Susan Rice requested to unmask names of Trump transition officials, sources say

[Michael68]

Susan Rice is a notoriously good liar.
She went on every Sunday talk show to sell the Obama administration’s lie that Benghazi was caused by a 2 bit video on youtube.
I’m not at all surprised she is mixed up in this

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Susan Rice figured that Hillary Clinton or some other Democrat would win the 2016 election.

If Hillary HAD won, then all of these revelations and subsequent discussion would have been immaterial. Minor dustup. Tempest in a tea pot. Lots of cover. Trivial brouhaha.

BUT, as Obama said, elections matter.

He should stay in Tahiti at the mens’ retreat.

 

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by Reuben J View Post

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.

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.

They were made public to influence the election. There is no other way to look at this

Trump mania; such confusion.

1. Do we still think that leaking is a felony, or is OK now that the leaks come from the Trump administration? Are Trump’s leakers also looking at 10 years?
2. According to the Bloomberg columnist, cited by ReubenJ and echoed by M69:

Rice’s requests to unmask the names of Trump transition officials do not vindicate Trump’s own tweets from March 4 in which he accused Obama of illegally tapping Trump Tower. There remains no evidence to support that claim.

But Rice’s multiple requests to learn the identities of Trump officials discussed in intelligence reports during the transition period does highlight a longstanding concern for civil liberties advocates about U.S. surveillance programs. 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.

Got that?
According to your own source, had you taken the time to read, the leaked allegations of unmasking by Rice:
a. do not vindicate Trump’s tweets
b. occurred “during the transition period” means after the election - not exactly a the right time “to influence the election”. There apparently MUST be some other way to look at this.
c. " were likely within the law."

Your grasping at straws shows an odd desperation.

 

[Michael68]

Trump mania; such confusion.

1. Do we still think that leaking is a felony, or is OK now that the leaks come from the Trump administration? Are Trump’s leakers also looking at 10 years?
2. According to the Bloomberg columnist, cited by ReubenJ and echoed by M69:

Got that?
According to your own source, had you taken the time to read, the leaked allegations of unmasking by Rice:
a. do not vindicate Trump’s tweets
b. occurred “during the transition period” means after the election - not exactly a the right time “to influence the election”. There apparently MUST be some other way to look at this.
c. " were likely within the law."

Your grasping at straws shows an odd desperation.

Trump is vindicated. No doubt about that. Of course the MSM is going to try to weasel out ofthis one to save their messiah Obama. This was highly illegal whether you want to believe it or not. I heard this case laid out several times yesterday, and there is no way of getting around the illegally obtained names.

 

[Michael68]

Got that?

 

[Cathoholic]

dvdjs (citing Bloomberg) . . .

Rice’s requests to unmask the names of Trump transition officials do not vindicate Trump’s own tweets from March 4 in which he accused Obama of illegally tapping Trump Tower. There remains no evidence to support that claim.

Ignoring Cerenevich who likely was the investigative journalist who uncovered this story to the extent Bloomberg could even report it (but NOT giving credit to Cerenevich during reporting of the story) . . . .

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.

If you want to argue this MUST be “WIRE” surveillance in order to lend credibility to Trump’s claims of “wire tapped” in quotes, fine. You go right ahead dvdj.

But also at least ADMIT that team Trump (at least to some extent) WAS surveilled and we have been hearing lies about it from the press and sadly even some from the intelligence community the last several weeks.

“Actual wires used”? We still don’t know.

Some other form of spy accessory tool(s)? Clearly.

This information was eavesdropped from SOME intelligence gathering machine. That’s the point.

Then this unmasked intelligence aquired communications were subsequently leaked to the media by the Obama security people (and at least possibly one Trump person) to the media illegally!

Susan Rice Requested Unmasking of Incoming Trump Administration Officials

(You can’t unmask sources that are not caught up in your spy project then deny spying on them because your means of communication theft** wasn’t with “wires”**

. . . 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:

medium.com/@Cernovich/susan-rice-requested-unmasking-of-incoming-trump-administration-officials-30085b5cff16

Last month when she (Susan Rice) was asked (about surveillance of team Trump) on the “PBS NewsHour” . . . Rice said: “I know nothing about this,” . . .

bloomberg.com/view/artic…iates-in-intel

 

[fmchan52]

Trump mania; such confusion.

1. Do we still think that leaking is a felony, or is OK now that the leaks come from the Trump administration? Are Trump’s leakers also looking at 10 years?
2. According to the Bloomberg columnist, cited by ReubenJ and echoed by M69:

Got that?
According to your own source, had you taken the time to read, the leaked allegations of unmasking by Rice:
a. do not vindicate Trump’s tweets
b. occurred “during the transition period” means after the election - not exactly a the right time “to influence the election”. There apparently MUST be some other way to look at this.
c. " were likely within the law."

Your grasping at straws shows an odd desperation.

The statement in Letter c of your post indicates that the law may have been broken

 

[Michael68]

dvdjs…This is purely political and that IS the only way to look at this. Face it, your side screwed up big time and are caught. Deal with it!

 

[dvdjs]

Trump is vindicated.

Not even according to the source that you referenced.

 

[Michael68]

Not even according to the source that you referenced.

Pretty much anybody who looks at this realizes that Trump is vindicated. It is deniers like you who get stuck on the word “wire”!

 

[dvdjs]

dvdjs (citing Bloomberg) . . .

I cited Bloomberg because i was following up on posts that cited and referered to the citation of Bloomberg.

If you want to argue this MUST be “WIRE” surveillance in order to lend credibility to Trump’s claims of “wire tapped” in quotes, fine. You go right ahead dvdj.

But also at least ADMIT that team Trump (at least to some extent) WAS surveilled and we have been hearing lies about it from the press and sadly even some from the intelligence community the last several weeks.
“Actual wires used”? We still don’t know.
Some other form of spy accessory tool(s)? Clearly.
This information was eavesdropped from SOME intelligence gathering machine. That’s the point…

No one cares about wires; only the Trump supporters harp on that to deflect from the pertinent specifics of Trump’s charge. He was talking about surveillance of him and his campaign in Trump tower during the lead up to the election. There is nothing to support such a charge in the testimony of FBI and NSA or in the leaks of Nunes and Bloomberg article.

Then this unmasked intelligence aquired communications were subsequently leaked to the media by the Obama security people (and at least possibly one Trump person) to the media illegally!

The Trump folks might not like the unmasking, and would just as soon bury all knowledge of their interaction with the Russians involved in espionage and active measures campaigns against the US. The more that they throw flak, the more it seems that the unmasking was prudent.

I agree that the leaking is illegal. And am glad that you acknowledge the illegality of the leaks from both administrations.

 

[dvdjs]

The statement in Letter c of your post indicates that the law may have been broken

Grasping at straws.

 

[Cathoholic]

Dvdjs implied the probably illegal spying against team Trump was all after the election anyway so no big deal.

occurred “during the transition period” means after the election - not exactly a the right time “to influence the election”.

Aside from Obama administration spying allegedly on ONLY the Trump transition . . . . If this were ALL that has taken place (its not but even if it were), it would still a big deal (for reasons I won’t get into here yet), the Obama administration wiretapping (I am using that word “wiretapping” in a broad sense) or Obama (and or his administration) surveilling his political opponents by weaponizing Government security agencies against Trump WAS going on DURING the election TOO!

(US Government spying against Trump was going on) UP to a YEAR BEFORE he (President Trump) took office . . .

Let’s look at that again adding context . . .

Susan Rice requested to unmask names of Trump transition officials, sources say

By Adam Housley Published April 03, 2017 FoxNews.com

Multiple sources tell Fox News that Susan Rice, former national security adviser under then-President Barack Obama, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in surveillance.

The unmasked names, of people associated with Donald Trump, were then sent to all those at the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan – essentially, the officials at the top, including former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes.

The names were part of incidental electronic surveillance of candidate and President-elect Trump and people close to him, including family members, for up to a year before he took office. . . .

. . . . . When names of Americans are incidentally collected, they** are supposed to be masked, **meaning the name or names are redacted from reports . . . There are loopholes and ways to unmask through backchannels, but Americans are supposed to be protected from incidental collection. Sources told Fox News that in this case, they were not (protected). . .

. . . . As the Obama administration left office, it also approved new rules that gave the NSA much broader powers . . . .

foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/03/susan-rice-requested-to-unmask-names-trump-transition-officials-sources-say.html

(Parenthetical addition above Fox News story mine.)

 

[dvdjs]

Pretty much anybody who looks at this realizes that Trump is vindicated. It is deniers like you who get stuck on the word “wire”!

Even your Bloomberg source doesn’t.
And see post above of the deflection about “wires”. That may seem clever among the Trump-blind, but it only has traction with that group.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Trump mania; such confusion.

1. Do we still think that leaking is a felony, or is OK now that the leaks come from the Trump administration? Are Trump’s leakers also looking at 10 years?
2. According to the Bloomberg columnist, cited by ReubenJ and echoed by M69:

Got that?
According to your own source, had you taken the time to read, the leaked allegations of unmasking by Rice:
a. do not vindicate Trump’s tweets
b. occurred “during the transition period” means after the election - not exactly a the right time “to influence the election”. There apparently MUST be some other way to look at this.
c. " were likely within the law."

Your grasping at straws shows an odd desperation.

Not even according to the source that you referenced.

I’m handing off to you, dvdjs. Good luck.

 

[Michael68]

Even your Bloomberg source doesn’t.
And see post above of the deflection about “wires”. That may seem clever among the Trump-blind, but it only has traction with that group.

I didn’t post the Bloomberg story! You and the media are the ones grasping at straws in the sad attempt to explain this away. Hope your boy likes inmate clothes. Maybe he can sag them and look cool!

 

[fmchan52]

Grasping at straws.

I would agree, you are.

 

[dvdjs]

Dvdjs implied the probably illegal spying against team Trump was all after the election anyway so no big deal/

Not at all. I was noting that the source article used by some in the thread, did not support what they were saying. Now that that is done, i suppose the next step is shifting sands. OK.

It has been claimed in the thread that, however incidental the intelligence collection on Trump and associates was, it rose to the level of spying them once the unmasking occurred. By that standard of Trump-followers, the news is still at odds with Trump’s claims.

No one has denied the incidental collection far earlier. Trump and associates hang out with an interesting collection of characters. When you do that, your may be caught up in their surveillance. And if it turns out that those characters were involved in espionage and active measures against the US, well then it may get even worse for you as the government investigates the case. Winning the election is not immunity against prosecution for any of the crimes under investigation and gives you no honest authority to call foul, when officials are exercising due diligence to curate the data.

 

[dvdjs]

I didn’t post the Bloomberg story!

As I noted above, RuebenJ did. You quoted his citation in affirming his post.
I quoted both of you in my post.

 

[Michael68]

Not at all. I was noting that the source article used by some in the thread, did not support what they were saying. Now that that is done, i suppose the next step is shifting sands. OK.

It has been claimed in the thread that, however incidental the intelligence collection on Trump and associates was, it rose to the level of spying them once the unmasking occurred. By that standard of Trump-followers, the news is still at odds with Trump’s claims.

No one has denied the incidental collection far earlier. Trump and associates hang out with an interesting collection of characters. When you do that, your may be caught up in their surveillance. And if it turns out that those characters were involved in espionage and active measures against the US, well then it may get even worse for you as the government investigates the case. Winning the election is not immunity against prosecution for any of the crimes under investigation and gives you no honest authority to call foul, when officials are exercising due diligence to curate the data.

Pipe dreams, nice deflecting to the Russia nonsense…