Susan Rice's unmasking on shaky legal ground

originally posted by: Tempter
Via LawNewz

Why Susan Rice’s Reported ‘Unmasking’ of Trump Officials Raises Very Serious Legal Concerns for Her

Why Susan Rice’s Reported ‘Unmasking’ of Trump Officials Raises Very Serious Legal Concerns for Her
by Robert Barnes | 8:23 pm, April 3rd, 2017

Watergate was just a private break-in by private actors. To preclude either Watergate or Cointelpro from ever occurring again, and in response to Justice Douglas’ warnings about illegal uses of electronic surveillance, Congress passed laws to conform surveillance to the twin mandates of the First and Fourth Amendment.

The means our government uses — to protect the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Americans without sacrificing the country’s security needs for information gathering on foreign threats — is a process known as “minimization” and “masking.” The point of the minimization and masking protocols is to insure America’s eavesdropping on foreigners “safeguards the constitutional rights of U.S. persons.” These protocols are not merely internal rules nor discretionary guidelines; they are the necessary legislatively delegated means “required to protect the privacy rights of U.S. persons” provided for by the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. Violating these provisions does more than violate mere regulatory restrictions; violating these provisions violates the Constitutional rights of Americans. That is why the law criminalizes such action when taken “under color of law” by rogue agents.

The law imposes criminal sanctions on government officials who “engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized” by statutes and governing regulations implementing those statutes. This same criminal law makes a person “guilty of an offense” if she intentionally “discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained” in a manner “not authorized” by law. Notably, the law enforcement defense is limited to “law enforcement or investigative officer” cleared to do so by a search warrant or court order. The crime imposes a term of imprisonment up to sixty months in a federal prison. The point of the law criminalizing rogue agents either intercepting Americans’ conversations illicitly or unmasking they identities illegally is to protect against rogue government agents from abusing the most powerful surveillance means ever developed to invade the free speech, free thought, free expression and intimate privacy rights of all Americans.

According to both FBI Director Comey and NSA Director Clapper, no warrant ever authorized the intercepts and electronic surveillance on a member of Trump’s team. Yet, Chairman Nunes reports such intercepts occurred, identifying them as “incidental.” As law professor Glenn Reynolds recently noted, recent reports raise doubts on how “incidental” it was.

...
The key question now is simple: what legal basis did Susan Rice have to order the unmasking of Trump team members? If the information was inadequate to justify a FISA warrant (or the Obama White House wanted to keep some members of the intelligence community out of the loop?), what permissible purpose justified the unmasking?

...
Some defenders of Rice suggests she could label anything she wanted of “foreign intelligence value,” under the implementing regulatory protocols and thereby label it “foreign intelligence information” under the statute. The law is not so broad.

...
This is the biggest mistake the Obama defenders have been making, and reflects their lack of understanding of the law’s Constitutional context and legislative history. Put most simply, neither the 1st Amendment nor the 4th Amendment has a “talking to foreigners” exception.

What do you think, ATS? Is the Rice cooked?

I'm guessing the guy that wrote this, Robert Barnes, is the attorney and not the one in charge of national production at the NYTimes?

If so, he has actually won some pretty big cases against the govt....at least from what his own site references.

No idea if he is a legit great lawyer, but he is definitely well quoted and noted in Google searches.

originally posted by: thedigirati
The FISA court is unconstitutional Secret courts were one of the MANY reasons the war of independence was fought. Many of the court hearings are ex parte, meaning one sided. they only hear one side this is also unconstitutional, you have the right to face your accuser. No legal court should be in secret.

I wholeheartedly agree. Secret Courts and Secret Laws. There's no place for them in the United States IMO.

IMO it's an unConstitutional Overthrow of the US Government and could serve as grounds for the Tree of Liberty getting mightily refreshed.

originally posted by: angeldoll
Is her goose cooked? Try though they might as another deflection, no, it isn't.

Someone was up to no-good and she wanted to know who it was. Her job. It was very likely Flynn, or another one of Putin's buddies, in which case she should be given a metal. She was within her legal rights. This whole thing is simply another way for Trump's camp to try to reduce the heat under the frying pan where they currently find themselves.

And the part where Trump was right about having his wires tapped? Do you have any comment on that?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: angeldoll
Is her goose cooked? Try though they might as another deflection, no, it isn't.

Someone was up to no-good and she wanted to know who it was. Her job. It was very likely Flynn, or another one of Putin's buddies, in which case she should be given a metal. She was within her legal rights. This whole thing is simply another way for Trump's camp to try to reduce the heat under the frying pan where they currently find themselves.

And the part where Trump was right about having his wires tapped? Do you have any comment on that?

There is still no evidence Trump himself had his wires tapped. Routine surveillance of Russian agents caught American officials and businessmen potentially committing acts of treason. Obtaining their identities so that they could be legally surveilled in the interests of national security was absolutely necessary. So long as Rice followed procedures, nothing illegal was done... unless the subjects of the surveillance really were committing treason.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: angeldoll
Is her goose cooked? Try though they might as another deflection, no, it isn't.

Someone was up to no-good and she wanted to know who it was. Her job. It was very likely Flynn, or another one of Putin's buddies, in which case she should be given a metal. She was within her legal rights. This whole thing is simply another way for Trump's camp to try to reduce the heat under the frying pan where they currently find themselves.

And the part where Trump was right about having his wires tapped? Do you have any comment on that?

There is still no evidence Trump himself had his wires tapped. Routine surveillance of Russian agents caught American officials and businessmen potentially committing acts of treason. Obtaining their identities so that they could be legally surveilled in the interests of national security was absolutely necessary. So long as Rice followed procedures, nothing illegal was done... unless the subjects of the surveillance really were committing treason.

Your answer is correct all round.
As for the unmasking, your examples are well correct, ans they may be examples of 'unmasking' of American citizens that are the exemptions, are are allowed to be unmasked...as below,

* "The identity of the United States person is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance, e.g., the identity of a senior official in the executive branch."

*' The intelligence indicates that the U.S. person may be "an agent of a foreign power."

* As NSA Director Michael Rogers told the House Intelligence Committee at a hearing.

He also mentioned that around 19 other people under him would also have the authority, and by default, that could only mean that ultimately any names would come to him as a heads up, or discussion.

In other words this was allowable.
What would not be allowable would be any distribution of the information to media or unauthorised persons, which is the only foundation given in the story from Housley, which he admits came from non-usual sources, and he doesn't even say if he knows the source.
In other words it's a possible bit of hype, probably coming from interested parties in Washington. Nunes had all the imformation about the unmasking this long time, and has yet to mention one name that was unmasked, and as long as that goes on politicos will continue to make hay to deflect away from other ongoing problems...just like "My wires"
and anybody else going on about "My wires" here or in the media is just stupid when even the President has said the statement was ambiguous.

Another way of looking at it is, if indeed there are WH admin names that have been unmasked which will be allowable, and if it should include Trump, who's fault is that, Trump's, somebody else named? It won't however be intel's fault.

Susan Rice's Unraveling Web of Lies
Obama's attack on our democracy becomes too clear to ignore.

Burn baby BURN.

Former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice is once again in the news, embroiled in a growing scandal. Bloomberg News has reported this week that Rice requested or directed the unmasking of the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports, who were involved with the Trump transition team. The communications of these individuals were apparently collected incidentally during the course of electronic monitoring of communications involving foreign officials of interest. Normally, Americans’ identities are masked, with generic references such as the title "U.S. Person One."

According to Eli Lake’s Bloomberg report, “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.”

She ordered detail spreadsheets of Trumps phones calls and his team, targeting his transition team specifically, for political reasons.

Daily Caller has reported that Rice “ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce ‘detailed spreadsheets’ of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president,” citing former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova as a source.

Circa has reported that Rice’s snooping actually preceded the election: “Susan Rice accessed numerous intelligence reports during Obama's last seven months in office that contained National Security Agency intercepts involving Donald Trump and his associates.”

This was done previously before the Russia wannabe links, so it started as a political targeting.

It also appears that the monitoring at issue had little if anything to do with the investigation of Russian interference in the presidential election.

Michael Doran, former National Security Council senior director, told the Daily Caller that “somebody blew a hole in the wall between national security secrets and partisan politics.” This “was a stream of information that was supposed to be hermetically sealed from politics and the Obama administration found a way to blow a hole in that wall,” he said.

It is a threat to our electoral democracy if a party in power is able to use the nation’s intelligence apparatus to do opposition research on the party out of power. This is what Rice appears to have done, perhaps to protect her boss's legacy from being undermined by the new Trump administration. Rice denies all of this, of course.

It was a vicious attempt to undermine the new Trump administration

Democrats have not honor they are a party without decency.

www.frontpagemag.com...

March 22, she lied in PBS interview,

Rice told PBS on March 22 that she “was not aware of any orders given to disseminate that information.” She did skirt the issues of whether she herself unmasked or disseminated information outright. Rice also limited her remarks to Trump’s debunked early March tweet claiming a wiretap of Trump Tower and vague remarks made by House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes.


"I know nothing about this."

- Susan Rice, on the unmasking of Americans

“I know nothing about this,” Rice said at the time. “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today … So today, I really don’t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring. But he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.”

www.foxnews.com...

Susan Rice had a brain fart.

originally posted by: network dude
And the part where Trump was right about having his wires tapped? Do you have any comment on that?

I can't wait for the first formal charges against the crooks who supported 0bama.

I found myself asking, "Why do I follow laws I don't like, when they don't have to?"

a reply to: marg6043

Democrats have not honor they are a party without decency.

nevermind. Exercise in futility.

a reply to: angeldoll

Party meaning leadership or whatever they have left of it.Because now that the white house belong to the Republicans rats just had left the ship, knowing that a lot of the corruption under Obama is going to be known even when the attention has been drawn to getting people hook on a Russia Trump link.

a reply to: marg6043

Dream on.

a reply to: angeldoll

Im too old now to be a dreamer, I have to live in everyday reality that is what happen when you start inching to your late life.

Is not such thing as dreams anymore, is all reality and whatever is there to enjoy life.

To the people saying "It's her job" you are woefully misinformed, or intentionally being dishonest. One is surely worse than the other...

Susan Rice as the National Security Advisor, is not part of the FBI, CIA or NSA. She is a staffer for the white house's administration. She is a member (read employee) of the administration, not of the intelligence agencies. Let that sink in a moment, because it's a very important detail.

As such, Susan Rice is NOT involved in either Criminal Investigations, nor Intelligence investigations. She also, as per her title does not create intelligence reports ; She consumes them. Adds thoughts, considers implications and passes this along to the Administration. At no point during her duties was it relevant nor necessary for her to have unmasked American information. She was not involved in the FBI's Russian Investigation, nor would have or would be involved in any persecutions resulting. She would not be involved in the CIA nor the NSA's investigation and any criminal prosecution resulting would also have been nothing to do with her, as her duties.

Let that sink in, there was no intelligence need for Susan Rice to request these identities be revealed. If there was significant need of "American Interests" to make these identities know, it would have been done BY THOSE AGENCIES and NOT at the request of a white house staffer.

The National Security Advisor is not an investigator. It is not White House Staffers, who are incharge of controlling the content of these reports, but to only act upon them. The argument "she needed these names/information to better understand the intelligence" is absolutely ridiculous on it's premise.

For what reason ? She isn't producing intelligence reports for the CIA/NSA, they are producing it for her... She's not building a case for the FBI to prosecute, and wouldn't be involved in that prosecution should it manifest !

There is only one reason she would want that information, and that was to disseminate it. It's the only thing she could have done with it ! Because her job, and it's functions don't fulfill the requirement of "need" for this information.

And thanks to people feeling "comfortable" in front of certain press agencies, the confirmation that this was being spread by the administration like wildfire is confirmed. Hell, even Robert Mook admitted on Fox & Friends to Steve Doocy that he (Mook) knew of the surveilence and the contents about "Russian Communication" with campaign staffers & transition people of Trump before the election. And if Robert Mook knew, the whole Clinton campaign knew...

Then of course was Farkkas admission of dissemination... And Marsh's admission of dissemination ontop of that...

However I've slid off the topic in question and the point of my post.

It was not Rice's job to reveal (illegally) American citizens in these reports and indeed the mere concept she even "needed" these identies is ludicrous.



I wonder if anyone who argued the suvelience never happened feels silly ?

a reply to: Tempter

I believe CNN and Don Lemon, so I'm not going to insult the intelligence of everyone here by peddling this fake news non story.

There is NOTHING to see here!!!

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: angeldoll
Is her goose cooked? Try though they might as another deflection, no, it isn't.

Someone was up to no-good and she wanted to know who it was. Her job. It was very likely Flynn, or another one of Putin's buddies, in which case she should be given a metal. She was within her legal rights. This whole thing is simply another way for Trump's camp to try to reduce the heat under the frying pan where they currently find themselves.

And the part where Trump was right about having his wires tapped? Do you have any comment on that?

There is still no evidence Trump himself had his wires tapped. Routine surveillance of Russian agents caught American officials and businessmen potentially committing acts of treason. Obtaining their identities so that they could be legally surveilled in the interests of national security was absolutely necessary. So long as Rice followed procedures, nothing illegal was done... unless the subjects of the surveillance really were committing treason.

I think you missed this entirely. The question isn't if it's legal or not, it's, was it done. IN this case, it's obvious that it was done. Yes, communications were intercepted and recorded. And as I have said many times along with many others, if Trump is guilty of something, hang his ass, if not, move the # on. All these conversations have already happened. They have already been moved from voice to text and apparently handed out to every IC group that exists, per Obama's order. So to think that we need to spend a few more months talking about "what if's", is stupid. It's only there to muddy the waters for Trump and make whatever he wants to do difficult. And even a pinhead with an IQ of potato can see that Trump can and will do a few things that are good for all of us, along with all the things that make liberals tear up.

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Outstanding post.



Right on par with Trey Gowdy!

And when and if she is brought in, this will be exactly what
those in congressional oversight would say to her.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
To the people saying "It's her job" you are woefully misinformed, or intentionally being dishonest. One is surely worse than the other...

Susan Rice as the National Security Advisor, is not part of the FBI, CIA or NSA. She is a staffer for the white house's administration. She is a member (read employee) of the administration, not of the intelligence agencies. Let that sink in a moment, because it's a very important detail.

As such, Susan Rice is NOT involved in either Criminal Investigations, nor Intelligence investigations. She also, as per her title does not create intelligence reports ; She consumes them. Adds thoughts, considers implications and passes this along to the Administration. At no point during her duties was it relevant nor necessary for her to have unmasked American information. She was not involved in the FBI's Russian Investigation, nor would have or would be involved in any persecutions resulting. She would not be involved in the CIA nor the NSA's investigation and any criminal prosecution resulting would also have been nothing to do with her, as her duties.

Let that sink in, there was no intelligence need for Susan Rice to request these identities be revealed. If there was significant need of "American Interests" to make these identities know, it would have been done BY THOSE AGENCIES and NOT at the request of a white house staffer.

The National Security Advisor is not an investigator. It is not White House Staffers, who are incharge of controlling the content of these reports, but to only act upon them. The argument "she needed these names/information to better understand the intelligence" is absolutely ridiculous on it's premise.

For what reason ? She isn't producing intelligence reports for the CIA/NSA, they are producing it for her... She's not building a case for the FBI to prosecute, and wouldn't be involved in that prosecution should it manifest !

There is only one reason she would want that information, and that was to disseminate it. It's the only thing she could have done with it ! Because her job, and it's functions don't fulfill the requirement of "need" for this information.

And thanks to people feeling "comfortable" in front of certain press agencies, the confirmation that this was being spread by the administration like wildfire is confirmed. Hell, even Robert Mook admitted on Fox & Friends to Steve Doocy that he (Mook) knew of the surveilence and the contents about "Russian Communication" with campaign staffers & transition people of Trump before the election. And if Robert Mook knew, the whole Clinton campaign knew...

Then of course was Farkkas admission of dissemination... And Marsh's admission of dissemination ontop of that...

However I've slid off the topic in question and the point of my post.

It was not Rice's job to reveal (illegally) American citizens in these reports and indeed the mere concept she even "needed" these identies is ludicrous.



I wonder if anyone who argued the suvelience never happened feels silly ?

CNN's VAN JONES says that President Trump should be presenting SUSAN RICE with the PRESIDENTIAL MEDAL OF FREEDOM.

""Now if she were a terrible person, up to no good,” Jones continued, “trying to ruin Donald Trump, you know what she would’ve done, what she could’ve done? She coulda called a press conference in the middle of the election, like James Comey did from the FBI, OK?

She coulda run around screaming bloody murder, ‘look what I found, look what I found.’ She didn’t do that. She got very disturbing information, and she looked into it. And as best we can tell, she did her job inside the proper channels.”

“For doing this, Donald Trump should give Susan Rice the Presidential Medal of Freedom, OK?” Jones exclaimed.""

Excerpted from: www.theblaze.com...

OK? OK!

Thanks for shirring this post it is very impotent for me.Ya that nice post but we also need to know about all the section about how to dentists email lists its important for any person who want to create online email marketing campaigns link directory submersion.

a reply to: network dude

per Obama's order

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