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.

 

Russia Collusion Fallacy Falls On It's Face

page: 5
84
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Don't forget Trump was being pushed by the DNC itself through its Pied Paper strategy.






edit on 6-4-2017 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: -




posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 07:11 AM
link   



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: FauxMulder

Please explain how Rice could order the identities of Trump campaigners unmasked if she did not know who they were?



Susan Rice tried to learn the identities of Trump transition team officials whose conversations with foreign officials were “incidentally” collected by US intelligence, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova. By ordering U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, Rice sought to “unmask” involved parties.

Normally, the names of American citizens collected in such a manner are redacted.

But after being “unmasked,” the identities of the Trump officials became known.



But officials can request that names, listed as “U.S. Person 1,” for example, be unmasked internally in order to give context about the potential value of the intelligence. Unmasking is justified for national security reasons but is governed by strict rules across the U.S. intelligence apparatus that make it illegal to pursue for political reasons or to leak classified information generated by the process.



“The notion, which some people are trying to suggest, that by asking for the identity of the American person is the same is leaking it — that’s completely false. There is no equivalence between so-called unmasking and leaking.”

And yet, that is precisely what many republicans are suggesting because otherwise there is no explanation for how the WaPo and NYT received, on a virtual silver platter, stories about Mike Flynn's communications with intel-level detail.

Perhaps Rice is simply lying as she lied on March 22 when in a PBS interview she said "I know nothing" about unmasking Trump officials. Less than two weeks later, we learn that she did.



The WSJ then reports that Rice had requested the unmasking of at least one transition official — not Mr. Flynn — who was part of multiple foreign conversations that weren't related to Russia.


Link
Link
Link
Link



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: FauxMulder

So she is psychic? Or did she order the unmasking of all recorded conversations in the hopes of turning up someone on Trump's campaign? Or did she order the unmasking of the individuals who were speaking on behalf of the campaign? If it were the last, that's evidence of collusion.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Maybe he'll answer that one by himself when a proper investigation takes place.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: FauxMulder

Please explain how Rice could order the identities of Trump campaigners unmasked if she did not know who they were?.


What a wonderful question. It's the right question to understand why this was spying.
So many American conversations would have been picked up over that time period from July-January... the only way to single out Trump and his campaign would be if she specifically targeted them and asked the IC to provide her with everything on Trump and his team.
Get it?



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: FauxMulder

So she is psychic? Or did she order the unmasking of all recorded conversations in the hopes of turning up someone on Trump's campaign? Or did she order the unmasking of the individuals who were speaking on behalf of the campaign? If it were the last, that's evidence of collusion.


I think the simple answer to that would be to unmask anyone that was having a conversation of a political nature. Ordinary conversations would not need to be unmasked. If I understand correctly, the names were redacted and "person number 1" was inserted in its place. So "person number one' may have said someone's name which would be redacted and assigned another number. I'm just assuming that's the way it works. If 'person number one' says something of a political nature, well then you'd probably want to know who they were talking about and then unmask any other names he/she mentioned. You may think it sounds like a 'scatter shot' approach but it would really come down to the context of the conversation.
edit on 6-4-2017 by Khaleesi because: brain fart



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


So many American conversations would have been picked up over that time period from July-January... the only way to single out Trump and his campaign would be if she specifically targeted them and asked the IC to provide her with everything on Trump and his team.


That begs the question: how would she know "Individual Number One" was on the Trump campaign unless they were discussing the campaign with Russian agents? If they were, that would be collusion.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


So many American conversations would have been picked up over that time period from July-January... the only way to single out Trump and his campaign would be if she specifically targeted them and asked the IC to provide her with everything on Trump and his team.


That begs the question: how would she know "Individual Number One" was on the Trump campaign unless they were discussing the campaign with Russian agents? If they were, that would be collusion.


Not necessarily. Sometimes an off hand remark is just that. It could have been a simple "I've got to go now. We have a big rally in an hour." Casual remark that tipped someone off that this 'might' be a Trump person.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


So many American conversations would have been picked up over that time period from July-January... the only way to single out Trump and his campaign would be if she specifically targeted them and asked the IC to provide her with everything on Trump and his team.


That begs the question: how would she know "Individual Number One" was on the Trump campaign unless they were discussing the campaign with Russian agents? If they were, that would be collusion.

One could extrapolate another direction too, and say that they (people in the Obama Administration') were spying on individuals that are powerful/wealthy in order to blackmail them.
With no proof available as of yet... no one knows.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy


One could extrapolate another direction too, and say that they (people in the Obama Administration') were spying on individuals that are powerful/wealthy in order to blackmail them.


The way the Russians did to Trump?



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Khaleesi


Not necessarily. Sometimes an off hand remark is just that. It could have been a simple "I've got to go now. We have a big rally in an hour." Casual remark that tipped someone off that this 'might' be a Trump person.


But the agency doing the surveillance would know who the individual was. Are you suggesting that Rice went through every single intercept looking for clues?



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: butcherguy


One could extrapolate another direction too, and say that they (people in the Obama Administration') were spying on individuals that are powerful/wealthy in order to blackmail them.


The way the Russians did to Trump?

I don't know.
I have yet to see transcripts of their purported conversations yet.
Post the transcripts and I will be happy to rwad them.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


So many American conversations would have been picked up over that time period from July-January... the only way to single out Trump and his campaign would be if she specifically targeted them and asked the IC to provide her with everything on Trump and his team.


That begs the question: how would she know "Individual Number One" was on the Trump campaign unless they were discussing the campaign with Russian agents? If they were, that would be collusion.



No, the machine doesn't automatically redact/mask names.

Someone has to do it by hand.

Who would that be?

Rice knows and obama knows who does and they know names.

And really, DC filled to the brim with spies from every country anyway.

Can't swing a cat without hitting one.

So this collusion BS don't float.





posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Khaleesi


Not necessarily. Sometimes an off hand remark is just that. It could have been a simple "I've got to go now. We have a big rally in an hour." Casual remark that tipped someone off that this 'might' be a Trump person.


But the agency doing the surveillance would know who the individual was. Are you suggesting that Rice went through every single intercept looking for clues?



She just told them who obama wanted.

They used the search function and ta daaaa!

There they are!

Just like when I look for a certain email.

Easy.







posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy


No, the machine doesn't automatically redact/mask names.


Correct.


Someone has to do it by hand.


Correct.


Who would that be?


That would depend.


Rice knows and obama knows who does and they know names.


Correct.


And really, DC filled to the brim with spies from every country anyway.

Can't swing a cat without hitting one.


So why were those people talking to all those spies?


So this collusion BS don't float.


It floats whether Rice went looking for it or not. By your own logic.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Khaleesi


Not necessarily. Sometimes an off hand remark is just that. It could have been a simple "I've got to go now. We have a big rally in an hour." Casual remark that tipped someone off that this 'might' be a Trump person.


But the agency doing the surveillance would know who the individual was. Are you suggesting that Rice went through every single intercept looking for clues?


Are you suggesting that people in the agency doing the surveillance have no political leanings? They all just became apolitical? Not a single one of them could have possibly given her a hint as to which conversations to be focusing on?



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Khaleesi


Are you suggesting that people in the agency doing the surveillance have no political leanings? They all just became apolitical? Not a single one of them could have possibly given her a hint as to which conversations to be focusing on?


You seem to be confusing being professional with being apolitical. More would be at stake than just giving your favorite candidate a tiny little edge.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


So many American conversations would have been picked up over that time period from July-January... the only way to single out Trump and his campaign would be if she specifically targeted them and asked the IC to provide her with everything on Trump and his team.


That begs the question: how would she know "Individual Number One" was on the Trump campaign unless they were discussing the campaign with Russian agents? If they were, that would be collusion.


The spying was not even related to Russian contacts.
Sounds like she sought out all conversations Trump and his team were having in order to glean information for political advantage.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Khaleesi


Are you suggesting that people in the agency doing the surveillance have no political leanings? They all just became apolitical? Not a single one of them could have possibly given her a hint as to which conversations to be focusing on?


You seem to be confusing being professional with being apolitical. More would be at stake than just giving your favorite candidate a tiny little edge.


You seem to be trying to make something that is very possible into an impossibility. I'm not saying that what I suggested actually happened for a fact. I'm saying that it is a possibility. Humans are .... well ... human. They show bias. It is very rare for anyone of any political persuasion to totally set aside their preferences and be truly objective. It is entirely possible that the alphabet agencies have hired more people of the 'Democrat' persuasion over the last 8 years. Just like the 8 years before that probably saw more 'Republican' people.



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join