monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@layman,

Naturally the lying skank denies everything, but she's been caught red-handed, it seems.

Quote:

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.

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.

Last month when Rice was asked on the "PBS NewsHour" about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were swept up in incidental intelligence collection, Rice said: "I know nothing about this," adding, "I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today.

Rice's multiple requests to learn the identities of Trump officials discussed in intelligence reports during the transition period does highlight a longstanding concern for civil liberties advocates about U.S. surveillance programs.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel

1 Reply

@layman,

Don't see anything illegal there

1 Reply

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

I know it's difficult for you cheese eaters ...but Don't be disgusting!

Odd request, coming from the puppy that just mentioned Richard Gere. Nice try lil pup

0 Replies

@thack45,

Well of course ya don't.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Indeed. And that's because I have no reason to make a bogus allegation of lawbreakeing based on a report alleged by Fox stating that the surveillance was from "up to a year before" Trump took office. Even if that is the case, where is the illegality?

1 Reply

@thack45,

Quote:

Even if that is the case, where is the illegality?

It's in the federal statutes, but, that aside, did you ever hear of a constitutional right to be free from unreasonable (warrantless) searches and seizures? How about the constitutionally protected "right to privacy?"

If a FISA warrant is issued to monitor a foreign agent, that warrant does NOT apply to the parties the agent may talk to. If you want to use a wiretap to collect information on THAT (other) guy(s), then go get another warrant. But it couldn't be a "secret" FISA warrant, it would have to be a warrant issued by a regular court to search for evidence of criminal conduct (and then only if probable cause has been established, of course).

Hence the strict requirement that the names of people who are "incidentally" recorded be redacted from reports.

Congress was very weary of giving the executive branch broad power to spy, and included many provisions which were supposed to prevent/protect against civil rights abuses in the legislation it authorized.

But of course, those provisions afford no protection whatsoever if you have a criminal administration which violates them.

1 Reply

@layman,

P.S. I meant to say "wary," not "weary," in that last post.

Does that answer your question?

1 Reply

I was just reading up about George Takei again, a fellow I've read about once in a while for years and years, local to Angelenos. There's a recent article in Slate and, of course, a long page in Wikipedia. People tend to know him from his Star Trek years, but he's been involved in a lot of artistic efforts; he studied architecture at UC Berkeley, and obtained a bachelor and masters in theater at UCLA.; more studies at Shakespeare Institute in Stratford-upon-Avon, and in Tokyo. He is presently writing a graphic novel about his time with his family in US camps during WW2, somewhere in Arkansaw the main one. The wiki article is an interesting read. His strong career and his activism of varied sorts adds up to a good long reading list.

Among other attributes, he can be a funny guy.
On March 31, 2017, Takei announced his intent to challenge Devin Nunes, Republican incumbent House Representative for the 22nd District of California.[92] A few hours later, he acknowledged that it had all been an April Fools' joke and instead announced his support for Jon Ossoff who is running in Georgia's 6th congressional district special election, 2017.[93][94]:

0 Replies

Tangent - sometimes I have trouble getting a photo to work, as with this last one, and I finally figured it out. One sign is that the hpps thing starts a space late, and no go to see the photo, no go to line 'hpps' up in the right place..
But I caught myself, I'd clicked on the larger size. Wiki media may work only for the original size, my new guess.

After some minutes, I tried again (ok, for the 4th time), this time just adding the smaller image, and voila, it worked.

0 Replies

Takei posts daily on facebook. He's an original character in his own right. Always posts something to think about or have fun with.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

50 U.S. Code § 1806 - Use of information

No information acquired from an electronic surveillance pursuant to this subchapter may be used or disclosed by Federal officers or employees except for lawful purposes. No information acquired pursuant to this subchapter shall be disclosed for law enforcement purposes unless such disclosure is accompanied by a statement that such information, or any information derived therefrom, may only be used in a criminal proceeding with the advance authorization of the Attorney General.

Destruction of unintentionally acquired information:

In circumstances involving the unintentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States, such contents shall be destroyed upon recognition, unless the Attorney General determines that the contents indicate a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1806

That's just one of many provisions designed to prevent disclosures pertaining to U.S. citizens whose communications have been intercepted under the auspices of warrants which apply ONLY to agents of foreign governments.

That help, Thacky? See that "destroyed upon recognition" part there? Notice that the only except is not that "a crime has been committed," or anything like that. There must be a threat of death to avoid the requirement of destruction. FISA cannot be used to obtain information about domestic crimes. The regular courts must authorize that.

Of course no one "sees" the illegality if they don't even know what the law is, eh?

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Really, re facebook? that might make me sign up. Well, I can't yet if I wanted to, a mix of computer futz and my own fear of losing the access I have, thus procrastination.

It's possible that I saw him onstage some decades ago, as he was into theater, and so was my husband, and there were some years we went to small plays often or occasional medium ones and the rare big thing. On some of them, there were, say, ten people in the audience besides us, likely friends or relatives. LA had a group called Teatro Campesino, I think I remember them doing quite well, and they weren't the only similar. Probably I'm wrong that we might have seen him; next time I talk to J I'll ask.

1 Reply

@ossobucotemp,

Another JA actor is Sab Shimono whom I've known growing up in Sacramento.
Many years ago, when the San Jose Senior Center had a fund raiser dinner, I invited Sab to be the guest host. The JA community really turned out for that event, and many he knew from Cal Berkeley where he attended college.

0 Replies

Did we even need to post the law? How could anyone of reasonable intelligence think that there wouldn't be a law protecting US citizens from extralegal encroachment of the 4th ammendment by political hacks?

Anyone guilty of the release of these names should eat prison food the rest of their lives. And we need a precident whereby the **** head media who published any disclosures goes to jail as well. The statue specifically bans, using the word publish. They shouldn't be able to violate the law then hide behind the 1st ammendment...That's not what it's for. This **** also violates the Hatch Act. We need to see a parade if these leftist scumbags marching into a FCI.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Quote:

Did we even need to post the law? How could anyone of reasonable intelligence think that there wouldn't be a law protecting US citizens from extralegal encroachment of the 4th ammendment by political hacks?

Good question, John. And yet, the cheese-eaters who can see nothing whatsoever wrong with this criminal violation of the civil rights of citizens, somehow see grounds for impeachment if Trump, or anybody he ever knew, ever even talked to a citizen of Russia. They seem quick to "spot" wrong-doing where none exists, while quite willing to preemptively dismiss the most egregious crimes by another cheese-eater.

Go figure, eh?

0 Replies

@layman,

From the Bloomberg article you linked:

Quote:

The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.

It's immediately following the passage you quoted. Right where you decided to stop.

Curious.

0 Replies

@layman,

Your own links betray you. See that "destroyed upon recognition" part there? Notice that part right before it? The part that mentions that "both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States" will be a requirement for destruction of information? Yeah.. And then there's the Bloomburg article you posted, which states that "Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law".

Now to be clear, I responded originally to the little puppy following you around specifically regarding legality. I think most of the people thumbing you down here would agree with your sentiments regarding the 4th ammendment, as well as the problematic situations that "incidental collection" create. Clearly an opening is given for political abuse, as well as the general compromising of the privacy of citizens. We'll see what the current administration does regarding FISA section 702 when it expires at the end of this year..

3 Replies

@thack45,

"unveiling is not leaking". That was on Faux today.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

LA Times editorial. Not a pretty picture.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/our-dishonest-president-l-a-times-editorial-eviscerates-trump-195956411.html

1 Reply

@thack45,

I got your puppy hanging.

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know