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.

 

Flynn Leaks: Susan Rice is Married to Ian Cameron, Former Executive Producer at ABC

page: 1
42
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+21 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   
ABC was the organization that broke the Flynn Leaks.
Is it just a happy coincidence that the person who unmasked Flynn, is married to a former producer at the network that broke the story?
Seems like classified information was just flat out poorly handled in the obama administration.

So, will she be the scapegoat or will the guilt continue leaking upwards?

ABC Story on Flynn
Ian Cameron Marriage to Rice
edit on 3-4-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

This election has more drama than house of cards, homeland and 24h combined.

What a series this entire mess will make in a few years. Netflix original?



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

And So It Begins...

(Great find, OP.)



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Scapegoat for what? There is no evidence that the unmasking was even illegal.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Golantrevize

It sure does. More twists and turns and conspiracy than one can even fathom.


+1 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

We are already fully aware of the collusion between Dems and the media, so this is no surprise if true.


+42 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

First there was no evidence Trump was spied on.
Then there was no evidence that he was unmasked
Then there was no evidence that it wasn't because of 'muh Russia'
Then there was no evidence it was the Obama admin, just the intel community
Now there is no evidence that the unmasking was illegal

When will you guys stop with this?

There was never any evidence that Nixon ordered the watergate break-ins either.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

First there was no evidence Trump was spied on.

There isn't and he wasn't. Even if you STRETCH the definition of incidental collection to call it spying on Americans we still don't know if Trump was part of that incidental collection (though you better hope he wasn't). So far it was only people underneath him.

Then there was no evidence that he was unmasked

This was never a thing. Clearly if there was incidental collection, then an unmasking had to occur. No one had to prove that names were unmasked.

Then there was no evidence that it wasn't because of 'muh Russia'

???

Then there was no evidence it was the Obama admin, just the intel community

Not even sure what the point of this is. If the unmasking was legal, then it doesn't matter who did it.

Now there is no evidence that the unmasking was illegal

Well there isn't.


When will you guys stop with this?

When you can actually prove what you are claiming without having to make assumptions or jump to conclusions. I know evidence gathering is tough and confirmation bias works for you and the rest of the right wing, but the left and most importantly the courts have higher standards of evidence that you keep failing to meet.


There was never any evidence that Nixon ordered the watergate break-ins either.

Nixon resigned before he was impeached. Or did you forget that detail?
edit on 3-4-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Dfairlite

Scapegoat for what? There is no evidence that the unmasking was even illegal.


Thank you! My thought exactly!!! Making a mountain out of an ant hill!!!!!


+1 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Excellent point. And to expand, if Susan Rice was sharing with the media, who is to say that she didn't share with the clinton campaign? Now, I'll admit I don't have evidence of that, but it seems a logical leap given all we know about the media conspiring with dems in all facets.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Golantrevize
a reply to: Dfairlite

This election has more drama than house of cards, homeland and 24h combined.

What a series this entire mess will make in a few years. Netflix original?


I'm thinking more similar to Blacklist at this point...LoL!


+13 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Scapegoat for what? There is no evidence that the unmasking was even illegal.


Isn't the leaking of the information to the press where it gets into felony territory? I'm being sincere in this question.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Dfairlite

There is no evidence that the unmasking was even illegal.


That we've seen... YET... which is the point of the House Intelligence Hearings.

At least you're not pretending there was no unmasking or leaking since the known evidence clearly says otherwise. I appreciate that.

Fortunately for the unmaskers and disseminators and the publishers of that info, they have every opportunity to explain why what they did was legal and acceptable before congress... AND the court of public opinion.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

This is exactly how a fascist regime operates.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Scapegoat for what? There is no evidence that the unmasking was even illegal.


Isn't the leaking of the information to the press where it gets into felony territory? I'm being sincere in this question.

Well the OP said Susan Rice unmasked the info not leaked it.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Dfairlite

Scapegoat for what? There is no evidence that the unmasking was even illegal.


Washington Examiner


The Washington Post's Bob Woodward warned on Wednesday that there are people from the Obama administration who could be facing criminal charges for unmasking the names of Trump transition team members from surveillance of foreign officials. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said earlier that he had briefed Trump on new information, unrelated to an investigation into Russian activities, that suggested that several members of Trump's transition team and perhaps Trump himself had their identities "unmasked" after their communications were intercepted by U.S. intelligence officials. The revelation is notable because identities of Americans are generally supposed to remain "masked" if American communications are swept up during surveillance of foreign individuals. During an interview on Fox News, Woodward said that if that information about the unmasking is true, "it is a gross violation."



He drove the point home, adding that "under the rules, that name is supposed to be blanked out, and so you've got a real serious problem potentially of people in the Obama administration passing around this highly classified gossip."


Will you accept a democrats word on that?

Old Mr. Woodward probably has a pretty good knowledge of such things... and he seems to think this could lead to criminal charges...unless he published a retraction that I missed.

Just saying... its not just right wing echo chamber saying charges could be brought.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
Fortunately for the unmaskers and disseminators and the publishers of that info, they have every opportunity to explain why what they did was legal and acceptable before congress... AND the court of public opinion.

Court of public opinion? Who the hell cares about that kangaroo court? I care about what the ACTUAL courts say.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If its horrific and democrats... its true.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

No. I won't accept anyone's opinion on it. I accept the courts' word. And actual evidence being presented in court though.


The Washington Post's Bob Woodward warned on Wednesday that there are people from the Obama administration who could be facing criminal charges

Sounds like confirmation bias fodder to me anyways.
edit on 3-4-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

First there was no evidence Trump was spied on.
Then there was no evidence that he was unmasked
Then there was no evidence that it wasn't because of 'muh Russia'
Then there was no evidence it was the Obama admin, just the intel community
Now there is no evidence that the unmasking was illegal

When will you guys stop with this?

There was never any evidence that Nixon ordered the watergate break-ins either.


They will never stop.
The Leftists will deflect every step of the way, that is all they are good at doing.




top topics



 
42
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join