@thack45,
Quote:Your own links betray you.
Heh, you don't listen so good, eh? Did you notice that the particular provision I cited didn't say a fuckin word about having to redact names? That's an entirely different provision which does not require destruction on recognition. Did you notice that I told you that was just one of many provisions designed to protect the civil rights of U.S. citizens? Do you think that's the entirety of FISA (the "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act")?
Do you think that if one particular provision makes certain actions illegal in certain circumstances that means that every other thing you can imagine is legal?
The (very poor) opinion of the reporter in question about what he thinks the law "suggests" is both misinformed and poorly reasoned. He says:
"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."
1. That is NOT the standard for unmasking.
2. It is certainly NOT the case that everything has "foreign intelligence value," even if that was the standard.
@revelette1,
Just FYI.
Sanders is his name. No apostrophes.
Sanders' denotes his ownership.
You're welcome.
@layman,
Quote:The (very poor) opinion of the reporter in question about what he thinks the law "suggests" is both misinformed and poorly reasoned.
If you're looking for a reporter's opinion of what is illegal (why not ask an attorney, but....) then try Bob Woodward, of Watergate investigation fame, who is much more informed about such matters, eh?
Quote:Woodward: Obama Officials Could Face Criminal Charges Over Unmasking Scheme
Veteran journalist Bob Woodward said Obama administration officials could face criminal charges for unmasking names of Trump transition’s team from the surveillance of foreign officials.
“If true, is a gross violation,” he said. “Under the rules, and they’re pretty strict, you don’t name the American person who’s being discussed...the idea that there was intelligence value here is really thin. …. This could be criminal on the part of people who decided, ‘Oh, let’s name these people.”
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2017/03/24/woodward-obama-officials-could-face-criminal-charges-over-unmasking-scheme-n2303566
50 U.S. Code § 1806 - Use of information.
(a) Compliance with minimization procedures; privileged communications; lawful purposes.
Information acquired from an electronic surveillance conducted pursuant to this subchapter concerning any United States person may be used and disclosed by Federal officers and employees without the consent of the United States person only in accordance with the minimization procedures required by this subchapter. No otherwise privileged communication obtained in accordance with, or in violation of, the provisions of this subchapter shall lose its privileged character. 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.
WHAT WERE RICES LAWFUL PURPOSES???
50 U.S. Code § 1801 - Definitions
(h) “Minimization procedures”, with respect to electronic surveillance, means—
(1) specific procedures, which shall be adopted by the Attorney General, that are reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular surveillance, to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information;
(2) procedures that require that nonpublicly available information, which is not foreign intelligence information, as defined in subsection (e)(1), shall not be disseminated in a manner that identifies any United States person, without such person’s consent, unless such person’s identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance;
(3) notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), procedures that allow for the retention and dissemination of information that is evidence of a crime which has been, is being, or is about to be committed and that is to be retained or disseminated for law enforcement purposes; and
(4) notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), with respect to any electronic surveillance approved pursuant to section 1802(a) of this title, procedures that require that no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.
(i) 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.
You see when reading legal statutes one must understand what is meant by construction
The meaning can turn on just one 3 letter word...Such as AND.
Rice and others are in deep do-do.
So endth the lesson.
@giujohn,
If Rice and others are in "big doodoo," how come no charges?
Quote:While Nunes has been heavily criticized for withholding information about his interactions with the White House, Rice’s involvement in the unmasking request does appear to support his concerns about potentially improper meddling by the Obama White House. /quote
"...does appear to support concerns about potentially improper meddling?"
There's a couple of big "if's" there.
@layman,
Quote:Woodward: Obama Officials Could Face Criminal Charges Over Unmasking Scheme
Veteran journalist Bob Woodward said Obama administration officials could face criminal charges for unmasking names of Trump transition’s team from the surveillance of foreign officials.
“If true, is a gross violation,” he said.
Yes, IF it is true that Rice leaked the names. No evidence whatsoever that she did.
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Quote:Woodward: Obama Officials Could Face Criminal Charges Over Unmasking Scheme
Veteran journalist Bob Woodward said Obama administration officials could face criminal charges for unmasking names of Trump transition’s team from the surveillance of foreign officials.
“If true, is a gross violation,” he said.
Yes, IF it is true that Rice leaked the names. No evidence whatsoever that she did.
Oh it's there baby! She's calculating what kind of a deal she can make as we speak!
@giujohn,
Good work, John. I didn't want to go to the trouble of citing multiple provisions of the law. Thanks for doing it for me.
@cicerone imposter,
Quote cicerone imposter:
Quote:If Rice and others are in "big doodoo," how come no charges?
No evidence that Rice leaked the names. Plus, at this point, Trump is so surrounded by people who are neck deep into deals with Putin and Kremlin fronts that if the Attorney General does file charges, there's a good chance that during the trial umpteen MORE shady connections to Russia are going to come out. Trump will be worse off than before. And Sessions himself has got his Russian connections-no way he's filing charges.
@cicerone imposter,
I note with interest how "if 'only applies to leftists...But not to Trump. You're so transparent.
@Blickers,
Quote: Yes, IF it is true that Rice leaked the names. No evidence whatsoever that she did.
Heh, no evidence whatsover, eh? Did you look at the bloomberg story I posted a link to?
There's a paper trail. She must clearly identify herself and prove she's who she says she is before a request for unmasking is even considered. A detailed log is kept, etc.
Of course, for a cheese-eater, that's "no evidence whatsoever." Typical, sho nuff.
@layman,
layman wrote:
Good work, John. I didn't want to go to the trouble of citing multiple provisions of the law. Thanks for doing it for me.
No problem...What are puppies for?
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Quote cicerone imposter:
Quote:If Rice and others are in "big doodoo," how come no charges?
No evidence that Rice leaked the names. Plus, at this point, Trump is so surrounded by people who are neck deep into deals with Putin and Kremlin fronts that if the Attorney General does file charges, there's a good chance that during the trial umpteen MORE shady connections to Russia are going to come out. Trump will be worse off than before. And Sessions himself has got his Russian connections-no way he's filing charges.
Oh...Don't you mean IF there are shady deals...And where is your ******* proof?? Seems to me even the LEFTIST political hacks and the MSM have already stated there is no evidence of collusion...But of ******* course YOU know better.
@giujohn,
Who are you kidding? What Rice did apparently was legal, what would be illegal would be her leaking the names. There's no evidence she did. Apparently you are arguing that you need not produce any evidence, the only thing which matters is that you made a charge.
@layman,
Quote layman:
Quote:Heh, no evidence whatsover, eh? Did you look at the bloomberg story I posted a link to?
There's a paper trail. She must clearly identify herself and prove she's who she says she is before a request for unmasking is even considered. A detailed log is kept, etc.
Your problem is that you are trying to confuse Rice's right to know who the other people besides the target are, which she has, and the issue of who revealed who the other person is.
Your paper trail only says that she requested to know who the other person is. Nothing wrong there.
Still no evidence that she told anybody who it was.
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Who are you kidding? What Rice did apparently was legal, what would be illegal would be her leaking the names. There's no evidence she did. Apparently you are arguing that you need not produce any evidence, the only thing which matters is that you made a charge.
She asked the names to be unmasked and disseminated them...As a procedural matter, an intelligence briefer would have had to clear a requested unmasking with the head of the agency providing the intelligence. It is unclear why these intelligence intercepts were considered so important that they would need to be shared with the president’s national security adviser.
Lucy...You got some splaining to do!!!
Ms Rice...What was your lawful purpose again??? Barrack asked you too?
And lest we forget the salient point here... Trump was right...Obammy had him bugged!!!
@giujohn,
Quote:You see when reading legal statutes one must understand what is meant by construction. The meaning can turn on just one 3 letter word...Such as AND.
Other crucial words like "notwithstanding," and "unless" are important to note also. An example:
"(4) notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), with respect to any electronic surveillance, [the Attorney General must establish] procedures that require that
no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person."
72 hours max, unless you have a court order or an imminent threat of death is, as determined by the Attorney General, involved.
They must have taped Trump plotting to torture Rosie O'Donnell to death, eh?
@giujohn,
Quote giujohn:
Quote:Oh...Don't you mean IF there are shady deals...And where is your ******* proof??
Manafort spent years working for a Kremlin backed Ukrainian political party. His name was found on a log detailing illegal payments. Manafort also set up a lobbying firm for the purpose of getting more Russian friendly laws passed by Congress. Trump's Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, has just finished a long stint as one of the heads of a Cyprus bank which the Russians use for money laundering operations. Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has to explain what he was doing meeting with the head of a Russian bank, which head banker is a Russian KGB, (now FSB), officer.
Carter Page, one of Trump's "foreign affairs advisors", was chummy with a couple of Russian spies in New York a few years ago and passed some documents to them-not governemnt documents, but he gave documents to Russian spies.
That's just for starters. The Trump Administration is a cesspit of Russian operatives and dupes.
