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.

 

Susan Rice's unmasking on shaky legal ground

page: 3
34
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

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

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: network dude


per Obama's order


Help me out: when did Trump provide evidence it was ordered by President Obama?


Try reading in context. then look here. We don't need Trump for this.




posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Typhoid Mary will never see another day in politics again in her life after the scandal is finished, she doesn't have Obama to pardon her for her corruption.




posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

So Trump has not provided evidence, even though Obama has presented him with the tools to do so.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Nunes recusing himself from Russia probe in House Intelligence Committee.

CNN
edit on 6-4-2017 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: carewemust

Typhoid Mary will never see another day in politics again in her life after the scandal is finished, she doesn't have Obama to pardon her for her corruption.



Way to repeat the Breitbart catch phrase Marg.

Really too bad that Nunes has been discredited isn't it?



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   
I have been super busy with work so I have only been able to listen to the talking heads on radio. Not sure if this question has been asked yet but, seeing how the left seems to believe that collusion occured, has the possibility of entrapment been broached? There is obviously very little evidence of collusion or we would be hearing more than talking points. I have to seriously wonder if the unmasking occured so that state actors could attempt to elicit federal crimes from US citizens for political expedience. Remember, the left was quite sure that evidence would come to the forefront, all the while they were holding all of the available evidence



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Trump hasn't produced anything that shows President Obama ordered this. But that's not really the silver lining you think it is. Infact the implications if followed to a logical conclusion are even more disturbing than the concept of a president using the I.C. for political reasons.

Lorreta Lynch either herself (unlikely) or an assistant secretary (more likely), deputy assistant etc. filed that FISC request without the Executive Branch's ok ; The implication would be that the Justice Department went "rogue" on behalf of a political party and there was nothing, nothing in the government that could have stopped her or prevented this. Not a single mechanism inplace was able to stop the Dept. of Justice from it's egregious act. Infact the leeway given to the Dept. of Justice allows at the A.G. level to declare an "emergency" basis for warrantless surveillance, if they inform the FISA Court at the first "practical" possibility, usually within 7 days of the surveillance beginning. The implication is that Lynch as A.G. instigated an "emergency" warrantless surveillance situation, and presented that intel to the FISC as "reason" for a warrant. Twice, as matter of fact.

When you take that thought in one hand, and remember the terribly unconstitutional (and at that time illegal) scandal between the I.C. and the D.O.J. known as "Parallel Construction" the fact is established that the leadership of the I.C. and D.O.J. are acting in concert and possibly corrupt, on behalf of a political party ; As no "interest" of the U.S. has been established or entertained in this whole process.

Either the order came from the president and there was a large party of involved people, or the AG acted without his consent, but in hand with a number of conspirators. Neither conclusion sounds like a silver lining to me ; No matter what your political persuasion.

edit on 6-4-2017 by CrawlingChaos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos


Either the order came from the president and there was a large party of involved people, or the AG acted without his consent, but in hand with a number of conspirators. Neither conclusion sounds like a silver lining to me ; No matter what your political persuasion.


Why are you assuming it was politically motivated? There is consistency to the story that Americans were recorded having suspicious conversations with Russian agents and warrants were legally obtained as part of a legitimate investigation.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
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.


Became corrupted under obama rofl. I know he's a tool, but dirty surveillance and wetwork has been going on long before obama, hell, I could tell you a few interesting stories that date back to the 80's. It's hard tell these days who the decision makers, handlers and motivators are, they almost seem interchangeable. In my time, global money reigned in the Intel community, but sometimes now, it seems the other way around. Then again, everybody has a boss, maybe the global banking cartel and the Intel community have the same boss, and they just switch roles now and again to create public confusion.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

If "everybody has a boss" ... doesn't that eventually lead, logically, to an individual who has no boss?



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I think a better question, instead of why I might think that... Would be :

Out of hundreds of thousands to millions of "incidentally" intercepted communications without identities provided, how did Lynch or Rice know which ones to target specificly ? It's almost like they already knew who they wanted to survey, and were looking for a reason. I believe that situation is called a "fishing expedition".

The easiest answer, is by utilizing the A.G.'s "emergency" warrantless surveillance powers ; Which were most certainly used as the basis for the two failed warrant attempts. This begs the question, "why ?". Did somehow the A.G. have intelligence regarding foreigners & Americans that the CIA & NSA didn't have or didn't know about ? I find that highly unlikely, they provide the information to her office, not the other way around.

So the reason/excuse based around "safeguarding America" by means of the I.C. seems to be missing. Scratch that, it is missing. So we haven't answered "why ?" but we have whittled down the possibilities.

Now, we know Obama would never, ever possibly be involved in this... Nu'uh, no way... So we can clear him, right ? So she acted without his consent and without his knowledge ; No one else could give her this consent. So she must have acted on her own, in the sense that yes the A.G. went "rogue".

So she acted illegally, and immorally and in concert with Susan Rice. Again, all without the White Houses approval or knowledge. But this doesn't answer "why ?" still. We can scratch off "Because Obama told her to" because no way Obama even knew about this, right ?

So lets look at financial gain. Was there money involved, in unscrupulous intelligence gathering ? Was money being paid out for leaking information ? Possibly, but highly unlikely. So lets scratch off financial gain from our list. Millions to billions of dollars for leaked intelligence would be just to easy to track down & prosecute. No, this shoe doesn't fit...

As you can see, you or I could whittle down logical reasons for such activities all day long. But "political" is the one that's not soo easy to scratch off our list...

Atleast from my list. I'm sure you have a completely different rational to explain everything, and that's fine it's a free country.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: onthedownlow
I have been super busy with work so I have only been able to listen to the talking heads on radio. Not sure if this question has been asked yet but, seeing how the left seems to believe that collusion occured, has the possibility of entrapment been broached? There is obviously very little evidence of collusion or we would be hearing more than talking points. I have to seriously wonder if the unmasking occured so that state actors could attempt to elicit federal crimes from US citizens for political expedience. Remember, the left was quite sure that evidence would come to the forefront, all the while they were holding all of the available evidence


How does entrapment even enter the picture?



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I have done a couple podcasts on this subject, In my opinion this all leads back to the Atlantic Council. A Washington think tank. They are funded by a billionaire oligarch from Ukraine, as well as George Soros. As well as NATO, and others. A couple former members include both Condoleza and Susan Rice. Their head of international affairs is a former Obama chief of Staff. Evelyn Farkas is a current member. The founder of Crowd strike is a member as well. Crowdstrike are the same people who "investigated" the DNC hacks and said the Russians did it. They also have dealings with the FP group, now owned by Graham Holdings, formerly the Washington Post before Bezos bought their name and paper. They still own Slate magazine and much more. Including some ad agency that focuses on using our unique advertising IDs for targeted advertising/commercial spying.
edit on 6-4-2017 by MAGAPodcast because: Spelling

edit on 6-4-2017 by MAGAPodcast because: Added a line.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Tempter

Nope...

"Unmasking" is regular practice.
Susan rice didn't unmask anyone...just requested it.
A Legal Panel across CIA/NSA/FBI makes the decision to "unmask"

IF
She disseminated that intelligence with the unmasked names to people without clearance or for non-security (aka political) reasons...then Yes, she is at legal risk.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
Trump hasn't produced anything that shows President Obama ordered this.


Trump hasn't produced the "this" either...

The intelligence being discussed has only been seen by Nunes and Schiff thus far..
And remains so highly classified they can't talk about it.

If it is unrelated to national security...why does it have to be viewed at a SCIF on WH Grounds and it is so classified that the Intelligence Committee members cant see it?

If it is unrelated to National Security...Why was it elevated through normal archived channels to the Nat. Sec. Advisor?

If it is unrelated to national Security..Why did legal teams at CIA, FBI, NSA agree that unmasking the American names was necessary? Rice can't order it...she requests it from the IC and they have legal team evaluate the necessity of the request.

Lots of unanswered questions..

And Trump can de-classify this purportedly damning evidence of unwarranted spying with a swipe of pen.

Why hasn't he just shared it?
edit on 6-4-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: onthedownlow
I have been super busy with work so I have only been able to listen to the talking heads on radio. Not sure if this question has been asked yet but, seeing how the left seems to believe that collusion occured, has the possibility of entrapment been broached? There is obviously very little evidence of collusion or we would be hearing more than talking points. I have to seriously wonder if the unmasking occured so that state actors could attempt to elicit federal crimes from US citizens for political expedience. Remember, the left was quite sure that evidence would come to the forefront, all the while they were holding all of the available evidence


How does entrapment even enter the picture?


To play devil's advocate... if a situation were to arise, and you were all of a sudden privy to all of your political opponents convesations, wouldnt it be enticing to test their moral proclivty? If this is the case, wouldnt you want to know? The left has touted evidence that apparently never came to fruition, so I want to know if they attempted to accrue evidence through meddling



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Check out Susan Rice's response, after President Trump said that Obama had Wiretapped him...

"“The foundation of the United States’ unrivaled global leadership rests only in part on our military might, the strength of our economy and the power of our ideals,” Rice wrote. “It is also grounded in the perception that the United States is steady, rational and fact-based. To lead effectively, the United States must maintain respect and trust. So, when a White House deliberately dissembles and serially contorts the facts, its actions pose a serious risk to America’s global leadership, among friends and adversaries alike.”"

Source: dailycaller.com...

What impact was a response like that supposed to have? As the article says, Susan Rice is a confused personality.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos


Out of hundreds of thousands to millions of "incidentally" intercepted communications without identities provided, how did Lynch or Rice know which ones to target specificly ? It's almost like they already knew who they wanted to survey, and were looking for a reason. I believe that situation is called a "fishing expedition".


What makes you think they knew who they were looking for? Remember, some of the people on Trump's team had already been caught offering their services to the Russian government.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust


What impact was a response like that supposed to have?


Hopefully it was like a bucket of ice water in the face of a President whose bizarre behavior is making the United States a global laughing stock.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: network dude


per Obama's order


Help me out: when did Trump provide evidence it was ordered by President Obama?


Try reading in context. then look here. We don't need Trump for this.
Thanks for this. I question why Obama admin waited till Obama nearly out of office. I mean really 8 years and suddenly he needed to make those changes......



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join