revelette1
 
  3  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2017 11:48 am
@layman,
What are you talking about? The leaks? It could have been anyone, even in the current administration. The leaks have nothing to do with Rice requesting to unmask person 1 in the intelligence reports unless evidence points in that direction which by the fact she requested the unmasking does not point as evidence in that direction as she was allowed to such request in her role as national security advisor to the president. After all, intelligence was investigating Russians role in trying to influence US election process which would qualify as national security issues which would make such request proper.
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2017 11:57 am
@revelette1,
Quote:
she did nothing improper as every single legitimate new source has admitted


Dream on. No one is yet even in a position to judge, let alone "admit innocence" about, if what happened here was illegal or not.

That said, indicia of guilt proliferate, not the least of which is Rice's flat out lie that she "knew nothing" about any "incidental" electronic collection of information respecting anyone connected with Trump.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2017 11:59 am
@revelette1,
Quote:
After all, intelligence was investigating Russians...

You completely fail to understand or acknowledge the strict and extremely important difference between collecting information about foreign agents and collecting information about U.S. citizens, I'm afraid.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2017 12:16 pm
@revelette1,
Rev, have you even read the U.S. Code section I previously posted and specifically referred you to? I'll bet you haven't, and yet you drone on as though you know what's legal and how to resolve all potential legal issues.

Tellya what. Just for the convenience of your lazy ass, I'll repost it here, eh:

McGentrix wrote:
Quote:
There has to be some DoJ people involved in this as well.


Right, Gent (or at least it's quite possible). Intercepted information about an american citizen's communications cannot even be "retained" for more than 72 hours without a court order.

There is one exception, however. The Attorney General (Lynch) can "determine that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person," and, if so, no court order is needed to retain the information (which still doesn't authorize disclosure).

I can see it now: Lynch saying that Trump is a threat to blow up the whole world with nukes, so therefore a threat of death is involved.


Quote:
50 U.S. Code § 1801

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.



Notice that it says "or" retained. It also prohibits disclosure, dissemination, and/or "use for any purpose" without a court order.
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2017 12:37 pm
I wanna see what Rice has to say for her sorry ass once she's put under oath and subject to hard time if she lies, eh?

My bet is that she will say "I take the 5th," unless she is granted immunity.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  3  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2017 12:49 pm
@layman,
You left no link, I am not sure of context or if it applies in this situation. So I ignored it and went with what I know so far after reading from current articles.
revelette1
 
  4  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2017 01:09 pm
Quote:
If only to recap what the public has learned over the past month, a consensus of sorts has emerged that during the final months of the Obama administration, Trump and/or his associates were caught up in “incidental collection” tied to surveillance of foreign nationals. The nature of that surveillance remains in dispute. Although several outlets, such as Heat Street, the Guardian, and McClatchy have all reported the existence of at least one FISA warrant, most prominent media outlets have still not confirmed that there was ever any FISA warrant that targeted Trump or his associates directly or indirectly.

Some have interpreted media reports by The New York Times as suggesting that the surveillance (if any) was actually authorized by Executive Order 12333, which governs surveillance of foreign nationals overseas. Congressman Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, confused the matter even further by seemingly disclosing to the public that he had been provided classified intelligence reports indicating that there was at least one (if not multiple) FISA warrants that had authorized the surveillance in which = Trump and/or his associates had been caught up incidentally.

The legality of that surveillance does not appear to be in dispute. Even Nunes, who has emerged as a defender of the president’s concerns about having been improperly surveilled, has publicly stated on more than one occasion that the targeted surveillance and the incidental collection appear to have been legally conducted.

The focus has instead recently shifted to the issue of “unmasking,” namely the circumstances in which a U.S. person’s identity is revealed to the government officials reviewing the intelligence reports. Without diving too deep into the weeds of exposition, when intelligence analysts review the raw data from intelligence intercepts they understandably see everything coming across their screen, including the identities of U.S. persons who are not the targets of the surveillance order that authorized the collection in the first place. In order to protect the privacy rights of those U.S. persons, the government has imposed procedures for “minimizing” or “masking” those persons’ identities.

The most well-known and publicly available document outlining those procedures is United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18. Pursuant to USSID 18’s procedures, intelligence reports summarizing information derived from the raw data would contain a redaction in place of the identity of each U.S. person. An example would be for the redaction to state “[minimized U.S. person A]”.

Like with anything in the government, there are of course exceptions to the rule, and the rules for “masking” the identities of U.S. persons are no different. Section 7.2(c) of USSID 18 permits the “unmasking” of a U.S. person’s identity if it is necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information or assess its importance. Specifically, this provision outlines several possible justifications upon which the government can rely to claim the unmasking was necessary, such as if the information indicates the U.S. person is an agent of a foreign power, is engaged in the unauthorized disclosure of classified information, may be involved in a crime, or may be the target of hostile intelligence activities of a foreign power.

The authority to unmask is not widely held, and as a threshold matter is necessarily limited to the agency that collected the information itself. During his recent testimony before the HPSCI, National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers stated that only 20 people in the entire agency have the authority to unmask the identities of U.S. persons contained in intelligence reports derived from NSA-collected intelligence information.

This brings me back to the issue of Rice’s conduct. Even in her role as national security advisor, Rice lacked the authority to compel the unmasking of U.S. persons’ identities in the NSA documentation she was apparently provided in the course of her official duties. At most, she could request that the identities be unmasked, and NSA could either approve or deny the request. Even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that the NSA representative detailed to the National Security Council (over which Rice presided) had the authority to grant her unmasking request(s), and if we also assumed that NSA official did not feel it was prudent to seek approval from someone of greater seniority at NSA, Rice would still would have had to convince the NSA official that the circumstances justified the unmasking.

This is the necessary safeguard put in place to minimize (if not outright prevent) the politicization of the unmasking process, and there is no indication that safeguard failed here.

It may ultimately come to pass that new information comes out demonstrating not only that Rice’s unmasking request was strictly politically motivated, but that the decision by NSA to approve it was similarly political. In all honesty, that scenario is unlikely and improbable, but certainly not impossible.

Until that occurs, however, claims that the unmasking was illegal or unethical remain premature and likely erroneous.



The Hill
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2017 01:13 pm
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:

You left no link, I am not sure of context or if it applies in this situation. So I ignored it and went with what I know so far after reading from current articles.



Cornell Law

McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2017 01:23 pm
@revelette1,
The White House does not investigate...

There was no reason for her to be investigating. No one is saying she can't do what she did, the issue is WHY did she do it.

It's pretty obvious that it was for political reasons, it's just a matter of time until it all comes out.
revelette1
 
  3  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2017 01:30 pm
@McGentrix,
Thank you for the link.

However, I am not sure it applies in the case as no one else has said anything about it. On the one Russian hearing, it was made clear 20 people had the authority to unmask individuals caught up in surveillance of monitored persons. Rice apparently made such request to one of those 20 persons (more than one) and she was either denied or approved of the requests.
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2017 01:31 pm
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:

You left no link...So I ignored it...


Heh, yeah, right, eh? You had no interest is knowing what the relevant law is--you just want to hear what your left-wing homeys in the press (selectively) tell you it says.

I gave you the code section, It would have been simple to cut it, paste it into google, and click a link, if you had any interest whatsoever in seeing the original text.
revelette1
 
  4  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2017 01:33 pm
@McGentrix,
It is not obvious it was for political reasons nor is there a reason to think so.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2017 01:34 pm
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:

Thank you for the link.

However, I am not sure it applies in the case as no one else has said anything about it. .


Heh, there ya go again. I don't care if you want to read it, or not. I just find it annoying that you want to simultaneously remain willfully ignorant while pontificating about what's legal and what aint.
revelette1
 
  4  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2017 01:34 pm
@layman,
whatever layman
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  4  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2017 01:49 pm
@McGentrix,
I never said white house was investigating. Also, as national security advisor, I imagine she come across intelligence reports quite frequently. Something about the reports which ended up being about persons on the Trump transition team and someone being monitored by intelligence must have jumped out at her as being important. She then requested unmasking. As advisor to the president, she might have thought it was something he needed to know for security reasons. You may not think Russian interfering in our election by hacking into computers a big deal to national security, but intelligence would appear to differ. (Speculating an alternative motive.)
layman
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2017 01:54 pm
@revelette1,
Quote:
Until that occurs, however, claims that the unmasking was illegal or unethical remain premature...


I have already said that I agree with this author's ultimate conclusion. However I strongly disagree with his suggestion that the "unmasking" is the major issue here. It aint.

That's a minor issue. If Rice had unmasked it, deleted within 72 hours, and forgotten about it, then no big deal, really.

But I'll bet dollars to donuts that she did not obtain the court order which is required for her to retain it. Or to disclose it. Or to disseminate it. Or to "use it for ANY purpose."

It could theoretically been someone else who did all those things, but she's certainly the front runner (by far) in the "suspect" category.

However it developed, that information was retained disseminated, and disclosed for a clearly political "use" by someone in the Obama administration.

And that is a serious crime.
revelette1
 
  3  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2017 02:15 pm
@layman,
Well, we will just wait and see if you angle goes anywhere. Rolling Eyes
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2017 02:22 pm
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:

Well, we will just wait and see if you angle goes anywhere. Rolling Eyes


If by my "angle" you mean the question of whether or not a serious crime has been committed, that's a done deal. Nowhere else for it to go. There can be no reasonable speculation that a federal FISA judge gave authorization to feloniously disclose that classified, private information to the press.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2017 02:31 pm
@revelette1,
So, I am not sure if everyone is on the same page as to what the National Security Advisor actually does...

The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), commonly referred to as the National Security Advisor or at times informally termed the NSC advisor, is a senior aide in the Executive Office of the President, based at the West Wing of the White House, who serves as the chief in-house advisor to the President of the United States on national security issues.

The APNSA also participates in the meetings of the National Security Council and usually chairs the Principals Committee meetings with the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense (i.e., the meetings not attended by the President). The APNSA is supported by the National Security Council staff that produces research and briefings for the APNSA to review and present, either to the National Security Council or directly to the President.

Role

The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA) is appointed by the President without confirmation by the Senate. The influence and role of the National Security Advisor varies from administration to administration and depends not only on the qualities of the person appointed to the position but also on the style and management philosophy of the incumbent President. Ideally, the APNSA serves as an honest broker of policy options for the President in the field of national security, rather than as an advocate for his or her own policy agenda.

However, the APNSA is a staff position in the Executive Office of the President and does not have line or budget authority over either the Department of State or the Department of Defense, unlike the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, who are Senate-confirmed officials with statutory authority over their departments; but the APNSA is able to offer daily advice (due to the proximity) to the President independently of the vested interests of the large bureaucracies and clientele of those departments.

In times of crisis, the National Security Advisor is likely to operate from the White House Situation Room or the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (as on September 11, 2001), updating the President on the latest events in a crisis situation.

I bolded a couple places so you can see why it's important when I say "The White House doesn't investigate..." you can see that the National Security Advisor is that. An advisor. Not an investigator or a spy.
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2017 02:46 pm
@McGentrix,
Yeah, Gent, I guess ya could say "advisor." But in this case I can think of other terms that might be more fitting. Such as, for example:

Designated Liar

Loyal partisan hack

Abuser of Intelligence

Co-conspirator to the President....

**** like that, ya know?

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/06/2022 at 11:50:19