Posted on 04/04/2017 9:55:07 PM PDT by Reverend Wright
As part of its daily wrap of the Susan Rice newsflow, which focused on her first media appearance since she was "outed" as the persona responsible for "unmasking" members of team Trump, the WSJ provides two new pieces of incremental information: i) in addition to Michael Flynn, at least one more member of the Trump transition team was "unmasked" in intelligence reports due to multiple foreign conversations that weren't related to Russia; and ii) Rice wasn't the administration official who instigated Mr. Flynn’s unmasking, confirming there is at least one more high-level official giving "unmasking" orders.
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
So someone else in the Obama Whitehouse also was unmasking Trump campaign and transition officials. Who?
Exactly. Rice admitted that she unmasked Trump campaign staffers but Mike Flynn wasn’t one of them. So this means that she is guilty of unmasking other people and somebody else unmasked Flynn. Keep talking, Susie.
am i reading this right ?
if it’s masked, how did they know it was Flynn before it was unmasked ?
or did they find out after the unmask ?
Jeh Johnson?
Did ValJar have a high security clearance? /rhet
She’s a real sweetheart....
as i understand it, the WH gets masked data. They ask the agency (NSA, FBI etc) for it to be unmasked so thr WH can see who it is.
Rice wants to distance herself from the Flynn unmasking because it was illegally leaked
It was all a conspiracy from the beginning..Obama and his cronies needed leverage just in case Trump became President..they were NOT going to allow this man to come in and wipe away their Commie agenda, he needed that to be stopped in anyway possible
Andrew McCarthy had a good piece on this...
“Consequently, if unmasking was relevant to the Russia investigation, it would have been done by those three agencies. And if it had been critical to know the identities of Americans caught up in other foreign intelligence efforts, the agencies that collect the information and conduct investigations would have unmasked it. Because they are the agencies that collect and refine intelligence “products” for the rest of the “intelligence community,” they are responsible for any unmasking; and they do it under “minimization” standards that FBI Director James Comey, in recent congressional testimony, described as “obsessive” in their determination to protect the identities and privacy of Americans.
Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies.”
Well, if the call went through Trump Tower and his transition headquarters, guess it was a pretty good shot they’d nail someone tied to Trump.
Of course
Right now, the speculation is centered on the Trump Team being the ones surveyed because Trump won the election.
It also seems that the surveillance of Team Trump was going on not long after Trump announced his candidacy and started rising in the polls.
As the tapestry continues to unravel, it is probable that all of the Republican candidates who showed any indication of possibly winning the nomination were also under surveillance.
This could be just the tip of the iceberg. Recall Maxine Waters claim of Obama having a HUGE database on EVERYONE.
McCarthy also said that because Rice was basically considered to be Obama's right hand, nobody at those agencies was going to refuse her request to unmask those names.
“Rice was basically considered to be Obama’s right hand, nobody at those agencies was going to refuse her request to unmask those names.”
I’m not sure this is right. We have had other news stories claiming Rice was asking for other unmasking going back to early 2016 - and some of those requests were denied.
What we do know, there is a log of these unmasking requests in the Whitehouse. So we are going to find out.
It's hilarious to watch liberals make the claim that Rice was only watching out for our National Security and there was nothing political in her actions.
I can't recall a time in my life when the National Security Adviser wasn't 75% political and maybe 25% concerned with actual National security.
Jeffrey Pelt: Listen, I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open. ...Hunt For Red October
Melanie Zimmerman and Adam Howsley both are also reporting that- it looks like rice is going to skate- Melanie claims the requests to unmask came from an intelligence agency- rice just acquiesced- Rice was a ‘consumer of intelligence’ and not the branch of intelligence itself- She couldn’t make the request herself apparently- but technically, she could’ legally’ request unmasking, and then the intelligence agency would comply and reveal the name- but it had to ‘go through proper channels first’ (ie the intelligence agency had to make a claim that it was necessary for the unmasking to happen- then the ambassador would make the formal request to unmask, then the agency would then unmask the people)
What Melanie and Adam are finding is not certain yet- but their sources- who i think are inside the agencies from the sounds of it, revealed that this was the procedure- We;ll see in the next few days how this plays out- but it looks like rice may not face any criminal charges even if it were a crime to unmask- There doesn’t appear to be any federal law that prevents unmasking- it may be unethical, but no real law prevents it apparently- Except —MAYBE— espionage laws- but that is a very thin line of prosecution that would have to prove intent- and as we’ve seen the FBI is loathe to convict a liberal on the basis of intent
This could be just the tip of the iceberg. Recall Maxine Waters claim of Obama having a HUGE database on EVERYONE.
Excellent point.
So once again, these people get away with it....unbelievable.
odumbi gonna be unmasking bubba in prison?
I would not hold my breath.
Well i dunno- it’s early still- maybe there is an actual law preventing unwarranted unmasking- I’m not aware of one at this point though- but then again- I’m not involved in this stuff as a profession- so i can only assume for now- Maybe the espionage line is a better line to take- but in my uneducated mind, it seems a pretty thin line to take- as one would have to I believe, prove motive- or intent-
I’m just trying to look as objectively as i can given what little i know of the laws- maybe republicans have a strong case- but I’m not seeing much in the way of cold hard facts- lots of conjecture, but short on facts that prove a felony was committed- but again I’m not a lawyer-
I listened ot judge Jeanine and jay seculous tonight- and laura ingraham- none of them had any cold hard facts that she committed a felony- but they had plenty of opinion- Actually Hannity had the only really hard evidence tonight lol- He stated that there had to be a ‘paper trail’ IF she went through proper channels- and would have had to do so in secure surroundings given the ‘secret’ nature of the issue and the seriousness involved with unmasking someone- My initial thought is that if she infact did request unmasking WITHOUT being asked to do so- then she overstepped her powers- and IF she did so in an unsecured environment, then she at the very least broke protocol, and at worst broke the law-
We citizens do have constitutional rights when it comes to privacy- and these rights are supposed to ensure that our government can’t target us by exposing us to danger by ‘unmasking us for no legit reason’
—But— ‘Legit reason’ can be pretty subjective- and again, intent and motive come into play an that’s hard to prove
It’s a mess- it really is- Hopefully they coem up with some solid indisputable prof that a rime was committed-
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.