The long nightmare has just begun: Inauguration of a fraud.

ClimateSanity

ClimateSanity

New member
Town Heretic said:
Well, no. Those with an agenda and fingers crossed might hope for it.

“There’s no evidence of any wrongdoing,” Mr. Cuomo said Tuesday on “New Day.” “And in fact, if anything, the NSA asking for identities was a reflection of exactly how much traffic there was involving Trump people and foreign players. The White House [is] blasting the press for another fake scandal being peddled by right-wing media.”

From an article in The Atlantic, April 3:

As Lake notes, nothing he—or anyone else—has uncovered lends credence to President Trump’s outlandish and unsupported claim that Obama ordered surveillance of him at Trump Tower prior to the election. Nor does the new story suggest any illegal behavior on Rice’s part. As with each step in the story, this one offers only a small sliver of information. Many experts seem to think the Bloomberg View story does not imply anything improper or unusual. Others withheld judgment, saying there’s simply not enough information to judge.

“In a situation where there’s incidental collection and it appears that they’re discussing U.S. incoming or current officials, it would not be unusual for a national security adviser to try to understand what it is this foreign government is trying to do to manipulate their position against the U.S.,” said Nada Bakos, a former CIA analyst and national-security commentator. “That’s how the game is played.”

Link to full article.​
Click to expand...
And you believe Cuomo? Why?

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Town Heretic said:
Well, no. Those with an agenda and fingers crossed might hope for it.
Click to expand...

Why are you changing the subject? We were discussing whether or not Susan Rice's actions were unusual. Do you not now see that they were?

Those three collecting agencies — FBI, CIA, and NSA — must be distinguished from other components of the government, such as the White House. Those other components, Comey elaborated, “are consumers of our products.” That is, they do not collect raw intelligence and refine it into useful reports — i.e., reports that balance informational value and required privacy protections. They read those reports and make policy recommendations based on them. White House staffers are not supposed to be in the business of controlling the content of the reports; they merely act on the reports.​
 
Foxfire

Foxfire

Well-known member
Jerry Shugart said:
Why are you changing the subject? We were discussing whether or not Susan Rice's actions were unusual. Do you not now see that they were?

Those three collecting agencies — FBI, CIA, and NSA — must be distinguished from other components of the government, such as the White House. Those other components, Comey elaborated, “are consumers of our products.” That is, they do not collect raw intelligence and refine it into useful reports — i.e., reports that balance informational value and required privacy protections. They read those reports and make policy recommendations based on them. White House staffers are not supposed to be in the business of controlling the content of the reports; they merely act on the reports.​
Click to expand...

You seem to be changing the goal posts yourself here, unless you're making a case that Rice somehow controlled the content of the reports from (any) respective agencies.
If so, please cite.
Short of that, the quote that you pasted is nonsense. It doesn't have anything to do with Rice in any way.
 
G

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
It seems that our government is trying to get a coalition together to take out Syria's leadership. After we do that, it would be a good idea to take out North Korea, as well. You know, the "Two birds with one stone" approach. We're gonna have to take out North Korea's missile bases sooner or later anyway. No time like the present.
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Foxfire said:
Nothing in what you posted suggests that it was out of the ordinary.

There's no there....there.
Click to expand...

Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies.

The national-security adviser is not an investigator. She is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic-party interests.​

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...aign-members-obama-administration-fbi-cia-nsa
 
Town Heretic

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Jerry Shugart said:
Why are you changing the subject? We were discussing whether or not Susan Rice's actions were unusual.
Click to expand...
Why on earth would you make that accusation given what followed the snippet? Namely a quote by former CIA analyst and national-security commentator Nada Bakos that,

“In a situation where there’s incidental collection and it appears that they’re discussing U.S. incoming or current officials, it would not be unusual for a national security adviser to try to understand what it is this foreign government is trying to do to manipulate their position against the U.S.”

To go further from that linked article,

One possibility is that Rice was acting in connection with a joint investigation into Russian meddling in the election. The government had already concluded, based on the assessments of multiple intelligence agencies, that Russia was meddling in the election. There were also ongoing investigations into potentially illegal behavior by Trump staffers. Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, was reportedly already being examined for his contacts with Russia, as were other Trump aides, current and former.


A second possibility is that it was simply the course of business to try to figure out what foreign governments were thinking. If foreign officials were seeking to shape U.S. policy or get a leg up, intercepts could have been useful to the national security adviser, and Rice might have wanted names unmasked to make those intercepts intelligible. It is still not clear whether Trump transition team officials were directly incidentally collected (i.e., they were in conversation with surveillance targets) or indirectly collected (i.e., they were mentioned during conversations between a third party and surveillance targets, and then masked).

Do you not now see that they were?
Click to expand...
I see and saw an author advancing an opinion prefaced with "Her interest was not in national security but to advance the political interests of the Democratic party."

I only wonder if his conclusion or the introduction that reads as one came first.

ClimateSanity said:
And you believe Cuomo? Why?
Click to expand...
His comments were limited, rooted in his understanding and he didn't have to make the statement, to attach himself to the issue. There's no reason to doubt this is how he sees it. Whether or not he's right or there's more to it remains to be seen.

 
Foxfire

Foxfire

Well-known member
Jerry Shugart said:
Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies.

The national-security adviser is not an investigator. She is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic-party interests.​

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...aign-members-obama-administration-fbi-cia-nsa
Click to expand...
Understand: Any such 'unmasking' would have been done BY the respective agencies and only then, after concurring that a request had validity.
If there was anyone 'unmasked' it would necessarily have been done so with concurrent approval from the respective agency.
You haven't demonstrated any malfeasance what-so-ever on the part of Susan Rice in any way.

Consequently, if unmasking was relevant to the Russia investigation, it would have been done by those three agencies.
Click to expand...
Consequently, unless you have some proof to the contrary,

if masking was relevant, it "would have been done by those three agencies".

ALSO NOTE: Large blocks of bold text do not add credence where, otherwise, there is none.
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Foxfire said:
Understand: Any such 'unmasking' would have been done BY the respective agencies and only then, after concurring that a request had validity.
If there was anyone 'unmasked' it would necessarily have been done so with concurrent approval from the respective agency.
Click to expand...

The boss of the respective agencies was Obama. They would not have turned down a request from Obama's National Security Advisor when she asked for the names of those in the reports.

Foxfire said:
if masking was relevant, it "would have been done by those three agencies".
Click to expand...

EXACTLY!

Since that is true then why would you think that Susan Rice was asking to have certain people unmasked?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top