CONFIRMED: Trump Can Get The Unmasking Records Out of Obama Library

In a follow-up to this recent news -- Judicial Watch: Obama NSC Advisor Susan Rice’s Unmasking Material is at Obama Library (ATS thread here) -- and the claim that those records were not available for five years (which never sat right with me and I'm sure many others), there is now this:

CONFIRMED: Trump Can Get The Unmasking Records Out of Obama Library

President Trump, Congress, and the courts are able to get records about Susan Rice’s “unmasking” of Trump transition officials out of the Obama Presidential Library.

The federal government still owns the records, not the museum, according to the National Archives website: “The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.”

The pertinent provisions would seem to be these:

§ 2205. Exceptions to restricted access
(2) subject to any rights, defenses, or privileges which the United States or any agency or person may invoke, Presidential records shall be made available– (A) pursuant to subpoena or other judicial process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of any civil or criminal investigation or proceeding;
(B) to an incumbent President if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of current business of the incumbent President’s office and that is not otherwise available; and
(C) to either House of Congress, or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, to any committee or subcommittee thereof if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of its business and that is not otherwise available;

I should think the Judicial Watch subpoenas would fall under (A), as well the current and ongoing House and Senate investigations would fall under (C), and I'm pretty sure Trump could claim access under (B)... and no doubt Obama's lawyers will find some legalese to argue the point. So we'll see what happens.

But it ain't over yet!

It would be nice to see how widespread the information that was unmasked went throughout the government. The strange thing, if someone had done this kind of unmasking to Obama, all hell would have broken free.

a reply to: rickymouse

It would be nice to see how widespread the information that was unmasked went throughout the government.

I sure hope that would be part of the investigation, but I'm assuming that it was done in such a way that it could never be accounted for. I'm sure it became quite the free-for-all -- especially after this:

N.S.A. Gets More Latitude to Share Intercepted Communications

a reply to: Boadicea

Good let the records come out. Most of the liberals are convinced Obama did nothing wrong, so what is there to hide?

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Boadicea

Good let the records come out. Most of the liberals are convinced Obama did nothing wrong, so what is there to hide?

Exactly! Give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... and then let the chips fall where they may.

But I gotta say that I don't think the left is the only side with something to fear. Some of those critters are just political whores no matter what letter is next to their name!

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Boadicea

Good let the records come out. Most of the liberals are convinced Obama did nothing wrong, so what is there to hide?

Exactly! Give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... and then let the chips fall where they may.

But I gotta say that I don't think the left is the only side with something to fear. Some of those critters are just political whores no matter what letter is next to their name!

You will get no argument from me. Drain the Swamp!

Even Trump if he is guilty.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Boadicea

Good let the records come out. Most of the liberals are convinced Obama did nothing wrong, so what is there to hide?

The same can and has been said repeatedly about the Russian investigation as it pertains to associates of President Trump. I haven't noticed very many if any ardent Trump supporters take any position other than the investigations should be halted immediately, it's all a coordinated effort of the deep state, liberal MSM and DNC to undermine Trump, etc.

For his part, President Trump has declared that the entirety of the Russian meddling investigation, even the bulk of it having nothing to do with Trump's associates, is part of a hoax, a waste of money, etc.

That's before the repeated attempts to derail the investigation, of which the "unmasking scandal" announced to the world by the now recused Devin Nunes, colluding with administration operatives and meeting clandestinely at the WH at the very same time he was supposed to be leading the House Intel Committee investigation, is in my opinion, a part of.

Personally, as I've said in the original thread where I noted that Congress would be able to get them (Googling PRA was enough to determine that), I'm all for Congress looking through whatever documents they need to despite my feelings that the "unmasking scandal" won't develop into anything and is merely a distraction.

I wish we could get Trump supporters to get on board with calling on President Trump to stop his own interference and publically express support of the Russian meddling investigation. For one, it's a major national security issue and it's disgusting that Trump's concern for his own fragile ego is being put before the good of the nation. Secondly, and as it pertains to the part of the investigation that includes his associates, I really wish Trump supporters would apply the "if there's nothing to hide" standard and call for him to take the stance that was expressed in the statement relayed by Comey in the part of the Comey testimony that Trump supporters choose to believe.

Namely, that if any of his "satellites" were involved in collusion, he wants to know. I think we can all agree that has not been his publically expressed opinion nor does it comport with his actions.

As of yesterday, Sean Spicer claims that he still doesn't know if the President believes that Russians meddled in our election.

If all the Trump supporters are so sure that there was no wrong doing, then what is there to hide?

Sure...Trump or Congress officially demands them...and (oh, Lordy...guess what)...they've been accidentally destroyed.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Sure...Trump or Congress officially demands them...and (oh, Lordy...guess what)...they've been accidentally destroyed.

Bleachbit, shredder.... whatever it takes, Right?

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Boadicea

Good let the records come out. Most of the liberals are convinced Obama did nothing wrong, so what is there to hide?

The same can and has been said repeatedly about the Russian investigation as it pertains to associates of President Trump. I haven't noticed very many if any ardent Trump supporters take any position other than the investigations should be halted immediately, it's all a coordinated effort of the deep state, liberal MSM and DNC to undermine Trump, etc.

For his part, President Trump has declared that the entirety of the Russian meddling investigation, even the bulk of it having nothing to do with Trump's associates, is part of a hoax, a waste of money, etc.

That's before the repeated attempts to derail the investigation, of which the "unmasking scandal" announced to the world by the now recused Devin Nunes, colluding with administration operatives and meeting clandestinely at the WH at the very same time he was supposed to be leading the House Intel Committee investigation, is in my opinion, a part of.

Personally, as I've said in the original thread where I noted that Congress would be able to get them (Googling PRA was enough to determine that), I'm all for Congress looking through whatever documents they need to despite my feelings that the "unmasking scandal" won't develop into anything and is merely a distraction.

I wish we could get Trump supporters to get on board with calling on President Trump to stop his own interference and publically express support of the Russian meddling investigation. For one, it's a major national security issue and it's disgusting that Trump's concern for his own fragile ego is being put before the good of the nation. Secondly, and as it pertains to the part of the investigation that includes his associates, I really wish Trump supporters would apply the "if there's nothing to hide" standard and call for him to take the stance that was expressed in the statement relayed by Comey in the part of the Comey testimony that Trump supporters choose to believe.

Namely, that if any of his "satellites" were involved in collusion, he wants to know. I think we can all agree that has not been his publically expressed opinion nor does it comport with his actions.

As of yesterday, Sean Spicer claims that he still doesn't know if the President believes that Russians meddled in our election.

If all the Trump supporters are so sure that there was no wrong doing, then what is there to hide?

A couple things. Yes I wish the Russian investigation would go fast and smoothly, and arrest anyone who broke the law. I wish Trump would spout off less about it.

But don't act like its not being used to politically attack him. Hell, Comey wouldn't even tell people Trump wasn't under investigation. So yes, fro Trumps perspective, it is a witch hunt to get him.

You are right all info should come out. So why are the dems delaying the testimony of people like Carter page? Why didn't they let the FBI see their server? Why move Susan Rice records to Obama library, that by the way isn't even completed? And why don't you call out the dems fragile ego for politicizing this instead of doing everything they can to enrure our elections are safe?

Oh thats right, because its just a political game for them.

As far as Russian meddling, no I will not believe it until I see proof. I think there is a very good chance that they did, but I am not going to take the IC word for it, the same IC that is leaking everyday to hurt Trump.

If there is nothing to hide, show us the proof, right?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Very thoughtful post -- thank you! And I agree more than I disagree. In fact, I don't even really disagree, but just look at it a little different.

Personally, as I've said in the original thread where I noted that Congress would be able to get them (Googling PRA was enough to determine that) --

I missed that -- sorry. And I admit I didn't even know where/how to start researching it for myself, so I did wait to see what others came up with.... my bad.

And good for you

-- I'm all for Congress looking through whatever documents they need to despite my feelings that the "unmasking scandal" won't develop into anything and is merely a distraction.

I think you're right from a legal standpoint. It seems to me that the actual law passed by Congress probably leaves much of the necessary rules and regulations to the discretion of the agency "enforcing" the law, including simple administrative penalties for violations. I don't know all the whys and wherefores, but yes, I'm pretty sure this isn't as cut and dried as it seems.

I do think more and more folks are getting weary of the political footballs and just want some damn transparency and accountability. If, as I understand it, Trump has the power to make everything public, then why doesn't he? What game is he playing?

But I also think the only true judge and jury will be found in the court of public opinion. There may not be any real legal repercussions for any bad behavior -- either by the letter or the spirit of the law -- but the public has every right to know and understand what that bad behavior was and who was doing it and hold them accountable at the ballot box. As well as to demand any/all necessary reform of the law and its penalties.

We all know what happened anyway.

The Obama Administration was so sleazy they have to hide it.

To sit there and watch Hillary sell out our Country.

To weaponize the IRS, FBI, CIA...

We owe whoever hacked the DNC a friggin medal.

Obama installed a deep state that will continue to haunt us for years.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Sure...Trump or Congress officially demands them...and (oh, Lordy...guess what)...they've been accidentally destroyed.

That is a very real possibility.

It wouldn't be the first time records have been disappeared from the archives either:

Berger Will Plead Guilty To Taking Classified Paper

a reply to: IAMTAT

Someone might find a box in a closet in
2021 .... partial records.

Unmasking Gate

Great that these records can be obtained, but the people can not see them and something tells me they WONT be leaked.
We'll be left in a situation like the Russian 'hacking' where zero evidence is supplied and a narrative is crafted that we just have to believe or not.

If Obama directed any illegal use of intelligence or someone in his admin did, we'll never find out.

The whole point of the Judicial Watch FOIA request was to get information that could be shared with the public , and that will not be an option for 5 years, regardless of the what Congress can get hold of.

..and lets just wait and see if Congress can even get these documents... my guess is that they are long gone.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Great that these records can be obtained, but the people can not see them and something tells me they WONT be leaked.

Well, that's true to the extent that it will up to the discretion of whoever obtains them --

Are the records closed to the public? Yes. But not closed to the current president, Congress, or law enforcement officials who can get the information and make it public themselves.

-- so the question remains as to whether or not they will do so. And we need to know that too.

...and lets just wait and see if Congress can even get these documents... my guess is that they are long gone.

Definitely.

a reply to: Grambler

You are right all info should come out. So why are the dems delaying the testimony of people like Carter page?

I don't that the Democrats are blocking Carter Page from testifying. That's the loaded language used in the heavily biased Free Beacon article that you've posted (I just read it 2 minutes ago) citing anonymous "Congressional officials."

The article also says that the Democrats who are purportedly delaying the Page testimony said they need additional time to prepare. Perhaps they do? Perhaps they're waiting to be briefed on the Mueller investigation. Then again maybe they are blocking the testimony because they know that they don't have anything on Page — the clear insinuation of the FB piece.

All we have to go on that it's being "blocked" is the opinion of unnamed source.

Why didn't they let the FBI see their server?

It's a different "they" in this case. AFAIK, none of the minority members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence were part of the DNC leadership then (or are now). All that has been claimed from my knowledge is that the FBI didn't get direct access to the physical servers. Whose to say why? Maybe the DNC had something they didn't want the FBI to see? Maybe they were concerned that there were things that might exist that they wouldn't want the FBI to see.

The assumption that the right-wing talking heads are promoting is along the lines that there was no hack or maybe there was a hack but in either case, the Russian-born CrowdStrike CEO was probably trying to fake evidence for Russian attribution. Of course, that's all just speculation extrapolated from one detail without considering plausible alternatives.

It also doesn't make much sense considering that if that were the case, CrowdStrike would have been perfectly capable of taking the same implants and installing them on servers. They could have faked logs if they wanted to, etc.

Whatever the case, it's a question for former DNC chair, DWS, and the whoever was ultimately in charge of overseeing their IT.

Why move Susan Rice records to Obama library, that by the way isn't even completed?

Nobody has any idea what "Susan Rice records" are even at question here. Nor have I personally seen anyone address the typical process for this. Do you know what sort of timeframe these things usually follow? When were the documents moved? Has anyone considered that it might be commonplace to remove all documents from the previous administration prior to the new administration moving in?

It seems to me that a lot of rampant speculation here is derived from the heavily biased JW statements. JW clearly wants its audience to believe that something unusual or untoward took place and that is has something to do with Susan Rice. All based on the fact that the documents were moved and a whole bunch of innuendo without much supporting fact.

And why don't you call out the dems fragile ego for politicizing this instead of doing everything they can to enrure our elections are safe?

You'll need to expound on this. What politicizing are they doing that is directly working against a goal of ensuring our elections are safe? I mean, it's politics so everything is politicized but it's like saying that Republicans politicizing Benghazi kept the US government from doing what it needed to reduce the risk of a repeat elsewhere.

Oh thats right, because its just a political game for them.

I hope you're not implying that political gamesmanship is somehow less a thing from the GOP, Trump or the Trump administration? I'll refer you once more to Benghazi or how about the kangroo court Daryl Issa was holding for months on end? How about the Lewinsky affair? What investigations involving politicians aren't inherently political?

As far as Russian meddling, no I will not believe it until I see proof. I think there is a very good chance that they did, but I am not going to take the IC word for it, the same IC that is leaking everyday to hurt Trump.

I will tell you this. The evidence of hacking is pretty irrefutable. The attribution to Russia is the only part that is open for at least public debate at this point. That's only part of the Russian meddling though. Hopefully when this is all said and done, we'll get an exhaustive, comprehensive and thoroughly detailed report.

a reply to: Boadicea

This reminds me of days after the election when Assange tweeted that he is offering $20,000 for evidence of any Obama staffers destroying documents before the transition was complete.

I have a feeling some documents are about to go missing.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler


I don't that the Democrats are blocking Carter Page from testifying. That's the loaded language used in the heavily biased Free Beacon article that you've posted (I just read it 2 minutes ago) citing anonymous "Congressional officials."

The article also says that the Democrats who are purportedly delaying the Page testimony said they need additional time to prepare. Perhaps they do? Perhaps they're waiting to be briefed on the Mueller investigation. Then again maybe they are blocking the testimony because they know that they don't have anything on Page — the clear insinuation of the FB piece.

All we have to go on that it's being "blocked" is the opinion of unnamed source.

I will give you that. I have read more and it seems both sides are accusing the others of stalling.

However, I Page Rogers and Manafort want to testify under oath, I can't see why this shouldn't be done asap. As I said before, they can always be called back alter if necessary.

It's a different "they" in this case. AFAIK, none of the minority members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence were part of the DNC leadership then (or are now). All that has been claimed from my knowledge is that the FBI didn't get direct access to the physical servers. Whose to say why? Maybe the DNC had something they didn't want the FBI to see? Maybe they were concerned that there were things that might exist that they wouldn't want the FBI to see.

Not buying it. Why haven't the dem leaders on the intel committee demanded to see the server then?

And do they not belong to the DNC, even if they are not in leadership roles?

What do you think they could not want the FBI to see that is more important than stopping hacks of our elections? Clearly they do not think the hacks are all that important then.

The assumption that the right-wing talking heads are promoting is along the lines that there was no hack or maybe there was a hack but in either case, the Russian-born CrowdStrike CEO was probably trying to fake evidence for Russian attribution. Of course, that's all just speculation extrapolated from one detail without considering plausible alternatives.

Are you comfortable having the most important piece of evidence in supposedly the most important investigation that our intelligence services are doing to be looked at exclusively by a group that not only has been incorrect in their assessments of Russian hacking in Ukraine, but that has connections to the DNC?

I am not.

Nobody has any idea what "Susan Rice records" are even at question here. Nor have I personally seen anyone address the typical process for this. Do you know what sort of timeframe these things usually follow? When were the documents moved? Has anyone considered that it might be commonplace to remove all documents from the previous administration prior to the new administration moving in?

It seems to me that a lot of rampant speculation here is derived from the heavily biased JW statements. JW clearly wants its audience to believe that something unusual or untoward took place and that is has something to do with Susan Rice. All based on the fact that the documents were moved and a whole bunch of innuendo without much supporting fact.

The article in the OP makes a convincing case that this is very unusual. Can you post evidence that this is not the case?

Investigation were started based on the russian pee dossier, so why shouldn;t these documents be looked at when there are accusations of unmasking?

You'll need to expound on this. What politicizing are they doing that is directly working against a goal of ensuring our elections are safe? I mean, it's politics so everything is politicized but it's like saying that Republicans politicizing Benghazi kept the US government from doing what it needed to reduce the risk of a repeat elsewhere.

Not allowing access to the server. Not giving easy access to the Rice documents. Not demanding investigations into Rice's actions in the Hillary investigation (well some are), delaying people testifying, Wyden bringing up comey accusations against sessions that he gave in a closed section, comey refusing to tell people Trump wasn't under investigation, the downplaying of the only illegal thing we kbnow has happened the leaks and the fact that none of them seem interested in getting to the bottom of this.

And other things.

I hope you're not implying that political gamesmanship is somehow less a thing from the GOP, Trump or the Trump administration? I'll refer you once more to Benghazi or how about the kangroo court Daryl Issa was holding for months on end? How about the Lewinsky affair? What investigations involving politicians aren't inherently political?

Not gonna go in for the tit for tat. So because you feel republicans have politicized investigations into the past, its ok for the dems to do it?

And I know that you know that the leaks from the IC, the constant media bashing of Trump, and the switching of one investigation to another to find anything on Trump is worse than what Obama or Hillary went through.

I will tell you this. The evidence of hacking is pretty irrefutable. The attribution to Russia is the only part that is open for at least public debate at this point. That's only part of the Russian meddling though. Hopefully when this is all said and done, we'll get an exhaustive, comprehensive and thoroughly detailed report.

Make a thread. Link all of the evidence the IC has shown that proves russian hacking. As for the rest of their meddling, I have not seen anything that even comes close to the DNC and media collusion to steal the election from Bernie.

Why no investigation into that?

Why were they transferred?

Obstruction of justice?