Posted on 04/04/2017 10:31:44 AM PDT by blam
Former CIA operations officer Scott Uehlinger, co-host of The Station Chief podcast, talked about the Susan Rice “unmasking” story with SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam on Tuesday’s Breitbart News Daily. “I think it’s an issue which deeply concerns people like myself and other people, working-level officers in the intel community,” Uehlinger said. “Even though at this point, there seems to be no evidence of breaking the law, this ‘unmasking’ of people was ill-advised at best. I think it really shows that abuse of power and the fact that many people in the Obama administration were willing to violate the spirit of the laws designed to protect Americans, perhaps rather than the law itself.”
“As a working-level CIA officer, we were always told by upper authority, you’re always told to – and the quote is – ‘avoid the appearance of impropriety,’” he said. “Well, this does not pass that smell test, definitely.”
Uehlinger said another thing that concerns working-level officers in the intelligence and military communities is “the American people, average Americans like myself, are tired of seeing two sets of rules followed by the higher-ups and then the working-level people.”
“This is just part of that again. A working-level officer would have gotten into big trouble doing anything remotely like this,” he observed. “But now, we have a lot of people saying that she should just be given a pass.”
“While I understand, you know, it’s important that the Trump administration has to move forward with its domestic agenda, but these allegations demand to be further investigated,” he urged.
Kassam proposed that Democrats and their media would not allow the Trump administration to move forward with any part of its agenda until this “Russia hysteria” is cleaned up. That will be a difficult task since, as Kassam noted...
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
All this "masking/unmasking" crap, just so we accept wholesale snooping.
Maybe Rice could tell us about the unmasking on the Clinton communications?
What? No Clinton surveillance? No unmasking of Clinton or her staff or advisors? Nothing?
Only interested in the political opposition? Interesting.
So we may be able to embarrass or even prosecute (doubtful) Rice, or even Obama.
But what do you do about the absolutely massive, highly political, untouchable intelligence agencies?? Are they to stay unmolested, ready for the next statist/leftist to come into power, waiting for their next political power-play?
Same with the IRS or other now highly politicized government agencies - what to do about them?
Bullshit.
It violates the LETTER of the law.
So he is basically saying that the Rice “Unmasking” was Technically legal but broke the “Spirit of the Law.” In other words .... she can skate?
Show me the law ...
And not just a generic pointer to Title 50, Chapter 36.
The "criminal sanctions" at 50 USC 1809 require a person to "engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized ..." or "discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance ..."
I think she can unmask all she wants without legal jeopardy. Doing so puts her and her political bosses in political jeopardy, but I don't see the legal jeopardy for unmasking, without more.
"What good is the dirt if you can't use it?"
Exactly- the ‘letter of the law’ may very well have been broken, and the law that may have been broken might be espionage- accordign to judge napolitano-
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5384680187001/?#sp=show-clips
Whether or not the singular act of unmasking names is illegal, she was a part of a conspiracy of several people to spy on Trump and send intelligence to the Hillary campaign. That required a few steps by several people, and the unmasking was part of it.
Bottom line is, whether spirit or letter, a government can’t spy on it’s own citizens for political purposes, or we have a police state. Someone must be held accountable.
While I am perusing the NSA Regulation USSIDSP0018, I will assume that you agree with my conclusion that targeted unmasking by Rice based on Trump campaign membership is against protocol, but not a crime. You are the one claiming it is a crime, and have so far failed to point to the criminal statute.
[[a government can’t spy on it’s own citizens for political purposes, or we have a police state.]]
Nor can they use the IRS to bludgeon their political opponents... oh wait
The proper process was to get a FISA court warrant to surveil suspected Americans. Repeated "reverse targeting" of Russians known to be in contact with Trump associates creates a pattern of criminality that is ignored when the MSM treats each individual incident as legal without regard for the bigger picture.
Rice needs to be asked, under oath, what were the intelligence needs, on a case by case basis, that led to the selection of the foreigners who were surveilled when Trump associates were "incidentally" swept up.
If she cannot provide individual justifications, then she is admitting that it was really about bypassing FISA controls so they can get political opposition research on Trump.
-PJ
What virtually everyone in government (from both parties) is hinting at is that somewhere along the line it has become legal for government to spy on any American for any reason, even for political reasons.
This is where we are now... a major move toward being a Banana Republic.
Congress needs to be blamed for this because they're the ones who have made this perfectly legal.
I agree with that. Although the government spies on its citizens all the time. All this "unmasking" mumbo jumbo is supposed to make us feel better about being snooped on.
That those in power try to stay in power is unremarkable. Nice guys finish last. The people have to be just as rough and ready to rumble as their enemy, the government, is. The press has its own interests, and those align with the interests of being in power, not with "freedom for the rabble."
Nope. It's perfectly legal for the WH to spy on anyone it chooses.. even for political gain.
Congress doesn't want to explain why they have made this legal, so this will be made to go away somehow.
-- The "color of law" part, I think, implies unmasking as the result of reverse targeting. --
There are plenty of ways to run afoul of FISA. It is a convoluted mess. But I do agree with you, her justification is a transparent pretext, especially as she had reports structured so she could view the Trump campaign, but did not have reports structured so she could evaluate the Clinton campaign, or Sanders campaign, etc., and at last with Hillary, there must have been similar "preliminary" contacts with the same foreigners who ostensibly are legitimate targets of surveillance.
As I noted to Laz, "What good is the dirt if you can't use it?" No question it is a crime to leak. And no question it is improper to use the tools of the state for political opposition research.
They will say its illegal, and will point to the "protections" in the FISA and other laws. Those penalties are toothless, so the "illegality" is nothing for the government to fear. The only time the rules matter is when the evidence is wanted in court.
The snooping will expand to the extent technology facilitates it. The law is powerless. The government will hide its actions from the people, it will lie, and it will conduct hearings and erect additional meaningless protections.
This snooping stuff has been going on at the same clip technology advances.
-- Congress needs to be blamed for this because they're the ones who have made this perfectly legal. --
Historically, Congress has actually been more protective of privacy than the other two branches. SCOTUS case on phone tapping? "No reasonable expectation of privacy in a phone call." Congress passed a law making it illegal, and cutting off evidence so obtained in a criminal prosecution. OTOH, it was Congress that mandated back doors in the public telephone network. I think the law is that the equipment must facilitiate capturing at least 20% of the traffic, or else the phone company pays a fine until it comes in compliance. CALEA
Every substantial breach of privacy is perpetrated by some law enforcer, the executive branch.
I don’t have to. You owe me proof it is NOT a crime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.