monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

She asked the names to be unmasked and disseminated them...

She had every right to find out who the people were who were picked up talking to the target of the surveillance.

The target was the Russian ambassador. The Russian ambassador is obviously going to pass whatever intelligence he can get back to the Kremlin. I don't see how she wasn't entitled to that information.

Manafort spent years working for a Kremlin backed Ukrainian political party. His name was found on a log detailing illegal payments

Quote giujohn:

Quote:

She asked the names to be unmasked and disseminated them...

She didn't disseminate the names. She had every right to find out who the people were who were picked up talking to the target of the surveillance, the Russian ambassador. But there is no evidence that she told anyone, therefore she broke no law. And the Trump Administration, from the Chief Executive to the Attorney General on down, do NOT want any investigation whatsoever about this because inevitably the numerous entanglements of the Trump team with the Kremlin will become even more clear and detailed. Obviously, the last thing Trump
wants.

She most certainly did allow the names to be disseminated, otherwise it would have never been leaked to the press.

Yes, IF it is true that Rice leaked the names.

I can see the convo now:

U.S Person; Trump will be holding a rally in Pennsylvania tomorrow and will probably mention Putin in his speech. You're welcome to attend if you'd like.

Ambassador: I will report this to Putin immediately.

Rice: This report is incomprehensible to me unless I know THE NAME of "U.S. Person"!!!!!

House Intel Committee wants names of Obama officials who sought “unmasking” of Americans picked up by surveillance

The leaders of the House Intelligence Committee asked the three leaders of the intelligence community Wednesday about any time during the last seven months of the Obama administration whenever any of its agents and officials improperly named, or "unmasked," and disseminated the identities of American citizens picked up in intelligence collection.

[They] were concerned that members of the intelligence community have not been sufficiently honoring previously established "robust 'minimization procedures'" to protect the identities of US citizens, including "masking" their names.

The Russia connection was first made by a private cybersecurity firm whose work has been treated as unassailable — until last week, when it had to rewrite and retract statements made to support that claim.

Back in June 2016, the DNC hired a private cybersecurity firm called CrowdStrike to determine who had hacked into their servers... CrowdStrike said Russia was behind the hack.

In July, intelligence agencies followed up, telling the White House that they had "high confidence" that Russia was behind the hack.

However, it turns out that they never had direct access to the DNC's hacked computer servers. The FBI said it repeatedly requested access and the DNC denied it to them, according to The Hill.

A source told The Hill that, as a result of this lack of access, "the FBI had no choice but to rely upon a third party for information."

The problem is that the evidence provided by CrowdStrike as proof that Russia was behind the hack had some experts scratching their heads, including the fact that the supposedly super-sophisticated hackers left so many clues pointing to Russia.

As Sam Biddle put it in December article for the liberal-leaning Intercept, "it's very hard to buy the argument that the Democrats were hacked by one of the most sophisticated, diabolical foreign intelligence services in history, and that we know this because they screwed up over and over again."

The Washington Post reported — in a story headlined "Cybersecurity Firm Finds Evidence That Russian Military Unit Was Behind DNC Hack" — that "CrowdStrike linked malware used in the DNC intrusion to malware used to hack and track an Android phone app used by the Ukrainian army.

Just four days later, CrowdStrike "revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking during last year's American presidential election campaign," the VOA reported.

So what are we left with? A claim that Russia hacked the DNC, based heavily on an organization whose credibility is now being called into question.

If I understand this correctly, Nunes got intel from people in the White House and then gave it back to the White House, but couldn't share that information with anyone on his committee. Nobody has explained anything about why, if the White House already had the information, Nunes had to return to give this info to the president.

Your "understanding" is incorrect. Sure that false story was published by CNN, but has since been debunked. And the reason he had to get the information from a "secure room" at the white house was because he was being stone-walled by the intelligence agencies.

MSNBC: Covering Trump Surveillance Story Helps Russia ‘Undermine’ American Democracy

So desperate to discredit a bombshell Bloomberg report that former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice sought to unmask Trump transition officials caught up in intelligence surveillance, on Monday afternoon, MSNBC host Katy Tur outrageously suggested that simply reporting on the story was helping Russia “undermine our democratic institutions.”

So you just admitted that I'm right. The intel came from the White House...

"Chairman Nunes met with his source at the White House grounds in order to have proximity to a secure location where he could view the information provided by the source," said his spokesman, Jack Langer.

Nunes told Bloomberg View columnist Eli Lake that his source was an intelligence official and not a White House staffer.