Reported: Susan Rice unmasked names caught up in surveillance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My guess is we don't know that because it's evidence in the larger FBI investigation. If she's asked to testify before the Senate Intel Committee, perhaps we will find out if she's able to divulge that.

[Anonymous]

Also, Flynn's identity WAS revealed to the Trump admin. They did nothing for weeks. THAT is when it got leaked- when whoever informed them realized they weren't interested in doing anything about it.

[Anonymous]

Who cares who leaked? They did so because these are bad hombres dealing with Putin to throw our democracy.

Oh and shut up about Benghazi. It was investigated and it's over. We've moved on to a brand new scandal that affects the whole institution of democracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is a great question to ask about Flynn's name and who leaked it, but you ignore the bigger question. The White House was given the information that was leaked in January. They sat on it for 3 weeks AND did nothing (not even review his clearance level) before the information was leaked. Where is your outrage there? I don't agree that the name should be leaked, but it can possibly be inferred that the person who did the leaking was trying to protect their Country from an Administration that was covering up something. If the White House was shocked by Flynns lying, why did they not question this when it was brought to their attention, instead of making the gesture AFTER it was leaked to the press? The White House had their chance to control the damage, but ignored it. Why?

[Anonymous]

Oh and shut up about Benghazi. It was investigated and it's over. We've moved on to a brand new scandal that affects the whole institution of democracy.

That's for sure. Spying on your political foes reeks of Watergate. Except, that our last administration was using "legal" means to do it. Very scary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Oh and shut up about Benghazi. It was investigated and it's over. We've moved on to a brand new scandal that affects the whole institution of democracy.

That's for sure. Spying on your political foes reeks of Watergate. Except, that our last administration was using "legal" means to do it. Very scary.

That has been said many times on this thread. It's got me scratching my head.

What was Obama's nefarious purpose? Is he going to use the information for blackmail? Was he going to give it to Hillary when she won? Why was Obama wiretapping Trump? It doesn't make sense.

The theory that the IC was concerned about communications between and with foreign agents and US citizens seems a bit more plausible to me. I am willing to listen to other explanations, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh and shut up about Benghazi. It was investigated and it's over. We've moved on to a brand new scandal that affects the whole institution of democracy.

That's for sure. Spying on your political foes reeks of Watergate. Except, that our last administration was using "legal" means to do it. Very scary.

That has been said many times on this thread. It's got me scratching my head.

What was Obama's nefarious purpose? Is he going to use the information for blackmail? Was he going to give it to Hillary when she won? Why was Obama wiretapping Trump? It doesn't make sense.

The theory that the IC was concerned about communications between and with foreign agents and US citizens seems a bit more plausible to me. I am willing to listen to other explanations, though.

Do you doubt that political operatives would like to be privy to the private communications of their political opponents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh and shut up about Benghazi. It was investigated and it's over. We've moved on to a brand new scandal that affects the whole institution of democracy.

That's for sure. Spying on your political foes reeks of Watergate. Except, that our last administration was using "legal" means to do it. Very scary.

That has been said many times on this thread. It's got me scratching my head.

What was Obama's nefarious purpose? Is he going to use the information for blackmail? Was he going to give it to Hillary when she won? Why was Obama wiretapping Trump? It doesn't make sense.

The theory that the IC was concerned about communications between and with foreign agents and US citizens seems a bit more plausible to me. I am willing to listen to other explanations, though.

Do you doubt that political operatives would like to be privy to the private communications of their political opponents?

To call someone potentially working in cooperation with a foreign enemy a mere "political opponent" is a vast oversimplification of this issue. If what Trump is alleged and suspected to have done is true, it's high crime. Even just as a citizen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh and shut up about Benghazi. It was investigated and it's over. We've moved on to a brand new scandal that affects the whole institution of democracy.

That's for sure. Spying on your political foes reeks of Watergate. Except, that our last administration was using "legal" means to do it. Very scary.

That has been said many times on this thread. It's got me scratching my head.

What was Obama's nefarious purpose? Is he going to use the information for blackmail? Was he going to give it to Hillary when she won? Why was Obama wiretapping Trump? It doesn't make sense.

The theory that the IC was concerned about communications between and with foreign agents and US citizens seems a bit more plausible to me. I am willing to listen to other explanations, though.

Do you doubt that political operatives would like to be privy to the private communications of their political opponents?

That's not an explanation. Give me an explanation of why "Obama wiretapped Trump." Why would he do that? What political advantage was he seeking? Lay it out logically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh and shut up about Benghazi. It was investigated and it's over. We've moved on to a brand new scandal that affects the whole institution of democracy.

That's for sure. Spying on your political foes reeks of Watergate. Except, that our last administration was using "legal" means to do it. Very scary.

That has been said many times on this thread. It's got me scratching my head.

What was Obama's nefarious purpose? Is he going to use the information for blackmail? Was he going to give it to Hillary when she won? Why was Obama wiretapping Trump? It doesn't make sense.

The theory that the IC was concerned about communications between and with foreign agents and US citizens seems a bit more plausible to me. I am willing to listen to other explanations, though.

Do you doubt that political operatives would like to be privy to the private communications of their political opponents?

To call someone potentially working in cooperation with a foreign enemy a mere "political opponent" is a vast oversimplification of this issue. If what Trump is alleged and suspected to have done is true, it's high crime. Even just as a citizen.

"Potentially" and "if" are doing a lot of work in your post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Oh and shut up about Benghazi. It was investigated and it's over. We've moved on to a brand new scandal that affects the whole institution of democracy.

That's for sure. Spying on your political foes reeks of Watergate. Except, that our last administration was using "legal" means to do it. Very scary.

The plot thickens....

“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”

The surveillance and spreadsheet operation were allegedly “ordered one year before the 2016 presidential election.” According to a Fox News report on Monday, former White House aide Ben Rhodes was also involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh and shut up about Benghazi. It was investigated and it's over. We've moved on to a brand new scandal that affects the whole institution of democracy.

That's for sure. Spying on your political foes reeks of Watergate. Except, that our last administration was using "legal" means to do it. Very scary.

The plot thickens....

“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”

The surveillance and spreadsheet operation were allegedly “ordered one year before the 2016 presidential election.” According to a Fox News report on Monday, former White House aide Ben Rhodes was also involved.

Why would that be illegal? Sounds like Mr. diGenova is making stuff up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who cares who leaked? They did so because these are bad hombres dealing with Putin to throw our democracy.

Oh and shut up about Benghazi. It was investigated and it's over. We've moved on to a brand new scandal that affects the whole institution of democracy.

I care. What if the leaks were about the Clinton foundation? How hard would it be to get tangential surveillance of a few people in the Clinton inner circle? What if the decision was made to leave those names unredacted by a political appointee with close ties to the president's inner circle?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I posted a link earlier that suggested she wanted to unmask to ensure that her conversations during the transition didn't provide classified information to people who might be compromised.

In terms of who leaked, it was likely Bannon or someone else in the White House (there were many) who didn't want Flynn there anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I posted a link earlier that suggested she wanted to unmask to ensure that her conversations during the transition didn't provide classified information to people who might be compromised.

In terms of who leaked, it was likely Bannon or someone else in the White House (there were many) who didn't want Flynn there anymore.

Wy she's a HEro