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.

 

Intelligence chairman accuses Obama aides of hundreds of unmasking requests

page: 1
25

log in

join
share:
+8 more 
posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Looks like some more is coming out about those "justified" unmaskings by the past Obama Administration.

Un-maskings that just coincidentally happened to fall in line with the elections.

The House Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes may have some evidence that there were hundres of unmaskings that correlate to the elections.

Funny how this comes out after Susan Rice did some behind-closed-doors talking recently.

I wonder if she had no choice but to reveal some good damning evidence.


Intelligence chairman accuses Obama aides of hundreds of unmasking requests


The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is accusing top political aides of President Obama of making hundreds of requests during the 2016 presidential race to unmask the names of Americans in intelligence reports, including Trump transition officials.

Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), in a letter to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, said the requests were made without specific justifications on why the information was needed.

“We have found evidence that current and former government officials had easy access to U.S. person information and that it is possible that they used this information to achieve partisan political purposes, including the selective, anonymous leaking of such information,” Nunes wrote in the letter to Coats.
The letter was provided to The Hill from a source in the intelligence community.

In Thursday’s letter, Nunes said the total requests for Americans’ names by Obama political aides numbered in the hundreds during Obama’s last year in office and often lacked a specific intelligence community justification. He called the lack of proper justifications a “serious deficiency.”




edit on Jul-27-2017 by xuenchen because: nullified




posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Mark Levin was just taking about this on his radio show. I haven't had a chance to look into it yet, but it certainly would not surprise me, at all.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
This will take years to sort through. A lot of people blasted Nunes because he had no evidence of the unlawful unmaskings and it was all fake news. Well not so fake anymore. I like Nunes and i hope this vindicates him at least a little bit.


Screw Schiff.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
All of these facts will end up killing the conspiracy world at the end of the day. Coupled with the decline in MSM ability to pull one over on the population ,the only thing left to do is go fishing .Rumor has it that there is some 4' Atlantic Salmon in the river down the road :>)



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
This will take years to sort through. A lot of people blasted Nunes because he had no evidence of the unlawful unmaskings and it was all fake news. Well not so fake anymore. I like Nunes and i hope this vindicates him at least a little bit.


Screw Schiff.


Wouldn't take years to sort out of we started hanging traitors out to dry...



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So much information stacking up against Dems.

Saw a vid a couple days ago with Malcom X saying Dems and Repubs are the same but Dems are far more corrupt and they use Black people for their own purpose. He died in 1965...wasn't that LBJ?



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I guess she isn't so eager to testify anymore luckily they didn't set a date yet. I'm calling it now. Something will come up and they will try to stall her testimony into oblivion.

obama-official-samantha- power-agrees-to-testify-before-house-intel-panel



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

As I've said before, SUSAN RICE spilled the beans when she slithered into SECRET closed-door testimony last Friday, when no one was looking.

From 7.21.2017 - thehill.com...

It's good to see NUNES back in a leadership role again! He folded quickly after some other Congressman accused him of not following procedure. Very Sessions-like.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
I guess she isn't so eager to testify anymore luckily they didn't set a date yet. I'm calling it now. Something will come up and they will try to stall her testimony into oblivion.

obama-official-samantha- power-agrees-to-testify-before-house-intel-panel


The "stall for 2 years, then flip the script and say it is old news and has been investigated already" plan. A good old standby of the left.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
I guess she isn't so eager to testify anymore luckily they didn't set a date yet. I'm calling it now. Something will come up and they will try to stall her testimony into oblivion.

obama-official-samantha- power-agrees-to-testify-before-house-intel-panel


The "stall for 2 years, then flip the script and say it is old news and has been investigated already" plan. A good old standby of the left.


Thankfully, we're starting to see some of the smart, younger, non-sewer Republicans start to get things moving. Hopefully they won't be intimidated and turned to the dark-side by Democrats and Lobbyists.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

The Rice testimony was postponed I thought? Interesting that a letter from Nunes to Coats was "leaked" to a conservative news outlet.

How exactly does that occur? Want a hint? It was leaked by Nunes for political reasons. That way he can influence the narrative without actually having to present any evidence.

The clear effort is to conflate what sounds like an actual serious deficiency in the process of unmasking (rubber stamping) with unmasking of Trump associates. While the former is a concern, bureaucratic laziness isn't spying on political opponents. Nor was any evidence put forth that these requests were illegitimate.


Obama-era officials sought the identities of Trump transition officials within intelligence reports


What officials, in what capacity and in what context? Intelligence officials and the administration would be within their purview to unmask names in raw intelligence if the purpose was to understand the raw intelligence in order to assess a threat to national security.


it is possible that they used this information to achieve partisan political purposes, including the selective, anonymous leaking of such information


Possible or likely? What leaks and to whom? Is there any evidence that any names unmasked by any particular person ended up leaked or is this just some idle speculation thrown in for good measure because Nunes was leaking it to the media?

Noticeably missing is anything about potential issues of targeted surveillance of US citizens, in the political sphere or elsewhere. What is being discussed here is unmasking of names of people caught up in incidental collection during surveillance of we can presume to be legitimate targets as there's no mention of possible impropriety there either.

Sounds like perhaps somebody asked to have all of the names of US persons communicating with somebody like Kislyak unmasked. Would that be for political gain or would it be to assess a legitimate threat?

My opinion remains that this is most likely going to go nowhere because what is being insinuated is unproven and quite possibly unprovable speculation. If Nunes had something juicy, something really incriminating, really compelling/conclusive, he wouldn't need to leak his own letters.
edit on 2017-7-27 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Is that all that the Dems care about, the "narrative"

Whether it is true that hundreds of people were illegally
surveillance matters not?



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: theantediluvian

Is that all that the Dems care about, the "narrative"

Whether it is true that hundreds of people were illegally
surveillance matters not?



I'm already looking forward to their spin on the whole investigation into Lynch and Hillary with a second special counsel. Comey was already pardoned so he has nothing to worry about i guess. Like i said this is gonna be a great week.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: theantediluvian

Is that all that the Dems care about, the "narrative"

Whether it is true that hundreds of people were illegally
surveillance matters not?



I'm already looking forward to their spin on the whole investigation into Lynch and Hillary with a second special counsel. Comey was already pardoned so he has nothing to worry about i guess. Like i said this is gonna be a great week.


If the responsibility for naming a Special Prosecutor falls on A.G. Sessions, it's a sure thing! He's learning how to "play ball", thanks to President Trump's "hints".



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), in a letter to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, said the requests were made without specific justifications on why the information was needed.


I suppose I'm not understanding the whole process of unmasking names. But I thought there was paperwork submitted to a very select department, requesting the unmasking of an individual and the reason why the information was needed - which in order to be released, had to fall in the realms of national security. Since it doesn't appear protocol was followed with proper justification within the request order, why did the department receiving the unmasking requests, unmask the requests?

So what I'm getting at is not only did the requesters (those sinister aides and such) follow unethical procedure but the actual unmaskers and deliverers of the information are more at fault here. Make sense?
edit on 27-7-2017 by StoutBroux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Curiously, is there any indication as to how many of those requests were actually granted? Or is Nunes just squawking about the number of requests? It is my understanding that the unmasking takes place when it's necessary to understand the conversation. You can't just arbitrarily ask for and receive unmasking. There are protocols in place. Keep in mind that the IC routinely monitors certain foreigners for very good reasons.
Also, Yates testified that frequently the 'unmasked' information she was shown arrived that way from the IC--as in, it was already unmasked w/out a request.
The funny thing is how worked up the Trump crowd gets about the unmasking--like they actually care about Americans' privacy or something. (Where was all that care when they rammed the Patriot Act through and then reauthorized it?)

And yes, all this unmasking was taking place during the election. Duh. Go figure. Seems to fit the pattern.
Ironically, more evidence of unmasking could also be more evidence of, wait for it, evidence--you know, the evidence that can't possibly exist because surely it would have been leaked by now? That evidence?



new topics

top topics



 
25

log in

join