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

[dvdjs]

Pipe dreams, nice deflecting to the Russia nonsense…

That is what is being investigated by the FBI and others in the IC, and Congress.

 

[Cathoholic]

Its amazing.

These guys a couple weeks ago were saying none of this even happened.

Then they attempted to injure President Trump’s credibility by impugning him personally and psychologically for even bringing it up saying he was lying or deluded (see CCC 2464, 2479, and CCC 2493-2499.

Then they kept trying to insinuate President Trump was “stupid”.

Then they tried to suggest Trump has been sooo smart, he has been working under the table with the Russians for as long as 2005 (I heard on liberal media commentator suggest) while the intelligence agencies just haven’t caught up to wiley old Donald yet.!

Trump is sooo brilliant that even the alphabet intelligence agencies can’t keep up with him.

Stupid, or cunning? Which is Trump today according to his detractors?

And yet not a word about Hillary’s Uranium deal at the State Department on behalf of the Russians.

RUSSIA SCANDAL? INSIDE THE OBAMA-CLINTON URANIUM DEAL

Hillary OK’d sale as cash flowed to foundation, Bill’s pockets
Published: 7 days ago

Tens of millions of dollars from uranium investors flowed into the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton received a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian bank tied to the Kremlin before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped decide whether to approve the sale to the Russian government of a company that held one-fifth of America’s uranium capacity.

That’s the “deal” that Donald Trump referenced in a tweet Tuesday morning in which he essentially said that if Congress really wants to find evidence of U.S. politicians colluding with the Russians, it should investigate the $145 million in donations the Clintons’ received from uranium investors before Russia’s energy agency Rostatom secured the purchase of Uranium One.

Trump tweeted: “Why isn’t the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian speech.”

He followed up with: “… money to Bill, the Hillary Russian “reset,” praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia story is a hoax. . . .

. . . The origin of the deal traced back to 2005, when mining financier Frank Giustra traveled with Bill Clinton to work out an agreement with the government of Kazakhstan for mining rights.

Giustra has donated $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.

In June 2010, shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Bill Clinton personally received a speaking fee of $500,000 from a Kremlin-tied Russian investment bank connected to the uranium deal.

The Times pointed out that the Canadian tax records show the contributions to the Clinton Foundation were not publicly disclosed, which violated an agreement Clinton signed with the Obama administration when she became secretary of state to disclose all foreign donations. . . .

wnd.com/2017/03/russia-scandal-inside-the-obama-clinton-uranium-deal/

Now the Obama supporters have shifted the whole paradigm of the discussion to: “Well this surveilling was done in national security interests and not political interests so its OK.”

The excuses should get even more interesting over the next several weeks.

 

[Michael68]

That is what is being investigated by the FBI and others in the IC, and Congress.

And Susan Rice requested the unmasking from these agencies before the election for the purpose of leaking this information to the media in an attempt to influence the election. So yes, this happened before the election, not after the election.

 

[Michael68]

The Obama administration and the media in favor of Susan Rice have proven that they, former administration and media, have been doing exactly what they claim Russia is doing. There’s that H word again. It always comes up around the dems!!

 

[dvdjs]

And Susan Rice requested the unmasking from these agencies before the election for the purpose of leaking this information to the media in an attempt to influence the election. So yes, this happened before the election, not after the election.

Source?

 

[Sy_Noe]

And Susan Rice requested the unmasking from these agencies before the election for the purpose of leaking this information to the media in an attempt to influence the election. So yes, this happened before the election, not after the election.

Another link explaining that in fact, there is no evidence that the 'unmasking" was done for political purposes.

“Unmasking” of certain Americans whose names appeared in intelligence reports resulting from eavesdropping on foreigners — meaning the foreigners were discussing the Americans or talking to them. Usually, those names are blacked out. But the blackout can be lifted if doing so is necessary to help understand the intelligence.

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

 

[dvdjs]

Its amazing…
And yet not a word about Hillary’s Uranium deal at the State Department on behalf of the Russians.

You need to vary your reading habits. There were in fact many words on Trump’s irresponsible tweet.
newsweek.com/donald-trump-russia-hillary-uranium-575071
politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/mar/28/fact-checking-donald-trumps-tweets-about-hillary-c/
etc.

The WND story is a nice example of news twisted and spun to the point of making them FAKE.

Now the Obama supporters have shifted the whole paradigm of the discussion to: “Well this surveilling was done in national security interests and not political interests so its OK.”

Fascinating. Are you really suggesting that Trump was complaining about surveillance of his team for national security purposes? I don’t think that anyone responding to the tweet would have read that into it? Why on earth would he be calling attention to that?

The deflection does get more interesting everyday. But the story has legs.

Is Trump Russia’s Useful Idiot, or Has He Been Irreparably Compromised?

foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/03/is-trump-russias-useful-idiot-or-has-he-been-irreparably-compromised/

And this before the latest on Carter Page.

 

[Michael68]

You need to vary your reading habits. There were in fact many words on Trump’s irresponsible tweet.
newsweek.com/donald-trump-russia-hillary-uranium-575071
politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/mar/28/fact-checking-donald-trumps-tweets-about-hillary-c/
etc.

The WND story is a nice example of news twisted and spun to the point of making them FAKE.

Fascinating. Are you really suggesting that Trump was complaining about surveillance of his team for national security purposes? I don’t think that anyone responding to the tweet would have read that into it? Why on earth would he be calling attention to that?

The deflection does get more interesting everyday. But the story has legs.

Is Trump Russia’s Useful Idiot, or Has He Been Irreparably Compromised?

foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/03/is-trump-russias-useful-idiot-or-has-he-been-irreparably-compromised/

And this before the latest on Carter Page.

What does this have to do with Susan Rice? More deflecting from the real story?

 

[TMC]

I think this is something that should be seriously looked at. Just like many of the allegations against Trump officials, if this is true it may not be illegal, but it does require explanation. It should be investigated along with the other issues the Senate and the FBI are looking at.

 

[Cathoholic]

Michael68. You said:

The Obama administration and the media in favor of Susan Rice have proven that they, former administration and media, have been doing exactly what they claim Russia is doing.

Good insight.

It seems the liberals always get the most upset when they condemn their “projection” of what they REALLY DO onto someone else.

This is exactly what they themselves were doing (attempting to sway election results), lost anyway, and are now heckbent on projecting their own intentions upon President Trump.

I’ve noticed this pattern a lot.

When they really get “hot” about an issue, you can bet they themselves do it.

It doesn’t always exonerate the Republicans, but when your hear this screeching condemnation just keep in mind it is a clue as to what THEY do, are doing, or are trying to do.

I remember when the Bush-Gore challenge and chad analysis was going on and Bush bussed in a rent-a-mob to Florida, presumably to manipulate the media (and us viewers).

I didn’t like it (but the Democrats were doing that type of thing for years).

But the Democrats blew a gasket over it!

And although I too condemned it, I couldn’t help but think: “You Democrats have been the masters of the rent-a-mob for years, and now you are coming unglued because Bush did it too?” The hypocrisy was astounding.

The louder liberals whine over an issue, it seems it is directly proportional to politically what they do themselves.

Just imagine the indignation if McConnell uses the “nuclear option” to push the Gorsuch nomination through (admittedly the Democrats used the “nuclear option” in a different way but the PRINCIPLE of using it to PUSH Senate approval through is what I am alluding to here).

 

[_Abyssinia]

I think this is something that should be seriously looked at. Just like many of the allegations against Trump officials, if this is true it may not be illegal, but it does require explanation. It should be investigated along with the other issues the Senate and the FBI are looking at.

The legality of her actions are not clear at this point. Charles Krauthammer has said on Fox News and reported by Townhall that, ‘if she did order or if she did allow herself to go in and then to unmask all these people, the question is this. Was it in pursuit of national security interests, in which case it’s proper, or was it not, in which case it’s improper? Possibly illegal’

If she had a political motivation, then presumably that could or would have been illegal. Time will hopefully tell regarding what her motivations on.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And Susan Rice requested the unmasking from these agencies before the election for the purpose of leaking this information to the media in an attempt to influence the election. So yes, this happened before the election, not after the election.

It is my understanding that it happened after the election as well.

I have not seen anything on the content of the raw intelligence data. All we know is that Nunes has said none of it is with Russian counterparts, and Schiff, who saw it too, hasn’t said otherwise.

We do know it was going on long before the election, during a time when Trump wasn’t even nominated. We don’t know (yet) whether any other Repub candidates were the object of intelligence agency spying or whether it was just on Trump and his people.

As far as we know, none of it was used by the Democrats in the election. But then, Nunes seems to be saying it’s innocuous stuff, so maybe it was an administration project that simply never bore fruit, sort of like the “Russia/Trump conspiracy” theory.

 

[Michael68]

It is my understanding that it happened after the election as well.

I have not seen anything on the content of the raw intelligence data. All we know is that Nunes has said none of it is with Russian counterparts, and Schiff, who saw it too, hasn’t said otherwise.

We do know it was going on long before the election, during a time when Trump wasn’t even nominated. We don’t know (yet) whether any other Repub candidates were the object of intelligence agency spying or whether it was just on Trump and his people.

As far as we know, none of it was used by the Democrats in the election. But then, Nunes seems to be saying it’s innocuous stuff, so maybe it was an administration project that simply never bore fruit, sort of like the “Russia/Trump conspiracy” theory.

Didn’t they unmask Mannafort during the campaign and he had to step down because of the appearance of impropriety due to the illegal leaking of this illegally obtained information?

 

[TMC]

The legality of her actions are not clear at this point. Charles Krauthammer has said on Fox News and reported by Townhall that, ‘if she did order or if she did allow herself to go in and then to unmask all these people, the question is this. Was it in pursuit of national security interests, in which case it’s proper, or was it not, in which case it’s improper? Possibly illegal’

If she had a political motivation, then presumably that could or would have been illegal. Time will hopefully tell regarding what her motivations on.

It is possible that her actions were illegal, sure, but it is entirely unclear at this point that they were. She has the legal authority to unmask, and that authority is pretty broad. Remember that if Rice “unmasks” someone, that only reveals their identify to her, not to the whole world or even the whole intelligence community. If she disseminated unmasked information for political purposes, that is probably illegal.

In any event, I agree that she should explain what happened, and that investigators should have access to the documents at issue to see for themselves.

 

[dvdjs]

She has the legal authority to unmask, and that authority is pretty broad. Remember that if Rice “unmasks” someone, that only reveals their identify to her, not to the whole world or even the whole intelligence community. If she disseminated unmasked information for political purposes, that is probably illegal.

Not quite. She can request. but there is a process that is followed.
nbcnews.com/news/us-news/what-unmasking-did-susan-rice-do-anything-wrong-n742476

… Senior Obama administration officials don’t dispute that Rice requested the “unmasking” of certain Americans whose names appeared in intelligence reports resulting from eavesdropping on foreigners — meaning the foreigners were discussing the Americans or talking to them. Usually, those names are blacked out. But the blackout can be lifted if doing so is necessary to help understand the intelligence.

Requesting that is a routine thing for national security advisers to do, according to former senior officials, including Keith Alexander, who directed the National Security Agency.

Rice didn’t and couldn’t “order” the unmasking of any American, current and former officials say. The agencies that hold the raw surveillance transcripts — usually the NSA or the FBI — make that decision. It’s a process subject to rules and reviewed by lawyers, and it has to be justified by an intelligence purpose.

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. Unmasking was then the subject of a story by Eli Lake, a conservative columnist for Bloomberg View.

It’s hard to imagine FBI Director James Comey or NSA Director Mike Rogers participating with Obama officials in “political” surveillance of the Trump transition, which is the allegation some Republicans are making. Rogers, after all, has acknowledged that he met with Trump about a job in his administration. Comey has been criticized for how he handled the Hillary Clinton email investigation, and for actions that polls show helped Trump. Alexander told NBC News he routinely turned down requests for unmasking by senior officials in the Bush and Obama administrations.

 

[Michael68]

Not quite. She can request. but there is a process that is followed.
nbcnews.com/news/us-news/what-unmasking-did-susan-rice-do-anything-wrong-n742476

Nothing routine about umasking Americans then leaking that info to the media!

Excuses, excuses!

 

[Cathoholic]

Hillary helped close the deal on a sweetheart Uranium agreement on behalf of America?? No.

Hillary, as Secretary of State, helped close the deal on a sweetheart Uranium agreement on behalf of the Russians!

When it was publicly exposed, the Obama administration was pretty quiet about it.

I mentioned . . .

And yet not a word about Hillary’s Uranium deal at the State Department on behalf of the Russians

.

Dvdjs said:

You need to vary your reading habits. There were in fact many words on Trump . . . .

I wasn’t alluding to President Trump or the Trump administration talking about Hillary dvdjs.

I was talking about the Obama state department “shoulder-shrugging” Hillary’s Russian Uranium deal for years prior to this election. Not Trump.

And even the New York Times bringing Hillary’s Uranium sweetheart deal (which was BAD for America, just like when Bill Clinton aided the North Koreans getting their nuclear capability back in the day was likewise bad for America) up in 2015 was mostly AFTER Peter Schweizer’s forthcoming book Clinton Cash was being marketed in predistribution.

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

By Jo Becker and Mike McIntire April 23rd, 2015 New York Times

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian President, but also a former American President and a woman who would like to be the next one. . . .

. . . In 2005 Frank Guistra “Orchestrated His First Big Uranium Deal” In Kazakhstan With Bill Clinton By His Side. “The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Guistra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined . . . .

See New York Times article on the Hillary-Russian connection to US and Canadian Uranium reserves here.

nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=1

 

[ProdigalSun]

Nothing routine about umasking Americans then leaking that info to the media!

Excuses, excuses!

It amazes me that the many Anti-Trumpers on this site can’t even let up when the lefts stories and false narritives fall apart.

They have to continue to hang on to any straw no matter how rotten it is.

I wonder when they will let his Administration lead and get on with making your country great again.

I pray for a time when everyone just calms down and moves on with their lives.

Donald Trump won the presidency get over it and move on!

 

[dvdjs]

Nothing routine about umasking Americans then leaking that info to the media

The leaking is illegal. I am unaware that anyone has disputed that.
Not sure what, if anything, informs your sense the degree to which unmasking is routine.

 

[Michael68]

The leaking is illegal. I am unaware that anyone has disputed that.
Not sure what, if anything, informs your sense the degree to which unmasking is routine.

From the way I have heard it explained, you can’t reveal the Identity of Americans caught by accident unless they are accused and become targets. It had already been explained the Americans were not the target and therefore their identities should not have been revealed by anyone. Its a privacy thing that has also been violated.

BTW… President Trump has been Vindicated!!!