Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 02 Jun 2017, 8:31 am

rickyp wrote:fate
fate
Why was the UN Ambassador unmasking Trump campaign people?

If all these communications are innocent why are the people involved in the communications worried about being "unmasked"?


That is so wrong. Do you not understand this?

The government is spying on Americans. There are valid reasons for this on SOME occasions. However, unmasking is reserved for intel agencies WHEN there is a "need to know." The government doesn't have carte blanche to do as it pleases.

Under the rules that apply to foreign-intelligence-collection, there is a presumption against revealing the names of American citizens. But there are significant loopholes: The names may be unmasked if intelligence officials determine that knowing the identity of an American is necessary in order to understand and exploit the intelligence value of the information collected. Thus, as I’ve also outlined, it is unlikely that any single instance of unmasking would be found to be a violation of law — and, indeed, it would not violate any penal statute (it would violate court-ordered “minimization” procedures). Nevertheless, were a pattern of unmasking established, divorced from any proper foreign-intelligence purpose, that would be a profound abuse of power in the nature of a “high crime and misdemeanor” — the Constitution’s predicate for impeachment.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... telligence


So, please explain how the UN Ambassador would have a "need to know" and how she is an "intel official."

If it can be shown this was for political purposes, she is in a lot of trouble.

fate
I said we've seen nothing of substance--and we haven't.

Hasn't stopped you from jumping to conclusions about things as varied as Ben Ghazi, the Clinton Foundation, Obama's birth place..... Your gauge for the value of evidence is entirely relative.


Nah. Benghazi had some objective truths, namely that four Americans died. That's indisputable. It's also indisputable that agents of the President (Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton) lied. Those are hard, cold facts.

Muellers investigation will take awhile. At the heart of it may be, will probably be, Trumps financial involvement with Russians... And Mueller will be able to determine that when he seeks Trumps tax returns..


At the risk of explaining things to you that you should know but choose to ignore, the FBI has been on this for months now. What have they found?

Oh, you'll be tempted to say, "It's too soon,": but you know that's not true. If Trump cannot keep leaks about Oval Office phone conversations from leaking, how would he stop the FBI?

A handful of legal scholars and former federal prosecutors I interviewed say it is too early to determine whether Mueller will seek the tax records. But they say it would not be at all surprising if he does. There have been a swirl of allegations about questionable financial ties between the Trump Organization and Russian businessmen and banks close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, including Russian oligarchs who have made major investments in Trump properties in the United States and overseas. Trump’s two adult sons have both been quoted as saying that Russian investments represent a lopsided share of their revenues (they later denied the quotations or suggested they had been taken out of context). Trump’s first national security adviser, retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, has cited his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in refusing to testify before Congress to discuss his own contacts with the Russian ambassador to Washington during the presidential transition period.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... rns-215212

As a well known expert on such matters proclaimed
If you're innocent, why are you taking the 5th?':


Yet, after all these months, not one "link" with potential criminal implications has surfaced. Not one.

As usual, and just like Hills, you're all theory and no substance.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 02 Jun 2017, 12:07 pm

fate
The government is spying on Americans. There are valid reasons for this on SOME occasions.

Agreed

However, unmasking is reserved for intel agencies WHEN there is a "need to know.
"
Agreed.

The government doesn't have carte blanche to do as it pleases.

agreed.

but you didn't answer this directly... did you?

If all these communications are innocent why are the people involved in the communications worried about being "unmasked"
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 02 Jun 2017, 12:53 pm

rickyp wrote:but you didn't answer this directly... did you?

If all these communications are innocent why are the people involved in the communications worried about being "unmasked"


Because unmasking for political purposes is illegal.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 03 Jun 2017, 6:49 am

fate
Because unmasking for political purposes is illegal.


If the meetings were innocent, what political gain would there be to unmask them?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 03 Jun 2017, 6:55 am

fate
Because unmasking for political purposes is illegal.


According to a report in The Washington Post, the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee, led by Rep. Devin Nunes, asked U.S. spy agencies in late 2016 to reveal the names of U.S. individuals or organizations contained in classified intelligence on Russia’s interference in the election. This is the same practice that President Trump has accused the Obama administration of abusing. Nunes himself has criticized the practice of "unmasking" as an abuse of power by the previous administration. The House Intelligence Committee requested five to six unmaskings of U.S. organizations or individuals related to Trump or Hillary Clinton between June 2016 and January 2017, according to the report. Nunes called on his committee to investigate alleged surveillance tactics by the Obama administration earlier this year after President Trump claimed that he was wiretapped, providing no evidence. Nunes was subsequently forced to recuse himself from the committee's Russia investigation because of allegations that he disclosed classified information


http://www.thedailybeast.com/report-nun ... ce=copyurl
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Jun 2017, 4:35 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
Because unmasking for political purposes is illegal.


If the meetings were innocent, what political gain would there be to unmask them?


Good question! I can't wait to hear the former UN ambassador, who holds no intel post, explain why she did it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Jun 2017, 4:38 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
Because unmasking for political purposes is illegal.


According to a report in The Washington Post, the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee, led by Rep. Devin Nunes, asked U.S. spy agencies in late 2016 to reveal the names of U.S. individuals or organizations contained in classified intelligence on Russia’s interference in the election. This is the same practice that President Trump has accused the Obama administration of abusing. Nunes himself has criticized the practice of "unmasking" as an abuse of power by the previous administration. The House Intelligence Committee requested five to six unmaskings of U.S. organizations or individuals related to Trump or Hillary Clinton between June 2016 and January 2017, according to the report. Nunes called on his committee to investigate alleged surveillance tactics by the Obama administration earlier this year after President Trump claimed that he was wiretapped, providing no evidence. Nunes was subsequently forced to recuse himself from the committee's Russia investigation because of allegations that he disclosed classified information


http://www.thedailybeast.com/report-nun ... ce=copyurl


Go to the WaPo via your link
Officials familiar with the matter said that the committee’s requests focused on the identities of U.S. organizations that had been hacked by the Russians in 2016. Officials declined to say how many of the requests came from Democrats vs. Republicans.


Big difference. It's almost like the Daily Beast had an agenda . . .
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 04 Jun 2017, 8:25 am

fate
So, please explain how the UN Ambassador would have a "need to know" and how she is an "intel official."


First: (Nunes has screwed up before)
Of course, the fact that a subpoena demanding information is issued does not necessarily mean the information exists.

Second: (plausible reasons)
If the communications reported as inappropriate were with ambassadors she regularly interacted with it would be appropriate to know who the people were... in order to take that into account in her interactions.

But you didn't answer why these people are unhappy at being unmasked? Knowing why the requests were made, is one thing. Knowing why the communications would have embarrassed those unmasked is most relevant? Why should they care if the reasons they had the communications were legitimate and innocent?

The scandal is not about the leaks. Its about why the leakers think what they are leaking is important for the nation to know about...
Unmasking is pretty routine. Leaking the results of the unmasking is't. There are a lot of people who might have been responsible for that other then those requesting the unmasking... Their motivations may have more to do with worry about the national security being in the hands of what they believe are corrupt, incompetent or even treasonous members of the Trump administration.
Until you find the leakers you won't know what motivates them.
Its highly unlikely Nunes subpoenas will distract the way he hopes they will.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Jun 2017, 12:07 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
So, please explain how the UN Ambassador would have a "need to know" and how she is an "intel official."


First: (Nunes has screwed up before)
Of course, the fact that a subpoena demanding information is issued does not necessarily mean the information exists.

Second: (plausible reasons)
If the communications reported as inappropriate were with ambassadors she regularly interacted with it would be appropriate to know who the people were... in order to take that into account in her interactions.


That is laughable. Seriously. 2 or three months from now if I raise this again, you'll know (by then) how dumb that is.

I think this is more on point. John Brennan was asked by Trey Gowdy if "any ambassador" had asked for unmasking:

Which brings me to Trey Gowdy.

When he asked former CIA Director John Brennan if any ambassadors had requested unmasking last week during the House Intelligence Committee hearing, I assumed he meant Susan Rice, who was Obama's UN ambassador before she was his national security adviser. I assumed wrong.

"I don't -- I don't know.... maybe it's ringing a vague bell but I'm not -- I could not answer with any confidence," he stammered.

Ace of Spades interprets:

"Yes, I am aware of an ambassador requesting unmaskings, but I'm shocked as hell that you are aware of it, and I'm completely unprepared to give an answer that accomplishes my goal of evasion without exposing me to prosecution, so I'm going to do a word-salad jazz odyssey of non-denial denial and fake a senior moment."

Sounds about right.


If your theory is right, Brennan would have been able to pop off with it. He didn't. He's a smart guy, smart enough not to tell the truth.

But you didn't answer why these people are unhappy at being unmasked? Knowing why the requests were made, is one thing. Knowing why the communications would have embarrassed those unmasked is most relevant? Why should they care if the reasons they had the communications were legitimate and innocent?


Because you ASSume there is something illegitmate. I'm not answering because you put the burden on the wrong party. You are asking, "When did you stop beating your wife?" But, there is no evidence of violence.

In other words, the burden is on the requesting party, NOT on the person unmasked.

The scandal is not about the leaks. Its about why the leakers think what they are leaking is important for the nation to know about...


Wrong. It is about the leaks because they are jeopardizing national security.

Unmasking is pretty routine. Leaking the results of the unmasking is't.


Is it routine? Sure for SECURITY admin types, but . . .

1. Not for UN ambassadors.
2. Not to be "widely disseminated"

Rice asked for Trump associates to be identified – or “unmasked” – in intelligence reports and those names were then widely disseminated at the top levels of the government.


She's going to have justify her actions.

So is Powers. Good luck to her.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 05 Jun 2017, 7:19 am

fate
Because you ASSume there is something illegitmate. I'm not answering because you put the burden on the wrong party. You are asking, "When did you stop beating your wife?" But, there is no evidence of violence.

I'm assuming nothing.
What I'm asking, and you aren't answering, is why someone would be ashamed of legitimate communications, to the extent that they require legal protection to protect their identity?
What was so wrong about the communication that they require anonymity?
Why would there be any political gain to be made in releasing the unmasked names to the public, unless the existence of communications were embarrassing....
And why would they be Fate?


fate
Rice asked for Trump associates to be identified – or “unmasked” – in intelligence reports and those names were then widely disseminated at the top levels of the government.
She's going to have justify her actions.
So is Powers. Good luck to her
.
well, rice has said she asked for unmasking in some instances, and denied leaking.
It has not been confirmed Powers asked for unmasking.
But yes, they'll have to justify the unmasking. Although since in making the request they already had to justify the request for unmasking to the NSA, its reasonable to suggest that their justifications will hold up.
First, is there a “valid need to know” on the part of the agency or individual requesting the unmasking? If the NSA were to determine that the FBI, when looking into a related matter, would be hindered by not having the identity of this “U.S. Person” unmasked, the NSA will unmask them and give the FBI their identity.
Second, Rogers said, “Is the identification necessary to truly understand the intelligence value the report is designed to generate?” This second criterion is somewhat more subjective than the first. But it should be understood to apply to instances wherein the identity of the “U.S. Person” is integral to understanding the crime or offense that was committed.

https://www.inverse.com/article/29527-n ... rump-nunes

I'm sure that having crossed this high bar Rice (and Powers if it turns out she actually made a request) will be comfortable responding. Certainly more comfortable than those who were unmasked seem to be in explaining their communications with Russian spies.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Jun 2017, 7:56 am

rickyp wrote:fate
Because you ASSume there is something illegitmate. I'm not answering because you put the burden on the wrong party. You are asking, "When did you stop beating your wife?" But, there is no evidence of violence.

I'm assuming nothing.
What I'm asking, and you aren't answering, is why someone would be ashamed of legitimate communications, to the extent that they require legal protection to protect their identity?
What was so wrong about the communication that they require anonymity?
Why would there be any political gain to be made in releasing the unmasked names to the public, unless the existence of communications were embarrassing....
And why would they be Fate?


If "embarrassing" is the standard the Obama Admin applied, it is in violation of the law and people should be heading for jail. Unmasking is serious business and "embarrassing" is NOT the standard.

fate
Rice asked for Trump associates to be identified – or “unmasked” – in intelligence reports and those names were then widely disseminated at the top levels of the government.
She's going to have justify her actions.
So is Powers. Good luck to her
.
well, rice has said she asked for unmasking in some instances, and denied leaking.
It has not been confirmed Powers asked for unmasking.


It will be.

More importantly, "it has not been confirmed" that anything untoward was done by anyone in the Trump campaign outside of Flynn. So if "it has not been confirmed" is YOUR standard, you should shut up until something "has . . . been confirmed."

But yes, they'll have to justify the unmasking. Although since in making the request they already had to justify the request for unmasking to the NSA, its reasonable to suggest that their justifications will hold up.


No, that's not "reasonable." It is your presupposition, which, by definition, is unreasonable.

First, is there a “valid need to know” on the part of the agency or individual requesting the unmasking? If the NSA were to determine that the FBI, when looking into a related matter, would be hindered by not having the identity of this “U.S. Person” unmasked, the NSA will unmask them and give the FBI their identity.
Second, Rogers said, “Is the identification necessary to truly understand the intelligence value the report is designed to generate?” This second criterion is somewhat more subjective than the first. But it should be understood to apply to instances wherein the identity of the “U.S. Person” is integral to understanding the crime or offense that was committed.

https://www.inverse.com/article/29527-n ... rump-nunes

I'm sure that having crossed this high bar Rice (and Powers if it turns out she actually made a request) will be comfortable responding. Certainly more comfortable than those who were unmasked seem to be in explaining their communications with Russian spies.


More speculation and jackassery. Then again, it's you. Why wait for those fact thingies?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 05 Jun 2017, 9:43 am

fate
No, that's not "reasonable." It is your presupposition, which, by definition, is unreasonable
.

Are you saying that the NSA standard for unmasking is unreasonable?
Why? What information do you have that indicates that the criteria for which the Trump people were unmasked is anything less than what follows?

First, is there a “valid need to know” on the part of the agency or individual requesting the unmasking? If the NSA were to determine that the FBI, when looking into a related matter, would be hindered by not having the identity of this “U.S. Person” unmasked, the NSA will unmask them and give the FBI their identity.
Second, Rogers said, “Is the identification necessary to truly understand the intelligence value the report is designed to generate?” This second criterion is somewhat more subjective than the first. But it should be understood to apply to instances wherein the identity of the “U.S. Person” is integral to understanding the crime or offense that was committed.


Fate
More speculation and jacassery. Then again, it's you. Why wait for those fact thingies?

All you've been doing is speculating ...
On the other hand, what we do know is that any request for unmasking woul have had to be approved by the NSA.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Jun 2017, 11:41 am

rickyp wrote:fate
No, that's not "reasonable." It is your presupposition, which, by definition, is unreasonable
.

Are you saying that the NSA standard for unmasking is unreasonable?


Rhetorical question: when will you ever stop being so intentionally foolish?

I was responding to this comment:

rickyp wrote:But yes, they'll have to justify the unmasking. Although since in making the request they already had to justify the request for unmasking to the NSA, its reasonable to suggest that their justifications will hold up.


It's not "reasonable" because you don't know that the request went through the normal channels, or that someone in the NSA approved it for the wrong reasons, or any number of non-reasonable reasons. You do not know. You are ASSuming.

Why? What information do you have that indicates that the criteria for which the Trump people were unmasked is anything less than what follows?


Nope, I'm not playing that game. You have no freaking idea if it's legit or not, you simply want to ASSume it is and tell me I have to prove it's not. Forget it. You get to ASSume whatever you want, but I don't have to accept your ASSumption.

Until some facts come out, we know nothing. However, that political hacks like Brennan, Rice, and Powers are at the center of this gives me some measure of confidence that you are wrong.

All you've been doing is speculating ...
On the other hand, what we do know is that any request for unmasking woul have had to be approved by the NSA.


Right. Who is the person at the NSA responsible? Who contacted that person? Has NSA ever unmasked someone who should not have been unmasked? Would a person that refused to unmask someone under the Obama administration be threatened with retaliation if, as expected, Clinton won? Is it possible someone at the NSA violated guidelines in order to expose and embarrass someone in the Trump campaign/transition team?

You act as if everyone at the NSA is altruistic, loyal, and never violates regulations. Huh. This is the same government that leaks like a sieve, right?

It is you, pally, who is ASSuming stuff.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 06 Jun 2017, 1:33 pm

rickyp wrote:
But yes, they'll have to justify the unmasking. Although since in making the request they already had to justify the request for unmasking to the NSA, its reasonable to suggest that their justifications will hold up.


Fate
It's not "reasonable" because you don't know that the request went through the normal channels, or that someone in the NSA approved it for the wrong reasons, or any number of non-reasonable reasons. You do not know. You are ASSuming.


You have evidence that it didn't go through normal channels?
Why are you assuming that normal NSA protocol wasn't followed, and that the usual standards weren't applied?
Do you have a problem with the NSA standards themselves?
Why?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Jun 2017, 2:52 pm

rickyp wrote:rickyp wrote:
But yes, they'll have to justify the unmasking. Although since in making the request they already had to justify the request for unmasking to the NSA, its reasonable to suggest that their justifications will hold up.


Fate
It's not "reasonable" because you don't know that the request went through the normal channels, or that someone in the NSA approved it for the wrong reasons, or any number of non-reasonable reasons. You do not know. You are ASSuming.


You have evidence that it didn't go through normal channels?
Why are you assuming that normal NSA protocol wasn't followed, and that the usual standards weren't applied?
Do you have a problem with the NSA standards themselves?
Why?


We just don't know.

You, apparently, want to ASSume everything was well and proper. I'd prefer some evidence BEFORE I decide.

You have decided that "If it was done, it must have been according to all the rules and regulations."

We have no evidence of that.

Your brilliant (not) retort is: "Do you have any evidence it was NOT done properly?"

We have no evidence whatsoever. So, shut up. You can start yammering when the evidence is in.