Mike Cernovich claims Susan Rice was the UN-masker

About 45 minutes ago Mike Cernovich posted on his site that Susan Rice was the person responsible for UN-masking of names involved with the "incidental" collection of information related to President Trump. Further, Cernovich claims that New York Times journalist Maggie Haberman has had this information for 48 hours but did not release it in order to protect Obama. Here's the link: Medium.com

It will be interesting to see if this is true, and if she broke any laws. My guess is she was probably within the law due to law tampering by former president Obama. Interesting to note that Obama is in extradition free zone for a month.

Scapegoat maybe, but I think we all know Susan Rice just does what she is told...please see Benghazi attack and murders of four Americans was caused by a video story, which Ms. Rice parroted on news show after news show, knowing it was fake news, because she was told to so...links back to two people...and I suspect the unmasking orders came from the same two...

a reply to: Mike.Ockizard

twitter.com...
WOW. So it looks like the NYT has been sitting on this story for 2 days in order to protect Obama.
This story should explode on Monday.

Could be big but yet another example of the fake news, the left dominated MSM, that everything with them is emotion and bias, no willingness to present the truth.

I wonder if she made a "video" confession ?

Maybe her actions were spontaneous too.

This whole thing is getting back on Obama.

I actually think if you sit on a story of such magnitude, criminal charges should follow.

Unmasking isn't illegal and never has been. It can be politically incorrect though especially if it ends up being used to target.

What is definitely illegal is the leaking to the press through anonymous sources. Those sources should be prosecuted for leaking classified intel that should have stayed classified to protect American citizens.

What this all is is an enormous scandal. The unmasking of US citizens for pure political reasons. It hasn't escaped anyone's attention that Obama signed a series of EOs vastly expanding the numbers of people able to unmask and share this kind of intel in the waning days of his administration. The question then becomes did he do it to cover up what had already occurred or what was about to take place or both?

Ya, it will be interesting to find out if there were policies/procedures put in place that made it possible for her to do this legally. If so they should look at the intent behind any rule changes. Sounds like conspiracy to me but I'm not a lawyer.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Unmasking isn't illegal and never has been. It can be politically incorrect though especially if it ends up being used to target.

What is definitely illegal is the leaking to the press through anonymous sources. Those sources should be prosecuted for leaking classified intel that should have stayed classified to protect American citizens.

What this all is is an enormous scandal. The unmasking of US citizens for pure political reasons. It hasn't escaped anyone's attention that Obama signed a series of EOs vastly expanding the numbers of people able to unmask and share this kind of intel in the waning days of his administration. The question then becomes did he do it to cover up what had already occurred or what was about to take place or both?

And then he went to Tahiti(?) where we have no extradition. At least that's what I read.

originally posted by: xuenchen
I wonder if she made a "video" confession ?

Maybe her actions were spontaneous too.

This whole thing is getting back on Obama.

She'll definitely be making a video appearance of some kind soon. Either to testify or being hauled away in handcuffs.

I am going to have to stop reading the stuff cause it makes me sick to my stomach.

Incindental...I call BS. According to Dennis Montgomery who set up The Hammer surveillance of Trump has been going on for years. No reason to think it stopped just because Trump was a presidential candidate. Brennan and Clapper were still in office.

Tho all intelligence committees were informed of this twice they go only by what official Alphabets source say.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Unmasking isn't illegal and never has been. It can be politically incorrect though especially if it ends up being used to target.

This is Trey Gowdy lecturing Jim Comey recently:

GOWDY: "What we know is if there is an evidentiary basis for the president’s tweets, it has not been tiered to the public. The allegations are very specific, Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. There is not an entry basis for that. Where it gets a little more complicated is there are surveillance methodologies that allow the collection of hypothetically foreign to foreign communications. To the extent that U.S. Citizens are mentioned or collected in that, in those surveillance programs. They are masked. I think you want the information collected from the national security standpoint but the masking is important. So with that general Flynn, with the public reporting — he was unmasked. That is not only a breach of protocol, that is a violation of law. A felonious leaking of classified material. I want to know whether or not people have been unmasked even though you did not know about it publicly yet."

Link

I openly admit I've grown weary and bored of the back & forth accusations and thus have no idea who/what name bean spilling this is referring to.

Summary plz?

originally posted by: Nyiah
I openly admit I've grown weary and bored of the back & forth accusations and thus have no idea who/what name bean spilling this is referring to.

Summary plz?

This is what the AP has to say:

AP

a reply to: Mike.Ockizard

Further, Cernovich claims that New York Times journalist Maggie Haberman has had this information for 48 hours but did not release it in order to protect Obama.

It wouldn't be the first time she has carried water for Obama and Clinton.


WikiLeaks Outs NYT Maggie Haberman as Clinton Operative

a reply to: whywhynot

I skimmed, short on time at the moment. But ok, this is about the comrade connections and such again. And naming names doesn't appear to be illegal, just more or less poor taste.

M'kay then, so not actual news in that there's nothing pertinent going on to be kept abreast of, but seemingly just a published political finger-wag.

a reply to: Mike.Ockizard

I find this particularly interesting. He makes an excellent point. Aren't these "journalists" treading on pretty thin ice here?

The Times, rather than admit Trump had been vindicated, instead focused its attention on the question of who leaked the reports to Nunes:
Since disclosing the existence of the intelligence reports, Mr. Nunes has refused to identify his sources, saying he needed to protect them so others would feel safe going to the committee with sensitive information. In his public comments, he has described his sources as whistle-blowers trying to expose wrongdoing at great risk to themselves.

Since when did journalists attempt to unmask sources? The Times, WaPo, and other outlets rely on anonymous sources in nearly every article about national security. It’s clear they have an agenda — that agenda is not telling the truth.

And the largest stockholder of the NYT is Carlos Slim. That has kept them turning left for some time. Link

a reply to: diggindirt

a reply to: diggindirt

Unclear at this point but I'm guessing there's more to come. I'm thinking if she was smart, she knew this was coming and is prepared. We'll see. Also it will be interesting if the MSM picks up the story or tries to bury it.

Congressman Gowdy, an experienced federal prosecutor believes it is a felony when it is not done correctly and then leaked to the media. Susan Rice should be concerned.
a reply to: Nyiah