BREAKING: Obama's NSA Advisor Susan Rice Requested The Unmaskings Of Incoming Trump Officials

[Lakhota]

The totally phony Susan Rice story, explained

Another right-wing conspiracy theory debunked. NaziCons owe Dr. Rice an apology.

As soon as Rice Brings Back The Benghazi Dead, she can have the apology of my back hand across her Lying Face.

And that would be an apology considering what she actually deserves.

Why do you hate Dr. Rice? She had nothing to do with Benghazi. She even testified under oath before Congress.

 

[bendog]

the facts.

Post them up.

I just posted it. Foreign Intelligence ACT

That Rice did it , idiot.

she admitted it. and the reason it is a felony is based on the Foreign Intelligence Act, fool.

Rice admitted that she was the leaker?

Don't think so.

You still don't know what you're saying or how it possibly relates to this thread.

Are you telling me that Rice would need a warrant to unmask those names?

yeppers!!! way to go.. Now you got it.

I don't believe that's correct. Post up something.

something!

Nothing.

Whomever said you need a warrant to unmask incidental targets of Surveillance was wrong.

You Need Authorization.

That could be in the form of a Subpoena. Or it could be done by A Lawful and Public Order to do the unmasking by An Intelligence Official who has that Authority, but to do that, he or she has to Cite a Criminal Violation, and also has to have The Classified Information Declassified and have this approved by a Civilian Authority who has oversight over his or her Department, and has to cite why.

There are hurdles and checks and balances in place that you have to overcome to Unmask an Incidental Target of Surveillance, and NO ONE ACCOMPLISHED THAT!

In other words The Unmasking was Illegal because there was No Legal Authorization Ordering any Unmasking to take place. Therefore a Felony was Committed.

It does not matter if you argue over whether or not The Surveillance was Legal or Not. There was no Authorization to Unmask which means The Intelligence was still Classified, and was not Legally Declassified.

This then becomes a Felony Espionage Case and is a violation of The Espionage Act which subjects The Leaker to Sedition, and Treason Charges as well.

For the sake of Brevity, let me put it in these words.

"Your Goose Is Cooked!"

Link? Rice didn't need a warrant to request unmasking.
The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.

The news about Rice also sheds light on the strange behavior of Nunes in the last two weeks. It emerged last week that he traveled to the White House last month, the night before he made an explosive allegation about Trump transition officials caught up in incidental surveillance. At the time he said he needed to go to the White House because the reports were only on a database for the executive branch. It now appears that he needed to view computer systems within the National Security Council that would include the logs of Rice's requests to unmask U.S. persons.
Susan Rice Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel

 

[jc456]

Post them up.

I just posted it. Foreign Intelligence ACT

That Rice did it , idiot.

she admitted it. and the reason it is a felony is based on the Foreign Intelligence Act, fool.

Rice admitted that she was the leaker?

Don't think so.

yeppers!!! way to go.. Now you got it.

I don't believe that's correct. Post up something.

something!

Nothing.

Whomever said you need a warrant to unmask incidental targets of Surveillance was wrong.

You Need Authorization.

That could be in the form of a Subpoena. Or it could be done by A Lawful and Public Order to do the unmasking by An Intelligence Official who has that Authority, but to do that, he or she has to Cite a Criminal Violation, and also has to have The Classified Information Declassified and have this approved by a Civilian Authority who has oversight over his or her Department, and has to cite why.

There are hurdles and checks and balances in place that you have to overcome to Unmask an Incidental Target of Surveillance, and NO ONE ACCOMPLISHED THAT!

In other words The Unmasking was Illegal because there was No Legal Authorization Ordering any Unmasking to take place. Therefore a Felony was Committed.

It does not matter if you argue over whether or not The Surveillance was Legal or Not. There was no Authorization to Unmask which means The Intelligence was still Classified, and was not Legally Declassified.

This then becomes a Felony Espionage Case and is a violation of The Espionage Act which subjects The Leaker to Sedition, and Treason Charges as well.

For the sake of Brevity, let me put it in these words.

"Your Goose Is Cooked!"

Link? Rice didn't need a warrant to request unmasking.
The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.

The news about Rice also sheds light on the strange behavior of Nunes in the last two weeks. It emerged last week that he traveled to the White House last month, the night before he made an explosive allegation about Trump transition officials caught up in incidental surveillance. At the time he said he needed to go to the White House because the reports were only on a database for the executive branch. It now appears that he needed to view computer systems within the National Security Council that would include the logs of Rice's requests to unmask U.S. persons.
Susan Rice Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel

the intel Nunes received was american to american. ooopppsss

 

[The Original Tree]

yeppers!!! way to go.. Now you got it.

I don't believe that's correct. Post up something.

something!

Nothing.

Whomever said you need a warrant to unmask incidental targets of Surveillance was wrong.

You Need Authorization. That could be in the form of a Subpoena. Or it could be done by A Lawful and Public Order to do the unmasking by An Intelligence Official who has that Authority, but to do that, he or she has to cite a Criminal Violation, and also has to have The Classified Information Declassified and have this approved, and has to cite why.

There are hurdles and checks and balances in place that you have to overcome to unmask an Incidental Target of Surveillance, and NO ONE ACCOMPLISHED THAT!

In other words The Unmasking was Illegal because there was No Legal Authorization Ordering any Unmasking to take place.

It does not matter if you argue over whether or not The Surveillance was Legal or Not. There was no Authorization to Unmask which means The Intelligence was still Classified, and was not Legally Declassified.

This then become a Felony Espionage Case and is a violation of The Espionage Act which subjects The Leaker to Sedition, and Treason Charges as well.

It was JC who foolishly said a warrant was required.

he or she has to cite a Criminal Violation,

No true. It must have foreign intelligence value. As Trump's people are part of a counterintelligence investigation that is attempting to determine the nature of their relationships with foreign officials, it certainly appears that any intercept from any Trump associate can fit that description.

There was no Foreign Intelligence Value first of all, .....

And secondly, that is not The Standard Even.

Using that standard then what you have is qualifying ALL Conversations with any Foreign National as being of Foreign Intelligence Value and by Proxy this means that All Incidental Targets of Surveillance Must Be Unmasked.

Lastly it means you are an idiot, trapped on a hamster wheel going no where, but looking desperately for a way out of this mess your party created for you.

Sucks to be you....but don't feel bad.

You have me to entertain you, and fill up your water bottle once in a while....if I remember that is.
Here is some fresh cedar chips little hamster, try not to stink up your own cage too much.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I don't believe that's correct. Post up something.

something!

Nothing.

Whomever said you need a warrant to unmask incidental targets of Surveillance was wrong.

You Need Authorization. That could be in the form of a Subpoena. Or it could be done by A Lawful and Public Order to do the unmasking by An Intelligence Official who has that Authority, but to do that, he or she has to cite a Criminal Violation, and also has to have The Classified Information Declassified and have this approved, and has to cite why.

There are hurdles and checks and balances in place that you have to overcome to unmask an Incidental Target of Surveillance, and NO ONE ACCOMPLISHED THAT!

In other words The Unmasking was Illegal because there was No Legal Authorization Ordering any Unmasking to take place.

It does not matter if you argue over whether or not The Surveillance was Legal or Not. There was no Authorization to Unmask which means The Intelligence was still Classified, and was not Legally Declassified.

This then become a Felony Espionage Case and is a violation of The Espionage Act which subjects The Leaker to Sedition, and Treason Charges as well.

It was JC who foolishly said a warrant was required.

he or she has to cite a Criminal Violation,

No true. It must have foreign intelligence value. As Trump's people are part of a counterintelligence investigation that is attempting to determine the nature of their relationships with foreign officials, it certainly appears that any intercept from any Trump associate can fit that description.

what was the criminal activity? And where did any information come from?

Huh?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I don't believe that's correct. Post up something.

something!

Nothing.

Whomever said you need a warrant to unmask incidental targets of Surveillance was wrong.

You Need Authorization. That could be in the form of a Subpoena. Or it could be done by A Lawful and Public Order to do the unmasking by An Intelligence Official who has that Authority, but to do that, he or she has to cite a Criminal Violation, and also has to have The Classified Information Declassified and have this approved, and has to cite why.

There are hurdles and checks and balances in place that you have to overcome to unmask an Incidental Target of Surveillance, and NO ONE ACCOMPLISHED THAT!

In other words The Unmasking was Illegal because there was No Legal Authorization Ordering any Unmasking to take place.

It does not matter if you argue over whether or not The Surveillance was Legal or Not. There was no Authorization to Unmask which means The Intelligence was still Classified, and was not Legally Declassified.

This then become a Felony Espionage Case and is a violation of The Espionage Act which subjects The Leaker to Sedition, and Treason Charges as well.

It was JC who foolishly said a warrant was required.

he or she has to cite a Criminal Violation,

No true. It must have foreign intelligence value. As Trump's people are part of a counterintelligence investigation that is attempting to determine the nature of their relationships with foreign officials, it certainly appears that any intercept from any Trump associate can fit that description.

There was no Foreign Intelligence Value first of all, and secondly, that is not The Standard Even. Using that standard all conversations with any Foreign National is of Foreign Intelligence Value and by Proxy this means that All Incidental Targets of Surveillance Must Be Unmasked.

Lastly it means you are an idiot, trapped on a hamster wheel going no where, but looking desperately for a way out of this mess your party created for you.

Sucks to be you....but don't feel bad.

You have me to entertain you, and fill up your water bottle once in a while....if I remember.

There was no Foreign Intelligence Value

You don't and couldn't know that.
I'll let Comey explain why Trump's people and Russian officials are under the same umbrella.

 

[bendog]

yeppers!!! way to go.. Now you got it.

I don't believe that's correct. Post up something.

something!

Nothing.

Whomever said you need a warrant to unmask incidental targets of Surveillance was wrong.

You Need Authorization. That could be in the form of a Subpoena. Or it could be done by A Lawful and Public Order to do the unmasking by An Intelligence Official who has that Authority, but to do that, he or she has to cite a Criminal Violation, and also has to have The Classified Information Declassified and have this approved, and has to cite why.

There are hurdles and checks and balances in place that you have to overcome to unmask an Incidental Target of Surveillance, and NO ONE ACCOMPLISHED THAT!

In other words The Unmasking was Illegal because there was No Legal Authorization Ordering any Unmasking to take place.

It does not matter if you argue over whether or not The Surveillance was Legal or Not. There was no Authorization to Unmask which means The Intelligence was still Classified, and was not Legally Declassified.

This then become a Felony Espionage Case and is a violation of The Espionage Act which subjects The Leaker to Sedition, and Treason Charges as well.

It was JC who foolishly said a warrant was required.

he or she has to cite a Criminal Violation,

No true. It must have foreign intelligence value. As Trump's people are part of a counterintelligence investigation that is attempting to determine the nature of their relationships with foreign officials, it certainly appears that any intercept from any Trump associate can fit that description.

It's about foreign intelligence not so much because of Trump doing something wrong, but the Trump folks met with Russians as part of there working for Trump, and the Russians were helping Trump. If some Hillary person met with Russians, they could be unmasked too. But you have to think if someone gets unmasked and didn't have any suspicion of anything underhanded, the leaker would get disciplined. And, if you are a plumber or someone just hired to do your regular job job for some foreign govt , you shouldn't be unmasked/UOTE="jc456, post: 16947014, member: 46512"]

I just posted it. Foreign Intelligence ACT

That Rice did it , idiot.

she admitted it. and the reason it is a felony is based on the Foreign Intelligence Act, fool.

Rice admitted that she was the leaker?

Don't think so.

I don't believe that's correct. Post up something.

something!

Nothing.

Whomever said you need a warrant to unmask incidental targets of Surveillance was wrong.

You Need Authorization.

That could be in the form of a Subpoena. Or it could be done by A Lawful and Public Order to do the unmasking by An Intelligence Official who has that Authority, but to do that, he or she has to Cite a Criminal Violation, and also has to have The Classified Information Declassified and have this approved by a Civilian Authority who has oversight over his or her Department, and has to cite why.

There are hurdles and checks and balances in place that you have to overcome to Unmask an Incidental Target of Surveillance, and NO ONE ACCOMPLISHED THAT!

In other words The Unmasking was Illegal because there was No Legal Authorization Ordering any Unmasking to take place. Therefore a Felony was Committed.

It does not matter if you argue over whether or not The Surveillance was Legal or Not. There was no Authorization to Unmask which means The Intelligence was still Classified, and was not Legally Declassified.

This then becomes a Felony Espionage Case and is a violation of The Espionage Act which subjects The Leaker to Sedition, and Treason Charges as well.

For the sake of Brevity, let me put it in these words.

"Your Goose Is Cooked!"

Link? Rice didn't need a warrant to request unmasking.
The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.

The news about Rice also sheds light on the strange behavior of Nunes in the last two weeks. It emerged last week that he traveled to the White House last month, the night before he made an explosive allegation about Trump transition officials caught up in incidental surveillance. At the time he said he needed to go to the White House because the reports were only on a database for the executive branch. It now appears that he needed to view computer systems within the National Security Council that would include the logs of Rice's requests to unmask U.S. persons.
Susan Rice Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel

the intel Nunes received was american to american. ooopppsss[/QUOTE]

What? JFC

 

[JakeStarkey]

Translation: Nunes said it was legal.

Jake, tell them you want to go out for a breath of fresh air, then make your get away

It's legal, Frank. But the Trumpers colluding with the Russians was not.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not "A" felony.....many, many felonies...I imagine each time she illegally unmasked a Trump aide she was committing a felony.....and she isn't going to be the only one....

and obama knew about this....you don't do this on your own....

In classic fashion though, the evidence implicating Obama will be obscured. Rice will take the fall and Obama will be unscathed, because the Soros controlled press won't even cover his involvement in the affair.

 

[imawhosure]

Top stories on DRUDGE now..................

NOT NICE: RICE 'UNMASKED'...

FLASHBACK: CLAIMED 'KNEW NOTHING' IN MARCH...

Interest in intel started in July, spiked after election...



the worm has officially turned on the Russia stuff as of today...............

"I know nothing about this," Rice responded at the time. "I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today."

"So, today, I really don't know to what Chairman Nunes was referring, but he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance, and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens," added Rice, who went on to criticize Trump for his accusation that Obama wiretapped him during the presidential campaign."

Thank you Barack!

Frank let me tell ya------> we can't be sure this is 100% accurate, but the Democrats better be on their proverbial knees hoping it is not!

Let us conservatives tell the left something-----------> We see Trump, we know how Trump is, and so do they!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If even 50% of this is true, then Trump is going to have them keep digging, and digging, and digging more on a whole host of things that massive questions were raised on.

Now lefties, are you sure............do you actually believe that all the things people have been complaining about on how Obama's administration handled things is 100% accurate as told to you by them? And as a wake up call, if I told you that I believe GW told us all the truth 100% of the time on how things happened, what would you say?

For the government of the people, this is a disaster, just like under Nixon. If the President was a lifetime politician, I believe that Washington would be able to convince him to keep quiet, and a deal would be cut. But that is not the case! You are dealing with Trump, much of his cabinet are NOT politicians, and if you people (Democrats in congress) have lied, he is going to hose them.

Just as an aside......................if YOU people lied, you were fools. His lack of experience would have given you many, many miscues to keep him on the defensive as his administration moved along. Instead, you decided to go this route, and now if it comes out as "political tampering," unless he really screws the pooch, nobody is going to listen to any of you. Realize, in society once you are caught cheating on your spouse, everyone brands you a cheater. Get caught doing this lefties, and NOBODY is going to believe you when you claim the grass is green, lol.

So, whatever religion you are, tonight you had better pray to your God over this, because you know all your little buzzwords and descriptions you constantly use to try and shut us up? Well............if this proves out, guess what we are ALL going to be calling you! And we will have ALL of your posts and words, to back up our statements, 100%. It will be so awful, I almost feel bad for you. Notice I said almost-)

 

[Wyatt earp]

The totally phony Susan Rice story, explained

Another right-wing conspiracy theory debunked. NaziCons owe Dr. Rice an apology.

As soon as Rice Brings Back The Benghazi Dead, she can have the apology of my back hand across her Lying Face.

And that would be an apology considering what she actually deserves.

Why do you hate Dr. Rice? She had nothing to do with Benghazi. She even testified under oath before Congress.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Translation: Nunes said it was legal.

Jake, tell them you want to go out for a breath of fresh air, then make your get away

It's legal, Frank. But the Trumpers colluding with the Russians was not.

Jake, in America the oncoming Administration can talk to whoever the **** they want. I'm surprised that other Obama staffers aren't permanently out of the country like Barack

What was Donny "Guilty" of, Jake? Is beating Hillary a crime?

 

[jc456]

I don't believe that's correct. Post up something.

something!

Nothing.

Whomever said you need a warrant to unmask incidental targets of Surveillance was wrong.

You Need Authorization. That could be in the form of a Subpoena. Or it could be done by A Lawful and Public Order to do the unmasking by An Intelligence Official who has that Authority, but to do that, he or she has to cite a Criminal Violation, and also has to have The Classified Information Declassified and have this approved, and has to cite why.

There are hurdles and checks and balances in place that you have to overcome to unmask an Incidental Target of Surveillance, and NO ONE ACCOMPLISHED THAT!

In other words The Unmasking was Illegal because there was No Legal Authorization Ordering any Unmasking to take place.

It does not matter if you argue over whether or not The Surveillance was Legal or Not. There was no Authorization to Unmask which means The Intelligence was still Classified, and was not Legally Declassified.

This then become a Felony Espionage Case and is a violation of The Espionage Act which subjects The Leaker to Sedition, and Treason Charges as well.

It was JC who foolishly said a warrant was required.

he or she has to cite a Criminal Violation,

No true. It must have foreign intelligence value. As Trump's people are part of a counterintelligence investigation that is attempting to determine the nature of their relationships with foreign officials, it certainly appears that any intercept from any Trump associate can fit that description.

It's about foreign intelligence not so much because of Trump doing something wrong, but the Trump folks met with Russians as part of there working for Trump, and the Russians were helping Trump. If some Hillary person met with Russians, they could be unmasked too. But you have to think if someone gets unmasked and didn't have any suspicion of anything underhanded, the leaker would get disciplined. And, if you are a plumber or someone just hired to do your regular job job for some foreign govt , you shouldn't be unmasked/UOTE="jc456, post: 16947014, member: 46512"]

I just posted it. Foreign Intelligence ACT

That Rice did it , idiot.

she admitted it. and the reason it is a felony is based on the Foreign Intelligence Act, fool.

Rice admitted that she was the leaker?

Don't think so.

I don't believe that's correct. Post up something.

something!

Nothing.

Whomever said you need a warrant to unmask incidental targets of Surveillance was wrong.

You Need Authorization.

That could be in the form of a Subpoena. Or it could be done by A Lawful and Public Order to do the unmasking by An Intelligence Official who has that Authority, but to do that, he or she has to Cite a Criminal Violation, and also has to have The Classified Information Declassified and have this approved by a Civilian Authority who has oversight over his or her Department, and has to cite why.

There are hurdles and checks and balances in place that you have to overcome to Unmask an Incidental Target of Surveillance, and NO ONE ACCOMPLISHED THAT!

In other words The Unmasking was Illegal because there was No Legal Authorization Ordering any Unmasking to take place. Therefore a Felony was Committed.

It does not matter if you argue over whether or not The Surveillance was Legal or Not. There was no Authorization to Unmask which means The Intelligence was still Classified, and was not Legally Declassified.

This then becomes a Felony Espionage Case and is a violation of The Espionage Act which subjects The Leaker to Sedition, and Treason Charges as well.

For the sake of Brevity, let me put it in these words.

"Your Goose Is Cooked!"

Link? Rice didn't need a warrant to request unmasking.
The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.

The news about Rice also sheds light on the strange behavior of Nunes in the last two weeks. It emerged last week that he traveled to the White House last month, the night before he made an explosive allegation about Trump transition officials caught up in incidental surveillance. At the time he said he needed to go to the White House because the reports were only on a database for the executive branch. It now appears that he needed to view computer systems within the National Security Council that would include the logs of Rice's requests to unmask U.S. persons.
Susan Rice Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel

the intel Nunes received was american to american. ooopppsss

What? JFC[/QUOTE]
yep

 

[The Original Tree]

something!

Nothing.

Whomever said you need a warrant to unmask incidental targets of Surveillance was wrong.

You Need Authorization. That could be in the form of a Subpoena. Or it could be done by A Lawful and Public Order to do the unmasking by An Intelligence Official who has that Authority, but to do that, he or she has to cite a Criminal Violation, and also has to have The Classified Information Declassified and have this approved, and has to cite why.

There are hurdles and checks and balances in place that you have to overcome to unmask an Incidental Target of Surveillance, and NO ONE ACCOMPLISHED THAT!

In other words The Unmasking was Illegal because there was No Legal Authorization Ordering any Unmasking to take place.

It does not matter if you argue over whether or not The Surveillance was Legal or Not. There was no Authorization to Unmask which means The Intelligence was still Classified, and was not Legally Declassified.

This then become a Felony Espionage Case and is a violation of The Espionage Act which subjects The Leaker to Sedition, and Treason Charges as well.

It was JC who foolishly said a warrant was required.

he or she has to cite a Criminal Violation,

No true. It must have foreign intelligence value. As Trump's people are part of a counterintelligence investigation that is attempting to determine the nature of their relationships with foreign officials, it certainly appears that any intercept from any Trump associate can fit that description.

It's about foreign intelligence not so much because of Trump doing something wrong, but the Trump folks met with Russians as part of there working for Trump, and the Russians were helping Trump. If some Hillary person met with Russians, they could be unmasked too. But you have to think if someone gets unmasked and didn't have any suspicion of anything underhanded, the leaker would get disciplined. And, if you are a plumber or someone just hired to do your regular job job for some foreign govt , you shouldn't be unmasked/UOTE="jc456, post: 16947014, member: 46512"]

That Rice did it , idiot.

she admitted it. and the reason it is a felony is based on the Foreign Intelligence Act, fool.

Rice admitted that she was the leaker?

Don't think so.

something!

Nothing.

Whomever said you need a warrant to unmask incidental targets of Surveillance was wrong.

You Need Authorization.

That could be in the form of a Subpoena. Or it could be done by A Lawful and Public Order to do the unmasking by An Intelligence Official who has that Authority, but to do that, he or she has to Cite a Criminal Violation, and also has to have The Classified Information Declassified and have this approved by a Civilian Authority who has oversight over his or her Department, and has to cite why.

There are hurdles and checks and balances in place that you have to overcome to Unmask an Incidental Target of Surveillance, and NO ONE ACCOMPLISHED THAT!

In other words The Unmasking was Illegal because there was No Legal Authorization Ordering any Unmasking to take place. Therefore a Felony was Committed.

It does not matter if you argue over whether or not The Surveillance was Legal or Not. There was no Authorization to Unmask which means The Intelligence was still Classified, and was not Legally Declassified.

This then becomes a Felony Espionage Case and is a violation of The Espionage Act which subjects The Leaker to Sedition, and Treason Charges as well.

For the sake of Brevity, let me put it in these words.

"Your Goose Is Cooked!"

Link? Rice didn't need a warrant to request unmasking.
The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.

The news about Rice also sheds light on the strange behavior of Nunes in the last two weeks. It emerged last week that he traveled to the White House last month, the night before he made an explosive allegation about Trump transition officials caught up in incidental surveillance. At the time he said he needed to go to the White House because the reports were only on a database for the executive branch. It now appears that he needed to view computer systems within the National Security Council that would include the logs of Rice's requests to unmask U.S. persons.
Susan Rice Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel

the intel Nunes received was american to american. ooopppsss

What? JFC

yep[/QUOTE]

WTF?

He's From Kenya.

Ignore him.

WAS that English?

 

[bendog]

Maybe there is confusion between unmasking and leaking. Rice was doing her job for Obama to find out which Trump folks were meeting with Ruskies. It was connected to nalt sec, and not some innocent American having some unsolicited communication.
We don't yet know who told the press. Even so it was not illegal for Nunes to leak he had some information showing Trump guys were caught talking even though they were not targets of survellience, and I don't see why it would be illegal for a dem to do the same.

 

[bendog]

something!

Nothing.

Whomever said you need a warrant to unmask incidental targets of Surveillance was wrong.

You Need Authorization. That could be in the form of a Subpoena. Or it could be done by A Lawful and Public Order to do the unmasking by An Intelligence Official who has that Authority, but to do that, he or she has to cite a Criminal Violation, and also has to have The Classified Information Declassified and have this approved, and has to cite why.

There are hurdles and checks and balances in place that you have to overcome to unmask an Incidental Target of Surveillance, and NO ONE ACCOMPLISHED THAT!

In other words The Unmasking was Illegal because there was No Legal Authorization Ordering any Unmasking to take place.

It does not matter if you argue over whether or not The Surveillance was Legal or Not. There was no Authorization to Unmask which means The Intelligence was still Classified, and was not Legally Declassified.

This then become a Felony Espionage Case and is a violation of The Espionage Act which subjects The Leaker to Sedition, and Treason Charges as well.

It was JC who foolishly said a warrant was required.

he or she has to cite a Criminal Violation,

No true. It must have foreign intelligence value. As Trump's people are part of a counterintelligence investigation that is attempting to determine the nature of their relationships with foreign officials, it certainly appears that any intercept from any Trump associate can fit that description.

It's about foreign intelligence not so much because of Trump doing something wrong, but the Trump folks met with Russians as part of there working for Trump, and the Russians were helping Trump. If some Hillary person met with Russians, they could be unmasked too. But you have to think if someone gets unmasked and didn't have any suspicion of anything underhanded, the leaker would get disciplined. And, if you are a plumber or someone just hired to do your regular job job for some foreign govt , you shouldn't be unmasked/UOTE="jc456, post: 16947014, member: 46512"]

That Rice did it , idiot.

she admitted it. and the reason it is a felony is based on the Foreign Intelligence Act, fool.

Rice admitted that she was the leaker?

Don't think so.

something!

Nothing.

Whomever said you need a warrant to unmask incidental targets of Surveillance was wrong.

You Need Authorization.

That could be in the form of a Subpoena. Or it could be done by A Lawful and Public Order to do the unmasking by An Intelligence Official who has that Authority, but to do that, he or she has to Cite a Criminal Violation, and also has to have The Classified Information Declassified and have this approved by a Civilian Authority who has oversight over his or her Department, and has to cite why.

There are hurdles and checks and balances in place that you have to overcome to Unmask an Incidental Target of Surveillance, and NO ONE ACCOMPLISHED THAT!

In other words The Unmasking was Illegal because there was No Legal Authorization Ordering any Unmasking to take place. Therefore a Felony was Committed.

It does not matter if you argue over whether or not The Surveillance was Legal or Not. There was no Authorization to Unmask which means The Intelligence was still Classified, and was not Legally Declassified.

This then becomes a Felony Espionage Case and is a violation of The Espionage Act which subjects The Leaker to Sedition, and Treason Charges as well.

For the sake of Brevity, let me put it in these words.

"Your Goose Is Cooked!"

Link? Rice didn't need a warrant to request unmasking.
The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.

The news about Rice also sheds light on the strange behavior of Nunes in the last two weeks. It emerged last week that he traveled to the White House last month, the night before he made an explosive allegation about Trump transition officials caught up in incidental surveillance. At the time he said he needed to go to the White House because the reports were only on a database for the executive branch. It now appears that he needed to view computer systems within the National Security Council that would include the logs of Rice's requests to unmask U.S. persons.
Susan Rice Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel

the intel Nunes received was american to american. ooopppsss

What? JFC

yep[/QUOTE]
WTF are you attempting to say?

 

[bendog]

Nothing.

Whomever said you need a warrant to unmask incidental targets of Surveillance was wrong.

You Need Authorization. That could be in the form of a Subpoena. Or it could be done by A Lawful and Public Order to do the unmasking by An Intelligence Official who has that Authority, but to do that, he or she has to cite a Criminal Violation, and also has to have The Classified Information Declassified and have this approved, and has to cite why.

There are hurdles and checks and balances in place that you have to overcome to unmask an Incidental Target of Surveillance, and NO ONE ACCOMPLISHED THAT!

In other words The Unmasking was Illegal because there was No Legal Authorization Ordering any Unmasking to take place.

It does not matter if you argue over whether or not The Surveillance was Legal or Not. There was no Authorization to Unmask which means The Intelligence was still Classified, and was not Legally Declassified.

This then become a Felony Espionage Case and is a violation of The Espionage Act which subjects The Leaker to Sedition, and Treason Charges as well.

It was JC who foolishly said a warrant was required.

he or she has to cite a Criminal Violation,

No true. It must have foreign intelligence value. As Trump's people are part of a counterintelligence investigation that is attempting to determine the nature of their relationships with foreign officials, it certainly appears that any intercept from any Trump associate can fit that description.

It's about foreign intelligence not so much because of Trump doing something wrong, but the Trump folks met with Russians as part of there working for Trump, and the Russians were helping Trump. If some Hillary person met with Russians, they could be unmasked too. But you have to think if someone gets unmasked and didn't have any suspicion of anything underhanded, the leaker would get disciplined. And, if you are a plumber or someone just hired to do your regular job job for some foreign govt , you shouldn't be unmasked/UOTE="jc456, post: 16947014, member: 46512"]

she admitted it. and the reason it is a felony is based on the Foreign Intelligence Act, fool.

Rice admitted that she was the leaker?

Don't think so.

Nothing.

Whomever said you need a warrant to unmask incidental targets of Surveillance was wrong.

You Need Authorization.

That could be in the form of a Subpoena. Or it could be done by A Lawful and Public Order to do the unmasking by An Intelligence Official who has that Authority, but to do that, he or she has to Cite a Criminal Violation, and also has to have The Classified Information Declassified and have this approved by a Civilian Authority who has oversight over his or her Department, and has to cite why.

There are hurdles and checks and balances in place that you have to overcome to Unmask an Incidental Target of Surveillance, and NO ONE ACCOMPLISHED THAT!

In other words The Unmasking was Illegal because there was No Legal Authorization Ordering any Unmasking to take place. Therefore a Felony was Committed.

It does not matter if you argue over whether or not The Surveillance was Legal or Not. There was no Authorization to Unmask which means The Intelligence was still Classified, and was not Legally Declassified.

This then becomes a Felony Espionage Case and is a violation of The Espionage Act which subjects The Leaker to Sedition, and Treason Charges as well.

For the sake of Brevity, let me put it in these words.

"Your Goose Is Cooked!"

Link? Rice didn't need a warrant to request unmasking.
The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.

The news about Rice also sheds light on the strange behavior of Nunes in the last two weeks. It emerged last week that he traveled to the White House last month, the night before he made an explosive allegation about Trump transition officials caught up in incidental surveillance. At the time he said he needed to go to the White House because the reports were only on a database for the executive branch. It now appears that he needed to view computer systems within the National Security Council that would include the logs of Rice's requests to unmask U.S. persons.
Susan Rice Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel

the intel Nunes received was american to american. ooopppsss

What? JFC

yep

WTF?

He's From Kenya.

Ignore him.

WAS that English?[/QUOTE]

Let me be plain then. **** you racist trash.

 

[jc456]

Maybe there is confusion between unmasking and leaking. Rice was doing her job for Obama to find out which Trump folks were meeting with Ruskies. It was connected to nalt sec, and not some innocent American having some unsolicited communication.
We don't yet know who told the press. Even so it was not illegal for Nunes to leak he had some information showing Trump guys were caught talking even though they were not targets of survellience, and I don't see why it would be illegal for a dem to do the same.

was it illegal if someone met with a russian?

Again, I'm looking at the crime that started this. what was it?

 

[jc456]

Nothing.

Whomever said you need a warrant to unmask incidental targets of Surveillance was wrong.

You Need Authorization. That could be in the form of a Subpoena. Or it could be done by A Lawful and Public Order to do the unmasking by An Intelligence Official who has that Authority, but to do that, he or she has to cite a Criminal Violation, and also has to have The Classified Information Declassified and have this approved, and has to cite why.

There are hurdles and checks and balances in place that you have to overcome to unmask an Incidental Target of Surveillance, and NO ONE ACCOMPLISHED THAT!

In other words The Unmasking was Illegal because there was No Legal Authorization Ordering any Unmasking to take place.

It does not matter if you argue over whether or not The Surveillance was Legal or Not. There was no Authorization to Unmask which means The Intelligence was still Classified, and was not Legally Declassified.

This then become a Felony Espionage Case and is a violation of The Espionage Act which subjects The Leaker to Sedition, and Treason Charges as well.

It was JC who foolishly said a warrant was required.

he or she has to cite a Criminal Violation,

No true. It must have foreign intelligence value. As Trump's people are part of a counterintelligence investigation that is attempting to determine the nature of their relationships with foreign officials, it certainly appears that any intercept from any Trump associate can fit that description.

It's about foreign intelligence not so much because of Trump doing something wrong, but the Trump folks met with Russians as part of there working for Trump, and the Russians were helping Trump. If some Hillary person met with Russians, they could be unmasked too. But you have to think if someone gets unmasked and didn't have any suspicion of anything underhanded, the leaker would get disciplined. And, if you are a plumber or someone just hired to do your regular job job for some foreign govt , you shouldn't be unmasked/UOTE="jc456, post: 16947014, member: 46512"]

she admitted it. and the reason it is a felony is based on the Foreign Intelligence Act, fool.

Rice admitted that she was the leaker?

Don't think so.

Nothing.

Whomever said you need a warrant to unmask incidental targets of Surveillance was wrong.

You Need Authorization.

That could be in the form of a Subpoena. Or it could be done by A Lawful and Public Order to do the unmasking by An Intelligence Official who has that Authority, but to do that, he or she has to Cite a Criminal Violation, and also has to have The Classified Information Declassified and have this approved by a Civilian Authority who has oversight over his or her Department, and has to cite why.

There are hurdles and checks and balances in place that you have to overcome to Unmask an Incidental Target of Surveillance, and NO ONE ACCOMPLISHED THAT!

In other words The Unmasking was Illegal because there was No Legal Authorization Ordering any Unmasking to take place. Therefore a Felony was Committed.

It does not matter if you argue over whether or not The Surveillance was Legal or Not. There was no Authorization to Unmask which means The Intelligence was still Classified, and was not Legally Declassified.

This then becomes a Felony Espionage Case and is a violation of The Espionage Act which subjects The Leaker to Sedition, and Treason Charges as well.

For the sake of Brevity, let me put it in these words.

"Your Goose Is Cooked!"

Link? Rice didn't need a warrant to request unmasking.
The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.

The news about Rice also sheds light on the strange behavior of Nunes in the last two weeks. It emerged last week that he traveled to the White House last month, the night before he made an explosive allegation about Trump transition officials caught up in incidental surveillance. At the time he said he needed to go to the White House because the reports were only on a database for the executive branch. It now appears that he needed to view computer systems within the National Security Council that would include the logs of Rice's requests to unmask U.S. persons.
Susan Rice Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel

the intel Nunes received was american to american. ooopppsss

What? JFC

yep

WTF are you attempting to say?[/QUOTE]
that you all have no idea what is what. you are lost and fluttering around a message board dazed and confused. It's simple you need a warrant to unmask someone who is a US citizen. PERIOD!!!

 

[bendog]

Maybe there is confusion between unmasking and leaking. Rice was doing her job for Obama to find out which Trump folks were meeting with Ruskies. It was connected to nalt sec, and not some innocent American having some unsolicited communication.
We don't yet know who told the press. Even so it was not illegal for Nunes to leak he had some information showing Trump guys were caught talking even though they were not targets of survellience, and I don't see why it would be illegal for a dem to do the same.

was it illegal if someone met with a russian?

Again, I'm looking at the crime that started this. what was it?

Well yes it would be illegal if the meeting was intended to further Trump's campaign. I don't think Trump gets hung unless someone says "he told me to meet wiith them"