[[(2) Did you sign this at the direction of someone, or on your own accord?]]
It appears at this point that it was at the behest of the intel community-
[[Ergo, if Rice is on-record as having signed the log to review secure documents, she can neither claim 5A or Exec-Privilege.]]
She won’t have to- it will be the burden of the prosecution to prove that it was done for political reasons and not for an actual investigative reason (doesn’t matter what the reason for hte investigation is- that is a non issue- the left are claiming it was for determining a connection to russia- but that is just a distraction- the left —will— come up with a number of reasons to justify their ‘concerns’ (false concerns) that led them to order the unmasking)
in my previous post- i laid out how i understand the process to work- (again, i could be wrong- I’m not up on these things really- just going on basic info I’ve heard)
According ot Melissa Zimmerman- it appears that there is info coming out that she did these things, through ‘proper channels’ at the behest of the intel community
King from NY was just on right now and said the info dissemination was ‘either illegal, contrary to government policy’
The sticking point in all this- the key point is this- Was it actually illegal or not? Being simply ‘contrary to government policy’ is meaningless as it is not against the law to be ‘contrary to gov policy’-
The dissemination —Must be-— illegal in order to convict someone like rice directly- IF the order to unmask can even be proven to have come solely from her-
The fact is- rice and obama were not dumb- they were very very sneaky, And they have very very sneaky scummy lawyers advising them the whole way on how to avoid being directly implicated in anything- They very likely covered their tracks pretty thoroughly-
But we’ll see how thoroughly soon- hopefully this gets exposed wide open-
from wikipedia
Any request for an American’s identity to be unmasked required approval by the National Security Agency; NSA Director Michael Rogers said the NSA evaluated each request to determine “Is there a valid need to know in the course of the execution of their official duties?” and “Is the identification necessary to truly understand the context of the intelligence value that the report is designed to generate?”[76]
Yup- but is it unlawful to not provide enough evidence to prove an absolute, beyond reasonable doubt case for unmasking? That —understanding— you cited doesn’t seem to be an objective black and white law unfortunately-
Seems to me the FISA requests are a CYA....and so was Obama's calculated loosening of the rules for dissemination of intel AFTER they had done the deed.
Of course, all the folderol rolling out from Susan and the gang is a cover-up.