Flynn Leaks: Susan Rice is Married to Ian Cameron, Former Executive Producer at ABC

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance


Susan Rice Ordered Spy Agencies To Produce ‘Detailed Spreadsheets’ Involving Trump
dailycaller.com...

She had to remain within the law, which appears she did not.

Her logs show suspicious activity since the time Trump won
the the nomination, which points to political motivations.

There is more to come out, soon.

Popcorn.....

a reply to: burntheships

Susan Rice is just the type to "fall on the sword" for the President. Loretta Lynch would rather start a civil war and take a lot of Americans down with her.

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: MysticPearl

you raise a good point. There seems to be a lot of selective memory going on with the rapid pace of development on stories like this one..

just curious, could you dig up any MSM articles corroborating what youre alleging? I dont disbelieve you, but it woudl be nice to see that for the sake of context and comparison.

On a separate note....has someone, anyone, assembled a timeline of the RussoTrump conspiracy? I would love to see a timeline with MSM citations showing when allegations and suspicions FIRST PUBLICLY surfaced and watch how they developed.

I have a strong suspicion and fear that thigns are going so fast ppl are forgetting how the narrative keeps shifting and changing in ways to make each side look as good as possible.

Here you go from reddit/r/trumpinvestigation. Publicly sourced Trump-Russia connection

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If there is incidental collection, who says that unmasking has to occur?
Bullsh*t
If there is incidental collection, the names have to be masked.

And unmasking is ILLEGAL.

A felony.

UNAUTHORIZED unmasking is illegal.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: MysticPearl

you raise a good point. There seems to be a lot of selective memory going on with the rapid pace of development on stories like this one..

just curious, could you dig up any MSM articles corroborating what youre alleging? I dont disbelieve you, but it woudl be nice to see that for the sake of context and comparison.

On a separate note....has someone, anyone, assembled a timeline of the RussoTrump conspiracy? I would love to see a timeline with MSM citations showing when allegations and suspicions FIRST PUBLICLY surfaced and watch how they developed.

I have a strong suspicion and fear that thigns are going so fast ppl are forgetting how the narrative keeps shifting and changing in ways to make each side look as good as possible.

Here you go from reddit/r/trumpinvestigation. Publicly sourced Trump-Russia connection

Thank-you for the link to that paper. It's too bad there's so much guess-work in it. I really want to believe the section describing how the Trump administration is targeting certain Mainstream Media outlets for payback!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Man....you are so in da nile.... the crocodiles are floating right alongside you and you don't even know it.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Let me ask again. Does she have the authority to unmask names?

I did not ask whether she had access to names that were already unmasked.

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?

Funny, not so long ago the defence was that the intelligence community was nothing to do with Obama, now we know his own senior Whitehouse staff member requested the unmasking your argument has shifted.

What next? Obama has nothing to do with Obama? Lol.

As you well know she had the authority to request the unmasking...i.e. "i'd like to spy on Trump and his campaign, please".
You keep asking 'Did she have the authority'. Strange. Presumably you want to deflect.

The argument is done.

Obama was spying on Trump and his campaign.

a reply to: UKTruth

Funny, not so long ago the defence was that the intelligence community was nothing to do with Obama, now we know his own Whitehouse staff requesting the unmasking your argument has shifted.

I've made no such argument and no one has provided proof that someone in her position has the authority to unmask names.

As you well know she had the authority to request the unmasking...i.e. "i'd like to spy on Trump and his campaign please".

Please prove that. I've not seen where she has the authority to do so.

You keep asking 'Did she have the authority'. Strange. Presumably you want to deflect.

It's a basic, elementary question. If you are going to claim she had the authority, it would be logical to ask if she did have the authority to do so and proof be presented.

Strange. Logic is considered deflection.

The argument is done.

Obama was spying on Trump and his campaign.

The argument will be done when you can prove what you claim.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Funny, not so long ago the defence was that the intelligence community was nothing to do with Obama, now we know his own Whitehouse staff requesting the unmasking your argument has shifted.

I've made no such argument and no one has provided proof that someone in her position has the authority to unmask names.

As you well know she had the authority to request the unmasking...i.e. "i'd like to spy on Trump and his campaign please".

Please prove that. I've not seen where she has the authority to do so.

You keep asking 'Did she have the authority'. Strange. Presumably you want to deflect.

It's a basic, elementary question. If you are going to claim she had the authority, it would be logical to ask if she had the authority to do so.

Strange. Logic is considered deflection.

The argument is done.

Obama was spying on Trump and his campaign.

The argument will be done when you can prove what you claim.

Lol, you sound like a fish flapping about out of water.

White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter. The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like "U.S. Person One."

The National Security Council's senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting the review, according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.

The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations -- primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration. Rice did not respond to an email seeking comment on Monday morning. Her role in requesting the identities of Trump transition officials adds an important element to the dueling investigations surrounding the Trump White House since the president's inauguration.

www.bloomberg.com...

I rather hope she didn't have the authority, as it will make what she did and those who worked with her face even more trouble.
The fact she DID IT is a little more important at this point.

a reply to: UKTruth

I rather hope she didn't have the authority, as it will make what she did and those who worked with her face even more trouble.

So you don't know if she had the authority or not.

Ok.

I'd like to actually get the answer to that question before I form any opinion on that matter. All you have provided are contradicting statements. First you say she had the authority. The you say you hope she didn't.

You don't have a clue, apparently.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

I rather hope she didn't have the authority, as it will make what she did and those who worked with her face even more trouble.

So you don't know if she had the authority or not.

Ok.

I'd like to actually get the answer to that question before I form any opinion on that matter. All you have provided are contradicting statements. First you say she had the authority. The you say you hope she didn't.

You don't have a clue, apparently.

What? You'd like to know whether she had the authority to request unmasking even though she did it?
That is hilarious. I am going to use that defence next time I get caught speeding... I wonder will it work?

"I am innocent your honour, I wasn't allowed to speed so I must be innocent".

a reply to: UKTruth

What? You'd like to know whether she had the authority to request unmasking even though she did it?

Yes. I'd like to know if she had the authority to unmask names. That was the question I asked in my very first post.

That is hilarious. I am going to use that defence next time I get caught speeding..

I proposed no such defense. I've only asked a question. One which you apparently cannot answer. You claim she does have the authority, then hope she doesn't.

You're just wasting my time with partisan nonsense and don't have a clue of what you are talking about.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If there is incidental collection, who says that unmasking has to occur?
Bullsh*t
If there is incidental collection, the names have to be masked.

And unmasking is ILLEGAL.

A felony.

UNAUTHORIZED unmasking is illegal.

Yes, the way Flynn was outed.

She was the one with "dozens of requests" for unmasking US citizens.

Rice can unmask, legally, for the matter of national security.

What national security interests was there for so many requests for names of the Trump campaign?

Obama is her only boss.

I guess Trump can do the same now, to anyone.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Dfairlite

Scapegoat for what? There is no evidence that the unmasking was even illegal.

the legallity of the unmasking isnt the issue, the dissemination of that information to reporters is, which im sure your aware of if youre so interested in this story following its every turn here on ats while trying to downplay it or argue against it.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If there is incidental collection, who says that unmasking has to occur?
Bullsh*t
If there is incidental collection, the names have to be masked.

And unmasking is ILLEGAL.

A felony.

UNAUTHORIZED unmasking is illegal.

So the question here is why the unmasking here. Why the running about giving this intel to
The Hill by that wild eyed ex Obama person? She admitted they were spying on Trump and were all very scared. Maybe what's really going on here is that everyone knows that tshtf if Trump has enough power to expose this ?$@&
Besides all that when are people going to see how serious it is that Obama changed the rules to allow for random
Unmasking of American citizenS.
If any anti trump people here dare to
Be honest circa.com...

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

What? You'd like to know whether she had the authority to request unmasking even though she did it?

Yes. I'd like to know if she had the authority to unmask names. That was the question I asked in my very first post.

That is hilarious. I am going to use that defence next time I get caught speeding..

I proposed no such defense. I've only asked a question. One which you apparently cannot answer. You claim she does have the authority, then hope she doesn't.

You're just wasting my time with partisan nonsense and don't have a clue of what you are talking about.

You question is ridiculous, which is I suspect why most haven't bothered answering it.
It matters not if she had the authority to request unmasking if she actually DID request it and got what she wanted.
Your line of thought is absurd.

Yet more form the Daily Caller:

“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday. “The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”

dailycaller.com...

I bet someone (or some people) are frantically deleting spreadsheets... but alas, I fear it is too late for them

...I wonder if she had the authority to keep spreadsheets

a reply to: Dfairlite

Ian Cameron had better start looking for a new wife, if he wants one who's not behind bars.

BREAKING: Susan Rice has just admitted that she requested the unmasking and she would not deny she sought out Trump and his campaign team.
She says it was 'not for political purposes'.

Two weeks ago she said she knew nothing about it. LIAR.

Game Over : The Obama administration was spying on Trump and his team - now confirmed by the Obama Administration themselves. Trump was right. Lot's of humble pie to be eaten for the next week by liberals.