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: 8
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
If it hasn't yet been mentioned...
Susan Rice's deputy Ben Rhodes' brother is CBS President, David Rhodes.

Small world.




posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



You question is ridiculous, which is I suspect why most haven't bothered answering it. It matters not if she had the authority to request unmasking if she actually DID request it and got what she wanted.


Yes, it does matter if she had the authority to request an unmasking because if she did not have the authority, there are other people we need to look in to that may have played a role.



Your line of thought is absurd.


I suppose it would be absurd to those that just want to blame one person in the name of politics and not get to the root of the problem.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Rice also said this:


"The intelligence community made the determination whether the identity of that American individual could be provided to me," Rice said


www.foxnews.com...

That means the IC had reason to unmask those names.

We need to put everything in complete context and that is why you ask questions, before jumping to conclusions.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




That means the IC had reason to unmask those names.

We can't be sure that they really had reason to be collecting the information to begin with.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: introvert




That means the IC had reason to unmask those names.

We can't be sure that they really had reason to be collecting the information to begin with.


If members of his team were in communication with foreign individuals being watched by the IC and they were talking about things they should not have been, there could have been good reason to do so.

This opens the door even more to the idea that people within his team were not playing by the rules.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

That means the IC had reason to unmask those names.



The IC community under the Obama Administration looking at a Clinton Administration.




posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I am just saying that we don't anything for syre yet.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: introvert




That means the IC had reason to unmask those names.

We can't be sure that they really had reason to be collecting the information to begin with.


If members of his team were in communication with foreign individuals being watched by the IC and they were talking about things they should not have been, there could have been good reason to do so.

This opens the door even more to the idea that people within his team were not playing by the rules.


And again the intel wasn't on russia collusion or anything to do with russia so the same question is asked again why was their spying on trump?

It wasn't dealing with the investigation into russian collusion or having anything to do with russia or russians why is this soooo hard for liberals to understand! How did they collect that phone call in trump tower? Its a simple question which liberals always screw up and say its connected with an investigation into a russian official. That is not the reality put forth by nunes and it wasn't changed by adam schiff who acted like he lost his reading comprehension skills after reviewing it at the white house



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: introvert

I am just saying that we don't anything for syre yet.


Agreed.

You may want to tell some other people around here the same thing. It seems they are jumping to conclusions as fast as they can.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: digital01anarchy

Actually, it may have quite a bit to do with Russia.



It wasn't dealing with the investigation into russian collusion or having anything to do with russia or russians why is this soooo hard for liberals to understand! How did they collect that phone call in trump tower? Its a simple question which liberals always screw up and say its connected with an investigation into a russian official.


Find a liberal ask them.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Rice also said this:


"The intelligence community made the determination whether the identity of that American individual could be provided to me," Rice said


www.foxnews.com...

That means the IC had reason to unmask those names.

We need to put everything in complete context and that is why you ask questions, before jumping to conclusions.


That or she is passing the buck. Either way, the fact she said that means she asked for it.

The questions I haven't heard yet are did any names on any of these documents stay masked? And if so, or not, what was the specific text of the conversation for the first time anyone associated to Trump was unmasked?



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe



That or she is passing the buck. Either way, the fact she said that means she asked for it.


It does appear she did and has the authority to do so. It's important to note that she does not have the authority to unmask the names herself. She had to go to the IC for that.



The questions I haven't heard yet are did any names on any of these documents stay masked?


Good question. It's quite possible that the names of others remained masked, as they did not put themselves in a compromised position.

That means that those names that were unmasked were engaging in activity they should not have been.
edit on 4-4-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vasa Croe



That or she is passing the buck. Either way, the fact she said that means she asked for it.


It does appear she did and has the authority to do so. It's important to note that she does not have the authority to unmask the names herself. She had to go to the IC for that.



The questions I haven't heard yet are did any names on any of these documents stay masked?


Good question. It's quite possible that the names of others remained masked, as they did not out themselves in a compromised position.

That means that those names that were unmasked were engaging in activity they should not have been.


Or it means she was specifically targeting Trumps people.

The conversations alone could not have been the red flag, it would have been the phone number associated with calls....simply based on the fact nobody has been charged.

The other fact is that nobody is releasing the info at all and all claiming it was classified. With the rhetoric currently going on, what reason would they have to not release the info as Trump has never been in government and they hate the Russians?

What they and the media keep doing is throwing Trumps name in as if he directly did anything. What the media is also doing is covering the fact the surveillance claims DO go to the top of the chain.

What everyone has failed to do is link Trump to anything at all at this point. What has been done is Rice was outed as the one to request the unmasking. We are talking about chief in-house advisor to the President of the United States on national security issues....in that position she likely didn't make this judgement/request on her own, and if she did then she obviously didnt keep the info to herself.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe



Or it means she was specifically targeting Trumps people.


That's possible, but that would mean people within the IC were involved as well. Considering the recent comments of individuals on the Intelligence Committee, it appears to be more likely that there was good cause to unmask those names.



The conversations alone could not have been the red flag, it would have been the phone number associated with calls....simply based on the fact nobody has been charged.


It depends on what was said in the conversations. And no one has been charged because the investigation is still ongoing.

Be patient to see what happens.



What they and the media keep doing is throwing Trumps name in as if he directly did anything. What the media is also doing is covering the fact the surveillance claims DO go to the top of the chain.


I'm unsure what you mean. Are you saying Trump was also part of the surveillance?



What everyone has failed to do is link Trump to anything at all at this point.


As far as we know, correct. Trump may not have done anything wrong here. But people around him may have and they have Trump's ear. That is why we have to get to the bottom of it.



What has been done is Rice was outed as the one to request the unmasking. We are talking about chief in-house advisor to the President of the United States on national security issues....in that position she likely didn't make this judgement/request on her own, and if she did then she obviously didnt keep the info to herself.


That's possible, but you are not recognizing that there may have been good reason for her to ask for an unmasking.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Rice also said this:


"The intelligence community made the determination whether the identity of that American individual could be provided to me," Rice said


www.foxnews.com...

That means the IC had reason to unmask those names.

We need to put everything in complete context and that is why you ask questions, before jumping to conclusions.


She requested it. Of course there were more people involved, including those that agreed to her request.
The initiation of the spying was from Obama's administration. That is the point. They wanted to spy on Trump and his team and the IC complied.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



She requested it.


We now know that and the reason I initially asked the question was to make clear whether or not she had the authority to unmask them herself.



Of course there were more people involved, including those that agreed to her request.


Did they have just cause to grant her request? It seems many people are not concerned about that.



The initiation of the spying was from Obama's administration.


I have not seen evidence of that. It appears people within the Trump camp were already on the IC's radar before Rice asked for the unmasking.



They wanted to spy on Trump and his team and the IC complied.


So the Obama team asked the IC to spy on Trump? can you prove that?



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



She requested it.


We now know that and the reason I initially asked the question was to make clear whether or not she had the authority to unmask them herself.



Of course there were more people involved, including those that agreed to her request.


Did they have just cause to grant her request? It seems many people are not concerned about that.



The initiation of the spying was from Obama's administration.


I have not seen evidence of that. It appears people within the Trump camp were already on the IC's radar before Rice asked for the unmasking.



They wanted to spy on Trump and his team and the IC complied.


So the Obama team asked the IC to spy on Trump? can you prove that?


I can't say that people in his camp were in the IC radar. If that's the case then that would mean they were directly surveilling them. This is why the context of the conversation is essential to the reason for unmasking.

I have a lot of concern for her request. They have already said it came from incidental recordings of actual targets. So why did she request these specifically to be unmasked?

This is why I think she actually asked for specific phone numbers, not about specific conversations. Unless someone in the IC came to her and said take a look at these conversations, she would have no reason to even know they occurred.

I'd say another pertinent question to her would be why specifically did you pick these conversations to unmask? She would have had to have a directive to investigate, as would the IC. It isn't like she just woke up one day and said let's check a specific phrase on all recordings to see if we can catch Russians colluding with anyone in the US.

She either had to have specifically asked about these recordings herself, or been brought them by someone in the IC. Her statements make me think it definitely came from above, but she is scapegoating those that complied with the request.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe



I can't say that people in his camp were in the IC radar. If that's the case then that would mean they were directly surveilling them. This is why the context of the conversation is essential to the reason for unmasking.


The other member made a specific claim, which does not stand up to basic logic.

Rice cannot ask for an unmasking of names if the IC were not already watching them. He also claimed the initiation of the "spying" came from the Obama admin and I have not seen any evidence of that.



I have a lot of concern for her request. They have already said it came from incidental recordings of actual targets. So why did she request these specifically to be unmasked?


Possibly because the Trump team members were doing something that warranted an unmasking. That's been my point.



Unless someone in the IC came to her and said take a look at these conversations, she would have no reason to even know they occurred.


Exactly. As a National Security Adviser, it's very reasonable to suggest that the IC brought certain info to her that threw-up red flags, resulting in her taking action.



I'd say another pertinent question to her would be why specifically did you pick these conversations to unmask? She would have had to have a directive to investigate, as would the IC. It isn't like she just woke up one day and said let's check a specific phrase on all recordings to see if we can catch Russians colluding with anyone in the US.


Correct. We have to ask ourselves what pushed her to do what she did and what did the IC come across.



She either had to have specifically asked about these recordings herself, or been brought them by someone in the IC. Her statements make me think it definitely came from above, but she is scapegoating those that complied with the request.


Again, you are correct. The IC may have caught something they considered troubling and it caused her to react accordingly.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
According to this, Ian Cameron was also "Cabinet Member of National Security Obama".

www.zoominfo.com...



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vasa Croe



I can't say that people in his camp were in the IC radar. If that's the case then that would mean they were directly surveilling them. This is why the context of the conversation is essential to the reason for unmasking.


The other member made a specific claim, which does not stand up to basic logic.

Rice cannot ask for an unmasking of names if the IC were not already watching them. He also claimed the initiation of the "spying" came from the Obama admin and I have not seen any evidence of that.



I have a lot of concern for her request. They have already said it came from incidental recordings of actual targets. So why did she request these specifically to be unmasked?


Possibly because the Trump team members were doing something that warranted an unmasking. That's been my point.



Unless someone in the IC came to her and said take a look at these conversations, she would have no reason to even know they occurred.


Exactly. As a National Security Adviser, it's very reasonable to suggest that the IC brought certain info to her that threw-up red flags, resulting in her taking action.



I'd say another pertinent question to her would be why specifically did you pick these conversations to unmask? She would have had to have a directive to investigate, as would the IC. It isn't like she just woke up one day and said let's check a specific phrase on all recordings to see if we can catch Russians colluding with anyone in the US.


Correct. We have to ask ourselves what pushed her to do what she did and what did the IC come across.



She either had to have specifically asked about these recordings herself, or been brought them by someone in the IC. Her statements make me think it definitely came from above, but she is scapegoating those that complied with the request.


Again, you are correct. The IC may have caught something they considered troubling and it caused her to react accordingly.


My main reason for believing she isn't be completely honest is because of the fact she is just now coming to light in the investigation.

How many weeks into this are we now? And suddenly Rice pops in? Now surely, if there was something going on and they brought it to her attention before we even heard about it and she had the names unmasked, she should have already been in the mix.

Rice coming into the equation at this point is a sign of the corruption we are witnessing. I mean, we are supposed to hold our government officials to a bit higher standard right? So why, after however many weeks and tax dollars have been spent, is this now coming out? Why didn't she say something at the beginning? Why do we have to have a massive investigation dragging on just to slowly uncover who did what? Shouldn't she be held to a higher standard and people be pissed she didn't come forward in the beginning?

But no...this didn't happen. This tells me the Intel we are getting is likely true and is making its way up the chain, because while the Republicans are making their way up the chain, the Democrats are making their way down to people either not with Trump anymore or low enough on the pole they aren't even named in the accusations.

Oh...and she could ask for an unmasking of names anytime she wants. She had the one of the highest clearance levels in the administration.
edit on 4/4/17 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join