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: 5
42
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah


As best I can understand this stuff, if she ordered unmasking, and then info was given out to the media, that's not illegal leaking. Maybe an unfair advantage in terms of contacts & how soon, but not illegal.


I don't know where you got your "understanding," but according to former prosecutor Rep Trey Gowdy and FBI Director James Comey in the House Intelligence hearings, yes, it is illegal:


Gowdy: Well, there have been a lot of statutes at bar in this investigation for which no one’s ever been prosecuted or convicted, and that does not keep people from discussing those statutes, namely, the Logan Act. In theory, how would reporters know a U.S. citizen made a telephone call to an agent of a foreign power?
Comey: How would they know legally?
Gowdy: Yes.
Comey: If it was declassified and then discussed in a judicial proceeding or a congressional hearing, something like that. Gowdy: And assume none of those facts are at play, how would they know?
Comey: Someone told them who shouldn’t have told them.
Gowdy: How would a reporter know about the existence of intercepted phone calls?
Comey: Same thing. In a legitimate way, through an appropriate proceeding where there’s been declassification, and any other way in an illegitimate way.
Gowdy: How would reporters know if a transcript existed of an intercepted communication?
Comey: Same answer. The only legitimate way would be through a proceeding, appropriate proceeding. The illegitimate way would be somebody told them who shouldn’t have told them.


Video

Thanks to Obama's changes, it may have been legal (under color of law) for Rice to unmask these people, but certainly wasn't legal for that information to be disseminated as it was, nor for it to be published.

However, Rice should know if her actions were legal, and she has every opportunity to come out of hiding and to stand up loud and proud and tell the whole world exactly what she did and why and how, and proclaim her innocence under the law.




posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Ian Cameron left ABC News in 2010.

AdWeek - Ian Cameron to Leave ABC’s ‘This Week’


It’s with a mixture of pride and sadness that I leave ABC News after 13 years. As Washington Senior Producer for World News Tonight for seven years, I am grateful to Peter Jennings and Charles Gibson for giving me the opportunity to work with the most dedicated and talented team of reporters and producers here in the Washington bureau and across the news division.

edit on 2017-4-3 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Notice the word 'former' in the title and the OP.

But what is he doing now? I could find no information on his current employment.
edit on 3-4-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Boadicea

Want to investigate Trump? Make him testify in Congress under oath. Or capture Putin and make him testify in Congress under oath.


I'd like to see exactly that happen!!!

I think Trump would too.... and I'm sure his attorney would strongly advise him (especially him!) against it.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I went to CNN to find the Susan Rice story... hmm, it's not there. Funny that they headlined the Buzzfeed dossier (despite Buzzfeed themselves stating it was not reliable) but won;t talk about the biggest scandal since Watergate.
edit on 3/4/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

So because Susan Rice is married to a man who worked as a producer for a show at ABC — almost a decade ago — and an anonymous source to Fox News has said that Susan Rice is "the unmasker" (MUAHAHAHA!), that leads you to conclude that the source of the Flynn-is-a-damn-liar leaks is possibly Susan Rice via her husband? Well....that's an interesting bit of speculation but you're wrong about something important.

And this is why you don't just believe random s# from social media or whatever fake news blog you frequent. Instead, you should spend your time reading what I post!


It wasn't ABC who broke the Flynn story, it was the Washington Post. Here you go:

Washington Post - National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say


Neither of those assertions is consistent with the fuller account of Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak provided by officials who had access to reports from U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies that routinely monitor the communications of Russian diplomats. Nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.


You're welcome.

edit on 2017-4-3 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   
The NSA Director stated to the congressional committee that any information that is "incidentally" collected on ANY individual that has nothing to do with the specific collection is purged from the database.

It now appears not only did that not happen, the "incidental" information that was collected had their names unmasked.

Unmasking a incidental name of a US citizen clearly illegal and highly unethical.


Looks like this whole Russian probe thing is a ticking time bomb for the democrats.


If looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like duck.........to most logical people...it is a duck.....to the left...maybe its a chicken until we complete a forensic DNA test to prove it is actually a duck.

This crap gets better every day.

Must go buy more popcorn.
edit on R242017-04-03T16:24:20-05:00k244Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Unfortunately for you as a former executive in media, I'm sure he has contacts throughout the media world. But as I have said, I have no evidence that he was the leaker, it's just a strange coincidence that a media connected person happens to be married to the unmasker and the unmasked names leaked to the media.

Believe what you want to believe.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Dfairlite

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


Ah righttttt



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: theantediluvian

Notice the word 'former' in the title and the OP.

But what is he doing now? I could find no information on his current employment.


Left ABC to become a deep cover operative.




posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

isnt that what it comes down to though, believing what you want to believe?

i personally dont think its possible to remove all bias from anything. Bias is built in, probably even at a genetic level.

I have railed on this point many times in discussions like this one. It doesnt matter how much evidence you amass on either side.....people almost always have a desire to believe things are a certain way and will fight like the devil to dismiss anythign that doesnt jive and build up information that does (confirmation bias). Its SOOO bloody strong i honestly just dont think for many, maybe even most people, there is any hope at all they will ever gain the mastery over it so they can find the actual real truth of any matter....



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   
The gallows are becoming overcrowded with former Obama officials.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: tribal

Agree. I can admit my bias, but I do try to do my best to view things through many perspectives. In the end, I'll always be limited by my experiences in the world and the reality my mind constructs from them.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


Unfortunately for you as a former executive in media, I'm sure he has contacts throughout the media world. But as I have said, I have no evidence that he was the leaker, it's just a strange coincidence that a media connected person happens to be married to the unmasker and the unmasked names leaked to the media. Believe what you want to believe.


Lmao. Executive producer of a TV show isn't an "executive in media." He was an executive PRODUCER of a SHOW, not the Roger Ailes of ABC.

What "unmasked names" leaked to the media? You're not even making sense. None of the unmasked names from the reports have been leaked. I thought you were talking about something important like the leaks that exposed Flynn's lying. But no. Then for a brief second, I thought maybe you were talking about the leaked names of the admin staffers who had coordinated with Nunes about the "unmasked names" reports but no, that was the NY Times that broke that story.

So I went back and followed your link to a Tweet and followed the link in the tweet to the ABC News story and it had nothing to do with names, unmasked or otherwise. So maybe you can help me out. What part in this story are you insinuating could have come from Susan Rice?


That request, however, appears to have been rebuffed by both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. Two sources told ABC News that the Senate Intelligence Committee described Flynn’s proposal as a “non-starter.” The House committee released a statement calling the request a “grave and momentous step,” adding that it’s too early to consider a request for immunity.


It's about Flynn seeking immunity. Here's the other two bits from "sources:"


Ties to Turkey

Russia is not the only foreign agent that Flynn is known to have ties to; it was revealed after his resignation that Flynn had done lobbying work prior to his appointment as national security adviser that "could be construed to have principally benefited the Republic of Turkey," according to documents filed with the Department of Justice.

A source familiar with the situation tells ABC News Flynn informed the White House counsel team both during the transition and after the inauguration that he would have to file as a foreign agent because of the work he did on behalf of the Turkish government.

This source could not say if Flynn first made the team aware of his situation before or after President-elect Trump announced on Nov. 18 that he would be appointing the former general as his national security adviser.


Nothing about unmasked names. I give up. Help me out. What are you talking about?
edit on 2017-4-3 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 04:51 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.


No evidence with the Russia stuff either, yet you jumped right on that train



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

It's pretty simple. Flynn's name was unmasked and the intel leaked where his name was unmasked. Not sure why you had a hard time understanding that.
edit on 3-4-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Dfairlite

Did Rice even have the authority to ask for an unmasking of names as a National Security Adviser?


I suspect she had help from Obama.
She certainly did not have the authority to leak it to the press.


What evidence do you have that she had help from Obama?

Also, again, does she have the authority to unmask names?



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The unmasking may not have been but the VERY WIDE dissemination is beyond illegal, you had news outlets receiving the classified information, a news organization to which Susan Rice's husband works for is the outlet which broke the story. Susan Rice is already on record totally denying any knowledge of any of this which we now know is a lie. I wonder if she will now lie to congress or take the fifth.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Dfairlite

Did Rice even have the authority to ask for an unmasking of names as a National Security Adviser?


I suspect she had help from Obama.
She certainly did not have the authority to leak it to the press.


What evidence do you have that she had help from Obama?

Also, again, does she have the authority to unmask names?


Susan Rice never did (will do) anything without Obama's instructions.

She was *HIS* National Security Advisor.




posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Dfairlite

Did Rice even have the authority to ask for an unmasking of names as a National Security Adviser?


I suspect she had help from Obama.
She certainly did not have the authority to leak it to the press.


What evidence do you have that she had help from Obama?

Also, again, does she have the authority to unmask names?


Susan Rice never did (will do) anything without Obama's instructions.

She was *HIS* National Security Advisor.



Again, where is the evidence of her unmasking the names with the authority to do so?



new topics




 
42
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join