Susan Rice implies that Trump and his aides were an imminent theat to the US

Flopping Aces ^ | 04-05-17 | DrJohn

[Starman417]

Susan Rice is a liar. We need to establish that as the baseline. She apparently unmasks the names of Americans caught up in surveillance matters, especially if their names rhyme with "bump."

Next, Andrew McCarthy (who knows a few things about this)

The thing to bear in mind is that the White House does not do investigations. Not criminal investigations, not intelligence investigations. Remember that.

And

In general, it is the FBI that conducts investigations that bear on American citizens suspected of committing crimes or of acting as agents of foreign powers. In the matter of alleged Russian meddling, the investigative camp also includes the CIA and the NSA. All three agencies conducted a probe and issued a joint report in January. That was after Obama, despite having previously acknowledged that the Russian activity was inconsequential, suddenly made a great show of ordering an inquiry and issuing sanctions.

Consequently, if unmasking was relevant to the Russia investigation, it would have been done by those three agencies. And if it had been critical to know the identities of Americans caught up in other foreign intelligence efforts, the agencies that collect the information and conduct investigations would have unmasked it. Because they are the agencies that collect and refine intelligence “products” for the rest of the “intelligence community,” they are responsible for any unmasking; and they do it under “minimization” standards that FBI Director James Comey, in recent congressional testimony, described as “obsessive” in their determination to protect the identities and privacy of Americans. 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.

So why would Rice need to unmask Americans identities if the other agencies did not? Let's go to Rice:

Let me explain how this works. I was the National Security Advisor. My job is to protect the American people and the security of our country. That's the same as the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the CIA director. And every morning, to enable us to do that, we received from the intelligence community a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us on a daily basis to give us the best information as to what's going on around the world.

She's a political appointee. A dishonest one at that. Someone needs to explain how her judgment is more finely honed than the NSA or the CIA. Neither agency found it necessary to unmask Trump, his family and his aides.

But she did.  And it had nothing to do with Russia. So what was the justification? Apparently she thinks Trump is going to bomb America:

But let's say there was a conversation between two foreigners about a conversation they were having with an American, who was proposing to sell to them high-tech bomb making equipment. Now, if that came to me as National Security Advisor, it would matter enormously. Is this some kook sitting in his living room communicating via the internet, offering to sell something he doesn't have? Or is it a serious person or company or entity with the ability to provide that technology perhaps to an adversary? That would be an example of a case where knowing who the U.S. person was, was necessary to assess the information.

So when that occurred, what I would do, or what any official would do, is to ask their briefer whether the intelligence committee would go through its process -- and there's a long-standing, established process -- to decide whether that information as to who the identity of the U.S. person was could be provided to me. So they'd take that question back, they'd put it through a process, and the intelligence community made the determination as to whether or not the identity of that American individual could be provided to me.

She is implying that Trump wanted to bomb the US or sell bomb technology to a foreign entity.

Heady stuff. Then she states:

[ManHunter]

That would not be difficult to verify. Any transcript or report is linked to an intercept with unique identifying metadata - the ONLY way to access one intercept among hundreds(?) of petabytes of data.

[GOPJ]

How would WE feel if British thug ‘elites’ in (MI5) worked with the British Press and their current ‘administration’ to overthrow the will of the British people?

... BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE SMARTER AND MORE QUALIFIED THAN ‘THE PEOPLE’?...

We wouldn't like it if the Russians did that... or the thugs in Venezuela. No less the Brits. But that's what our 'elites' have done...

Our thugs are no different - no better - AND just as big a threat.

[Bob434]

As much as it pains us, and as much as we wish to see liars prosecuted, we must look at this objectively-

[[Susan Rice is a liar. We need to establish that as the baseline.]]

Yes we all know she is- but beign a liar doesn’t automatically make one guilty of a felony- Breaking federal laws makes one a felon- Can they establish that she broke a specific federal law and committed a felony?

[[The thing to bear in mind is that the White House does not do investigations.]]

She didn’t do the investigation- She simply ordered the unmasking at the behest of intel community (Melissa Zimmerman and Adam Hoiwsley made that claim last night on BOR)

—It Appears— at this point, that ‘protocol was followed’, and although her actions may have ‘violated established government policy’ but violating policy doesn’t necessarily lead to a title of felony-

I’ll post my previous post here because it all boils down ot one simple concept- “Did she actually break specific law herself, If so, did it rise to the level of felony?”

It sucks that she may skate- but she may very well because it is unclear that she actually broke the law- UNLESS they can directly link her to leaking the classified info- which is ifnact a very specific crime- provable crime- then unfortunately it looks like she covered her bases in order to avoid prosecution - Here’s what i wrote earlier- It’s a little long, but it boils it down to it’s basic premise- all this other stuff folks are talking about is wandering in the weeds- the basic question that needs ot be answered is this “Did Susan rice herself break any law?”, and at this point, it appears n ot- Was what she did unethical? You betcha- Was it political? Absolutely- but good luck proving that- Here’s what was psoted-

[[(2) Did you sign this at the direction of someone, or on your own accord?]]

It appears at this point that it was at the behest of the intel community-

[[Ergo, if Rice is on-record as having signed the log to review secure documents, she can neither claim 5A or Exec-Privilege.]]

She won’t have to- it will be the burden of the prosecution to prove that it was done for political reasons and not for an actual investigative reason (doesn’t matter what the reason for hte investigation is- that is a non issue- the left are claiming it was for determining a connection to russia- but that is just a distraction- the left —will— come up with a number of reasons to justify their ‘concerns’ (false concerns) that led them to order the unmasking)

in my previous post- i laid out how i understand the process to work- (again, i could be wrong- I’m not up on these things really- just going on basic info I’ve heard)

According ot Melissa Zimmerman- it appears that there is info coming out that she did these things, through ‘proper channels’ at the behest of the intel community

King from NY was just on right now and said the info dissemination was ‘either illegal, contrary to government policy’

The sticking point in all this- the key point is this- Was it actually illegal or not? Being simply ‘contrary to government policy’ is meaningless as it is not against the law to be ‘contrary to gov policy’-

The dissemination —Must be-— illegal in order to convict someone like rice directly- IF the order to unmask can even be proven to have come solely from her-

The fact is- rice and obama were not dumb- they were very very sneaky, And they have very very sneaky scummy lawyers advising them the whole way on how to avoid being directly implicated in anything- They very likely covered their tracks pretty thoroughly-

But we’ll see how thoroughly soon- hopefully this gets exposed wide open-

[2ndDivisionVet]

Joan Baez - The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_ksYL26lZE

[jospehm20]

I think she means like Obama giving Iran the means to produce nukes.

[Bob434]

[[If the information found in the ‘incidental’ involvement of any US Person was threatening to US Security, why did the ‘obsessive’ security agencies wait for Rice’s request to unmask ]]

Because that is ‘proper protocol’, and covers everyone legally- The investigators must keep names out UNTIL they suspect someone of something, and then they can request that the ‘proper authority’ unmask the names- this covers them, and it covers the one who issues the unmasking- it’s a legal game they play so that everyone ‘legally meets the minimum requirements in order to avoid being accused of wrongdoing’- Many on The left are very sneaky scumbags- who abuse every loophole they can-

They can faslely claim ‘We felt” (that there was reason for investigating further)- and it is that ‘we felt’ that is the sticking point in all this- as it is very subjective- and ‘open to interpretation’ whereas other laws are objective and not really open to interpretation

[Art in Idaho]

So that's the new talking point. It's not going to work. See you in court.

Reminded me of what Andrew McCarthy said on Levin last night, that Rice escalated the unmasking prior to and after the election and his gut told him this wasn't the first time this happened. Rice had the system down in that she would call or email NSA, if she had any trouble, would do a Hillary fit, talk to the higher ups, and get what he wanted. I think it was McCarthy or his other guest that said it appeared that this was a well oiled process.

Who else were they following? Who else was unmasked?

In case you missed them, two good articles by McCarythy:

Susan Rice’s White House Unmasking: A Watergate-style Scandal

On Susan Rice, the Issue Is Abuse of Power, Not Criminality

He pretty much nails it. Waiting for the investigation and congressional hearings to start. Go Trey Gowdy! Go Jeff Sessions!

[TomGuy]

The timeline does not seem to support Rice’s allegation of Trump and aides being an imminent threat, because the surveillance apparently began just a short time after Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015.

How could he have been perceived as a threat when every media, pundit, commentator, other GOP candidates, etc., were saying he would be out by October 2015?

Conversely, if Trump and aides were preceived as an imminent threat [based on what?], what other GOP candidates were also being serveyed as being imminent threats?

This is only the tip of the iceberg.

Recall a few years earlier how Maxine Waters was bragging about the database Obama had on EVERYONE.

[grumpygresh]

They want all conservatives and Christians in the Alaskan elephant pen.

[Bob434]

[[I think it was McCarthy or his other guest that said it appeared that this was a well oiled process.]]

And that’s the problem here- the left are very sneaky people- they know how to do underhanded things and not be found guilty- they know how to exploit loopholes- and work the system-

I disagree with Mcarthy’s article in the first link for the reasons pointed out in my previous post- His second article you point to claism she ‘abused her power’ but did she? She may have exploited her position, but kept things ‘legal’ technically- she may have been ‘within her legal right to order unmasking’ even though government protocol may not be followed- Was what she did unethical? You betcha- Was it a felony? —Probably not— unfotunately-

His stateemnt below brings up a very itneresting point- one I’ll have to read over in a little while- as it could possibly go to show that a SPECIFIC crime need not be comitted in order for someone to be tried and possibly convicted- There is also the idea of esponage, which also i believe is less specific, and can rely on circumstantial evidence, and showing collusion to railroad citizens, more so that a felony indictment might need regarding specific objective laws be broken in order to bring the charge- I think i agree with napolitano on the espionage claim-

[[This is why a “high crime and misdemeanor” — the constitutional standard for impeachment — need not be an indictable criminal offense. It may be a chargeable crime, but it need not be one.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446456/susan-rice-unmasking-michael-flynn-legal-abuse-power-intelligence-foreign-targets]]

Another important point to consider is what McCarthy pointed out- in which a govenrment official

[[”has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purpose[s] of these agencies.”]]

It however will have to be proved that constitutional rights were violated- not an easy thing to prove when one party- the government, claims they had to order the unmasking ‘for security reason’

The burden then falls on the prosecutors to prove that there was no actual pressing need to order unmaskings-

This whole issue is goign to be very messy- but very interesting-

[Maverick68]

Hmmmm....if she implies it, shouldn’t she have to back it up with proof?
Acknowledging such a thing is basically acknowledging classified information, right?

[Art in Idaho]

From the second McCarthy article dated today:

"This is why a “high crime and misdemeanor” — the constitutional standard for impeachment — need not be an indictable criminal offense. It may be a chargeable crime, but it need not be one."

"The impeachment allegation went on to describe how Nixon had, among other things, directed the FBI, CIA, and IRS to investigate innocent Americans for reasons unrelated to national security or law enforcement. For the most part, these directives were not violations of penal statutes. But they were, individually and collectively, heinous abuses of presidential power warranting impeachment."

Can Congress impeach Obama in absentia? Or at least somehow get it on record in Congress the huge abuse of power followed by some law changes, the legalese referencing Obama's abuse of power.

[fivecatsandadog]

Or Hitlery giving 20 percent of our uranium to the Russians?

[simpson96]

Lock

Her

UP!!!

[Bob434]

Here’s the problem- McCarthy says

[[Her current stress on the lawfulness of the intelligence collection is a straw man. No credible commentator is claiming (based on what we currently know) that the intelligence-collection activities of the FBI, CIA, and NSA were illegal.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446456/susan-rice-unmasking-michael-flynn-legal-abuse-power-intelligence-foreign-targets]]

and then goes on to say:

[[The allegation against Rice and the Obama administration is that the unmasking of Trump-campaign and transition officials appears — cumulatively, and probably in many specific instances of it — to have run afoul of minimization instructions.]]

notice the words ‘probably’ and ‘run afoul’

There is, as far as i know, no specific objective law that was broken irrefutably by any party (yet- the issue of leaking is another totally separate issue which may actually be what they can link someone specifically to and show it was indeed a violation of an objective law)

He goes on to say:

[[Violating minimization instructions applicable to electronic surveillance is not a crime.]]

Exactly- and that is the problem legally-

[[The criminal law is not for judgment calls.]]

Bingo-

[[The question is abuse of power.]]

I’m gonna have to study his argument on this specific claim later- he may have a point, but right now I’m thinking it’s gonna be hard to prove abuse of power- maybe not htough- we’ll see what he says- but too tired right now to noodle it over

[fivecatsandadog]

Her and all the rest, including OBAMA, HILLARY, BIDEN, KERRY, LYNCH AND HOLDER. Round them up, lock them up. Lose the key.

[Bob434]

if you get swallowed by an elephant, how do you get out? Answer- run aroudn until you’re all pooped out

[Art in Idaho]

And that’s the problem here- the left are very sneaky people- they know how to do underhanded things and not be found guilty- they know how to exploit loopholes- and work the system.

Yes indeed, witness the Clintons, the DNC, all of them.

It however will have to be proved that constitutional rights were violated- not an easy thing to prove when one party- the government, claims they had to order the unmasking ‘for security reason’ The burden then falls on the prosecutors to prove that there was no actual pressing need to order unmaskings- This whole issue is goign to be very messy- but very interesting-

Very interesting indeed. This has to be thoroughly investigated and the laws tightened so the next totalitarian doesn't abuse the system like Obama did.

[Bob434]

[[This has to be thoroughly investigated and the laws tightened]]

I agree fully- You’d think that brilliant lawyers would have forseen situations like this happening and would have worked already to ensure that folks like rice couldn’t do these things- but it seems not- hopefully we can prevent this kind of obscurity in the future

[Avalon Memories]

black, because I would be mourning the death of the greatest country ever, sigh...have I mentioned lately that I hate the Left with a deep and abiding passion?