The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like "U.S. Person One."...
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....
३ एप्रिल, २०१७
"White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign..."
Writes Eli Lake at Bloomberg, citing "U.S. officials familiar with the matter."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४७९ टिप्पण्या:
479 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Chuck, TTR and Inga have informed me this is unpossible.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration was spying on the Trump transition team.
Maybe it was a spontaneous unmasking sparked by outrage over a Youtube video. We should locate the film maker and arrest him.
Goodness gracious! How dare Trump call that wiretapping?
It's just plain old (illegal) spying by the Black Jesus Administration.
No scandal there.
And the slobbering love affair continues to intersect with demented Trump hatred.
What a country!
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Can't wait to hear the spin from Unknown/Inga.
It is Christmas. But I knew what this present was for a long time.
Susan Rice is a particularly awful human being. I will be glad to see her weight 100 years in prison vs. ratting out Obama and Jarrett.
The odds that Obama didn't know what Susan Rice knew?
Infinitesimal.
The usual suspects will turn up here as soon as they get their talking points from MSNBC and Media Matters.
It's pretty obvious at this point that the whole "Russian interference" thing is a smokescreen to cover for the Obama administration using US government intelligence assets to feed info to the Clinton campaign. After the shock of losing the election, the smokescreen of "Russian interference" was deployed to try and cover this up. This is going to be a big juicy can of worms. If, that is, the MSM can get off their collective tuchus and cover it, assuming that they also aren't complicit.
At the very least, Susan Rice should go to jail.
And the odds that Hillary didn't know what Obama knew?
pretty darn small.
"Susan Rice is a particularly awful human being."
She is, but I think ValJar is even worse.
But all media stories are careful to state that Trump still has shown NO evidence of any Wiretapping.
These raw intelligence reports were delivered by a stork...not over a WIRE. And whats more there are no Eaves in The Trump Tower. Therefore Trump lied went he said that he was eavesdropped on.
"Not a smidgen of corruption." -BHO
We are going to learn that the surveillance of Trump was pretty comprehensive and started long before the election. I think you will also eventually learn that the entire Russian narrative was a smoke screen cover for this surveillance and leaks to the media. The tell is that this was ramped up in intensity immediately following the election itself, when those involved in the surveillance realized that Trump would have access to everything they did before he took office. This would also explain the last moment decision Obama made to change how widely such information could be shared within the executive branch- it was an attempt to broaden the pool of potential miscreants to the point that no one could be held accountable for leaking the information to the media due to simple probability.
I also think, if you look deep enough, you will find that some of this information was shared with the Clinton Campaign during the last months of the election.
Wait, what? That doesn't fit our narrative.
-MSM
PS. This is also sounding like another Drudge/Clinton/Blue Dress scandal in which the press had the story but buried it to protect Obama.
Wondered how long it would take Ann to post on this. Compounding this, maybe, Crooked Hillary, and maybe six of her minions, kept their security clearances, and access to classified information for most, if not all, of the four years after she left office. Which means that they probably had clearance to view the surveillance on the Trump team, after Rice supposedly unmasked the intercepts of the Trump people.
"We are going to learn that the surveillance of Trump was pretty comprehensive and started long before the election."
If that's the case, why would it be limited to Trump? How many Republican primary candidates were surveilled?
If I were not on my phone, I would be happy to provide links to what the vendors call "taps" of the type used to collect this surveillance. Google "optical taps" for a start.
Not that the argument over words is intended as anything other than a distraction.
Yancey
Well the Democrats were not in a position to make cybersecurity an issue given the candidate.
Shared with the Clinton campaign? Not a serious question.
"Susan Rice is a particularly awful human being. I will be glad to see her weight 100 years in prison vs. ratting out Obama and Jarrett."
Now here's someone it would be worth offering immunity.
And nothing will happen, not to any of those in BO's admin. What a corrupt Third World country we have become. Very depressing. Going back to Netflix.
Yancey Ward said...
We are going to learn that the surveillance of Trump was pretty comprehensive and started long before the election.
We will also learn that the Obama administration was surveilling a lot of political opponents including all major republican primary candidates and most of the congress. Look for reports of surveillance of Supreme Court Justice communications as well. Particularly John Roberts.
We will also learn that the surveillance was indiscriminate and all communications by all Americans was collected and archived.
Of course, use of state power against political opponents, for instance that of the IRS never happened under Obama.
Let's pause a minute to reflect upom that weasel Adam Schiff proclaiming there was nothing in the material he reviewed that was of note.
Mike,
Possibly all of them, but the administration probably thought the risk of being found out was higher for candidates like Rubio- it was conventional wisdom that those other candidates were more likely to win in November.
But all media stories are careful to state that Trump still has shown NO evidence of any Wiretapping.
No evidence apart from the NYT saying so in a headline. Layers and layers of fact-checkers, yes?
Yancey Ward, right on, all of it. You ought to have a job in intel yourself. If you don't already, I mean.
When one's illusions are shattered, only the delusional believe that they are now in a "post truth world."
No 'Obama is like Nixon' tag?
Ashes, ashes...they all FALL DOWN!!!!
Does Susan Rice rat out ValJar and/or Barack?
I say she does. She has young children. Val doesn't.
Unless Susan Rice is willing to sing,
She’s gonna take a fall,
And then, per the rules of extraditing,
We’ll learn that O is Kenyan after all
No 'Obama is like Nixon' tag?
No, tim, because the IRS and the intelligence committees refused Nixon's requests to act against his enemies. But that was over 45 years ago, and the government has changed since then.
If this story pans out...it is 100x worse than Watergate....
I also predict no one will be punished...we'll "move on" instead.
Did the Obama administration do anything to use the NSA information to influence the outcome of the election? No. Did Nunes and the Trump administration use deception to try to make it look otherwise. Yes. Do folks on this site care? Of course not.
I knew it was Susan rice. I knewit I knewit I knewit. Get ready for the MSM to drum up some procedural irregularity on the part of nunes. That'll be the story. That's what they'll focus on.
MSM:
Right-wing Trump operatives squelch Susan Rice-led investigation into their potentially treasonous dealings with unsavory, kleptocratic foreign powers. Now, let's turn to that righteous filibuster of Neal Gorsuch, where the two-faced Republicans threaten to upset over two hundred years of Senate tradition to elevate their worker-hating cat's-paw to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court that rightly belongs to the saintly Merrick Garland, beloved of all and a friend to the widow, the orphan, the disabled, the vulnerable, and all small children and animals. We go to Chuck Todd/Scott Pelley/Rachael Maddow/Anderson Cooper for the latest...
What Gahrie said at 1:40PM.
And Hillary should have been prosecuted too.
Cons fuss because of legal actions = cons say legal actions should result in punishment/jail = cons propose changing the law so these actions are no longer legal.
Oops, not that last part.
Carry on.
Rice was a political appointee.
This was Obama using the power of the state to gather intelligence on his party's political enemies. It is despicable and un-American. Obama and Rice should be in jail.
Any honest liberal would agree, but of course there are no honest liberals anymore.
We dodged a bullet defeating Hillary, but the Democrats seem intent on keeping the corrupt apparatus in place while they mesmerize their base with gender issues and charges of racism.
We now have the new media talking points- "Ok, the Obama Administration did eavesdrop on Trump and his campaign, but didn't use the information to influence the election. Move along, nothing to see here."
How about a poll Althouse?
How many days/ hours/ weeks/ months will it be before the MSM [Big 3 networks, NYT, CNN, Wapo] reports this scoop?
Other than paper vs. electronic spying, what's the difference between this and Watergate?
So the old National Security Advisor got the new one fired.
"Other than paper vs. electronic spying, what's the difference between this and Watergate?"
illegal v legal
Looks like the talking points, weak as they are, have arrived.
The anxiety about the Trump Presidency is he is exposing how deeply corrupt the US Gov't and deep state have become. Some people are ok with the pain until they see the blood. Then they feel faint.
@readering,
Did the Obama administration do anything to use the NSA information to influence the outcome of the election? No
And you know this exactly how?
The fact that HRC lost the election doesn't mean that there wasn't malfeasance between the Obama administration & the HRC campaigns. Just because a con doesn't succeed doesn't mean it wasn't a con.
It is worrisome that someone as political as Rice would be given both access to the names in the intercepts, and the ability to unmask those names to the greater intelligence community. Remember, this was the woman who went on all the network Sunday news shows and lied through her teeth to the American people about who was behind the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, so that the ineptness of the Administration would not be used against Obama in his reelection bid. It worked, of course.
3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...
illegal v legal
Spying on political opponents used to be illegal, but is legal today.
You're a moron.
Big Mike said...
No, tim, because the IRS and the intelligence committees refused Nixon's requests to act against his enemies. But that was over 45 years ago, and the government has changed since then.
But that was a Republican in the White House, and the party in the White House has changed since then.
FIFY.
Gusty,
Read the piece, listen to Nunes, both say the unmasking and incidental collection was legal. If you have info they don't have, maybe you could provide that to the feds.
@PB_GoodPerson,
Other than paper vs. electronic spying, what's the difference between this and Watergate?"
illegal v legal
And you don't know that either. Were the FISA requests made under false premises? Was the "unveiling" of the American citizens in the taps done according to security protocols? Was the information passed on to third parties who had no business having access to secure information?
Those are just off the top of my head. If & I say If, the worst case comes to pass, there will have been dozens of laws broken along the way.
Just because some Democratic operative at Bloomberg says gathering the information was likely legal, does not make it true, and the leaks were a felony, but carry on.
Did the Obama administration do anything to use the NSA information to influence the outcome of the election? No.
Or perhaps Trump and his associates weren't doing anything that the Obama administration could use effectively, no matter how hard they tried.
Did Nunes and the Trump administration use deception to try to make it look otherwise. Yes.
Ah, no. Given the information available Nunes and the Trump administration are not using deception at all. Illegal actions were taken -- not extralegal, but under our laws flatly ILlegal actions -- by Susan Rice and possibly other members of the Obama inner circle. These must either be punished or they become the "new normal" for political tactics in 2020 and beyond. Do you want that?
Do folks on this site care? Of course not.
We certainly don't care about you or your made up "facts," no.
@ readering
Have there been stories that the Georgia and Indiana voting computer systems suffered attempted hacks by the Obama Administration? Yes.
Are those stories in any way related to this story? Probably.
Democrats still hurt that the truth about Hillary got to the American people, even though the press did their level best to bury it. That's why they are trying to make affecting the election the standard.
Gusty Winds:
Tweet your Watergate question to Robert Redford.
Young H,
Maybe you don't believe Nunes when he says the surveillance seemed legal to him.
I can see that since we know he's already fib re this stuff. Initially he said that he didn't know who did the unmasking, but now we're told that he had to go to the WH to view computer logs because that's how he saw that Rice did the unmasking.
Anywho, believe him now, or then, or both, or neither. So many choices.
Carry on.
A good question anyone would ask here, if they were a good reporter, is this- how did Rice know which intercepts to request a legal unmasking?
IF the previous administration's spying on their political opponents was legal (and I'm certainly not willing to concede the point yet), it's only legal because said administration changed the law to make it so.
That's just great. {/sarc}
@PB, pay attention sonny. The surveillance may have been legal, but the unmasking of US nationals not directly related to the surveillance was not. Susan Rice belongs in jail for the next dozen years.
If true then need to open a criminal investigation. Sessions can do that since he is head of DOJ
Yance,
I thought that too.
But, Nunes, in his orig comments, said that the documents had enough context such that you could infer who was who. At that point, presumably, asking for the unmask is just for confirmation.
But, Nunes may have also been suggesting that even for the documents w/ still masked names it was easy to infer who those people were.
Maybe he was referring to both situations. I'm too lazy to go back and parse him.
I dunno.
The surveillance was likely legal, I can see why Democrats want to conflate that with the unmasking, and the leaks to their operatives in the media.
Big Mike,
Read the piece. It states that the bar is so low and unspecific for unmasking that folks can come up w/ all sorts of legally acceptable justifications for doing so.
Peanut butter thinks this was all legal.
"what's the difference between this and Watergate?"
illegal v legal"
There are people that I wonder how they remember to breathe.
Susan Rice will cut a deal. She will NOT go to jail.
"Rice married Canadian-born ABC News producer Ian Officer Cameron on September 12, 1992, at the St. Albans School chapel. They met as students at Stanford. They have two children, Jake and Maris."
PB, for the record, not bothered by spying on political opponents using FISA and the state intelligence apparatus.
3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...
Gusty,
Read the piece, listen to Nunes, both say the unmasking and incidental collection was legal. If you have info they don't have, maybe you could provide that to the feds.
First of all, it was actual intercepts of your phone calls by the NSA, no longer narrowly referred to as 'wiretapping', that confirmed you are a moron. That was the conclusion written in the dossier. All 17 intelligence agencies were in agreement.
That was the information I was given. It's all I know...and it was all perfectly legal.
Anyone who believes this information collection was incidental is a moron. I will contact the NSA and have it added to your file.
"There are people that I wonder how they remember to breathe."
OMG, I was almost a gonner. I forgot for almost a minute.
Thanks doc.
Put one more notch in your stethoscope: another life saved.
Birkel said...
Chuck, TTR and Inga have informed me this is unpossible.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration was spying on the Trump transition team.
Oh, this story is such a big win-win for me. Susan Rice comes off as the conniving, partisan animal I have always suspected.
And the worst of Donald Trump's personal Twitter aberrations remain as false as ever.
Let's look at what Eli Lake wrote:
Rice's requests to unmask the names of Trump transition officials do not vindicate Trump's own tweets from March 4 in which he accused Obama of illegally tapping Trump Tower. There remains no evidence to support that claim.
But Rice's multiple requests to learn the identities of Trump officials discussed in intelligence reports during the transition period does highlight a longstanding concern for civil liberties advocates about U.S. surveillance programs. 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.
Eli Lake is being generous to Susan Rice, of course. But the bottom line is that Trump's "wire-tap" Tweets remain complete bullshit, and Susan Rice gets dragged into yet another Benghazi-like bit of nastiness.
For me, a loyal and partisan Republican who happens to hate Trump and his Twitter account personally, and who also has known about and loathed Susan Rice from before the time that Obama became president, this is great news. Win-win. Democrats look ugly; Trump is still a liar.
Looking forward to what Rachel has to say tonight.
Now here's someone it would be worth offering immunity.
Don't worry. I'm sure the FBI will be falling all over itself to offer Rice, and any other Democrat who may be even remotely involved immunity ASAP. After all, that's what they did in Hillary's case.
t in v,
If someone proposes laws to tighten this up, I may be in favor of it.
Need to see details first.
Bloomberg writer is authoritative, as well. We know from Wikileaks how these people work hand in glove with the Democrats. Not denied or disputed, BTW.
O banked on Hill winning, then hiding the intel. Mistake: now Trump's people can find and connect the dots.
Several issues still to be sorted out: the nature of the original surveillance operation(s) and the basis for the request(s) to authorize it/them, the targets of the operation(s) and the extent to which Trump intel was merely incidental, the unmasking by Rice et al. and whether O approved it (within or outside the actual law), the extent of and authorization for the sharing of the unmasked Trump intel, and the felonious source(s) of the leaks about the surveillance. My guesses: that the "incidental" collection was anticipated in the planning of the operations, and that O or Jarrett explicitly approved the unmasking, sharing, and leaking.
They also handed out immunity like candy for nothing in return in the IRS investigation.
Peanut Butter,
How many intercepts do you think Rice read in a day? How many intercepts do you think the US government makes in a day? Those two numbers are surely different by several magnitudes. Someone was segregating and directing the intercepts involving Trump and his staff to political appointees like Rice herself. And, I shouldn't have to point this out, but you don't have to use context to determine these- the people doing the intercepting already know the identities of the parties involved. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that Rice already knew who the parties were before she read the intercepts- she would only ask for a formal unmasking not to confirm the information but to put the patina of legality on it its dissemination.
So, Trump was right. The argument has moved to "was it legal".
If it was legal, it was nevertheless thoroughly slimy. Using the intelligence agencies to spy on your political opponents is a banana republic sort of thing, and I should know.
@ PB&J
What of the hacking of Georgia and Indiana voting systems by the Obama Administration? What laws make that legal?
Yance,
I prefer to stick w/ the descriptions we're getting from Nunes et. al., instead of making up speculation from the outside.
But, different strokes for different folks.
Carry on.
Oh, good grief. The Obama administration keeps failing to meet my extremely low expectations of them even after they have left.
Ok Birkel,
We can lock them up for that.
Needs to see the details, but not before declaring it all legal and above board. Peanut butter is a DNC tool, like ARM, and Inga. No point expecting them to consider the facts if Obama is involved.
And, to put it in context, the actions of the East German Stasi were also legal.
This is the sort of Orwellian system that the Democratic party desires in its deepest heart, being as they are the party of the state apparatus.
"So, Trump was right. The argument has moved to "was it legal".
Yes, the goal posts have moved from the end of the end zone to Tahiti. We are probably going to see the "legal" part of it vanish in flames, too.
@ buwaya puti
As Richard Nixon said: "If the President does it, it's not illegal."
That is the argument the Obama Administration (and surrogates, as above) has made, are making and will make.
The goal post is way past "was it legal" to "did it affect the election." Try to keep up!
Now we're moving the goalposts if we don't lock people up who haven't committed a crime? It's a banana republic to require law breaking before jailing people?
Carry on.
Most of the Stasi weren't locked up. They were, however, no longer in power or permitted to do their thing anymore. The East German communists were also not rewarded politically, being seen as having been vastly evil.
PB&J seems to be OK with this level of evil. Really, you should find better things to do.
buwaya puti said...
So, Trump was right.
Explain. Keep you answer as short as possible, and yet take as much space as is needed to explain in detail. What was Trump "right" about? How, and why, do you think Trump was "right"?
I'm wondering what other laws apply here besides the unmasking issue. Even if the information was collected incidentally, what law applies when someone in a position of authority purposely culls the incidentally collected, but privileged information for derogatory information on a private citizen for the sole purpose of using that information to damage that citizen? Or perhaps blackmail that citizen? And, all of the persons who were caught up in this incidental collection were private citizen when the collection started, so how did collection get started? It was reported that this information was not part of an intelligence effort and that the incidental collection had nothing to do with the Russians; so, how did that information come to the attention of NSA personnel or Susan Rice? And what other information on opponents of the Obama administration has also been "incidentally" collected over the years and then used as blackmail to get a desired court ruling, vote on a bill or other favor for the administration? This whole affair smells to high heaven and is pleading for someone to at least do some serious investigative reporting, if not empanel a grand jury.
"Now we're moving the goalposts if we don't lock people up who haven't committed a crime? It's a banana republic to require law breaking before jailing people?"
Our government is spying on its political opponents and you have the temerity to raise the specter of a "Banana Republic"? We are, apparently, a Banana Republic all right, but not in the manner you insinuate.
@ Chuck, so called
I note with some relish you jumping to the defense of the Obama Administration politicizing the intelligence community.
Grab your carry on.
A crime was certainly committed with the leaks, an issue that Bloomberg avoids like the plague, but Valerie Plame! There the leak was central! What Bloomberg cares about is dictated by partisan politics.
I look forward to the investigation of illegally unmasking Ted Cruz campaign officials in incidental intelligence gathering operations.
Grab your carry on.
It appears LLR F. Chuck is still hanging his hat on Trump's lying about being wiretapped.
Tell me LLR F. Chuck, how does one obtain a transcript of Mike Flynn's conversation? They tapped the Russkie ambassador and Flynn happened to be at the other end.
Think that behavior didn't extend to the man himself when the O administration got a FISA warrant for some other Russkie??
If Trump said his office was bugged, but it turned out to be the FBI bouncing a laser beam off his window from across the street, Chuck would be calling him a liar.
Blogger tim in vermont said..."If Trump said his office was bugged, but it turned out to be the FBI bouncing a laser beam off his window from across the street, Chuck would be calling him a liar."
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.
If it is legal for the NSA to provide the party in power with intel on the party out of power, then we need to bring Snowden home and shut down the NSA. Period.
The most amazing this is how they have recruited Joe Scarborough to be Trump's biggest critic when is come to claims of being "wiretapped". I wonder how ripe the fruit is at MSNBC, because man that guy has sold...his...soul...
If you simply go to Thesaurus.com list as synonyms for wiretapped are:
eavesdrop
overhear
spy
& listen in
...but there is absolutely to evidence that any of this happened to people involved the the Trump campaign or transition.
Oh...and the leaking of an unmasked name is a felony.
One thing to admire about Obama, he has the connections and people to get shit done. Obama's justice dept. would be persecuting and prosecuting if the shoe was on the other foot. Trump and his people don't have the connections, or the criminal attitude to take care of business.
Nothing will come of this. Average people will accept MSM spin.
As an example of how ignorant average voter is. look at the whole "the Russians did it" is being accepted.
Anyone who has been on the internet for any length of time knows that hackers can hide their tracks. Only way to catch a sophisticated hacker is to be in the room with him when he does the deed.
Chuck,
Certainly.
The previous administration deliberately intercepted communications by Trumps staff and associates in order to use that material for partisan political purposes.
In the old days it would have been having the Post Office turning over their letters and having the Secret Service steam open the envelopes in order to read other gentlemen's mail, and pass that information to politicians. That would have been a terrible scandal in a more honest time.
It is not the part of a gentleman to hide behind words.
"And what other information on opponents of the Obama administration has also been "incidentally" collected over the years and then used as blackmail to get a desired court ruling, vote on a bill or other favor for the administration?"
Conservatives have been puzzled by Roberts' vote on Obamacare for years. What was a mystery might just become clear...
What did President Obama know, and when did he know it?
"Oh...and the leaking of an unmasked name is a felony."
BTW, who has been leaked? It seems like, a while back, Flynn's name got out re conversations that he lied about. Recently, it's come out that he was selling influence and lying about it, but that was self disclosed w/ updated financial reporting. Not that the gov didn't already know, but it didn't leak, as I recall.
So, other than Flynn and his lying re talking to Russians, what other unmasked name has leaked? Re what?
Blogger Quaestor said..."What did President Obama know, and when did he know it?"
If Susan Rice knew, Barack Obama knew. And if if Barack Obama knew, Hillary Clinton knew.
Gusty said "The most amazing this is how they have recruited Joe Scarborough to be Trump's biggest critic......"
It occurred when Scarbro' made solid contact Delilah Brzezinski while in Philistine territory (MSLSD). His strength evaporated before his very eyes. He was then led blindly off the cliff.
I don't remember Susan Rice suffering much fall out from her fraudulent statements about BenGhazi. Was there some over the top SNL parody that I'm forgetting? My bet here is that this is another kidney stone that will be passed without pain and flushed without obstruction. She's got the media on her side, and they will explain to the American public how she is being persecuted by the right. There will be some discussion as to whether her persecution is misogynistic or racist, but there will be no doubt that it's persecution. The upside for her is that she will be able to command much higher speaking fees for her college appearances.
Obama has been in Tahiti for quite a while now, over two weeks. That's a very extended vacation. Without his family it seems. Goodness knows he needs a long vacation after such long service.
Do we have an extradition treaty with Tahiti?
Wow, Peanut Butter, your position seems to be that the leaks aren't illegal. Ok.
The next step, or reasonably soon I think, would be for Trump to pardon Obama over the wiretapping. Just to get the issue of political payback off the table and remove the threat of vindictive prosecution. Trump should make a very great deal about it.
And he should invite Obama back from Tahiti.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Oh, this story is such a big win-win for me."
LOL
Sort of like your election prediction "win", eh?
"Wow, Peanut Butter, your position seems to be that the leaks aren't illegal. Ok."
Remember, 3rdGrader's argument that Hillary avoiding FOIA by setting up her own server was cool because ultimately the investigation allowed the public got to read (half) of those emails.
The Left justifies their Trump hatred and the unethical things they approve of to destroy him by insisting that he is uniquely wicked and not a normal president. This amounts to declaring that we (actually they) are in an ethical crisis. The usual analogy has to do with nazis, of course. If you worked at a nazi death camp, would it be immoral to illegally sabotage its operation?
The irony is that Trump is an American type. The huckster, the brash, braggart millionaire, half rail baron, half P.T. Barnum. Hillary is not a typical American type. Obama was not a typical American type. This shows just how far out there the Democrats have become.
Obama didn't release any tons of carbon getting to Tahiti either.
"Obama didn't release any tons of carbon getting to Tahiti either."
To save the planet, he should stay there.
buwaya puti said...
Chuck,
Certainly.
The previous administration deliberately intercepted communications by Trumps staff and associates in order to use that material for partisan political purposes.
In the old days it would have been having the Post Office turning over their letters and having the Secret Service steam open the envelopes in order to read other gentlemen's mail, and pass that information to politicians. That would have been a terrible scandal in a more honest time.
It is not the part of a gentleman to hide behind words.
Oh, what mendacious bullshit. You accuse ME of mincing words and hiding behind twisted meanings and opaque definitions?!? What a lot of fucking nerve. Trump wrote the Tweets -- "wires tapped"; "Obama"; "Bad (or sick) guy."
Remind me when Trump sat down for an interview -- with someone other than a toady like Tucker Carlson -- and explained exactly what he meant and why he wrote it?
What a bunch of sick, warped, twisted, Trumpkin shitheads you are, if you can't even condemn that string of unhinged Tweets. I might not even be so hard on Trump if he'd sit down and answer challenging questions on the subject. He won't. It's been almost exactly a month since those Tweets. Trump should explain in clear, unequivocal language, or recant.
What was the "wiretap"? How was "Obama" involved? Exactly why did you personalize it with that "Bad (or sick) guy" comment? What were your Tweets based on? You said you had "just learned" about it at that time; explain exactly what you learned, and how you learned it.
Do any of the little Trumpettes here care to take a crack at answering questions?
Peanut, as best I can tell, Flynn was not doing anything illegal. It might be a case similar to Scooter Libby where Flynn forgot he had mentioned sanctions to the Russki and got fired for embarrassing Pence. That's not illegal.
The other stuff is mostly propaganda by the Dims who are trying to inflate the Russian thing into a real scandal.
It will either turn out to be nothing or it will blow up in their faces.
Chuck, you should step away from the keyboard before you hurt yourself.
Can't wait to hear the spin from Unknown/Inga.
You know, if you really can't wait you can just find a list of Democratic talking points anywhere on the web.
"To save the planet, he should stay there."
For now that's fine, but long term we must verify that have an extradition agreement w/ them. He can be brought back in chains so he can be imprisoned as punishment for his crimes.
Where is Inga, anyways?
Begin the democrat media protection kabuki dance.
Chuck said...
buwaya puti said...
So, Trump was right.
Explain. Keep you answer as short as possible, and yet take as much space as is needed to explain in detail. What was Trump "right" about? How, and why, do you think Trump was "right"?
thesaurus.com results for wiretap
Don't worry Chuck. It is simple enough for a lifelong republican to understand. Trump was right. Obama is "sick" and hiding abroad.
It is time for the NSA to be hollowed out along with most of the political level security bureaucracy. Like a melon.
We don't know Obama's culpability yet, PB. I'm perfectly happy for this to unfold in a deliberate manner.
If I were a potential doner for his library, however, I'd wait to see what happens before ponying up.
tim in vermont said...
Obama didn't release any tons of carbon getting to Tahiti either.
in remissionis de carbo carbonis is OK if you bury money at the base of a tree at midnight on the night of a full moon.
Chuck said...
What a bunch of sick, warped, twisted, Trumpkin shitheads you are, if you can't even condemn that string of unhinged Tweets. I might not even be so hard on Trump if he'd sit down and answer challenging questions on the subject. He won't. It's been almost exactly a month since those Tweets. Trump should explain in clear, unequivocal language, or recant.
That is how lifelong republicans admit they are wrong and have been from the start.
As this is all about to end up in court with some very high level people facing prosecution I doubt Trump is going to discuss this the way you want him to.
Why does Trump have to do any of that, Chuck?
The truth emerges, as we see, and explains itself. One part after another in order. Give it time.
From AOSHq:
Rice herself has not spoken directly on the issue of unmasking. Last month when she was asked on the "PBS NewsHour" about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were swept up in incidental intelligence collection, Rice said: "I know nothing about this," adding, "I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today."
Even this account won't be enough to prosecute her because she is not only a protected class Democrat, she's a gilded protected class Democrat being in Obama's inner circle.
I suppose at this point every sensible person on the Left realizes that there is no "there" there. No shoe is going to drop. Trump's people are not in coverup mode. They may try to minimize the importance of Trump's connection to Russia and Putin, but they aren't trying to hide anything.
It is the Democrats, particularly people in ex-president Obama's administration, who are in coverup mode.
Peanut Butter plays the race card defending Obama, if I were somehow defending against the set of facts here like he is, I would try to change the subject too.
heyboom said...
Even this account won't be enough to prosecute her because she is not only a protected class Democrat, she's a gilded protected class Democrat being in Obama's inner circle.
Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard "Jeff" Sessions III.
There is a reason the Dem's wanted a GOPe squish for AG instead of him. Fortunately I think Trump is sufficiently upset by what the democrat party has done since he has been elected.
I look forward to the tears.
You worthless chickenshit fuckheads. There ARE NO EXPLANATIONS FOR TRUMP'S MARCH 4 TWEETS.
Anybody with detailed answers; bring it on.
Can anybody picture the Democrats writing The Battle Hymn of the Republic and raising armies to go to war to end slavery? The Democrats were the party of slavery and they have not fundamentally changed. Whatever keeps them in power. And Peanut Butter has the gall to bring up slavery.
"Lewis Wetzel said...
I suppose at this point every sensible person on the Left realizes that there is no "there" there."
Yeah, all six of them.
Chuck, we get that you have trouble with normal figurative speech.
3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...
Now we're moving the goalposts if we don't lock people up who haven't committed a crime? It's a banana republic to require law breaking before jailing people?
A sitting president and his administration used federal surveillance powers on a political opponent and distributed that information widely throughout the government.
Maybe jail would be the best outcome they could expect. If Bush had done this to Obama in 2008 how do you think this would be treated differently?
Achilles said...
Chuck said...What a bunch of sick, warped, twisted, Trumpkin shitheads you are,
That is how lifelong republicans admit they are wrong and have been from the start.
Even worse than that, for me he was only half-right.
I hope you're right, Achilles. I suppose I've been programmed over the past decade or so to think that the left is never held to account for any of their actions.
Chuck said...
You worthless chickenshit fuckheads. There ARE NO EXPLANATIONS FOR TRUMP'S MARCH 4 TWEETS.
Anybody with detailed answers; bring it on.
For the lulz!
Anyway, the other true thing out of all this, and I suspect a great deal more will emerge, is that the US has an overabundance of intelligence and security agencies and all of them have much too much power between them. They are impossible to oversee or control, not least because, like the One Ring, they are a nearly irresistible political temptation. They have become more of a danger to the public than whatever they are guarding against.
Wikileaks/Assange and Snowden have made their points.
If you want to know how a Republican would be treated, think Valerie Plame.
The truth emerges, as we see, and explains itself. One part after another in order. Give it time.
We've seen that with Trump before. How he'd expose the real nature of Barack Obama's birthplace. How he'd destroy the plaintiffs' case in the Trump University fraud case. How he'd prove his true net worth, in the Tim O'Brien libel case. How he was never "John Miller" or "John Baron" or "John Barron." How Corey Lewandowski could never have touched Michelle Fields, because Secret Service was all around him. How health care would be easy, and how he'd produce something that reduced everybody's premiums, and covered everybody else who didn't have coverage, at government expense, and care would be better, with simpler plans. Trump was the only guy who could get it done, because he could do the negotiating and nobody can negotiate like he can. He'd bring in Democrats, and get their support. Right after he got done suing the women who accused him of sexual misconduct.
When do the lies even slow down from this fucker?
Fernandinande said...
Achilles said...
Chuck said...What a bunch of sick, warped, twisted, Trumpkin shitheads you are,
That is how lifelong republicans admit they are wrong and have been from the start.
Even worse than that, for me he was only half-right.
It is like they think we are new to being called names. Coming from someone like him it is a compliment.
Chuck said...
When do the lies even slow down from this fucker?
Barrack Obama is going to be holding a press conference in the near future, probably in a foreign country, where he will say "I am not a crook!"
Put a bag on your head so that it is easier to find all of the pieces when it explodes.
Trump is my hero for keeping Ted Cruz and Hillary Rodham Clinton out of the White House.
Achilles, I don't propose to go around guessing at what Trump means, and putting his words through the most favorable spin that I can imagine.
If Trump was talking about some specific kind of surveillance, he should have specified it. He's got an army of lawyers and a communications staff of dozens of people. And now, he's had a month to get around to it.
Trump is full of shit now, as he always was.
The CNN army of smoke machinery is spinning and proclaiming at warp speed. Trump must be over target to get this level of flack.
Huge All CAPS box is kept on CNN screen saying, "Unmasking is not leaking".
Mind control is hard to do right.
Chuck,
Part 1 is now public knowledge, in some detail. Trumps people's communications were intercepted and misused at the behest of a senior member of the executive staff.
This is not clear enough? "Wiretapped" is a good enough word for this situation. But then I am a mere engineer and not a litigator. Good enough is good enough for me, it serves.
Part 2 and 3 TBD, but the path is clear enough. It does not pass the smell test that even a senior member of a Presidents staff would take such a decision on her own authority.
"You worthless chickenshit fuckheads." Vichy Chuck flies into a rage when his personal Lord and Savior Barrack Hussein Obama's honor is questioned by an infidel on twitter.
Just like all the other "lifelong Republicans."
I had asked earlier "I'm wondering what other laws apply here besides the unmasking issue. Even if the information was collected incidentally, what law applies when someone in a position of authority purposely culls the incidentally collected, but privileged information for derogatory information on a private citizen for the sole purpose of using that information to damage that citizen?"
Well, here's at least one law: It is a felony to conspire to “injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States.”
Chuck said...
You worthless chickenshit fuckheads.
Now only 1/3rd right.
There ARE NO EXPLANATIONS FOR TRUMP'S MARCH 4 TWEETS.
Divine haruspication. Probably.
Well, this escalated.
If only we were not "chickenshits" and could bravely fantasize about how to manhandle female journalists. Like a good Lifelong Republican.
So is Rice their Ehrlichman?
"And the odds that Hillary didn't know what Obama knew?"
-- They'd need to use aliases on a secret server or something to coordinate something like this. Hah, like that would happen!
I will just say that Chuck does a pretty good job of channeling Asperger's. All normal human communication seems a mystery to him.
Remember that he has diagnosed me on this blog as dangerously mentally unstable before he goes and tugs on Althouse's hem. That's a metaphor, Chuck, in case you thought I meant literally tug on the hem of her skirt.
Patience. This is a long running serial, the best drama on TV (or print) currently running. Dramatic scenes and side-plots are being set up, to be sprinkled through the episodes.
The writers may, of course, choke at some point, they usually do eventually.
"Which means that they probably had clearance to view the surveillance on the Trump team,"
-- Just because you have clearance doesn't mean you get to see anything your clearance gives you access to. There is no way a non-government person could argue need-to-know for this stuff. No honest way.
This is becoming like one of those twilight fan fiction sites.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Achilles, I don't propose to go around guessing at what Trump means, and putting his words through the most favorable spin that I can imagine."
No one cares about your proposals or how you characterize your spinning of Trumps statements.
You have been wrong about everything.
And you will continue to be.
And it doesn't matter one whit.
"If that's the case, why would it be limited to Trump?"
-- Because, as we know from leaked Clinton documents, she WANTED to fight Trump. She thought that he had a shot way earlier than anyone let on of winning the primary, and they viewed him as a threat, but one they could marginalize and make radioactive. They literally picked a fight they thought they could win, and lost, even while cheating.
Susan Rice is like the evil, Left-wing, twin of Condoleeza Rice.
I remember her on all the talk shows, after the Benghazi raid, lying about a spontaneous demonstration and an inflammatory video.
The gal just isn't tethered to the truth.
Maybe, some enterprising journalists can find her and ask her about this unmasking. If she dodges or pleads the 5th, that would explain a lot.
readering: "This is becoming like one of those twilight fan fiction sites."
Reality has that effect on leftists and "lifelong republicans" as their fictional world crumbles.
So, take heart. You are not alone.
Does this new avatar make my butt look fat?
"Did the Obama administration do anything to use the NSA information to influence the outcome of the election?"
-- They literally tried to convince Americans that Russians were trying to steal the election from Hillary and were acting as foreign agents to promote Trump.
The uncover request came from a political appointee, not a State Department or intelligence agency professional. It was a political fishing expedition, not a national security operation. This should make Lefty hearts sink. There will be no big reveal of illegal activity on the part of Trump.
Any old Lefty and/or "lifelong republican": Did the Obama administration do anything to use the NSA information to influence the outcome of the election?
Mathew Sablan: "-- They literally tried to convince Americans that Russians were trying to steal the election from Hillary and were acting as foreign agents to promote Trump."
Any old Lefty and/or "lifelong republican": Well, I mean, other than that?
LOL
Blogger Fernandinande said...
Does this new avatar make my butt look fat?
4/3/17, 4:06 PM
That's a white power symbol! Take it elsewhere, fascist!
Lewis: "This should make Lefty hearts sink. There will be no big reveal of illegal activity on the part of Trump."
Well, Lefty and "lifelong republican" hearts.
People forget that while Althouse was begging the press to stop writing about Trump, Wikileaks shows that Hillary was egging them on, since she thought he was easier to beat.
But we are not supposed to know that!
Chuck said...
Achilles, I don't propose to go around guessing at what Trump means, and putting his words through the most favorable spin that I can imagine.
Or just apply good faith.
If Trump was talking about some specific kind of surveillance, he should have specified it. He's got an army of lawyers and a communications staff of dozens of people. And now, he's had a month to get around to it.
Trump doesn't do that. That is part of why we like him. You get something that isn't filtered through polls and consultants.
Trump is full of shit now, as he always was.
All you have to do was say "Damn, Trump was right." People respect you a bit more when you are able to speak obvious truths.
President-Mom-Jeans said...
"You worthless chickenshit fuckheads." Vichy Chuck flies into a rage when his personal Lord and Savior Barrack Hussein Obama's honor is questioned by an infidel on twitter.
Just like all the other "lifelong Republicans."
Even your obsessive screen name gives you away, right from the start.
Meanwhile, on about three other threads at this very moment, I am arguing pro-Gorsuch and pro-Republican points.
Go fuck yourself. You and President Fat Khakis. Your "personal Lord and Savior."
I didn't vote for Obama (Althouse did) and I never supported him. While Althouse and a lot of others were denying their votes to McCain and then Romney, I was working with Republican election officials.
You find one electorally-supportive thing I ever wrote about Obama on this blog. Get out your biggest search engine. It still won't do you any good.
Lewis Wetzel said...
That's a white power symbol! Take it elsewhere, fascist!
No, THIS is the white power symbol.
Chuck wrote:
You worthless chickenshit fuckheads. There ARE NO EXPLANATIONS FOR TRUMP'S MARCH 4 TWEETS.
Anybody with detailed answers; bring it on.
First of all, the word "wiretaps" was a) in qoutes. But even if it wasn't in quotes, the words "wiretaps" now generally refers to surveillance of any kind, not specifically a tap of a wire.
And secondly, if you are on the receiving end of surveillance HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO KNOW PRECISELY HOW THEY DID IT? Would you, being the one, being surveilled, be privy to that infomration.
So why is the left demanding that Trump prove if the surveillance we now know occured, was direct or indirect or incidental or whether he specifically was targeted and by whom.
Thats asking an awful lot of the person being spied upon to cough up proof, yes?
When Comey came forward and testified he was vague as to what was done. How many times did he say "i can't answer this question" So, even after Comey testified the House is basically in the dark as to what was done and by whom and for what reason.
But Trump knows that someone in the obama administration surveiled him and/or someone in his campaign. Even if he had no other information other than what was reported in the NYT THAT WAS ENOUGH to PROVE he was right. You can try to parse words all you want, but the fact remains, Obama campaign surveiled his campaign prior to the election.
He may have gotten some facts wrong in that a wiretap wasn't set up in Trump Tower specifically. But even if he was wrong about the specifics he was right about the general point.
And lets be honest, if it was Susan Rice, and not Obama specifically that ordered surveillance or lifted masking it all goes back to Obama himself. He was aware of this. And if there were some proof found of collusion between Trump officials and Russia wouldn't democrats say it proved that TRUMP was involved? becuase it would all go to Trump. if that's true for Trump, it is damn well true for Obama as well.
He was the president. He received intel briefings. Unless Susan Rice went totally rogue, she was doing what she did under his bidding. This is on Obama then.
Your impotent rage amuses me, Vichy Chuck. Hopefully it amused Greta Van Susteren as well.
It was either a baby hunt or inspired by, as it turns out, prejudicial presentation, where the former is a quasi-legal action encouraged by left-leaning interests and the latter may justified through source and duty. Perhaps the problem was the veracity of the source.
So far I have only caught news snippets, and Rush's coverage of these activities being exposed.
Question: Unmasking names of citizens involved with a political campaign, MAY have merit, ONLY if all campaign's operatives had their names unmasked. So, where are the intell briefings from the Clinton campaign. Because we all know, those conversations were must likely dealing with illegal activities.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: " While Althouse and a lot of others were denying their votes to McCain and then Romney, I was working with Republican election officials."
Well, that greatly helps explain McCain's and Romney's losses in Michigan.
Of course, "lifelong republican" Chuck played no part in supporting Trumps efforts in MI.
.....and Trump won.
You are free to draw conclusions from this fact set.
Achilles said...
...
Trump doesn't do that. That is part of why we like him. You get something that isn't filtered through polls and consultants.
What you get, is some garbage that means whatever you and Trump want it to mean whenever you settle on a meaning that is useful.
Maybe, "useful" is the key with Trump. He's the useful idiot who put Betsy DeVos in at Education, Jeff Sessions in at Justice, Scott Pruitt in at EPA, Dr. Tom Price in at HHS, and mostly Neil Gorsuch onto the Supreme Court. All of which is nice. And almost none of which is reflective of anything other than a conservative GOP establishment. Installed, thanks to the useful idiot.
Our "lifelong republican" poster sputters on.
Good.
It's what he's best at.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Maybe, "useful" is the key with Trump. He's the useful idiot who put Betsy DeVos in at Education, Jeff Sessions in at Justice, Scott Pruitt in at EPA, Dr. Tom Price in at HHS, and mostly Neil Gorsuch onto the Supreme Court. All of which is nice. And almost none of which is reflective of anything other than a conservative GOP establishment. Installed, thanks to the useful idiot."
It would take years of therapy to unpack the web of contradictions and cognitive dissonance in this one comment.
And thus, it is perfectly representative of "quality of thinking" of this "lifelong republican" warrior who almost joined the military but didn't because "no draft".
First of all, the word "wiretaps" was a) in qoutes. But even if it wasn't in quotes, the words "wiretaps" now generally refers to surveillance of any kind, not specifically a tap of a wire.
Don't you think it was because Trump can't spell "surveillance"?
Matthew Sabian wrote: "If that's the case, why would it be limited to Trump?"
Because Trump was the Todd Akin candidate and no way was he supposed to win the election - just the nomination.
@ Chuck, who is so called...
You manage to defend Obama at every turn. You don't think it's "bad" or "sick" to use the intelligence apparatus of the United States to spy on your political rivals and somehow in the same thread you ask other posters to find any time you have written positively about Obama?
Fine, you have only written indifferently to the potentially criminal, definitely unethical and very dangerous behavior of the Obama Administration. You are perfectly content with that behavior, feeling no revulsion and no enjoyment.
Meanwhile, you loathe the successful Republican candidate about whom you lie and claim you cast a vote.
Better?
jr565: "He was the president. He received intel briefings. Unless Susan Rice went totally rogue, she was doing what she did under his bidding. This is on Obama then."
"lifelong republican" Chuck is not just going to sit around and let you get away with denigrating our "fan-tab-u-lous" preezy obambi.
I would expect a standard "lifelong republican" Chuck "richard blumenthal-type" defense as an initial opening gambit by Chuckie.
Time will tell.
Trump right again.
End of story.
Fun.
And Obama et al are proven once again to be lying sacks of shit.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Don't you think it was because Trump can't spell "surveillance"?"
So, that's why you are total dem defense mode on this, because you question Trumps spelling capabilities.
Hmmm, I appear prescient in predicting a "lifelong republican" Chuck "richard blumenthal-type" defense of obambi by Chuckie.
I did not expect to be proven correct so quickly however, but there it is.
@ MadTownGuy
I think we will learn, if investigations commence, that the Obama Administration "wiretapped" every individual they believed posed any threat. I think that would go for everybody, perceived friends and perceived foes alike.
Once given the massive power to corrupt the intelligence agencies for political ends, there is no logical stopping point. And I doubt seriously that Obama, et al, were operating logically.
Useful idiots for our side is better than corrupt harridans from their side being in power.
I'm posting this again. Just because it gave me such pleasure, writing it in the first place:
We've seen that with Trump before. How he'd expose the real nature of Barack Obama's birthplace. How he'd destroy the plaintiffs' case in the Trump University fraud case. How he'd prove his true net worth, in the Tim O'Brien libel case. How he was never "John Miller" or "John Baron" or "John Barron." How Corey Lewandowski could never have touched Michelle Fields, because Secret Service was all around him. How health care would be easy, and how he'd produce something that reduced everybody's premiums, and covered everybody else who didn't have coverage, at government expense, and care would be better, with simpler plans. Trump was the only guy who could get it done, because he could do the negotiating and nobody can negotiate like he can. He'd bring in Democrats, and get their support. Right after he got done suing the women who accused him of sexual misconduct.
When do the lies even slow down from this fucker?
"If Trump was talking about some specific kind of surveillance, he should have specified it. "
Chuck,I violated a couple of new year's resolutions by reading your comment.
However, I doubt Trump or his tech people knew exactly what method was used by Obama/CIA/NSA to surveil them. He just knew it had to be happening from the stuff that was being revealed.
"Wiretapping" is as good as any term.
Chuck: "I'm posting this again..."
No one cares.
The facts and the story have moved light-years past your last psychotic break.
This is a familiar refrain. Nothing happened. This is a witch hunt. What you found isn't that bad. That's technically legal. No one can prove it hurt them. That was so long ago, let's just move on.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा