Posted on Apr 4, 2017
Susan Rice Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel
3.06K
27
48
2
2
0
Well written article that hit key points from both sides of the fence.
But why did Trump Admin order a review into incidental collections of American citizens during surveillance of foreign targets?
What were they looking for?
Who ordered the review?
What was context of conversations that led to a national security adviser wanting to know who is the American citizen having the conversation with a foreign person of interest?
So many questions.
But why did Trump Admin order a review into incidental collections of American citizens during surveillance of foreign targets?
What were they looking for?
Who ordered the review?
What was context of conversations that led to a national security adviser wanting to know who is the American citizen having the conversation with a foreign person of interest?
So many questions.
Susan Rice Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel
Posted from bloomberg.com
Government
Donald Trump
National Security
Politics
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
5
5
0
Like I said anyone who believes that this was just Susan - it was the video - Rice just doing her job with no nefarious political intent should send their $10,000 remittance to the infamous internet Nigerian Prince and get their deed to the Brooklyn Bridge. Recall that Obama conveniently expanded access to the collected surveillance data, days before his term's end, to all of the IC agencies. I am sure that was just coincidental as well.....
(5)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
LTC Orlando Illi - No one said blindly trust but I did say stop jumping to conclusions such as there's no probable cause. Says who? Nunes didn't. No one who's part of any of the current investigations (FBI, Senate, House) has said that. I stand by my final statement. Why Nunes keep pushing off the hearing with Sally Yates and hasn't requested a hearing with Susan Rice?
(0)
(0)
LTC Orlando Illi
MAJ James Woods - there will be hearings. Question is - will Rice testify or plead the 5th. Regarding probable cause - that is not jumping to conclusions. It is stating a fact that without probable cause Rice committed a felony. She has yet to disabuse anyone of that assessment. While I do appreciate this repartee - it is time for me to move on. Have a great day
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
LTC Orlando Illi - Now that Nunes has removed himself from the investigation, maybe we will finally hear from Sally Yates and Susan Rice under oath and with cameras at the hearings. None of this closed doors BS. "Plead the 5th" hahaha! Both women can't wait to talk.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
I believe the timeline shows Gen Kelly's name was released before Trump started getting involved in trying to figure out how the data was getting leaked. So one could assume maybe this motivated him to look into more of these incidental collections to see if something is motivating them and/or if they are political (which is what the release of Gen Kelly's name looks like). But there are more questions:
Why did Rice Order these names to be released? Some claim it was to "preserve the data from the Trump team." That makes no sense and it can even be construed as insulting to those within the IC. Either way, she is supposed to state a reason in the request to the IC... Was this done? What was that reason?
Why did Rice one month ago claim she knows nothing about this to PBS?
Did Rice act alone or did someone order/suggest she do this?
Does it not concern anyone that this request was made leading up to the inauguration? I realize there are reasons for doing this, but it is highly suspect when that individual is about to exit her post because the other party won.
Finally, why did Obama expand the access to the collected surveillance data, days before his term's end, to all of the IC agencies? I'm all about having less red tape to share applicable information, but the timing for this does not look like that was the intention (my opinion of course)
Just realize we've gone to "Trump is crazy for suggesting he was spied on" to "Rice was just doing her job having his and/or his people's names unmasked for context." He may not have been the intended target for the intel collection, but that doesn't mean he was completely wrong.
Why did Rice Order these names to be released? Some claim it was to "preserve the data from the Trump team." That makes no sense and it can even be construed as insulting to those within the IC. Either way, she is supposed to state a reason in the request to the IC... Was this done? What was that reason?
Why did Rice one month ago claim she knows nothing about this to PBS?
Did Rice act alone or did someone order/suggest she do this?
Does it not concern anyone that this request was made leading up to the inauguration? I realize there are reasons for doing this, but it is highly suspect when that individual is about to exit her post because the other party won.
Finally, why did Obama expand the access to the collected surveillance data, days before his term's end, to all of the IC agencies? I'm all about having less red tape to share applicable information, but the timing for this does not look like that was the intention (my opinion of course)
Just realize we've gone to "Trump is crazy for suggesting he was spied on" to "Rice was just doing her job having his and/or his people's names unmasked for context." He may not have been the intended target for the intel collection, but that doesn't mean he was completely wrong.
(5)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
Ah deflection. Expected nothing more from you. Yes Gen Flynn's name can be assumed was discovered but you're still skipping the key question; what was the context of the conversation that led to the request to unmask the name of the American citizen involved in the conversation? Preserving the data of information has nothing to do with the request to unmask the names; you've fallen into that quicksand of thinking that Rice or anyone else requesting the unmasking of names already knew the name was a key member of Trump's staff. What if it was an American citizen not associated with Trump that was caught colluding with foreign operatives? Wouldn't you as security advisor or intel chief want the name so you can reorient through legal channels the investigation towards that individual based on probable cause?
Actually, Obama's Administration started expanding access back in 2011 to increase intelligence sharing between departments because of the increased communications of foreign terrorists groups communicating with American citizens. So do keep that in perspective. Remember all those charts showing the expansion of links within a terrorist cell network; American citizens are masked as they are presumed innocent; specific details in a report can and should change that.
Also, unmasking of names still does not support Trump's argument of deliberate surveillance of Trump tower or Trump staff. However, if context of a communication report led to probable cause and a need to unmask additional individuals cause now that person is being relabeled as a person of interest.
Actually, Obama's Administration started expanding access back in 2011 to increase intelligence sharing between departments because of the increased communications of foreign terrorists groups communicating with American citizens. So do keep that in perspective. Remember all those charts showing the expansion of links within a terrorist cell network; American citizens are masked as they are presumed innocent; specific details in a report can and should change that.
Also, unmasking of names still does not support Trump's argument of deliberate surveillance of Trump tower or Trump staff. However, if context of a communication report led to probable cause and a need to unmask additional individuals cause now that person is being relabeled as a person of interest.
(0)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
Deflection really? I attempted to answer your questions with the information we have at hand thus far, noting my opinion as it came up. That is not deflection. I simply added more questions to the same issue.
The context of the Flynn conversation is of course unknown to us, but the FBI has already stated it contained nothing illegal or any evidence of collusion (and yet the left acts like it's a smoking gun of evidence). But the fact that it contained nothing illegal on Flynn's part, definitely makes it seem like the release was about timing and politics. The preservation I was referring to was from the statements by Farkas (when I said "some"). Put the two together and we have even more intrigue to this whole issue. But at the same time, it's also confirming things as we go. Now even Rice is essentially saying someone broke the law by releasing Gen Flynn's name. How about we go with what we do know for sure and root out the one responsible. Otherwise, we may revisit this conversation again in 4-8 years should some Trump loyalist release similar information to screw with American's perceptions of our candidates and/or elected officials. I don't like it from any side.
As for the unmasking, think about it. If she has info speaking to collusion or Russian interference, what we do not know is what led her to the initial masked information, prompting her (or the NSC) to have it unmasked. Why? What was the context? Did it really require her to have it unmasked (especially when she herself is not sure which documents they're speaking of)? Ok, but isn't it already a moot point if the election is over and the transition team is coming in? Who knows? I want those questions addressed? I'd also like to confirm her access to these intercepts, which require logs. Did she really look at it masked and then put a request in to have it unmasked? You see the problem is, you think I believe all this is evidence, when what I'm only trying to point out is that it leads to more questions. But you have to admit it does not look good, despite the fact there could be logical reasons why it was done.
Let me also point out that the reason for masking is not just about innocence, but also the fact that the IC by law cannot spy on Americans without due process. Gen FLynn was not being investigated and foreign intel intercepts are not authorized to target their collection on US Persons, thus his name was required to be masked. Trump also was clear about deliberate surveillance and for all we know, he didn't have all the information when he tweeted (which is why I've already conceded to you in other posts that I thought his tweet was a dumb move). Still, he's not exactly wrong;
"Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!" - Trump's Tweet
It might be parsing words sure, but again, I'm not defending the tweet, I'm pointing out that Trump (or his people) were indeed being surveilled. Indirectly it would appear, but it was still happening and until an investigation is completed, we don't know if there might have been political motivation to access the data. Now tell me you wouldn't be interested in the points I make if this were happening to the Bush admin or the end of the Trump admin? I would.
Finally, as for the expanded access, I'm talking about this from the NY Times itself:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html?_r=0
I get why we conduct the surveillance which can capture US Persons and I agree with the need for it. However, the expansion into enabling all of the members of the IC to access it easier does concern me. I want it easy to be accessed, but with a stated reason which passes "need to know" criteria and with 100% non-repudiation to those who view, disseminate, or attempt to exfill it. Apparently, those measures for non-repudiation are not effectively in place enough.
The context of the Flynn conversation is of course unknown to us, but the FBI has already stated it contained nothing illegal or any evidence of collusion (and yet the left acts like it's a smoking gun of evidence). But the fact that it contained nothing illegal on Flynn's part, definitely makes it seem like the release was about timing and politics. The preservation I was referring to was from the statements by Farkas (when I said "some"). Put the two together and we have even more intrigue to this whole issue. But at the same time, it's also confirming things as we go. Now even Rice is essentially saying someone broke the law by releasing Gen Flynn's name. How about we go with what we do know for sure and root out the one responsible. Otherwise, we may revisit this conversation again in 4-8 years should some Trump loyalist release similar information to screw with American's perceptions of our candidates and/or elected officials. I don't like it from any side.
As for the unmasking, think about it. If she has info speaking to collusion or Russian interference, what we do not know is what led her to the initial masked information, prompting her (or the NSC) to have it unmasked. Why? What was the context? Did it really require her to have it unmasked (especially when she herself is not sure which documents they're speaking of)? Ok, but isn't it already a moot point if the election is over and the transition team is coming in? Who knows? I want those questions addressed? I'd also like to confirm her access to these intercepts, which require logs. Did she really look at it masked and then put a request in to have it unmasked? You see the problem is, you think I believe all this is evidence, when what I'm only trying to point out is that it leads to more questions. But you have to admit it does not look good, despite the fact there could be logical reasons why it was done.
Let me also point out that the reason for masking is not just about innocence, but also the fact that the IC by law cannot spy on Americans without due process. Gen FLynn was not being investigated and foreign intel intercepts are not authorized to target their collection on US Persons, thus his name was required to be masked. Trump also was clear about deliberate surveillance and for all we know, he didn't have all the information when he tweeted (which is why I've already conceded to you in other posts that I thought his tweet was a dumb move). Still, he's not exactly wrong;
"Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!" - Trump's Tweet
It might be parsing words sure, but again, I'm not defending the tweet, I'm pointing out that Trump (or his people) were indeed being surveilled. Indirectly it would appear, but it was still happening and until an investigation is completed, we don't know if there might have been political motivation to access the data. Now tell me you wouldn't be interested in the points I make if this were happening to the Bush admin or the end of the Trump admin? I would.
Finally, as for the expanded access, I'm talking about this from the NY Times itself:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html?_r=0
I get why we conduct the surveillance which can capture US Persons and I agree with the need for it. However, the expansion into enabling all of the members of the IC to access it easier does concern me. I want it easy to be accessed, but with a stated reason which passes "need to know" criteria and with 100% non-repudiation to those who view, disseminate, or attempt to exfill it. Apparently, those measures for non-repudiation are not effectively in place enough.
N.S.A. Gets More Latitude to Share Intercepted Communications
New rules relax longstanding limits on what the National Security Agency may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations.
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
Yep deflection. Election was indeed over but the investigation that was started in July according to FBI Comey was still on-going so guess what...any requests for unmasking as part of an on-going investigation was still valid. And as you pointed out, we don't know the context or details but it was still enough that caught illicit conversations did occur; hence, leading to a series of events for Flynn's resignation. And you either agree with Clapper or feel Clapper was involved as well that directed surveillance was conducted against Trump officials as a result of being linked to criminal behavior then unmasked to identify them. I'm all for expanded sharing of intelligence within their community as long as it's responsible, justified, legal by DoJ standards, and leads to the removal of threats to our national security.
(0)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
Deflection is when one does not address your points (which I did) and attempts the change the subject or focus. I not only addressed your questions, but I offered more. I also never side the request was invalid, but that it raises questions (hmmm, sounds similar to all those assertions that Trump colluded with Russians with no evidence... But let's not get deflected here right?).
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I'm think we should let both investigations play out and see what comes from them both. This is all pretty amusing though.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google