It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OBAMA Admin Committed Felonies by SPYING and UNMASKING TRUMPs Team For POLITICAL Purposes.

page: 11
68
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh yay more hot air than an obama head hot air balloon.
Jog on.




posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

She is toast.


Flied Lice




posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

she said in an interview that it's her job to request names of anonymous people under surveillance. Kinda hard to argue that, whether you believe it is on you. I posted the interview on the main page i think, if not ill post it here.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113

She also SAID the benghazi attack was because of a youtube video.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

i really doubt she would lie about her former job, thats a pretty bold lie to try to pass off. now im gonna have to look up the role of her job. here is the interview btw




posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113

What's the first question Ms. Rice answers in the interview you posted, VJR?

Did you catch it?



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Not sure who's gonna be next but I don't think that Bannon's position on the security council was meant to be temporary like they're trying to assert now that he's been removed.

If I had to guess, I say probably Bannon or that other guy that McMaster wanted to remove from the council but was overruled.

Cohen or something like that. I think he's the one who facilitated the disclosure of the surveillance documents to Nunes. (Probably at the urging of Bannon)



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

what her response to claims of her leaking classified information was, a claim made by Trump and some news organizations that don't seem to have great sources.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: vjr1113

She also SAID the benghazi attack was because of a youtube video.


i dont know, somehow her comments on Benghazi would make her more guilty on this allegation sounds absurd to me. Im having trouble finding restriction of a national security advisor as they can pretty much do anything. help if you want.
edit on 5-4-2017 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: Gryphon66

what her response to claims of her leaking classified information was, a claim made by Trump and some news organizations that don't seem to have great sources.


She was asked if she had any information about the documents that Rep Nunes referred to as being "unmasked."

She stated that she had no information about those documents.

That is being claimed as a lie on her part, because she actually routinely requested that some participants be unmasked in security matters. She did this by getting the approval of the IC Unit in question.

She didn't lie about anything. That's the most absurd, ridiculous claim in this whole asinine mess.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113

They are a member of the Executive Office of the President.

They sit on the National Security Council.

THey have top security clearance.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Trump doesn't like losers.

Bannon hasn't delivered.

/shrug



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

thats so stupid, it didnt even occur to me to think about it in that way. in any ways, she HAS to reject claims about classified information made in the press, that's protocol so calling protocol a lie is beyond... earth.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113

She lied when told to previously.
That makes her less credible.
March 22 she told pbs she didn't know anything about this and was surprised by nunes statements.
Another lie as she admitted to unmasking american citizens and requesting such.

She is not credible.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: Gryphon66

thats so stupid, it didnt even occur to me to think about it in that way. in any ways, she HAS to reject claims about classified information made in the press, that's protocol so calling protocol a lie is beyond... earth.





posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: vjr1113

Please provide the source for the "ok" from the ic.
You are right her job carries that authority. She had no legal justification.
National security advisor is not fbi ,whose job is the investigation,
Or the cia or any other investigative law enforcement agency.
National security advisor is a cabinet appointment a political position not an ic position.
She abused her authority.
She is toast.


Look, your problem is that you apparently believe that Susan Rice was the person who actually unmasked the names.

If she had done that you'd be right, but not only did she not do it, she didn't have the "authority" or the ability to do so.

She had the "authority" to request that the IC unmask the names in the intelligence reports being provided to her as national security adviser and that's what she did.

As part of that request, she was required to provide justification for the unmasking.

If the IC determined the justification to be inadequate, they had the authority to deny her request.

According to James Comey, there are only 20 people, (including himself) and all within the IC, who have the "authority" to unmask names and only when the proper request and justification have been provided by someone with the "authority" to request it.

In this instance, that someone was Susan Rice national security adviser to the President of the United States.

See how that works?
edit on 5-4-2017 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: vjr1113

She lied when told to previously.
That makes her less credible.
March 22 she told pbs she didn't know anything about this and was surprised by nunes statements.
Another lie as she admitted to unmasking american citizens and requesting such.

She is not credible.


She was asked in the PBS interview specifically about the unmasking that Nunes stated happened with the magic documetns that he got from the White House, called three pressers to act like he was taking BACK to the White House.

She stated, like most of us, that she had no idea what Side-Show Nunes was on about. (Significantly, most of us still don't)

In her second interview, she stated clearly that in her job as National Security Advisor, with a top security clearance, she STILL had to request unmasking from the relevant IC division and THEY granted the unmasking.

This is the dumbest lie the right has championed since "it's not illegal if the President does it."



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: shooterbrody

She is toast.


Flied Lice





What was the last investigation the national security advisor headed up?



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

She requested it.
That is the process.
No one REVIEWS her requests as she has the authority.
Or cite a request that was denied.
The records will reflect her activity.
She is not an analyist she is the nsa.

What investigation was she working on?
What other cabinet members conduct investigations?



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: shooterbrody

She is toast.


Flied Lice





HAHA..Good one!



new topics




 
68
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join