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.
As best I can understand this stuff, if she ordered unmasking, and then info was given out to the media, that's not illegal leaking. Maybe an unfair advantage in terms of contacts & how soon, but not illegal.
Gowdy: Well, there have been a lot of statutes at bar in this investigation for which no one’s ever been prosecuted or convicted, and that does not keep people from discussing those statutes, namely, the Logan Act. In theory, how would reporters know a U.S. citizen made a telephone call to an agent of a foreign power?
Comey: How would they know legally?
Gowdy: Yes.
Comey: If it was declassified and then discussed in a judicial proceeding or a congressional hearing, something like that. Gowdy: And assume none of those facts are at play, how would they know?
Comey: Someone told them who shouldn’t have told them.
Gowdy: How would a reporter know about the existence of intercepted phone calls?
Comey: Same thing. In a legitimate way, through an appropriate proceeding where there’s been declassification, and any other way in an illegitimate way.
Gowdy: How would reporters know if a transcript existed of an intercepted communication?
Comey: Same answer. The only legitimate way would be through a proceeding, appropriate proceeding. The illegitimate way would be somebody told them who shouldn’t have told them.
It’s with a mixture of pride and sadness that I leave ABC News after 13 years. As Washington Senior Producer for World News Tonight for seven years, I am grateful to Peter Jennings and Charles Gibson for giving me the opportunity to work with the most dedicated and talented team of reporters and producers here in the Washington bureau and across the news division.
originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Boadicea
Want to investigate Trump? Make him testify in Congress under oath. Or capture Putin and make him testify in Congress under oath.
Neither of those assertions is consistent with the fuller account of Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak provided by officials who had access to reports from U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies that routinely monitor the communications of Russian diplomats. Nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: theantediluvian
Notice the word 'former' in the title and the OP.
But what is he doing now? I could find no information on his current employment.
Unfortunately for you as a former executive in media, I'm sure he has contacts throughout the media world. But as I have said, I have no evidence that he was the leaker, it's just a strange coincidence that a media connected person happens to be married to the unmasker and the unmasked names leaked to the media. Believe what you want to believe.
That request, however, appears to have been rebuffed by both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. Two sources told ABC News that the Senate Intelligence Committee described Flynn’s proposal as a “non-starter.” The House committee released a statement calling the request a “grave and momentous step,” adding that it’s too early to consider a request for immunity.
Ties to Turkey
Russia is not the only foreign agent that Flynn is known to have ties to; it was revealed after his resignation that Flynn had done lobbying work prior to his appointment as national security adviser that "could be construed to have principally benefited the Republic of Turkey," according to documents filed with the Department of Justice.
A source familiar with the situation tells ABC News Flynn informed the White House counsel team both during the transition and after the inauguration that he would have to file as a foreign agent because of the work he did on behalf of the Turkish government.
This source could not say if Flynn first made the team aware of his situation before or after President-elect Trump announced on Nov. 18 that he would be appointing the former general as his national security adviser.
originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t
First there was no evidence Trump was spied on.
Then there was no evidence that he was unmasked
Then there was no evidence that it wasn't because of 'muh Russia'
Then there was no evidence it was the Obama admin, just the intel community
Now there is no evidence that the unmasking was illegal
When will you guys stop with this?
There was never any evidence that Nixon ordered the watergate break-ins either.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Dfairlite
Did Rice even have the authority to ask for an unmasking of names as a National Security Adviser?
I suspect she had help from Obama.
She certainly did not have the authority to leak it to the press.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Dfairlite
Did Rice even have the authority to ask for an unmasking of names as a National Security Adviser?
I suspect she had help from Obama.
She certainly did not have the authority to leak it to the press.
What evidence do you have that she had help from Obama?
Also, again, does she have the authority to unmask names?
originally posted by: xuenchen
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Dfairlite
Did Rice even have the authority to ask for an unmasking of names as a National Security Adviser?
I suspect she had help from Obama.
She certainly did not have the authority to leak it to the press.
What evidence do you have that she had help from Obama?
Also, again, does she have the authority to unmask names?
Susan Rice never did (will do) anything without Obama's instructions.
She was *HIS* National Security Advisor.