Susan Rice Ordered the Unmasking of the Trump Team

[Jerry Shugart]

It's legal for the National Security Adviser to ask that names be unmasked.

Yes, but it is not legal for the "information" and "intelligence" spoken of in the following video interview with former FBI Assistant Director Evelyn Farkas to be leaked to the press:

“It was more actually aimed at telling the [Capitol] Hill people, ‘Get as much information as you can and get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration,’ because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people who left,” she said. “So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy.”

Just in case there was any ambiguity, Farkas made clear her concern was the incoming Trump administration.

“The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the staff, the Trump staff’s dealings with Russians, that they would try to compromise these sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence,” she said. “So I became very worried because not enough was coming out in the open, and I knew that there was more.”

She added, “That’s why you have the leaking. People are worried.”

https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/...-surveillance/​

 

[DavidK]

Yes, but it is not legal for the "information" and "intelligence" spoken of in the following video interview with former FBI Assistant Director Evelyn Farkas to be leaked to the press:

And there's evidence that Susan Rice leaked it?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

And there's evidence that Susan Rice leaked it?

My answer was in regard to what you said here:

If an administration was getting evidence through the intelligence agencies that an incoming administration was crooked, shouldn't they do everything they can to preserve that evidence from cover up when the newcomers get into office?

I said that the end does not justify the means. These things should only be done legally. And the leaking spoken of here was not legal:

“It was more actually aimed at telling the [Capitol] Hill people, ‘Get as much information as you can and get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration,’ because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people who left,” she said. “So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy.”

Just in case there was any ambiguity, Farkas made clear her concern was the incoming Trump administration.

“The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the staff, the Trump staff’s dealings with Russians, that they would try to compromise these sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence,” she said. “So I became very worried because not enough was coming out in the open, and I knew that there was more.”

She added, “That’s why you have the leaking. People are worried.”

https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/...-surveillance/​

 

[glorydaz]

All they care about is the FAKE evidence, the evidence which they have been manufacturing since this whole thing began. And they had to break the law to get that done. With these jerks the end justifies the means!

Yep. Susan Rice reminds me of Bagdad Bob (remember him?) He practically had a tank turret poking through the window while he was delivering the fake news that the enemy was nowhere near Bagdad. :chuckle:

 

[Nick M]

The left loves the Russians, especially when they were full fledged communists. Don't be fooled. There is no collusion with Trump. It is a manufactured scandal to distract from the illegal spying on Trump that they said didn't happen and they said the right was making up lies. Now they don't say they were wrong, they just misdirect and say it was legal. It is all misdirection to deflect from the felonies committed by the former Obama regime and his employees like Mrs Clinton and Susan Rice. Not sure on her status, she could be married. Afterall, some idiot married Hillary Rodham.

 

[DavidK]

I said that the end does not justify the means. These things should only be done legally. And the leaking spoken of here was not legal:

Ah, okay.

Is there any point where something would be so heinous it would justify illegally leaking evidence if you thought it would get covered up while trying to use legal channels?

Not trying to prove a point, just wondering what your thought on that is. It's an interesting moral dilemma that has me wondering what my line would be.

 

[DavidK]

The left loves the Russians, especially when they were full fledged communists. Don't be fooled. There is no collusion with Trump. It is a manufactured scandal to distract from the illegal spying on Trump that they said didn't happen and they said the right was making up lies. Now they don't say they were wrong, they just misdirect and say it was legal. It is all misdirection to deflect from the felonies committed by the former Obama regime and his employees like Mrs Clinton and Susan Rice. Not sure on her status, she could be married. Afterall, some idiot married Hillary Rodham.

It's kind of funny watching both sides yell "You're just misdirecting from the real issue!" at each other. You could redact the details, and you'd have no idea who was writing some of this stuff, Democrat or Republican.

The nice thing is that eventually, all things will be brought out in the open. The patience of the Kingdom, as it were.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Ah, okay.

Is there any point where something would be so heinous it would justify illegally leaking evidence if you thought it would get covered up while trying to use legal channels?

If a heinous crime was discovered within the intelligence community there are legal ways to deal with that kind of thing. And if that crime is heinous it is impossible that it will be covered up (unless Obama's own intelligence community is corrupt).

Unmasking American citizens and then leaking their names is not a legal way to deal with any problem.

 

[DavidK]

If a heinous crime was discovered within the intelligence community there are legal ways to deal with that kind of thing. And if that crime is heinous it is impossible that it will be covered up (unless Obama's own intelligence community is corrupt).

Unmasking American citizens and then leaking their names is not a legal way to deal with any problem.

I don't really know what the process should be, what is it?

I'm the National Security Adviser. I get reports on routine surveillance of foreign actors, in which they are talking to masked American names. I realize I need to know the names of who these people are talking to in order to understand the surveillance, so I ask the intelligence agencies to unmask them, which is all legal, normal activity.

What I find there is hints, but not hard evidence that there may have been collusion between the incoming administration and those foreign governments to try and game the election. I suppose my first job is to tell the President. Then I ask the intelligence agencies to investigate to see if they can find actionable evidence. Then I suppose the executive branch approaches the congressional committees that would cover such things and ask them to investigate?

Of course, I know that these kinds of investigations will take significant time, but I only have a very small time left before the new administration comes in. The new administration that will be able to appoint new intelligence leaders. An administration who will have a very sympathetic congress who has so far shown no interest in being independent from them.

It looks like there is not enough time for suspicious leads to turn into actionable evidence before the new people in charge will have plenty of motive and opportunity to make sure it gets swept under the rug.

What's my next legal option?

I'm learning about a lot of how this stuff works as it is happening. If nothing else, the Trump administration is showing me how much I don't know about the inner workings of the government beyond the broad constitutional brushstrokes. Thanks for sticking with me in my ignorance and answering as I ask.

 

[rexlunae]

It's kind of funny watching both sides yell "You're just misdirecting from the real issue!" at each other. You could redact the details, and you'd have no idea who was writing some of this stuff, Democrat or Republican.

The nice thing is that eventually, all things will be brought out in the open. The patience of the Kingdom, as it were.

It's called "whataboutism". A valid complaint is answered with a distraction that's designed to look similar in severity with the two sides reversed.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Can We Believe Anything That Susan Rice Says?

"During an interview this past January with National Public Radio, former National Security Adviser Rice touted the “success” in Syria, in striking a deal with Russia's help that resulted in the prior administration dropping the threat of military action.

“We were able to find a solution that didn’t necessitate the use of force that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria, in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished,” she boasted. “We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.”​

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...t-claims-on-syria-chemical-weapons-purge.html​

 

[The Horn]

The whole "Obama wiretapping Trump" brouhaha and non-scandal is nothing but a red herring cynically designed to distract from Trump's countless misdeeds since becoming "president " and even before he did .
Susan Rice has been set up as the Trump administration's" whipping girl "to distract from Trump's countless conflicts of interest , his utter incompetence and gross stupidity , and his blatant involvement with Putin and the Russians .
There is not one shred of evidence that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump before his inauguration .

 

[ClimateSanity]

The whole "Obama wiretapping Trump" brouhaha and non-scandal is nothing but a red herring cynically designed to distract from Trump's countless misdeeds since becoming "president " and even before he did .
Susan Rice has been set up as the Trump administration's" whipping girl "to distract from Trump's countless conflicts of interest , his utter incompetence and gross stupidity , and his blatant involvement with Putin and the Russians .
There is not one shred of evidence that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump before his inauguration .

Yes there is and there is not one shred of evidence for the laundry list of hallucinations you posted.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[rexlunae]

The left loves the Russians...

Wrong.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The whole "Obama wiretapping Trump" brouhaha and non-scandal is nothing but a red herring cynically designed to distract from Trump's countless misdeeds since becoming "president " and even before he did .

The investigation in regard to Russia's influence in the USA election is nothing more than a red herring designed to distract from the truth that Trump won the election fair and square.

If Hillary didn't have so much dirty laundry to expose then no one could have had an influence on the election in anyway. If the liberals couldn't find a better candidate than Hillary then it is no one's fault but their own. If they couldn't keep their dirty secrets secure then no one is to blame but themselves.

 

[ok doser]

it would have been more fun to watch bernie and trump go at it

 

[Jerry Shugart]

it would have been more fun to watch bernie and trump go at it

Yes, I am sure that the whole bunch of liberals would have been joyous at the prospect of a socialist in the White House!

 

[ok doser]

Yes, I am sure that the whole bunch of liberals would have been joyous at the prospect of a socialist in the White House!

meh - trump's not much better :idunno:


i wonder how bernie would have handled assad's latest use of wmds

 

[ok doser]

gotta tell ya - i'm starting to get seriously worried about trump and nork - that's my son's area of operation - thank goodness he's in port at the moment

 

[The Horn]

Trump's countless and blatant business conflicts of interest are not a "hallucination" of mine . They are common knowledge to anyone who has not been brainwashed by Trump's spin doctors .