SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,308
|
Post by SSHoya on Oct 14, 2020 15:51:51 GMT -5
Cultists are gonna cult! A shame that our Georgetown-educated Trump cultists also simply move on to the next phony scandal. Trump, trapped with his cult in the right-wing media universe, peddles one inane conspiracy theory after another. These were so involved and bizarre that when Vice President Pence tried to return to Trump’s bag of conspiracy tales in the debate, most of the audience had no idea what he was talking about. Trump failed to get the report he wanted from U.S. Attorney John Durham, which he expected would attack the Justice Department for its handling of the Russia investigation, nor could he get his political attack dog Attorney General William P. Barr to come up with “unmasking” charges. He also repeatedly embarrassed himself and enablers such as Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) with half-baked Ukraine stories sourced to the only man in the United States less credible than himself — former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. Few outside the Trump cult are likely to decipher — let alone be swayed by — this convoluted conspiratorial goop. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/14/heres-difference-between-an-abysmal-campaign-an-effective-one/ President Trump’s conspiracy theories arrive with a bang and leave with a whimper. The latest to suffer this ignominious fate is the “unmasking” scandal: the claim that members of the Obama administration did something nefarious by unmasking Michael Flynn’s name in transcripts of his conversations with the Russian ambassador while he was advising the Trump campaign. If Trump, Cornyn, Cruz, Paul, Nunes, Grenell and all the others who shamelessly flogged this faux scandal had a modicum of honesty or decency they would publicly recant and apologize to all of the Obama officials they reviled with no evidence. Dream on. None of the scandalmongers have admitted they were wrong. Many have simply moved on to pushing other phony scandals. But facts don’t matter in the Hunter Biden conspiracy theories any more than in the “unmasking” story. The strategy is, as former Trump strategist Stephen K. Bannon once said, to “flood the zone with ” to distract attention from Trump’s real wrongdoing. The real scandal is that Trump and his cult followers hurl so many insane accusations — and never recant or apologize. While claiming to be a victim of McCarthyism, Trump is, in fact, its foremost modern practitioner. His mentor, Joseph McCarthy’s henchman Roy Cohn, would be proud of him. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/14/one-trumps-conspiracy-theories-bites-dust-he-moves-new-pseudo-scandals/
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,308
|
Post by SSHoya on Oct 14, 2020 12:04:32 GMT -5
It was a crystallizing moment in our current political reality: The president, staring down an increasingly likely reelection loss, saw one of his favorite conspiracy theories about his 2020 opponent crumble. As we were learning that, he was lodging even-more far-flung and desperate conspiracy theories. The Washington Post reported Tuesday evening that a Trump-backed Justice Department probe into the unmasking of Michael Flynn and others had quietly closed with no criminal charges or even a report to substantiate Trump’s and his allies’ allegations of a Watergate-style conspiracy. But on the same day, Trump was promoting the idea that the Obama administration, including Joe Biden, had members of the U.S. military murdered and that the official story of Osama bin Laden’s killing was a hoax. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/14/trumps-chief-conspiracy-theory-suffers-major-blow-he-reaches-more-desperate-ones/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,308
|
Post by SSHoya on Oct 13, 2020 18:59:27 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,308
|
Post by SSHoya on May 15, 2020 5:27:32 GMT -5
The whole purpose of masking (or more properly called "minimization") is to protect the identity of a U.S. Person initially at the acquisition stage and following on through its retention and dissemination. Minimization Procedures - Foriegn Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 18 USC Section 1801(h)(1) "Minimization Procedures, with respect to electronic surveillance means: specific procedures which shall be adopted by the Attorney General, that are reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular surveillance, to minimize the acquisition, retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting United States Persons consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information." 1801(h)(2) procedures that require that nonpublicly available information, which is not [international terrorism related to violent acts or acts dangerous to human life see 1801(c)(1)] shall not be disseminated in a manner that identifies any United States person, without such person's consent, unless such person's identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance. You are correct that Powers could not properly ask the FBI/NSA/CIA for "any intelligence reports relating to General Michael Flynn". It is as you stated since there may have been many requests for unmasking of an identity of a U.S. Person Powers wouldn't necessarily recall all of them nor could she specifically ask for reports that mention Flynn. It doesn't work that way. She may have read intelligence report(s) that refer to a U.S. Person and given the context of the information, determine if she needed to know the identity of the person in order to understand or assess the import of the report. As you could imagine, such requests are typically vetted through many lawyers to ensure that the request complies with the procedures and Director Nakasone of NSA has stated that the requests and disclosures complied with the procedures. IMO, the release of the list by Acting DNI Grenell (a political hack of the highest order) is simply to feed oxygen to the Fox News and OAN Trump cultists and Trump's delusions of "Obamagate." There is nothing nefarious about unmasking within the USIC but because it sounds mysterious and almost no one outside of the USIC even really knows what it means, Trump cultists can convert it into any fevered conspiracy they wish. As the DOJ IG has already found, the foreign counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign contacts with Russia was properly predicated. Moreover, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in a bipartisan manner determined that Russia interfered in the 2016 campaign on behalf of Trump. End of story. Trump's "Obamagate" is simply another feeble attempt to distract from his failure to address the public health crisis he and his regime have so badly bungled. "It just isn’t that hard to see how, when there is communications between a foreign-intelligence target and a person associated with a presidential campaign, the assessment of the situation requires knowing who in particular that US person is." www.lawfareblog.com/unmasking-primer-issues-rules-and-possible-reforms
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,308
|
Post by SSHoya on May 14, 2020 14:16:40 GMT -5
The Office of the VP also has its own NSA. In Biden's case it was Jake Sullivan. It is likely that Sullivan did not have unmasking authority as Susan Rice as NSA for Obama did. The benign and proper reason for Biden to request the unmasking is to provide a turnover to Pence and his incoming NSA. Sullivan would likely not necessarily be on the dissemination list from Rice's unmasking as dissemination is close hold in my experience. Biden could have been preparing Pence for a transition and here are matters pending that may be of importance for the incoming Vice President and his NSA. Thus, the Obama/Biden turnover to Trump/Pence would have been parallel. Interestingly, Flynn admittedly lied to Pence about his contact with the Russian Ambassador. (In my work I typically did the opposite of "unmasking" by minimizing the name of U.S. Persons when it was not necessary to know the identity in order to understand the intelligence information. Those procedures are governed by the Standard Minimization Procedures (SMPs) which the Attorney General through the DOJ National Security Division proposes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court which then approves the SMPs). And with that benign reason and apparently above board hand off of information, they let Comey’s guys In to interview Flynn without counsel. Right. I assume you took Crim Law & Procedure in law school. And who is "they"? The Trump Administration? You know nothing about proper foreign counterintelligence investigations or everything you learned about FCI is from Fox News. I won't waste my time responding to you anymore. www.lawfareblog.com/why-flynn-interview-was-predicated
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,308
|
Post by SSHoya on May 14, 2020 13:08:19 GMT -5
All true but what did the Delaware Demented need 8 days from leaving office? The Office of the VP also has its own NSA. In Biden's case it was Jake Sullivan. It is likely that Sullivan did not have unmasking authority as Susan Rice as NSA for Obama did. The benign and proper reason for Biden to request the unmasking is to provide a turnover to Pence and his incoming NSA. Sullivan would likely not necessarily be on the dissemination list from Rice's unmasking as dissemination is close hold in my experience. Biden could have been preparing Pence for a transition and here are matters pending that may be of importance for the incoming Vice President and his NSA. Thus, the Obama/Biden turnover to Trump/Pence would have been parallel. Interestingly, Flynn admittedly lied to Pence about his contact with the Russian Ambassador. (In my work I typically did the opposite of "unmasking" by minimizing the name of U.S. Persons when it was not necessary to know the identity in order to understand the intelligence information. Those procedures are governed by the Standard Minimization Procedures (SMPs) which the Attorney General through the DOJ National Security Division proposes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court which then approves the SMPs).
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,308
|
Post by SSHoya on May 14, 2020 12:20:16 GMT -5
I'm not going to get into this again but unmasking sounds mysterious and it is not. It not unusual in the least to help the IC understand the nature of the intelligence it has gathered. Most people have zero understanding of what it means but it sure sounds nefarious. 18 USC Section 1801(h). The pertinent phrase in 1801(h)(2) requires minimization and that intelligence information "shall not be disseminated in a manner that identifies any United States person, without the person's consent, u nless such person's identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance." Flynn is overheard on properly authorized electronic surveillance of non-U.S. person Ambassador Kislyak. An intelligence report is generated which states something along the lines: "On December 17, 2016, an identified U.S. Person associated with a political campaign discusses sanctions imposed by the USG against Russia with the Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kisylak." In the bizarro world of the Republican Party and the Fox News Trump cultists, the upper echelons of the USIC should sit quietly and not determine the identity of U.S. Person referenced in the above intelligence report in order to determine if there is threat to U.S. national security. Morons. www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/CLPT-USP-Dissemination-Paper---FINAL-clean-11.17.17.pdf
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,308
|
Post by SSHoya on Aug 21, 2018 15:43:07 GMT -5
Whoever is running the deep state is really kicking butt today... But Benghazi! The email server! FISA! Unmasking! Clinton Foundation! Bruce Ohr! Come on Trumpkins, let me hear it! I never watch Fox News and am curious as how the propaganda arm of Trump covers it.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,308
|
Post by SSHoya on Mar 14, 2018 5:41:52 GMT -5
Clown Republicans on HPSCI can't even keep their story straight. Three GOPers now expressing some degree of dissent from the GOP propaganda piece. I wish to G-d that Mueller would prosecute Nunes for obstruction of justice based upon his conspiracy with the White House Clown-in-Chief over the unmasking non-scandal and now this propaganda report from the majority on HPSCI. I guess the Democratic response hit the mark. The leader of the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia investigation seemed to back off Tuesday from the most surprising finding in the GOP’s report that Russia was not trying to help President Trump, as the panel’s top Democrat trashed the product as a political gift to the White House. Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Tex.) told reporters Tuesday that “it’s clear [Russian officials] were trying to hurt Hillary [Clinton]” by interfering in the 2016 election and that “everybody gets to make up their own mind whether they were trying to hurt Hillary, help Trump, it’s kind of glass half full, glass half empty.” His comments came after other panel Republicans, including Reps. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) and Thomas J. Rooney (R-Fla.) gave interviews in which they stressed that there was evidence that Russia had tried to damage Clinton’s candidacy. www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/intel-panel-republicans-seem-to-back-away-from-finding-that-russia-was-not-trying-to-help-trump/2018/03/13/7b4c9594-2716-11e8-874b-d517e912f125_story.html?utm_term=.0f3784fe8857
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,308
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 2, 2018 12:14:29 GMT -5
Given Nunes's track record with the non-scandal "unmasking" and his midnight run to the White House he has zero credibility. A FISA application can run from 30 to over 100 pages. It is hard to imagine that a 4-page memo can fairly characterize ALL the facts that establish probable cause to believe that Carter Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power under 50 USC 1802(b)(2)(A). And if transparency is the alleged reason (Ryan) why wouldn't the GOP-controlled HPSCI authorize the release of the Democratic members view? Because the GOP is running a PR campaign to feed its ignorant Trump base. If Nunes and HPSCI were serious about oversight, it could have held classified hearings for purposes of actual oversight. Instead, the GOP-controlled HPSCI is issuing talking points and a press release. Nunes refused to share with Senator Burr, the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence because it is operating appropriately and it was likely that Burr would have scoffed at this memo. HPSCI could have gone to the FISC itself or the DOJ IG. Or the PCLOB. www.pclob.gov/
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,308
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 1, 2018 11:52:48 GMT -5
Regarding FISA applications. Before a Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) of the FBI signs the declaration in support of the application, the SSA must complete what has become known as the Woods procedure. It is named after an FBI agent who developed the procedure as a result of an inaccurate application that reached the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). The SSA who signed the inaccurate application was forever barred by the FISC from appearing before it as an affiant in support of an application (effectively ending that agent's career). The Woods procedure is supported by a Woods file, which contains documentary support for every fact asserted in the FISA application. The SSA who is the declarant will not and cannot sign off on an application until he certifies that he or she has complied with the procedures. Upon completion of that procedure, a lawyer from the FBI's National Security Law Branch reviews the application before it is transmitted to the attorney-adviser at DOJ, Office of Intelligence, National Security Division. At that point, a final is prepared and submitted to the FISC as a "read" copy. That copy is reviewed by the court legal adviser who will question the attorney-adviser if he or she has any questions regarding the application (both factual and legal) before it is given to the FISC judge who is on duty. After that, the judge may have more questions which will be transmitted to his or her legal adviser to discuss with the DOJ attorney assigned. Then, and only then, is the final filed with the FISC and the judge may choose to have a hearing. If the judge is satisfied, the judge will sign the application and orders will be transmitted to the various FBI field offices for service of the orders upon service providers.
Once the Nunes 4-page memo is publicly disclosed, pay attention to what is NOT in the memo. If it is based upon the fact that the FBI relied upon the Steele dossier to some degree remember that the FBI had other intelligence corroborating much of the facts contained in the dossier. In addition, recall that Steele was instrumental in assisting the FBI in its successful prosecutions in the FIFA corruption scandal. In other words, Nunes cannot possibly detail in a 4-page memo all the facts relied upon by the FBI in securing a warrant based upon probable cause which a federal judge authorized.
Apparently "signficant omissions" has been changed to "omissions" in the 4-page memo that actually went to the White House referencing the contents of the FISA application. If that is the case, it is tantamount to admitting that there are no "material" omissions to the FISA application; to wit, it would not change the probable cause determination of a FISC judge. The memo may turn out to be a nothingburger, similar to Nune's non-scandal on "unmasking", but may function as red meat for the ignorant Trump base and partisans.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,308
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 31, 2018 15:10:50 GMT -5
I'm wondering how much Nunes + the White House coordinated the memo *with Russia*. First I heard of release-the-memo was when it started showing up on the Hamilton 68 dashboard. Secret Agent Man Nunes coordinated the non-scandal "unmasking" with those bozos in the White House. It now can be a conspiracy in plain sight via social media. Draw your own inferences.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,308
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 30, 2018 21:21:59 GMT -5
Clown Nunes can just make sh*t up because of the classified nature of FISA applications for electronic surveillance. Apparently, House Intel staffers refer to Nunes as "Secret Agent Man" to mock him for his clumsy attempt at running a covert op with the White House on the "unmasking" non-scandal. Before an application for electronic surveillance or physical search is filed with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the application is reviewed by one FBI lawyer, two DOJ/National Security Division lawyers (who draft and file) and a court legal advisor who is assigned to the judges on the FISC. The FISC judges are Article III judges assigned by Chief Justice Roberts who preside over the FISC on a rotation basis. The applications are reviewed for sufficiency in probable cause and legal sufficiency. The application cannot be filed absent the court legal advisor's review and his or her discussion with the FISC judge assigned the application. Oftentimes, vigorous discussions concerning the sufficiency of the application (both factually and legally to ensure it meets the probable cause standard) will ensue between the court legal advisor and the DOJ/NSD lawyer who drafted the application. Then, and only then, is it filed with the FISC. If the judge has unresolved questions regarding an application, the Supervisory Special Agent from the FBI who is the declarant in support of the application will appear before the judge to answer any questions he or she may have. If that wasn’t enough, little else about this episode gives the memo any more credence. Out of Nunes’s twelve GOP colleagues on the committee, only three would tell us that they had confidence in the memo’s claims. And because only the Gang of Eight have access to the intelligence behind the memo, the vast majority of the members of Congress who read the document had no way to evaluate its substance anyway. What’s more, Nunes initially refused to share the memo with Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr and Vice Chairman Mark Warner. According to Schiff, the House committee majority quashed a motion to share the underlying evidence with the full committee before voting to #ReleasetheMemo. Nunes reportedly refused to tell a colleague during the vote whether he has coordinated the memo with the White House. www.lawfareblog.com/how-handle-intelligence-committee-chairman-gone-rogue
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,308
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 13, 2017 20:41:09 GMT -5
If a partisan such as Gowdy is satisfied with Rice's testimony regarding unmasking, it surely makes a liar out of Trump and his lapdog Nunes's and their baseless allegations that Rice committed a crime and leaked to the press. Rep. Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican who is helping lead the House investigation, told the Daily Caller "nothing that came up in her interview that led me to conclude" that she improperly unmasked the names of Trump associates or leaked it to the press. www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/susan-rice-house-investigators-unmasked-trump-officials/index.html
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,308
|
Post by SSHoya on Jun 7, 2017 17:54:05 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,308
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 6, 2017 10:04:34 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,308
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 5, 2017 22:20:40 GMT -5
[/quote]Interesting background.
I believe very little of what Trump or Nunes (or Rice for that matter) says, based on their history and motives. They're all politicians.
I do not believe that Rice is is dumb enough to seek the identities and leave a paper trail that identifies her as the one seeking the identities. I do believe that she is smart enough to have a colorable claim for requesting the unmasking - for the exact reasons you state in your email. But I also believe that she made those requests to unmask with the full intention that someone, somewhere in the bureaucracy would disclose the names to the press because it would damage and undermine the Trump administration. I'm curious - based on your experience, where do you think the leaks came from?
[/quote] Fair enough. However, the fact that Rice may have sought the unmasking of US Person identities does NOT mean that those identities become generally disseminated throughout the IC. The actual identities would be considered "close hold" and the "need to know" principle would apply. Thus, the identities would be known to a very limited set of investigators and officials especially in an obviously politically sensitive case of this type. Thus the names would not appear "somewhere in the bureaucracy" as a grand plan to have it leaked. And Trump has seem to have done an excellent job at damaging and undermining his own administration. Not many would argue with that assertion. Remember who started this whole thing? Trump's unfounded tweet.
Who might have leaked? The only real leak we are dealing with right now is Flynn's name. Perhaps someone within the IC who fashioned him or herself a whistleblower and truly believed that Flynn was a Russian agent or a co-optee and could not be trusted with national security matters. I would say subsequent events have demonstrated that Flynn IS untrustworthy. Flynn's failure to disclose all the sources of his foreign income (payments from RT et al) and his ex post facto registration as a foreign agent for Turkey tell me he is an untrustworthy individual. I have also speculated that perhaps is the basis for his request for immunity. Moreover, his lawyer says Flynn filed "amended" financial disclosure forms to the Office of Government Ethics in which he disclosed the foreign sources of income. I filled out the exact same form (every year) and never had a "draft" submitted before a final is filed and don't recall an opportunity to file an "amended" disclosure form.
The other "leak" is the one actually done by Messrs. Eisenberg and Ellis, in which they attempted to use Nunes as a vehicle for the "leak" that Rice unmasked names collected through incidental collection, which even Nunes in his incoherent press conferences conceded is likely legal. Correct me if I'm wrong but no other US Person has been identified by name as being unmasked but there only have been ague references to those unmasked were in the Trump transition team, speculating that it may be Manafort and Page, which seems likely given their activities overseas and admitted contacts with Russians.
Another possibility is that someone in the White House (not part of the IC) who somehow learned of Flynn's name leaked his name. The WH and National Security Council cannot be described as models of efficiency and seem to have been setup to have competing power centers. Who knows, maybe someone within the WH/NSC had it in for Flynn -- remember he was fired from DIA because of his "management style", which typically means someone who rubs someone or everyone the wrong way.
And if Trump truly believes that Rice has committed a crime it is incumbent upon him to have his useless White House Counsel Don McGahn gather the evidence that supports that assertion and make a criminal referral to the FBI.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,308
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 5, 2017 19:17:41 GMT -5
Respectfully Ed, I practiced law before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for 6+ years, worked for the CIA, and spent 4 years as a Naval Intelligence Officer. I began every single morning at the National Security Division with a review of the daily intelligence briefs from 3 different IC sources. I have a full understanding of the process to obtain a FISA warrant, how the Standard Minimization Procedures operate, and the protections in place to disclose the identity of a US Person. This is not "spin" but actual applying the law regarding "incidental collection" under either 702 or under a FISA order, and the SMPs to the known facts. Do you have anything substantive to offer? An opinion based upon knowledge, training or experience. I know you didn't vote for Trump but do you have an opinion upon Trump's wild accusations premised upon facts? Please provide a reasoned opinion about this President and his actions. I respect your experience and assume that everything you've said is legally correct. You clearly know a lot more than I do about any of this. But legalities aside, do you really think that Susan Rice requested the unmasking of the US Persons for national security purposes? Yes. There appears to be an implicit assumption that if the National Security Adivser asks for a US Person identity the FBI/NSA simply salutes smartly and unmasks the identity. That is simply not the case. The hated "government bureaucrats", i.e., the career intelligence professionals make an assessment and there are many hoops to go through whether to decide to unmask a US Person identity in response to a request. It is not a decision taken lightly because, believe it or not, the IC DOES take the privacy interests of US Persons seriously. I volunteered as part of my collateral duties as an attorney at NSD for compliance trips in which we formed a team along with attorneys from the Compliance & Oversight section of NSD. The sole purpose was to review FBI/NSA practices on obeying SMPs and court orders in order to protect privacy interests of US Persons. The Compliance & Oversight section periodically visited every FBI Field Office that requested FISA applications and had FCI or CT investigations to comb through their files to ensure each was in compliance with all privacy guidelines, much like an Inspector General. Re: Rice. 1) Remember that Director Comey testified that the FBI opened a foreign counterintellience investigation into the Russian hacking in July 2016. 2) Open source reporting disclosed that Carter Page was in contact with an SVR intelligence officer as early as 2013, per his own admission, whether wittingly or unwittingly. His contact was with an employee (Buryakov) of a sanctioned Russian bank (VEB). Page unmasked himself by admitting he was Male #1 in a heretofore sealed FBI affidavit. Buryakov bank did not have immunity as he was under NOC and is just now being released from federal prison. The other two Russians involved with Page were under official cover and beyond prosecution. 3) Trump subsequently identified Page as a foreign policy adviser on his campaign I believe in an interview with the NY Times editorial board. 4) The activities of Paul Manafort was no doubt under US scrutiny prior to his association with the campaign given his work in Ukraine on behalf of the pro-Russian Presidential candidate. 5) Throw in Flynn's Russian associations which also predated the campaign along with Page and Manafort's activities which also predated their associations with the campaign. Connect the dots. I assume some CIA/FBI/NSA analyst may have generated report(s) based upon some or all of this. Example: "An identified US Person (US Person #1) who worked as a consultant had been retained by Ukrainian Presidential Candidate X who is a known Putin supporter. US Person #1 is now associated with a Presidential candidate." Unmasked = Paul Manafort Sometimes, the mere context of a report would give you an inkling of who the US Person may be. Example: "In the month of December 2016, a retired military officer (US Person #2) discussed sanctions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak." You pretty much could figure out who that was. If I were Rice and knew, 1) that the Russians were attempting to interfere in the US election in July 2015, and 2) that several individuals associated with the Trump campaign had these previous associations, and 3) a series of intelligence reports contained information such as hyothesized above, she'd be derelict in her duty (in my opinion) in not inquiring further and seeking the unmasking to determine the importance of the foreign intelligence information, which is an exception to the SMPs. The authorities who receive the unmasking request make the final determination, not Rice. And you wouldn't believe how many lawyers would have to review such a request for unmasking. And if you believe that Rice is so crassly political do you really think she is dumb enough to seek the identities and leave a paper trail that identifies her as the one seeking the identities? In one of my earlier posts I recommended a book by Charlie Savage, NY Times reporter called "Power Wars" about the Obama Administration approach to counterterrorism. You'll see how lawyered the Obama Administration was for good and ill. (N.B. I recount my experience not out of ego but merely to demonstrate a foundation for my opinions. You'll rarely, if ever, see me opine on health care reform or the economy). I was in the CI section of NSD and worked on matters very similar to the above. None of which I have discussed here is classified. I am not so cynical that I see everything through a political lens. Having worked extensively with FBI and NSA as an attorney, none of this is taken lightly. The leaks Edited me off. The President's reliance upon Russian reports, Fox News commentators Edited me off. My father was a retired CIA officer and one of the last Americans out of Saigon in 1975. A CIA colleague of his from Vietnam is on the CIA Memorial Wall. Trump's speech in front of that wall REALLY Editeded me off. I commend this article to anyone who is concerned about the damage Trump is doing to the country when he goes off on Twitter rants re: the IC: www.lawfareblog.com/grand-bargain-risk-whats-stake-when-president-alleges-politics-intelligenceNow, do you believe Nunes keystone kops attempt at tradecraft with Eisenberg and Ellis a bona fide disclosure or merely a sham to support Trump's unfounded tweet of March 4th? Do you believe anything that Nunes said at any of his press conferences? And now that Bannon is off the NSC, would you concede that his appointment to the NSC was "political"? www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/stephen-bannon-trumps-most-controversial-adviser-exits-the-nsc/522015/?utm_source=nl-atlantic-daily-040517
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,308
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 5, 2017 12:58:53 GMT -5
Moron Trump just told NYTimes that Susan Rice committed a crime in unmasking Flynn or others, even though GOP sources state she wasn't even the requesting official for Flynn. And even though requesting the identity of a minimized US Person would not have been contrary to the Standard Minimization Procedures in effect since clearly (IMO) the identity of the US Person would be necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information, i.e., whoever requested the unmasking of a minimized US Person identity needed to know in order to determine the national security implications of that person talking to the Russian Ambassador. Thus, nothing improper or contrary to the SMPs in requesting the unmasking. This is especially true since Director Comey has already testified that a foreign counterintelligence investigation was commenced in July 2016. Thus, the unmasking of Flynn and perhaps others associated with the Trump campaign/transition was obviously necessary to understand the import of the foreign intelligence information. We have an ignorant malignant narcissist and a pathological liar as President. Spin. Respectfully Ed, I practiced law before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for 6+ years, worked for the CIA, and spent 4 years as a Naval Intelligence Officer. I began every single morning at the National Security Division with a review of the daily intelligence briefs from 3 different IC sources. I have a full understanding of the process to obtain a FISA warrant, how the Standard Minimization Procedures operate, and the protections in place to disclose the identity of a US Person. This is not "spin" but actual applying the law regarding "incidental collection" under either 702 or under a FISA order, and the SMPs to the known facts. Do you have anything substantive to offer? An opinion based upon knowledge, training or experience. I know you didn't vote for Trump but do you have an opinion upon Trump's wild accusations premised upon facts? Please provide a reasoned opinion about this President and his actions.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,308
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 5, 2017 11:54:42 GMT -5
Moron Trump just told NYTimes that Susan Rice committed a crime in unmasking Flynn or others, even though GOP sources state she wasn't even the requesting official for Flynn. And even though requesting the identity of a minimized US Person would not have been contrary to the Standard Minimization Procedures in effect since clearly (IMO) the identity of the US Person would be necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information, i.e., whoever requested the unmasking of a minimized US Person identity needed to know in order to determine the national security implications of that person talking to the Russian Ambassador. Thus, nothing improper or contrary to the SMPs in requesting the unmasking. This is especially true since Director Comey has already testified that a foreign counterintelligence investigation was commenced in July 2016. Thus, the unmasking of Flynn and perhaps others associated with the Trump campaign/transition was obviously necessary to understand the import of the foreign intelligence information.
We have an ignorant malignant narcissist and a pathological liar as President.
|
|