Reported: Susan Rice unmasked names caught up in surveillance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We know (Head of FBI confirmed under oath!) there's a counterintelligence investigation going on since July on the Trump transition/administration. How can they possibly investigate if conversations relevant to the case are not unmasked? I really don't get the outrage, OMG they gathered evidence?!

And to speculate that they weren't on Russia, what we've seen is that there are several proxy states involved in this mess including Turkey, UAE, Syria, Ukraine, and probably more!

Say what you want about Rice and Obama but his people were smart and knew how to toe the line and dot their i's (See: Hillary) on legality. I can assure you Rice took all appropriate actions to secure this information including judge approved warrants and FISA knowledge.

Big difference between an FBI investigation--which requires a FISA warrant--and unmasking by the National Security Advisor. Two totally different processes.

[Anonymous]

Trump lies every time he opens his mouth. Where's your outrage?

[Anonymous]

If a foreign agent is under surveillance and starts talking to some Americans, why would the National Security Adviser not need to know who those Americans are? And what if, when the names were unmasked for Rice, those Americans had turned out to be HRC campaign staffers - would all of you complaining about this be up in arms about Obama surveilling HRC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How much time and money was spent on Benghazi hearings only to discover that no one did anything wrong?

No one being charged and no one doing anything wrong are two different things.

Fact: Rice lied.

You really care about lying. How cute? You must not be able to sleep at night seeing your leader lying like normal people breathe. Right? Or "lying" is you care about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know (Head of FBI confirmed under oath!) there's a counterintelligence investigation going on since July on the Trump transition/administration. How can they possibly investigate if conversations relevant to the case are not unmasked? I really don't get the outrage, OMG they gathered evidence?!

And to speculate that they weren't on Russia, what we've seen is that there are several proxy states involved in this mess including Turkey, UAE, Syria, Ukraine, and probably more!

Say what you want about Rice and Obama but his people were smart and knew how to toe the line and dot their i's (See: Hillary) on legality. I can assure you Rice took all appropriate actions to secure this information including judge approved warrants and FISA knowledge.

Big difference between an FBI investigation--which requires a FISA warrant--and unmasking by the National Security Advisor. Two totally different processes.

Are you suggesting that Rice knew who the Americans were when she asked for them to be unmasked? That she knew beforehand they were Trump people (and not HRC people, for example)? Just what are you implying she did that was out of line for her job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me state the obvious (although MANY other posters have stated this as well).

If the campaign officials weren't meeting with questionable people, there would be nothing to unmask. Why all the outrage that names were unmasked and no outrage or questions to the meeting with questionable people? It really seems lopsided. And by really seems lopsided, it is actually an attempt at deflection. If you are supporting the deflection on this, you are not really trying to get to the bottom of this, but just trying to continue down the path of obstruction. You have no interest in finding out the truth, you are just interested in whatever narrative that is being pushed.

It seems reasonable to me, that there could have been a National Security reason for finding out who was meeting with Russians and/or people who are trying to destabilize our government AND more than one person is involved in requesting AND approving unmasking.

If you are truly concerned, why not support a committee (similar to the 9/11 commission) that removes politics from the equation to investigate Russian Interference AND include the unmasking as part of the investigation.

It has been reported, repeatedly, that this is not related to Russia.

Nunes said that. Has anyone credible said that? I haven't heard, but I don't actually follow the news 24/7. Sometimes I sleep, eat, work, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me state the obvious (although MANY other posters have stated this as well).

If the campaign officials weren't meeting with questionable people, there would be nothing to unmask. Why all the outrage that names were unmasked and no outrage or questions to the meeting with questionable people? It really seems lopsided. And by really seems lopsided, it is actually an attempt at deflection. If you are supporting the deflection on this, you are not really trying to get to the bottom of this, but just trying to continue down the path of obstruction. You have no interest in finding out the truth, you are just interested in whatever narrative that is being pushed.

It seems reasonable to me, that there could have been a National Security reason for finding out who was meeting with Russians and/or people who are trying to destabilize our government AND more than one person is involved in requesting AND approving unmasking.

If you are truly concerned, why not support a committee (similar to the 9/11 commission) that removes politics from the equation to investigate Russian Interference AND include the unmasking as part of the investigation.

It has been reported, repeatedly, that this is not related to Russia.

Nunes said that. Has anyone credible said that? I haven't heard, but I don't actually follow the news 24/7. Sometimes I sleep, eat, work, etc.

I had speculated in another thread that this could be related to Turkey...Flynn was plotting to kidnap a Turkish citizen from US with Turkish officials - was reported of this incident to Biden's contact. There was a second Flynn-Turkish meeting where Nunes was present. I am forgetting whether Kushner was there in the second meeting. So, this whole unmasking might be related to that...

[Anonymous]

Nunes recognized himself in the transcripts, so it probably was the Turkey conversation. He unmasked himself.

#winning

[Anonymous]

OP, what is your understanding of what "unmasked" means in this instance? Did she publicly state who the American citizens were? Does the president's National Security Advisor not have the legal right to ask for the identification of people who are on transcripts talking to foreign agents under surveillance? Please clarify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nunes recognized himself in the transcripts, so it probably was the Turkey conversation. He unmasked himself.

#winning

Gulen/Turkey/Syria is ultimately related to Russia. Originally, Syria may have started a civil war without external influence, but Syria being purely an internal conflict passed years ago.

Yes, if Nunes saw himself in some Turkey-related conversations, then he may have been speaking truthfully when he said that it "wasn't about Russia". That's not exactly the question, though. Foreign agents do not have to be Russian foreign agents, there are lots of foreign countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, what is your understanding of what "unmasked" means in this instance? Did she publicly state who the American citizens were? Does the president's National Security Advisor not have the legal right to ask for the identification of people who are on transcripts talking to foreign agents under surveillance? Please clarify.

Not Op, but my understanding is that the Americans are identified in the raw data when they are "unmasked". I am not an expert, though. No, she did not "publicly state" who the Americans were--but the information has been leaked. Yes, she has the legal right to ask for id of people. She does not have the right to leak the information.

Because Obama changed the rules on this to allow sharing of the information far more widely than before, this was damning.

And, she may have had security reasons to unmask them--or, this may have been for political purposes. If it is the latter, that would be illegal--I think-but it would have to be proven. She has been caught lying publicly for political purposes in the past. So, her track record is not good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How much time and money was spent on Benghazi hearings only to discover that no one did anything wrong?

No one being charged and no one doing anything wrong are two different things.

Fact: Rice lied.

You really care about lying. How cute? You must not be able to sleep at night seeing your leader lying like normal people breathe. Right? Or "lying" is you care about?

DP. This is a bad argument used by third graders. Just because one person does something wrong doesn't mean it's OK for others to do it too.

You can do better!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How much time and money was spent on Benghazi hearings only to discover that no one did anything wrong?

No one being charged and no one doing anything wrong are two different things.

Fact: Rice lied.

You really care about lying. How cute? You must not be able to sleep at night seeing your leader lying like normal people breathe. Right? Or "lying" is you care about?

DP. This is a bad argument used by third graders. Just because one person does something wrong doesn't mean it's OK for others to do it too.

You can do better!

DP. Yeah, after 30 gazillion Benghazi hearings, I'm just not that bothered by Rice. I know what she said, when, what was happening at the time. We were all there, weren't we? We all know what she said, when.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, what is your understanding of what "unmasked" means in this instance? Did she publicly state who the American citizens were? Does the president's National Security Advisor not have the legal right to ask for the identification of people who are on transcripts talking to foreign agents under surveillance? Please clarify.

My understanding is that “unmasked” means requesting the names of American citizens become named. Not to the public, but to those with the clearance to see such information (and, my understanding is also that Obama made it possible for more people to see those names than previously permitted). My understanding, from several people who are knowledgeable on this subject, is that unmasking is not very common. Yes, Rice would have that ability (per Comey’s testimony last month).

My questions have been, and still are, what were her reasons for requesting the names to be unmasked? What was her rationale? And, how many names did she make such a request for? And, what did she do with that information?

And, finally, who exactly leaked Flynn’s name? While you may think it is great that he was named, I don’t. I do believe the information that was discovered about Flynn should have been reported to the Trump administration, I don’t believe his name should have been leaked to the press. This is a serious crime and sets a very serious precedent.

[Anonymous]

Rice asking for an American identity to be unmasked was perfectly legal and within the boundaries of her role. IC obviously complied because they agreed it was a reasonable request based on whatever was being discussed.

Illegally leaking the identity would have been something else. Rice didn't do that. Trump team got caught up being shady shits in the completely above board process of the NSA reviewing intel reports and needing more info. It's not HER fault they were in the report. It's theirs.