(04-12-2017, 01:36 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: She didn't deny surveillance of foreign nationals. She didn't deny incidental collection. She denied names were disclosed/leaked.

(04-12-2017, 01:36 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What is the intent of this scandal? To suggest Obama had Trump wire tapped during the election to lend support to Trump's false claim. That didn't work. So what happen next?  They tried to make a case Trump was being illegally surveilled by the government after the election and the White House was leaking/disclosing/unmasking names. Rice asked to know the names of people talking to Russians in an intelligence report in her capacity as the National Security advisor. The scandal seeks to equate unmasking with leaking, with incidental surveillance with illegal surveillance, and government oversight with government over reach. Why? To cover Trump's ass. It's as simple as that. Cover Trump's ass.

(04-12-2017, 01:53 PM)hollodero Wrote: unmasked :) - ok, I'm now willing to just let it go.


Oh, I do not doubt a single word you said. Sure that seems to be the motivation behind it, or it was at least used that way, and I do not support said motivations and usages. I was not trying to imply the Trump narrative gained any credibility.

What I, for example, can very well imagine is that there was indeed an attempt to unmask - not leak, that's something else, unmask - as many names of Trump associates as possible. I can very well believe that's what these Bannon staffers put Nunes on in the first place, hints of a lot of unmasking going on in classified reports, containing names of Trump associates. Maybe in places where these staffers or whoever felt the unmasking was not that necessary and seems to be explicitly aimed at said Trump aides. To me, that seems to be a credible assumption, although of course far from being "proven" in any way - but it would explain some stuff. Whether this, if true, is bending the lines or stepping over some lines, I do not know. It might be a very small part of the whole story and I see it as such, not as a scandal and anything. It doesn't make Trump's baffling lies about that bad or sick guy wiretapping him any more truthful or less outrageous. But I also think - independent from everything I just said - that Rice's words can plausibly be seen as a lie. That's all.

(04-12-2017, 02:40 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So if Susan Rice knew a redacted name was a Trump associate what was the point of unmasking the name?

(04-12-2017, 03:07 PM)hollodero Wrote: Jeez, I don't know, I don't want to get pulled too deep into one possibility I just described without fully committing to it. (Because what do I know.)
But a very obvious answer seems to be: Which associate exactly. Another obvious answer seems to be: Acting on suspicion. Another obvious answer seems to be: She might know, but others might not. 

That has not much to do with whether she told a lie or not. She did the unmasking of Trump aides, that one I believe, although I see that there are "anonymous sources" so there's a chance it isn't true. If it is, however, her answer just seems misleading. (and breaks down to what "disclosed" means :) ) - Why not saying, there's the unmasking process, it's something common, and whether Trump associates were unmasked or not, I'm not at liberty to say. What everyone else says. This quick "I know nothing about this" has something Sessionesque to it.

(04-12-2017, 05:46 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So she wanted to know the name. She asked for the name. They told her the name.

At that point the name is unmasked.

It hasn't been disclosed, leaked, disseminated, mishandled, etc. What is improper about the NSA asking to know the identity of someone talking to the target of surveillance by a US intelligence agency?  And who is as it used for political gain after Trump was elected?  What am I missing?

(04-12-2017, 06:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: Nothing improper, possibly no political gain, that's all not what I'm arguing.

To put it simple, when Rice is asked if she knows about incidental surveillance resulting in unmasking (and again, I see the word "disclosed" not in the sense of "made public", but "unmasked in surveillance reports") of Trump aides, there are two possible truthful answers, from what I know:

1. Yes, that happened
2. I can't talk about that.

But saying "I don't know anything about this", it just seems like not being quite true. Again, that's all I argue. Not that there was something shady going on, something unlawful or whatever. You read the question and her answer differently, and fair enough, let's leave it at that.

Quote:Woodruff: "We’ve been following a disclosure by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, that in essence, during the final days of the Obama administration, during the transition, after President Trump had been elected, that he and the people around him may have been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals in that their identities may have been disclosed. Do you know anything about this?"

Rice: I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.

Quote:Let’s back up and recall where we have been. The president of the United States accused his predecessor, President Obama, of wiretapping Trump tower during the campaign. Nothing of the sort occurred, and we’ve heard that confirmed by the director of the FBI, who also pointed out that no president, no White House, can order the surveillance of another American citizen. That can only come from the Justice Department with approval of a FISA court.

So today, I really don’t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring. But he said whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance, and it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens. I think it’s important for people to understand what "incidental" means. That means that the target was either a foreign entity or somebody under criminal investigation, and the Americans who were talking to those targets may have been picked up.

(04-12-2017, 08:03 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The Trump administration is accusing her of wrongdoing which the underlying reason she was even interviewed about this.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/04/susan-rice-denies-leaking-trump-associate-intel-defends-unmasking-requests.amp.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkprogress.org/amp/p/7394822d74d3


https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkprogress.org/amp/p/1a72785b100e

(04-12-2017, 08:03 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: No one's identity was disclosed until the Trump administration disclosed identities by leaking this story in an attempt to back up Trump's false wire tapping claim.

(04-12-2017, 08:03 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If she admits she is aware of unmasking of US citizens talking to Russian agents or states "I can't talk about that," what else does that confirm?

It confirms to the Russians their conversations are being monitored.  Which they should know already, right?  Kinda like Hillary and the Democrats should have known not to use unsecure email. But, there is the potential it could compromise ongoing intelligence operations.

Quote:After a review of the same intelligence reports brought to light by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers and aides have so far found no evidence that Obama administration officials did anything unusual or illegal, multiple sources in both parties tell CNN.


Their private assessment contradicts President Donald Trump's allegations that former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice broke the law by requesting the "unmasking" of US individuals' identities. Trump had claimed the matter was a "massive story."


However, over the last week, several members and staff of the House and Senate intelligence committees have reviewed intelligence reports related to those requests at NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland.



One congressional intelligence source described the requests made by Rice as "normal and appropriate" for officials who serve in that role to the president.


And another source said there's "absolutely" no smoking gun in the reports, urging the White House to declassify them to make clear there was nothing alarming in the documents.

Still, some members of Congress continue to have concerns about the justification given for the unmasking requests and the standards for the intelligence community to grant such requests, which reveal the private data of US persons mentioned in intelligence reports based on routine intelligence collection aimed at foreign nationals.


Such collection regularly targets officials and nationals from Russia, Taiwan, Israel and other countries.

The lawmakers' assessment comes after Trump, in a New York Times interview last week, accused Rice of breaking the law.

Trump has not revealed which intelligence reports he is relying on to make his charge that Rice may have acted illegally.

"I think it's going to be the biggest story," Trump said. "It's such an important story for our country and the world." He also called it "truly one of the big stories of our time."

Asked by the Times if he believed Rice's actions were criminal Trump responded, "Do I think? Yes, I think."

Sebastian Gorka, a Trump foreign policy aide, cast Rice's actions as worse than the Watergate scandal that felled President Richard Nixon in an interview with pro-Trump Fox News host Sean Hannity.

"Losing 14 minutes of audiotape in comparison to this is a little spat in the sandbox in the kindergarten," Gorka said.
Rice defended her actions last week on MSNBC, saying her requests were "absolutely not for any political purposes, to spy, or anything."

"There were occasions when I would receive a report in which a US person was referred to -- name not provided, just a US person -- and sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance of the report, and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out, or request the information as to who the US official was," Rice said.

"The notion that some people are trying to suggest, is that by asking for the identity of a person is leaking it, is unequivocally false," she said. "There is no connection between unmasking and leaking."

Rice is among the list of witnesses that House and Senate Intelligence officials want to interview as part of its probe into Russian attempts to meddle with the US elections. House Democrats and Republicans on the Intelligence Committee are near agreement on the list of witnesses to interview, with the GOP mostly focusing on people who may have leaked classified information and the Democrats hoping to question Trump associates who may have ties to Russia.

But the House review has been thrown into turmoil after Nunes last month expressed alarm about the unmasking of US persons, including Trump advisors, caught up in incidental collection. He reviewed the documents on White House grounds with the help of White House officials, despite House Speaker Paul Ryan saying Nunes informed him that the information came from a "whistleblower."

Critics said Nunes appeared to be giving political cover to Trump in the aftermath of the president's unsubstantiated tweet last month that Obama ordered wiretaps of Trump Tower to spy on him during the campaign.

Nunes' office has not responded to CNN's request for comment.

Nunes last week abruptly recused himself temporarily from the Russia investigation as the House Ethics Committee announced it is investigating whether he revealed classified materials, but he is still serving as chairman of the panel.

(04-13-2017, 10:30 AM)samhain Wrote: Once he's finally let go, as it seems he will be, I wonder how Bannon will react. Does he seem like the good soldier-type? He's got a lot of nihilistic tendencies. I could see him being Trump's Dick Morris if the administration is too clumsy in disposing of him.

(04-13-2017, 12:39 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: He will leave, continue to proclaim the saturation of fake news, start his own news network, report all of his inside experiences with and be critical of Trump (to gain "credibility"), then take on the planned role of Trump's propaganda machine.
God help us !

(04-13-2017, 04:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't think so. Look for him to be extra critical, because if he goes, Trump is going to turn away from the base that got him there, which is the base Bannon won for him.

(04-12-2017, 04:58 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You're making a number of assumptions in claiming the unmasking was routine.

(04-13-2017, 08:10 PM)Dill Wrote: You are still puzzling me.  Why would you assume the masking was not routine?

The national security adviser learns that two spies are discussing an exchange of information with an American whose name is "masked," but who appears to have become their asset.  If those spies are connecting with people from the Trump organization during an election, then YES, that is something an NSC advisor needs to know. It would be dereliction of duty not to monitor this.

Why in the world would anyone jump to the conclusion IT'S ALL POLITCAL?  Of course she is an Obama appointee. Every national security advisor is appointed by the sitting president.

Bels, Dino and Oncemore have all added individual points and information establishing that the unmasking was routine and motivated by clear red flags to national security, something NSC personnel may do several times a year, every year.

Now a bipartisan committee, having seen all the relevant unmasking documents, agrees there is no "there" there, while inside the bubble Gorka and Rush and Hannity continue to ratchet this up to WATERGATE level.

Quote:Susan Rice Did Nothing Wrong, Say Both Dems and Republicans



A review of the surveillance material flagged by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes shows no inappropriate action by Susan Rice or any other Obama administration official, Republican and Democratic Congressional aides who have been briefed on the matter told NBC News.


President Donald Trump told the New York Times he believed former National Security Adviser Rice broke the law by asking for the identities of Trump aides who were mentioned in transcripts of U.S. surveillance of foreign targets. Normally, the identities of Americans are blacked out in transcripts circulated by the National Security Agency, but they may be "unmasked," if their identities are relevant to understanding the intelligence.


Rice did not dispute that she requested the identities of certain Americans in the waning days of the Obama administration, but she denied any wrongdoing in an interview with NBC News' Andrea Mitchell. Her denial came after Nunes said he believed the names of Trump aides had been inappropriately unmasked and circulated.


Related: What Is Unmasking, And Did Susan Rice Do Anything Wrong?


Members of the House and Senate intelligence committees from both parties have traveled to NSA headquarters to review the relevant intelligence reports.
"I saw no evidence of any wrongdoing," said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents, who would not agree to be identified further. "It was all completely normal."
[/url]
His assessment was shared by a senior Republican aide who had been briefed on the matter but declined to speak on the record.


The finding by lawmakers of both parties was first reported by CNN.
[url=http:://thebengalsboard.com/related:%20Nunes%20Backs%20Down%20From%20Assertion%20Trump%20Was%20Monitored]Nunes has recused himself from his committee's investigation of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election while the Office of Congressional Ethics investigates complaints that he disclosed classified information when he brought the unmasking concern to light.


When the New York Times asked Trump on April 5 if Rice broke the law, Trump said, "Do I think? Yes, I think."


"I think it's going to be the biggest story," Trump added. "It's such an important story for our country and the world."


Related: Nunes Backs Down From Assertion Trump Was Monitored


Sebastian Gorka, a Trump national security adviser, was asked by Sean Hannity on Fox News how the unmasking issue compared to Watergate.


"Losing 14 minutes of audiotape in comparison to this is a little spat in the sandbox in the kindergarten," Gorka replied.
Play


But current and former U.S. intelligence officials have said that any unmasking request by Rice would have been made to the NSA director or the FBI director, who would have the final say. Both men are still in their jobs under President Trump.



Current and former officials say it is routine, and not inappropriate, for the national security adviser to request the identities of Americans mentioned in intelligence reports.


Related: Nunes Had Secret White House Meeting Before Trump Monitoring Claim


"Let's say there was a conversation between two foreigners about a conversation they were having with an American, who was proposing to sell to them high-tech bomb making equipment," Rice said April 4 on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports. "Now, if that came to me as National Security Advisor, it would matter enormously. Is this some kook sitting in his living room communicating via the internet, offering to sell something he doesn't have? Or is it a serious person or company or entity with the ability to provide that technology perhaps to an adversary? That would be an example of a case where knowing who the U.S. person was, was necessary to assess the information."

(04-18-2017, 08:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/susan-rice-did-nothing-wrong-say-both-dems-republicans-n747406

(04-18-2017, 08:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/susan-rice-did-nothing-wrong-say-both-dems-republicans-n747406

(04-19-2017, 09:29 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, I heard about this on one of the pods I listen to. I wasn't going to post it because it would just be an "I told you so" moment from me.

(04-19-2017, 01:17 AM)Dill Wrote: Can she really be the "Typhoid Mary of the Obama administration" if there is no Typhoid?