Susan Rice's unmasking on shaky legal ground

Via LawNewz

Why Susan Rice’s Reported ‘Unmasking’ of Trump Officials Raises Very Serious Legal Concerns for Her

Why Susan Rice’s Reported ‘Unmasking’ of Trump Officials Raises Very Serious Legal Concerns for Her

Watergate was just a private break-in by private actors. To preclude either Watergate or Cointelpro from ever occurring again, and in response to Justice Douglas’ warnings about illegal uses of electronic surveillance, Congress passed laws to conform surveillance to the twin mandates of the First and Fourth Amendment.

The means our government uses — to protect the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Americans without sacrificing the country’s security needs for information gathering on foreign threats — is a process known as “minimization” and “masking.” The point of the minimization and masking protocols is to insure America’s eavesdropping on foreigners “safeguards the constitutional rights of U.S. persons.” These protocols are not merely internal rules nor discretionary guidelines; they are the necessary legislatively delegated means “required to protect the privacy rights of U.S. persons” provided for by the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. Violating these provisions does more than violate mere regulatory restrictions; violating these provisions violates the Constitutional rights of Americans. That is why the law criminalizes such action when taken “under color of law” by rogue agents.

The law imposes criminal sanctions on government officials who “engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized” by statutes and governing regulations implementing those statutes. This same criminal law makes a person “guilty of an offense” if she intentionally “discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained” in a manner “not authorized” by law. Notably, the law enforcement defense is limited to “law enforcement or investigative officer” cleared to do so by a search warrant or court order. The crime imposes a term of imprisonment up to sixty months in a federal prison. The point of the law criminalizing rogue agents either intercepting Americans’ conversations illicitly or unmasking they identities illegally is to protect against rogue government agents from abusing the most powerful surveillance means ever developed to invade the free speech, free thought, free expression and intimate privacy rights of all Americans.

What do you think, ATS? Is the Rice cooked?

originally posted by: Tempter

What do you think, ATS? Is the Rice cooked?

Like a Christmas Goose.

originally posted by: Tempter
What do you think, ATS? Is the Rice cooked?

Best answer: Maybe.

I think Trump was genuinely pissed over this whole thing.

But ... I don't think he'll go for prosecution. He'll use it for leverage ... or not at all (personal exoneration).

a reply to: Tempter

I don't think she is cooked. This is part of the political drama unfolding were no one is held accountable for their actions.

That is a pretty good article. It appears that motive for the unmasking crime is not important, it doesn't matter if it was politically oriented, it was still a major crime. one that should result in a prison term for those involved.

I am a little tired, is that what others are getting out of the article? I realize it is just a legal opinion by a lawyer.

I raised the question of "why?" in another thread about the unmasking.

The reason she gives is that she needed to know names so she could assess the significance of the reports she was reading. My response to that is: how could she possibly have needed to know names to assess the importance of the report? By the time the reports made it to her, they'd already been vetted by actual analysts and deemed to be of enough significance to be kicked up to her.

It defies logic that a) the reports were so vague that she needed to know names in order to gain contextual insight and b) that reports of this type would make it to her desk and she needed to know names because she had reservations about the significance of the reports.

Her excuses don't seem to hold much water. That being said, I'd be genuinely stunned to see this go anywhere other than she gets stuck in a hearing or two.

This ball can't get rolling fast enough.

I wonder how all these Liberals feel being on the wrong side of history... again. I wonder if she will ever get tiered of being Obama's scapegoat.

originally posted by: Snarl
I think Trump was genuinely pissed over this whole thing.

Apparently Sean Hannity is reporting tonight, it looks like
anyone who talked to Trump directly likely caught up in
surveillance, including himself.

That is a lot of innocent people, this is not good.
A terrible time in our nations history, thousand times worse than Watergate.

a reply to: Shamrock6


I kind of agree. She has already been proven a liar over her stance on Benghazi happening over an internet video! Also, when was the last time any of us (old farts) remember a member of the corrupt federal government ACTUALLY be held accountable for their corruption when caught? Honestly, Nixon seems to be the last one I remember, unless of course you include JFK and the bullet the Globalists gifted him with.


Something HUGE is going to happen soon.......

originally posted by: Tempter
Via LawNewz

Why Susan Rice’s Reported ‘Unmasking’ of Trump Officials Raises Very Serious Legal Concerns for Her

Why Susan Rice’s Reported ‘Unmasking’ of Trump Officials Raises Very Serious Legal Concerns for Her
by Robert Barnes | 8:23 pm, April 3rd, 2017

Watergate was just a private break-in by private actors. To preclude either Watergate or Cointelpro from ever occurring again, and in response to Justice Douglas’ warnings about illegal uses of electronic surveillance, Congress passed laws to conform surveillance to the twin mandates of the First and Fourth Amendment.

The means our government uses — to protect the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Americans without sacrificing the country’s security needs for information gathering on foreign threats — is a process known as “minimization” and “masking.” The point of the minimization and masking protocols is to insure America’s eavesdropping on foreigners “safeguards the constitutional rights of U.S. persons.” These protocols are not merely internal rules nor discretionary guidelines; they are the necessary legislatively delegated means “required to protect the privacy rights of U.S. persons” provided for by the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. Violating these provisions does more than violate mere regulatory restrictions; violating these provisions violates the Constitutional rights of Americans. That is why the law criminalizes such action when taken “under color of law” by rogue agents.

The law imposes criminal sanctions on government officials who “engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized” by statutes and governing regulations implementing those statutes. This same criminal law makes a person “guilty of an offense” if she intentionally “discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained” in a manner “not authorized” by law. Notably, the law enforcement defense is limited to “law enforcement or investigative officer” cleared to do so by a search warrant or court order. The crime imposes a term of imprisonment up to sixty months in a federal prison. The point of the law criminalizing rogue agents either intercepting Americans’ conversations illicitly or unmasking they identities illegally is to protect against rogue government agents from abusing the most powerful surveillance means ever developed to invade the free speech, free thought, free expression and intimate privacy rights of all Americans.

According to both FBI Director Comey and NSA Director Clapper, no warrant ever authorized the intercepts and electronic surveillance on a member of Trump’s team. Yet, Chairman Nunes reports such intercepts occurred, identifying them as “incidental.” As law professor Glenn Reynolds recently noted, recent reports raise doubts on how “incidental” it was.

...
The key question now is simple: what legal basis did Susan Rice have to order the unmasking of Trump team members? If the information was inadequate to justify a FISA warrant (or the Obama White House wanted to keep some members of the intelligence community out of the loop?), what permissible purpose justified the unmasking?

...
Some defenders of Rice suggests she could label anything she wanted of “foreign intelligence value,” under the implementing regulatory protocols and thereby label it “foreign intelligence information” under the statute. The law is not so broad.

...
This is the biggest mistake the Obama defenders have been making, and reflects their lack of understanding of the law’s Constitutional context and legislative history. Put most simply, neither the 1st Amendment nor the 4th Amendment has a “talking to foreigners” exception.

What do you think, ATS? Is the Rice cooked?

It all depends who has been named, Manafort for instance..who may be an American, but might still be considered a candidate many times over for not working in the best interests of the US.
However, we don't know any of the names thus far, and as for illegal use, that should only apply to anybody caught in the net who is completely innocent, should that even be the case. I think all the judge was hoping for was that the intel services would be singular as to who they surveil, when it is clear they are dedicated to profiling people these days, which is nasty. In Britain, they shot and killed a South American man in the tube in London pretty much because he looked the part, a disaster for intel and surveillance, and pretty much overkill, shot eleven times on the ground, with seven bullets to the the head. The police story was crap.

originally posted by: rickymouse
That is a pretty good article. It appears that motive for the unmasking crime is not important, it doesn't matter if it was politically oriented, it was still a major crime. one that should result in a prison term for those involved.

I am a little tired, is that what others are getting out of the article? I realize it is just a legal opinion by a lawyer.

If you read between the lines, which aren't that small in this excellent article, the Russians angle was never thought through, by whomever concocted it.

It can't be a reason to invade the privacy of an American.

The funny thing is, I HOPE Rice goes to trial on this, because then we might get another shot at reducing the Patriot Act's wide-sweeping powers.

No matter what side of the aisle you are on, the Patriot Act and the bulk collection of private communications should scare you.

Hopefully it scares Trump enough for him to make a change.

a reply to: Tempter

We never were asked to vote on that patriot act, I guess they knew we would never give them that power. All the safeguards are worthless, this event shows us that. The patriot act needs to be repealed. Give them an inch and they take a mile.

The FISA court is unconstitutional Secret courts were one of the MANY reasons the war of independence was fought. Many of the court hearings are ex parte, meaning one sided. they only hear one side this is also unconstitutional, you have the right to face your accuser. No legal court should be in secret.

here's an interview from 4/4

a reply to: Shamrock6

I think an important part is the new Obama ex order about passing around the reports. Did she pass the report around and was there a reason to do so? If she did not give out the info as she claims, who did and did they have a need to know.

a reply to: Tempter

She is the fall guy for the Obama administration scandal of miss use of intelligence agencies to spy on political bases those that were from opposing parties.

She got caught with her panties down and she was doing what her big boss was asking her to do.

She is not only cooking she is burning, baby burning.



And she can take the fifth, but the intelligence committee have ways to get the information they need from her

Is her goose cooked? Try though they might as another deflection, no, it isn't.

Someone was up to no-good and she wanted to know who it was. Her job. It was very likely Flynn, or another one of Putin's buddies, in which case she should be given a metal. She was within her legal rights. This whole thing is simply another way for Trump's camp to try to reduce the heat under the frying pan where they currently find themselves.

Rice is part of a group of law-breakers. One of them (and maybe her) leaked the Flynn conversation to the press. We're going to find that it's not Susan Rice acting alone.

In fact, Fox News is reporting tonight that she received ORDERS from "someone" to unmask Trump's people.
Link: www.foxnews.com...

These crimes committed by Obama officials will be FAR easier to track and prove, than the nebulous, boring, investigation into Russia's involvement in our election. (For which we owe them a debt of thanks)

a reply to: carewemust

The information was first leaked to the Washington post, we all know that the Washington post same owner owns Amazon.com and they got a lucrative contract back in 2013 by the CIA.

So we know her facilitator was the CIA director I have no doubts about it. He also helped her when she was under scrutiny for the Benghazi inquiries.

Under the Obama administration the spying agencies became corrupted specially the CIA.

a reply to: Tempterredstatewatcher.com...