She also lied about it in an interview on March 22. She said she knew nothing of the unmasking that Nunes was talking about.

She also lied about it in an interview on March 22. She said she knew nothing of the unmasking that Nunes was talking about.

 

She's very good at the lying thing.

So what is the crime here? I'm confused. What did she do that was illegal or is that under investigation? I'm lost at the issue.

 

I'm not sure if there is a crime, I don't know if privacy laws were broken or not. It just seems to substantiate somewhat what Trump said when he said the Administration was spying on him and his team.

 

They had the audio of the calls and and could see/hear what was said and evidently there was no crime committed or we'd already have heard about it. There was no reason to unmask the names and see which person on the Trump team was saying what, they already knew there was no crime. The reason the names are masked in the first place is for privacy and are to only be unmasked if they are found having illegal conversations. Rice seemed to be looking for political dirt and wanted to know exactly who said what, probably for later political use.

She also praised Bowe Bergdal and called him a hero.

Meanwhile he is in trial for desertion.

Susan Rice requested to unmask names of Trump transition officials, sources say | Fox News

 

She will talk, under immunity I am sure. This Russian stuff the left has pushed has backfired on them and things are looking bad. Corruption at the highest level. Busted because of someone pushing the Russian agenda. Isn't it Ironic.

So what is the crime here? I'm confused. What did she do that was illegal or is that under investigation? I'm lost at the issue.

 

Paragraph h) - Minimization Procedures.

 

5

Paragraph h) - Minimization Procedures.

 

5 U.S. Code SS 181 - Definitions | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

Basically, American citizens who are not specific targets information that is picked up as part of a FISA-approved wiretap or surveillance is to be filtered/redacted.

 

Sort-of like fishermen. If you cast a net for tuna you are supposed to let the dolphins go if you scope them up.

 

What appears to have happened here is they were fishing for dolphins and disguised as tuna fishermen.

I'm not sure if there is a crime, I don't know if privacy laws were broken or not. It just seems to substantiate somewhat what Trump said when he said the Administration was spying on him and his team.

 

They had the audio of the calls and and could see/hear what was said and evidently there was no crime committed or we'd already have heard about it. There was no reason to unmask the names and see which person on the Trump team was saying what, they already knew there was no crime. The reason the names are masked in the first place is for privacy and are to only be unmasked if they are found having illegal conversations. Rice seemed to be looking for political dirt and wanted to know exactly who said what, probably for later political use.

 

Even though the article said she didn't do anything illegal and that it doesn't substantiate Trump's claims of being witetapped. That's where confusion comes in for me.

Paragraph h) - Minimization Procedures.

 

5 U.S. Code SS 181 - Definitions | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

Basically, American citizens who are not specific targets information that is picked up as part of a FISA-approved wiretap or surveillance is to be filtered/redacted.

 

Sort-of like fishermen. If you cast a net for tuna you are supposed to let the dolphins go if you scope them up.

 

So she wiretapped Trump and his people to find out who was on the transition team?

So she wiretapped Trump and his people to find out who was on the transition team?

 

What I have seen or read is that they got FISA court to approve survellance of a server inside Trump tower that was claimed to be used for communications with foreign entities.

 

So back to the fishermen. If you really want to catch dolphins, go get permission from the fisherman court to fish for a single tuna that hangs out with dolphines. Then keep the dolphins. Then invite all your friends over to feast on dolphin. This post-catch feast sort of maps to EO 12333 issued only 8 days for the end of the term of the previous administration.

 

IC ON THE RECORD • Fact

Sheet on E.O. 12333 Raw SIGINT Availability...

What I have seen or read is that they got FISA court to approve survellance of a server inside Trump tower that was claimed to be used for communications with foreign entities.

 

So back to the fishermen. If you really want to catch dolphins, go get permission from the fisherman court to fish for a single tuna that hangs out with dolphines. Then keep the dolphins. Then invite all your friends over to feast on dolphin. This post-catch feast sort of maps to EO 12333 issued only 8 days for the end of the term of the previous administration.

 

IC ON THE RECORD • Fact

Sheet on E.O. 12333 Raw SIGINT Availability...

 

And they got the FISA court to approve surveillance because of possible collusion with the Russian government to undermine the election. So even with the court appointed approval they still didn't have access to the possible members of Trump's transition team and because of the FISA court approval she had a legal right to know who was on that transition team so they could vet them and make sure they weren't colliding with the Russians, right? And they found nothing, right? So again, I ask, what did she do that was illegal?

Even though the article said she didn't do anything illegal and that it doesn't substantiate Trump's claims of being witetapped. That's where confusion comes in for me.

 

That article says it doesn't substantiate his claims while others have said that it does prove the administration was listening to communications of his team. I'm sure both sides feel vindicated and both are sure of their position. I don't know...I don't care. I was just telling you the way it seemed to me earlier today after watching both CNN and Fox talk about it.

 

Did they sneak in all old school FBI vs Mobster and put bugs in the phones...No. All of that type of surveillance is done digitally now without even the phone/cell companies knowing it is happening. Calls were intercepted then reviewed by Susan Rice, so in some respect Trump was right that they had "Wiretapped" him even if he did use an outdated term for it. Was what they did legal, I don 't know...it may have been. The crux seems to be in the Unmasking of the names. As I understand it those names are not to be unmasked unless the law is broken to maintain privacy. Rice had the names unmasked sometime in January, even though there didn't seem to be anything illegal found on the recordings...that seems to be the issue right now.

That article says it doesn't substantiate his claims while others have said that it does prove the administration was listening to communications of his team. I'm sure both sides feel vindicated and both are sure of their position. I don't know...I don't care. I was just telling you the way it seemed to me earlier today after watching both CNN and Fox talk about it.

 

Did they sneak in all old school FBI vs Mobster and put bugs in the phones...No. All of that type of surveillance is done digitally now without even the phone/cell companies knowing it is happening. Calls were intercepted then reviewed by Susan Rice, so in some respect Trump was right that they had "Wiretapped" him even if he did use an outdated term for it. Was what they did legal, I don 't know...it may have been. The crux seems to be in the Unmasking of the names. As I understand it those names are not to be unmasked unless the law is broken to maintain privacy. Rice had the names unmasked sometime in January, even though there didn't seem to be anything illegal found on the recordings...that seems to be the issue right now.

 

January 2017?

 

So there is or isn't a FISA court order that authorized the surveillance of Trump Towers?

January 2017?

 

So there is or isn't a FISA court order that authorized the surveillance of Trump Towers?

 

No idea...that's not the issue that is being discussed. It's the unmasking of the names by the administration that seemed to be the issue. I may have misheard because I wasn't paying close attention at the time but I thought someone said today that they started listening in on the Trump Campaign early last year.

 

If they had a FISA warrant (I have no reason to think they didn't) and were listening all last year, you'd think they would have found the proverbial smoking gun of Trump/Russian Collusion...if it existed.

And they got the FISA court to approve surveillance because of possible collusion with the Russian government to undermine the election. So even with the court appointed approval they still didn't have access to the possible members of Trump's transition team and because of the FISA court approval she had a legal right to know who was on that transition team so they could vet them and make sure they weren't colliding with the Russians, right? And they found nothing, right? So again, I ask, what did she do that was illegal?

 

Supposedly, they would need to be specific targets of investigation that present immanent threat. The Gowdy video posted probably has dialog that helps define and frame the supposed issue.

 

They supposedly went to FISA more than once after being turned down. And FISA judges have turned almost no request for wiretapping.

 

Back to the game.