence agencies, that Russia was meddling in the election. There were also ongoing investigations into potentially illegal behavior by Trump staffers. Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, was reportedly already being examined for his contacts with Russia, as were other Trump aides, current and former.
A second possibility is that it was simply the course of business to try to figure out what foreign governments were thinking. If foreign officials were seeking to shape U.S. policy or get a leg up, intercepts could have been useful to the national security adviser, and Rice might have wanted names unmasked to make those intercepts intelligible.
According to Bradley Moss, a lawyer and national security expert, it would be nearly impossible to prove Rice was guilty of a crime. Assuming Rice didn’t literally send her request with the language ‘I am doing this for only purely partisan political purposes and to harm Donald Trump’s political fortunes’, it’s virtually impossible to prove that politics had anything to do with her motivation. She certainly had legitimate, non-political reasons to request the unmasking.
theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/did-susan-rice-ask-to-unmask-trump-officials/521688/
lawnewz.com/high-profile/did-obama-advisor-susan-rice-break-law-by-requesting-unmasking-of-trump-officials/
C
Cathoholic
Guest
. . . . Revelations about Rice’s unmasking requests also raise serious questions over the Obama administration’s use of surveillance for political ends — including the push to discredit critics of the Iranian nuclear deal.
“It gets back to a long-standing issue that really predates Trump,” Eli Lake, author of the Bloomberg report, said Monday on “The Laura Ingraham Show.”
Lake detailed how a year and a half ago “the Wall Street Journal broke … that the White House was getting information on members of Congress and members of Jewish organizations as they met with senior Israeli officials — who were legitimately monitored by the U.S. government — during the Iran deal fight.”
“The Republicans were opposed to the Iran deal, the White House was in campaign mode pushing for that as their foreign policy legacy,” said Lake. “And while this was going on conversations between Benjamin Netanyahu, ambassador Ron Dermer, and members of Congress, and other Jewish organizations that were opposed to the Iran deal were finding their way to the White House,” Lake continued.
lifezette.com/polizette/susan-rice-exposed-unmasking-scandal/What appears to make Rice’s numerous unmasking requests that much more questionable is the fact that, according to Lake, the surveillance and intelligence from which Rice was finding individuals to unmask was not of particular national security importance nor did it have anything to do with Russia. . . .
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Admittedly this has to do with foreign intelligence and not domestic.
But the point is, this has been going on for awhile. This below from several years ago . . .
But the point is, this has been going on for awhile. This below from several years ago . . .
Angela Merkel’s call to Obama: are you bugging my mobile phone?
**Germany sees credible evidence of US monitoring of chancellor as NSA surveillance row intensifies **
Ian Traynor in Brussels, Philip Oltermann in Berlin, and Paul Lewis in Washington. Thursday 24 October 2013 03.10 EDT
The furore over the scale of American mass surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden shifted to an incendiary new level on Wednesday evening when Angela Merkel of Germany called Barack Obama to demand explanations over reports that the US National Security Agency was monitoring her mobile phone.
theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/23/us-monitored-angela-merkel-germanMerkel was said by informed sources in Germany to be “livid” over the reports and convinced, on the basis of a German intelligence investigation, that the reports were utterly substantiated. . . .
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Rice is the Obama administration official whose name became a punchline after her repeated false claims that the 2012 Benghazi terror attacks were caused by a crude Internet video.
From her position as chief of the National Security Council, according to a Bloomberg columnist, Rice asked government agencies to identify names that had been withheld from raw intelligence reports linked with Trump campaign and transition figures.
There is not necessarily anything illegal or unusual about a national security adviser seeking to unmask names in raw reports, in order to fully understand the meaning of intercepted conversations.
But in this case those identities – including the name of then-National Security Advisor Mike Flynn – were subsequently leaked and made public.
That is a federal felony.
From her position as chief of the National Security Council, according to a Bloomberg columnist, Rice asked government agencies to identify names that had been withheld from raw intelligence reports linked with Trump campaign and transition figures.
There is not necessarily anything illegal or unusual about a national security adviser seeking to unmask names in raw reports, in order to fully understand the meaning of intercepted conversations.
But in this case those identities – including the name of then-National Security Advisor Mike Flynn – were subsequently leaked and made public.
That is a federal felony.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel. . . Last month when she (Susan Rice) was asked on the “PBS NewsHour” about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were swept up in incidental intelligence collection, Rice said: “**I know nothing about this,” **adding, “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today.” . . .
E
Estevao
Guest
So President Trump was right. Good to know.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
There is some unwillingness and reluctance by some in the media to even cover this story (but that will change soon as they cannot “retire” or ignore this story any longer as it has raised too many proverbial eyebrows for them to ignore it much longer).
ABC, NBC Cover-Up Revelation Susan Rice Ordered Trump Aides Unmasked, CBS Defends
By Nicholas Fondacaro | April 3, 2017 | 9:47 PM EDT
A massive revelation in the alleged surveillance of President Trump’s aides broke Monday morning when Bloomberg reported that “[f]ormer National Security Adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign.” . . . .
It’s controversial news but ABC and NBC both chose to ignore it that night, while CBS defended Rice.
newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2017/04/03/abc-nbc-cover-revelation-susan-rice-ordered-trump-aides“We learned more today about the President’s allegation that he and his aides were caught up in Obama-era surveillance,” CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley said, teeing up reporter Margaret Brennan. Strangely, Pelley stayed away from flinging the fiery insults which drew him much praise from the left. Instead of calling Trump’s claims “baseless,” he kept it neutral, only referring to them as “allegations.” He also described what the concern was as “Obama-era surveillance,” something he had not done in the past. . . .
I
I_trust
Guest
So she was the one unmasking and yet denied knowing about it last month.
That to me indicates that perhaps the surveillance and later dissemination of content (leaking) may have been for political reasons rather than National security.
Why else would she lie?
It is entirely possible the spying on the Trump team was incidental to the Russian investigation at the outset, but latter crossed the line into partisan political info gathering and dissemination (leaking).
In any case, this whole mess brings to light the powerful, extensive, overly intrusive surveillance that goes on.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
No he was not right.So President Trump was right. Good to know.
The earlier links I provided explained why nothing is illegal in regard to what is being reported about Rice and that Trump’s made-up claims are still unproven and here is another explaining that.
thinkprogress.org/susan-rice-explained-1a72785b100e
I
I_trust
Guest
Certainly leaking the name and content of the Mike Flynn revelation to the press was a crime.Rice is the Obama administration official whose name became a punchline after her repeated false claims that the 2012 Benghazi terror attacks were caused by a crude Internet video.
From her position as chief of the National Security Council, according to a Bloomberg columnist, Rice asked government agencies to identify names that had been withheld from raw intelligence reports linked with Trump campaign and transition figures.
There is not necessarily anything illegal or unusual about a national security adviser seeking to unmask names in raw reports, in order to fully understand the meaning of intercepted conversations.
But in this case those identities – including the name of then-National Security Advisor Mike Flynn – were subsequently leaked and made public.
That is a federal felony.
As to who leaked the info, we have yet to find out.
Rice may be the fall guy.
Two questions comes to mind…
What exactly did the President Obama know? And when did he know it?
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Susan Rice Requested Unmasking of Incoming Trump Administration Officials
. . . 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.
The Times, rather than admit Trump had been vindicated, instead focused its attention on the question of who leaked the reports to Nunes:
Since disclosing the existence of the intelligence reports, Mr. Nunes has refused to identify his sources, saying he needed to protect them so others would feel safe going to the committee with sensitive information. In his public comments, he has described his sources as whistle-blowers trying to expose wrongdoing at great risk to themselves.
Since when did journalists attempt to unmask sources? The Times, WaPo, and other outlets rely on anonymous sources in nearly every article about national security. It’s clear they have an agenda — that agenda is not telling the truth.
medium.com/@Cernovich/susan-rice-requested-unmasking-of-incoming-trump-administration-officials-30085b5cff16This reporter has been informed that Maggie Haberman has had this story about Susan Rice for at least 48 hours, and has chosen to sit on it in an effort to protect the reputation of former President Barack Obama. . . .
I
I_trust
Guest
Having lived through the Watergate years, I have to say this seems all to familiar.
The possibility of a political party in power conducting surveillance of the opposition party’s actions was enough to bring down a sitting president.
But in this case it is even worse, if true. The intel gathered was leaked to the press (Flynn), possibly to discredit and de-legitimize the new administration in the eyes of the public.
-Was there any illegal collusion by the Trump team with Russia?
-Was this instead a diversion/excuse to cover up illegal surveillance by the Obama administration?
-Was there illegal collusion by the Trump team with Russia and illegal surveillance by the Obama administration that went beyond National security?
-What did Obama know about the surveillance? When, and how much? Did he order it? Did he spread the info around to various players? Did he have any part in leaking the intel?
The possibility of a political party in power conducting surveillance of the opposition party’s actions was enough to bring down a sitting president.
But in this case it is even worse, if true. The intel gathered was leaked to the press (Flynn), possibly to discredit and de-legitimize the new administration in the eyes of the public.
-Was there any illegal collusion by the Trump team with Russia?
-Was this instead a diversion/excuse to cover up illegal surveillance by the Obama administration?
-Was there illegal collusion by the Trump team with Russia and illegal surveillance by the Obama administration that went beyond National security?
-What did Obama know about the surveillance? When, and how much? Did he order it? Did he spread the info around to various players? Did he have any part in leaking the intel?
R
Reuben_J
Guest
The answer to that seems to be academic now. Susan Rice was Obama’s NSA. It is safe to say that it is next to impossible for Obama not to know when Rice asked for the unmasking.-What did Obama know about the surveillance? When, and how much? Did he order it? Did he spread the info around to various players? Did he have any part in leaking the intel?
The implication for this is staggering but seeing that they are not holding office anymore, probably they would get away with it.
E
Estevao
Guest
President Trump’s tweet about being spied on by Obama has been vindicated by this revelation. Whether or not this is ‘legal’ is not my claim. Wiretapping was legal in East Germany. Nothing Hitler ever did was illegal in Germany. Legality is really irrelevant to whether or not spying on political opponents by one administration is ‘ethical’ as your article asserts.No he was not right.
The earlier links I provided explained why nothing is illegal in regard to what is being reported about Rice and that Trump’s made-up claims are still unproven and here is another explaining that.
thinkprogress.org/susan-rice-explained-1a72785b100e
M
Michael68
Guest
They were made public to influence the election. There is no other way to look at thisRice is the Obama administration official whose name became a punchline after her repeated false claims that the 2012 Benghazi terror attacks were caused by a crude Internet video.
From her position as chief of the National Security Council, according to a Bloomberg columnist, Rice asked government agencies to identify names that had been withheld from raw intelligence reports linked with Trump campaign and transition figures.
There is not necessarily anything illegal or unusual about a national security adviser seeking to unmask names in raw reports, in order to fully understand the meaning of intercepted conversations.
But in this case those identities – including the name of then-National Security Advisor Mike Flynn – were subsequently leaked and made public.
That is a federal felony.
M
Michael68
Guest
Yep, President Trump was right and has been vindicated.So President Trump was right. Good to know.
M
Michael68
Guest
Sy, she requested the identity of the Americans. ILLEGALNo he was not right.
The earlier links I provided explained why nothing is illegal in regard to what is being reported about Rice and that Trump’s made-up claims are still unproven and here is another explaining that.
thinkprogress.org/susan-rice-explained-1a72785b100e
Those names were selectively leaked. ILLEGAL
She lied about it in her March 28 interview.
She is going to do serious fed time unless she makes a deal.
M
Michael68
Guest
The moment she requested those identities it became surveillance. President Trump is correct even though his terminology wasn’t.No he was not right.
The earlier links I provided explained why nothing is illegal in regard to what is being reported about Rice and that Trump’s made-up claims are still unproven and here is another explaining that.
thinkprogress.org/susan-rice-explained-1a72785b100e
- Status
- Not open for further replies.