Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[TSA]

Her interest was not in national security but to advance the political interests of the Democratic party. The thing to bear in mind is that the White House does not do investigations. Not criminal investigations, not intelligence investigations. Remember that.

Why is that so important in the context of explosive revelations that Susan Rice, President Obama’s national-security adviser, confidant, and chief dissembler, called for the “unmasking” of Trump campaign and transition officials whose iden ies and communications were captured in the collection of U.S. intelligence on foreign targets?

Because we’ve been told for weeks that any unmasking of people in Trump’s circle that may have occurred had two innocent explanations: (1) the FBI’s investigation of Russian meddling in the election and (2) the need to know, for purposes of understanding the communications of foreign intelligence targets, the iden ies of Americans incidentally intercepted or mentioned.

The unmasking, Obama apologists insist, had nothing to do with targeting Trump or his people. That won’t wash.

In general, it is the FBI that conducts investigations that bear on American citizens suspected of committing crimes or of acting as agents of foreign powers. In the matter of alleged Russian meddling, the investigative camp also includes the CIA and the NSA. All three agencies conducted a probe and issued a joint report in January. That was after Obama, despite having previously acknowledged that the Russian activity was inconsequential, suddenly made a great show of ordering an inquiry and issuing sanctions. 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 iden ies 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 iden ies and privacy of Americans. Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for iden ies to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the iden ies — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies. The national-security adviser is not an investigator. She is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it.

If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic-party interests. The FBI, CIA, and NSA generate or collect the intelligence in, essentially, three ways: conducting surveillance on suspected agents of foreign powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and carrying out more-sweeping collections under two other authorities — a different provision of FISA, and a Reagan-era executive order that has been amended several times over the ensuing decades, EO 12,333.

As Director Comey explained, in answering questions posed by Representative Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), those three agencies do collection, investigation, and analysis. In general, they handle any necessary unmasking — which, due to the aforementioned privacy obsessiveness, is extremely rare.

Unlike Democratic-party operatives whose obsession is vanquishing Republicans, the three agencies have to be concerned about the privacy rights of Americans. If they’re not, their legal authority to collect the intelligence — a vital national-security power — could be severely curtailed when it periodically comes up for review by Congress, as it will later this year. Those three collecting agencies — FBI, CIA, and NSA — must be distinguished from other components of the government, such as the White House.

Those other components, Comey elaborated, “are consumers of our products.” That is, they do not collect raw intelligence and refine it into useful reports — i.e., reports that balance informational value and required privacy protections. They read those reports and make policy recommendations based on them. White House staffers are not supposed to be in the business of controlling the content of the reports; they merely act on the reports. Thus, Comey added, these consumers “can ask the collectors to unmask.” But the unmasking authority “resides with those who collected the information.”

Of course, the consumer doing the asking in this case was not just any government official. We’re talking about Susan Rice. This was Obama’s right hand doing the asking. If she made an unmasking “request,” do you suppose anyone at the FBI, CIA, or NSA was going to say no? That brings us to three interesting points. The first involves political intrusion into law enforcement — something that the White House is supposed to avoid. (You may remember that Democrats ran Bush attorney general Alberto Gonzales out of town over su ions about it.)

As I have noted repeatedly, in publishing the illegally leaked classified information about former national-security adviser Michael Flynn’s communications with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, the New York Times informs us that “Obama advisers” and “Obama officials” were up to their eyeballs in the investigation: Obama advisers heard separately from the F.B.I. about Mr. Flynn’s conversation with Mr. Kislyak, whose calls were routinely monitored by American intelligence agencies that track Russian diplomats. The Obama advisers grew su ious that perhaps there had been a secret deal between the incoming team and Moscow, which could violate the rarely enforced, two-century-old Logan Act barring private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers in disputes with the United States. The Obama officials asked the F.B.I. if a quid pro quo had been discussed on the call, and the answer came back no, according to one of the officials, who like others asked not to be named discussing delicate communications. [Translation: “asked not to be named committing felony unauthorized disclosure of classified information.”] The topic of sanctions came up, they were told, but there was no deal. [Emphasis added.] It appears very likely that Susan Rice was involved in the unmasking of Michael Flynn. Was she also monitoring the FBI’s investigation? Was she involved in the administration’s consideration of (bogus) criminal charges against Flynn? With the subsequent decision to have the FBI interrogate Flynn (or “grill” him, as the Times put it)?

The second point is that, while not a pillar of rec ude, Ms. Rice is not an idiot. Besides being shrewd, she was a highly involved, highly informed consumer of intelligence, and a key Obama political collaborator. Unlike the casual reader, she would have known who the Trump-team players were without needing to have their iden ies unmasked. Do you really think her purpose in demanding that names be revealed was to enhance her understanding of intelligence about the activities and intentions of foreign targets? Seriously? I’m betting it was so that others down the dissemination chain could see the names of Trump associates — names the investigating agencies that originally collected the information had determined not to unmask.

Third, and finally, let’s consider the dissemination chain Rice had in mind. The most telling remark that former Obama deputy defense secretary Evelyn Farkas made in her now-infamous MSNBC interview was the throw-away line at the end: “That’s why you have all the leaking.” Put this in context: Farkas had left the Obama administration in 2015, subsequently joining the presidential campaign of, yes, Hillary Clinton — Trump’s opponent. She told MSNBC that she had been encouraging her former Obama-administration colleagues and members of Congress to seek “as much information as you can” from the intelligence community. “That’s why you have the leaking.”

To summarize: At a high level, officials like Susan Rice had names unmasked that would not ordinarily be unmasked. That information was then being pushed widely throughout the intelligence community in unmasked form . . . particularly after Obama, toward the end of his presidency, suddenly — and seemingly apropos of nothing — changed the rules so that all of the intelligence agencies (not just the collecting agencies) could have access to raw intelligence information. As we know, the community of intelligence agencies leaks like a sieve, and the more access there is to juicy information, the more leaks there are.

Meanwhile, former Obama officials and Clinton-campaign advisers, like Farkas, were pushing to get the information transferred from the intelligence community to members of Congress, geometrically increasing the likelihood of intelligence leaks. By the way, have you noticed that there have been lots of intelligence leaks in the press? There’s an old saying in the criminal law: The best evidence of a conspiracy is success. The criminal law also has another good rule of thumb: Consciousness of guilt is best proved by false exculpatory statements. That’s a genre in which Susan Rice has rich experience. Two weeks ago, she was asked in an interview about allegations by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) that the Obama administration had unmasked Trump-team members. “I know nothing about this,” Rice replied. “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.” Well, at least she didn’t blame it on a video.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...on-fbi-cia-nsa

[TSA]

The Wall Street Journal op-ed, which was cited on the show, also poses questions that Cotton felt are fair within the context of this investigation [emphasis mine]:

A U.S. intelligence official confirms to us the bombs news, first reported Monday by Bloomberg, that Ms. Rice requested the name of at least one Trump transition official listed in an intelligence report in the months between Election Day and Donald Trump’s inauguration.

Ms. Rice received summaries of U.S. eavesdropping either when foreign officials were discussing the Trump team, or when foreign officials were conversing with a Trump transition member. The surveillance was legally authorized, but the iden ies of U.S. citizens are typically masked so they cannot be known outside intelligence circles. Ms. Rice asked for and learned the iden y of the Trump official, whose name hasn’t been publicly disclosed and our source declined to share.

Our source did confirm that Ms. Rice also examined dozens of other intelligence summaries that technically masked Trump official iden ies but were written in such a way as to make obvious who those officials were. This means that the masking was essentially meaningless. All this is highly unusual—and troubling. Unmasking does occur, but it is typically done by intelligence or law-enforcement officials engaged in an error or espionage investigations. Ms. Rice would have had no obvious need to unmask Trump campaign officials other than political curiosity.

[…]

The news about Ms. Rice’s unmasking role raises a host of questions for the Senate and House intelligence committees to pursue. What specific surveillance information did Ms. Rice seek and why? Was this information related to President Obama’s decision in January to make it possible for raw intelligence to be widely disbursed throughout the government? Was this surveillance of Trump officials “incidental” collection gathered while listening to a foreigner, or were some Trump officials directly targeted, or “reverse targeted”?

[clambake]

so you're saying obama is a badass?

[boutons_deux]

The controversy about rice and unmasking Communications is totally fabricated bull controversy, par for the course for the right-wing nuts

It's also nothing but yet another diversion from the tightening Russian noose around so-called Pres Trash's neck

[TSA]

The controversy about rice and unmasking Communications is totally fabricated bull controversy par for the course for the right-wing nuts

It's also nothing but yet another diversion from Trump's Russian noose around his neck

The only thing fabricated so far has been the Trump/Russia collusion.

It's going to be hilarious when the only people indicted are the Dems who created and pushed the false narrative and then called for an investigation.

[baseline bum]

The only thing fabricated so far has been the Trump/Russia collusion.

It's going to be hilarious when the only people indicted are the Dems who created and pushed the false narrative and then called for an investigation.

Comey's a democrat?

[TSA]

The controversy about rice and unmasking Communications is totally fabricated bull controversy par for the course for the right-wing nuts

It's also nothing but yet another diversion from Trump's Russian noose around his neck

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 iden ies and privacy of Americans. Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for iden ies to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the iden ies — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies. The national-security adviser is not an investigator. She is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it.

[TSA]

Funny what a single tweet from Trump produced

"It never happened!"

then

"There's no proof!"

then

"It wasn't intentional!"

then

"It was legal!"

then

"It may not have been legal, but it was for the good of 'the country'!"

[Reck]

Funny what a single tweet from Trump produced

"It never happened!"

then

"There's no proof!"

then

"It wasn't intentional!"

then

"It was legal!"

then

"It may not have been legal, but it was for the good of 'the country'!"

This is just re ed. False narraives from far right sites.

The wiretapping claims have always been false and there has always been only one stance on it by the intelligence agencies.

[TSA]

Col. (Ret.) James Waurishuk, an NSC veteran and former deputy director for intelligence at the U.S. Central Command, told TheDCNF that many hands had to be involved throughout the Obama administration to launch such a political spying program.

“The surveillance initially is the responsibility of the National Security Agency,” Waurishuk said. “They have to abide by this guidance when one of the other agencies says, ‘we’re looking at this particular person which we would like to unmask.'”

“The lawyers and counsel at the NSA surely would be talking to the lawyers and members of counsel at CIA, or at the National Security Council or at the Director of National Intelligence or at the FBI,” he said. “It’s unbelievable of the level and degree of the administration to look for information on Donald Trump and his associates, his campaign team and his transition team. This is really, really serious stuff.”

Michael Doran, former NSC senior director, told TheDCNF Monday that “somebody blew a hole in the wall between national security secrets and partisan politics.” This “was a stream of information that was supposed to be hermetically sealed from politics and the Obama administration found a way to blow a hole in that wall,” he said.

Doran charged that potential serious crimes were undertaken because “this is a leaking of signal intelligence.”
“That’s a felony,” he told TheDCNF. “And you can get 10 years for that. It is a tremendous abuse of the system. We’re not supposed to be monitoring American citizens. Bigger than the crime, is the breach of public trust.”

Waurishuk said he was most dismayed that “this is now using national intelligence assets and capabilities to spy on the elected, yet-to-be-seated president.”

“We’re looking at a potential cons utional crisis from the standpoint that we used an extremely strong capability that’s supposed to be used to safeguard and protect the country,” he said. “And we used it for political purposes by a sitting president. That takes on a new precedent.”

[clambake]

thanks for that.

obama goin gangsta to safeguard and protect his country.

now thats a patriot.

[boutons_deux]

Col. (Ret.) James Waurishuk, an NSC veteran and former deputy director for intelligence at the U.S. Central Command, told TheDCNF that many hands had to be involved throughout the Obama administration to launch such a political spying program.

“The surveillance initially is the responsibility of the National Security Agency,” Waurishuk said. “They have to abide by this guidance when one of the other agencies says, ‘we’re looking at this particular person which we would like to unmask.'”

“The lawyers and counsel at the NSA surely would be talking to the lawyers and members of counsel at CIA, or at the National Security Council or at the Director of National Intelligence or at the FBI,” he said. “It’s unbelievable of the level and degree of the administration to look for information on Donald Trump and his associates, his campaign team and his transition team. This is really, really serious stuff.”

Michael Doran, former NSC senior director, told TheDCNF Monday that “somebody blew a hole in the wall between national security secrets and partisan politics.” This “was a stream of information that was supposed to be hermetically sealed from politics and the Obama administration found a way to blow a hole in that wall,” he said.

Doran charged that potential serious crimes were undertaken because “this is a leaking of signal intelligence.”
“That’s a felony,” he told TheDCNF. “And you can get 10 years for that. It is a tremendous abuse of the system. We’re not supposed to be monitoring American citizens. Bigger than the crime, is the breach of public trust.”

Waurishuk said he was most dismayed that “this is now using national intelligence assets and capabilities to spy on the elected, yet-to-be-seated president.”

“We’re looking at a potential cons utional crisis from the standpoint that we used an extremely strong capability that’s supposed to be used to safeguard and protect the country,” he said. “And we used it for political purposes by a sitting president. That takes on a new precedent.”

what partisan Repug bull

[TSA]

what partisan Repug bull

your girl loses
your side blames the Russians
your side calls for an investigation
your side is now being investigated

how does it make you feel?

[clambake]

this is what happened.


obama spied on trump.
trump conspired with russians.


its delicious!

[clambake]

obama still bending him over.



i wish i could photoshop.

[pgardn]

Agree with what poster rjp postd tbqh

I been saying this for years

But Id also like to add US has been working on dismantling the "new" Russia since probably 2010 or 11

They did go back on many WWIi agreements because they thought they had Russia on the ropes and just needed a few more power punches to turn it into a 3rd world subserviant hole

Thats how uncle sam likes their vassal states: poor, disorganized and helpless

They miscalculated greatly. Now Russia is there to stay for the foreseable future and so is Syria and Assad. Btw

Its just another grave miscalculation just like the Iraq one was

At some point we will start paying for the miscalculations of these few powerful murderers who call themselves american heroes and name airports, libraries and roads after themselves. sadly

Russia turned itself into a hole and it's not the first time.
There will be no serious dealing with a murdering gangster like Putin. So when he moves on, Russia might be able to move forward. Those demonstrations against corruption will get worse as Russia continues down its dead end path. Maybe Putin will not have to die before the upper class must turn to aftershave when the Vodka is gone. This is basically the same country that was ready to ally with Hitler before he turned on them. Same mindset.

Assad going to the gas, they make wonderful allies.

[pgardn]

Assad doing the dirty thing for Hater.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...idlib-province

And his main man Donald says Obama did not do ENOUGH in Syria. I have never seen a poster so mixed up in his knowledge. At least Boots stays the course.

[djohn2oo8]

Yup. They don't need Flynn's testimony.

[djohn2oo8]

[boutons_deux]

FBI vs CIA vs NSA = eternal bureaucratic turf battle

[pgardn]

Col. (Ret.) James Waurishuk, an NSC veteran and former deputy director for intelligence at the U.S. Central Command, told TheDCNF that many hands had to be involved throughout the Obama administration to launch such a political spying program.

“The surveillance initially is the responsibility of the National Security Agency,” Waurishuk said. “They have to abide by this guidance when one of the other agencies says, ‘we’re looking at this particular person which we would like to unmask.'”

“The lawyers and counsel at the NSA surely would be talking to the lawyers and members of counsel at CIA, or at the National Security Council or at the Director of National Intelligence or at the FBI,” he said. “It’s unbelievable of the level and degree of the administration to look for information on Donald Trump and his associates, his campaign team and his transition team. This is really, really serious stuff.”

Michael Doran, former NSC senior director, told TheDCNF Monday that “somebody blew a hole in the wall between national security secrets and partisan politics.” This “was a stream of information that was supposed to be hermetically sealed from politics and the Obama administration found a way to blow a hole in that wall,” he said.

Doran charged that potential serious crimes were undertaken because “this is a leaking of signal intelligence.”
“That’s a felony,” he told TheDCNF. “And you can get 10 years for that. It is a tremendous abuse of the system. We’re not supposed to be monitoring American citizens. Bigger than the crime, is the breach of public trust.”

Waurishuk said he was most dismayed that “this is now using national intelligence assets and capabilities to spy on the elected, yet-to-be-seated president.”

“We’re looking at a potential cons utional crisis from the standpoint that we used an extremely strong capability that’s supposed to be used to safeguard and protect the country,” he said. “And we used it for political purposes by a sitting president. That takes on a new precedent.”

You write this as serious stuff when our President tweets he has been spied upon by his predecessor?
Holy ... This is part of what happens when you use the office like a funhouse. The politicians themselves are clearly partially responsible for using the intelligence community for political purposes. Or just gossip.

Dammit man wake the up.

[hater]

obama still bending him over.



i wish i could photoshop.

And lery took it up the pooper Caligula style

I wish i could photoshop

[boutons_deux]

Rice's unmasking was not only legal, it was justified as "probable cause" of Trash and his team talking to a geopolitical adversary.

Of course, the Russians KNEW ABSOLUTELY that their comms were being "tapped", but Pootin bringin down a US President could fit perfectly well part of his "long game" to destabilize nominally democratic govts everywhere, to shake the confidence of Americans.

Pootin and the Russians play chess, the Americans can't even spell chess.

[DarrinS]

John's disease described here

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...rrives-w474771


a.k.a. "so mad, you can't see straight"

[Trill Clinton]

I agree with clambake. Obama is a baaaad man.