(08-05-2017 03:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 11:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 11:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 11:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 09:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why were those powers well within her scope? What did she need to know about that in order to do her job?
Those are questions that need to be answered IMO.

For real?
She was the national security advisor. How is understanding who the US citizens talking to foreign operatives are not within her scope?
Can you give me an example of how her, in her role as the NSA, unmasking an individual would have been outside her scope?

Because that's not the level at which she should be working. Her job is big picture, not down in the details. Or at least it should be.

Her job is going to be both. Understanding who foreign entities, agents, nationals, etc are talking to can be very important to the big picture.

I'd much rather the higher levels be the ones making unmasking decisions as opposed to the peons.

Perhaps you would care to try and explain the UN Ambassador making "hundreds" of unmasking requests?

I sure can think of no good reason for an unmasking by this position, let alone "hundreds". And yes, those "hundreds" carry a taint to other positions that reside in the first orbit level of the President.

Had the requests been made at the analyst level, or director of operations level I see a very good reasoning.

DNI? Be serious. This is like Rex Tillerson making decisions at Exxon relating to a ream of copy paper.... Or Jack Welch making a hiring decision for an entry level engineer....

Samantha Power, the UN Ambassador who was also a member of the NSC?

Sounds like she would actually be a good candidate for someone to request unmasking as she is not the head of the NSC.

Also, your comparison of Rice requesting unmasking to Tillerson and Welch seems to suggest that unmasking is not a very serious issue (just like hiring an entry level person). Therefore, why is there a concern?

I think unmasking is a more serious act, but as far as I can tell, no non-partisan person is actually suggesting this unmasking business is worth its weight in salt.

(08-05-2017 04:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 03:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Perhaps you would care to try and explain the UN Ambassador making "hundreds" of unmasking requests?

I sure can think of no good reason for an unmasking by this position, let alone "hundreds". And yes, those "hundreds" carry a taint to other positions that reside in the first orbit level of the President.

Had the requests been made at the analyst level, or director of operations level I see a very good reasoning.

DNI? Be serious. This is like Rex Tillerson making decisions at Exxon relating to a ream of copy paper.... Or Jack Welch making a hiring decision for an entry level engineer....

Samantha Power, the UN Ambassador who was also a member of the NSC?

Sounds like she would actually be a good candidate for someone to request unmasking as she is not the head of the NSC.

Also, your comparison of Rice requesting unmasking to Tillerson and Welch seems to suggest that unmasking is not a very serious issue (just like hiring an entry level person). Therefore, why is there a concern?

I think unmasking is a more serious act, but as far as I can tell, no non-partisan person is actually suggesting this unmasking business is worth its weight in salt.

Quote:“From my direct experience dealing at this level, that is never done,” retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer told Fox News. Shaffer has experience in intelligence operations focused on foreign actors in which U.S. citizens’ involvement could surface.

“The national security adviser person is a manager position, not an analyst position,” he said. “You have analysts in the intelligence community whose job is to sort through who is doing what with what. Susan Rice is a senior manager looking over the entire intelligence community. She should not have time to be unmasking individuals having conversations. It’s insane. It’s never done.”

Ex-CIA analyst Fred Fleitz agreed in a Fox News op-ed.

“Rice’s denials don’t add up,” Fleitz wrote. “It is hard to fathom how the demasking of multiple Trump campaign and transition officials was not politically motivated.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/...s-say.html

Quote:The names of U.S. citizens “incidentally” mentioned in NSA reports are masked to preserve their identities because America’s intelligence agencies are barred from spying on American citizens except in extraordinary circumstances with court approval.

Rice correctly said in her interview that policymakers sometimes request to know the identities of Americans from NSA reports to understand these reports in certain circumstances. She also tried to dismiss this controversy by claiming NSA demasking requests are routine.

They actually are not routine and taken very seriously by NSA.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/04/0...dd-up.html

Also, the number of unmasking requests ballooned from 600-ish in 2015 to just under 2000 in 2016.

Also note that they are referring to Rice who is an elevated position to request. The case for Powers making that request diminishes considerably. Note also the quotes relate to the NSA. The poobah. The case for the unmasking based upon not the request of the poobah but the request of the Board of Directors for the poobah makes the quote that much stronger it taken with your interpretation.

In fact this makes your statement that it is not entirely extraordinary that Jack Welch (Rice) make a decision to hire an (even experienced) engineer, but your statement seems to say that it would be perfectly normal for the Board of GE to make that decision.

(08-05-2017 04:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 03:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 11:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 11:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 11:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  For real?
She was the national security advisor. How is understanding who the US citizens talking to foreign operatives are not within her scope?
Can you give me an example of how her, in her role as the NSA, unmasking an individual would have been outside her scope?

Because that's not the level at which she should be working. Her job is big picture, not down in the details. Or at least it should be.

Her job is going to be both. Understanding who foreign entities, agents, nationals, etc are talking to can be very important to the big picture.

I'd much rather the higher levels be the ones making unmasking decisions as opposed to the peons.

Perhaps you would care to try and explain the UN Ambassador making "hundreds" of unmasking requests?

I sure can think of no good reason for an unmasking by this position, let alone "hundreds". And yes, those "hundreds" carry a taint to other positions that reside in the first orbit level of the President.

Had the requests been made at the analyst level, or director of operations level I see a very good reasoning.

DNI? Be serious. This is like Rex Tillerson making decisions at Exxon relating to a ream of copy paper.... Or Jack Welch making a hiring decision for an entry level engineer....

Samantha Power, the UN Ambassador who was also a member of the NSC?

Sounds like she would actually be a good candidate for someone to request unmasking as she is not the head of the NSC.

Also, your comparison of Rice requesting unmasking to Tillerson and Welch seems to suggest that unmasking is not a very serious issue (just like hiring an entry level person). Therefore, why is there a concern?

I think unmasking is a more serious act, but as far as I can tell, no non-partisan person is actually suggesting this unmasking business is worth its weight in salt.

I will mark you down as not believing the potential use of the national security security apparatus for political purposes is not noteworthy.

Perhaps you should read Andrew McCarthy's take on the issue --- oops, he writes for National Review notwithstanding his service in assistant US Attorney involved in numerous prosecutions of terror charges in the US. But I guess in your mind that NR thingy automatically disqualifies him as 'partisan'.

Sorry, the unmasking thing has implications at the Watergate level of misuse of executive power.

Of course misuse of Executive power is at the forefront if someone name Trump is at the core, but to hell with the implications of potential weaponization under Obama. Got it now....

(08-06-2017 09:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 04:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 03:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 11:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 11:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Because that's not the level at which she should be working. Her job is big picture, not down in the details. Or at least it should be.

Her job is going to be both. Understanding who foreign entities, agents, nationals, etc are talking to can be very important to the big picture.

I'd much rather the higher levels be the ones making unmasking decisions as opposed to the peons.

Perhaps you would care to try and explain the UN Ambassador making "hundreds" of unmasking requests?

I sure can think of no good reason for an unmasking by this position, let alone "hundreds". And yes, those "hundreds" carry a taint to other positions that reside in the first orbit level of the President.

Had the requests been made at the analyst level, or director of operations level I see a very good reasoning.

DNI? Be serious. This is like Rex Tillerson making decisions at Exxon relating to a ream of copy paper.... Or Jack Welch making a hiring decision for an entry level engineer....

Samantha Power, the UN Ambassador who was also a member of the NSC?

Sounds like she would actually be a good candidate for someone to request unmasking as she is not the head of the NSC.

Also, your comparison of Rice requesting unmasking to Tillerson and Welch seems to suggest that unmasking is not a very serious issue (just like hiring an entry level person). Therefore, why is there a concern?

I think unmasking is a more serious act, but as far as I can tell, no non-partisan person is actually suggesting this unmasking business is worth its weight in salt.

I will mark you down as not believing the potential use of the national security security apparatus for political purposes is not noteworthy.

Perhaps you should read Andrew McCarthy's take on the issue --- oops, he writes for National Review notwithstanding his service in assistant US Attorney involved in numerous prosecutions of terror charges in the US. But I guess in your mind that NR thingy automatically disqualifies him as 'partisan'.

Sorry, the unmasking thing has implications at the Watergate level of misuse of executive power.

Of course misuse of Executive power is at the forefront if someone name Trump is at the core, but to hell with the implications of potential weaponization under Obama. Got it now....

No, the potential use of the security apparatus for political purposes is noteworthy, but I don't see this misuse here. You seem to be trying to project a lot of my opinions and feelings for me.

If anything, I don't see how unmasking in this situation could be used in a nefarious manner. Can you explain that a bit? What are the Watergate level implications?

There is NO reason for Power to make *any* unmasking request. Let alone hundreds.

It is highly atypical for people in Rice's position to make unmasking requests. To the point that people who have operated in that specific environment say that is not ever done.

Couple this with the fact that unmasking requests tripled from 2015 to 2016.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...bi-cia-nsa

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...telligence

Quote: Nevertheless, were a pattern of unmasking established, divorced from any proper foreign-intelligence purpose, that would be a profound abuse of power

But hey, forget that. Let's focus solely on shaking a Russian diplomat's hand at the Republican convention. *That* is the real abuse....

The pattern shown by whom requested the unmasking, and the opening of the floodgates with respect who would be allowed access to this type of information is a fundamental change in the flow (and potential use or misuse) of this information.

Considering the Obama administration oversaw and probably directed to the use of the IRS in a blatantly political manner, that is another cog here.

There is plenty of weird as **** items happening in the unmasking story. Enough that has me concerned. But as I said, more sinister is meeting the Russian ambassador on the floor of the Republican convention. But the same people who want to untrun every stone in that matter, and see sinister bugaboos in every name that sounds like it came out of 'War and Peace', to be blunt, seemingly turn a blind eye to this as "partisan".

Look, I say investigate the Russian issue, put it to bed in one way or another. I'm also saying there is the smell of **** coming out of this that deserves the same attention, especially with the implication of this being used for political purposes.

The increase in unmasking requests in that period makes perfect sense though - we have established that Russia was found to be trying to interfere with our election process. Wouldn't it be logician then for the intelligence community to want to better understand who those people were talking to? That point holds very little water because of the fact that the administration knew what Russia's aim was.

(08-06-2017 12:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The increase in unmasking requests in that period makes perfect sense though - we have established that Russia was found to be trying to interfere with our election process. Wouldn't it be logician then for the intelligence community to want to better understand who those people were talking to? That point holds very little water because of the fact that the administration knew what Russia's aim was.

Doesnt explain the massive unlocking of access to that information, does it?

Nor does it explain any sort of reason why Rice and Powers are at the forefront of the effort. Especially when

Quote: [t]he thing to bear in mind is that the White House does not do investigations. Not criminal investigations, not intelligence investigations

or that Powers (all by her literal lonesome as double oh seven designated UN Ambassador) instigated "hundreds of [these] requests",

or that Rice instigated "hundreds of [these] requests", especially when “From [] direct experience dealing at [that] level, that is never done”.

But your choice to discount that tripling of requests with that background. It's a free country.

Given that tableaux, the literal explosion in requests stinks to high heaven. At least to me.

(08-06-2017 12:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The increase in unmasking requests in that period makes perfect sense though - we have established that Russia was found to be trying to interfere with our election process. Wouldn't it be logician then for the intelligence community to want to better understand who those people were talking to? That point holds very little water because of the fact that the administration knew what Russia's aim was.

One, you make a few leaps there that are not supported by the evidence to date. Two, even conceding all those leaps, there's no explanation why Rice should be the one doing the unmasking. Unless of course it was being done for partisan political purposes.

My bottom line--I'm perfectly happy if all hellfire rains down on Trump and he ends up in prison, as long as the same levels of attack are pursued with equal vigor against the violators in the prior administration.

Rice was one of 20 people who have the ability to unmask American citizens who have been caught up in foreign intelligence gathering. How is it odd for her, when given a report that just refers to someone as "American citizen" to request that their name be unmasked?

I would see the severity of this if it was revealed that the intelligence community was targeting Trump specifically, with no evidence of Russian attempts to influence the election. But the intelligence community increased their surveillance of Russian actors as facts were revealed about Russian actions (just read that great Wash PO (?) article about the Obama admin's response). In that push, they swept up American citizens and unmasked their identities to understand who was talking with Russian actors. It turns out some of those people were connected to the Trump campaign.

With all of the information that is public, there really isn't evidence to try and make this into an issue. If there had been more to come out and more people in the current admin were publicly investigating, than I would be skeptical too. But McMaster holds a lot of weight, IMO, and without other evidence, I'm just not sold on this being a big deal. My mind could be changed with more evidencr - either direct or circumstantial.

(08-06-2017 01:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Rice was one of 20 people who have the ability to unmask American citizens who have been caught up in foreign intelligence gathering. How is it odd for her, when given a report that just refers to someone as "American citizen" to request that their name be unmasked?

I would see the severity of this if it was revealed that the intelligence community was targeting Trump specifically, with no evidence of Russian attempts to influence the election. But the intelligence community increased their surveillance of Russian actors as facts were revealed about Russian actions (just read that great Wash PO (?) article about the Obama admin's response). In that push, they swept up American citizens and unmasked their identities to understand who was talking with Russian actors. It turns out some of those people were connected to the Trump campaign.

With all of the information that is public, there really isn't evidence to try and make this into an issue. If there had been more to come out and more people in the current admin were publicly investigating, than I would be skeptical too. But McMaster holds a lot of weight, IMO, and without other evidence, I'm just not sold on this being a big deal. My mind could be changed with more evidencr - either direct or circumstantial.

You seem perfectly content to show zero consideration to the statement of “From my direct experience dealing at this level, that is never done[.]" from someone ostensibly having been in that loop. Your right on how much import to give that.

Every single actor that I have seen that has commented on the Rice-Powers requests (save for one, from the Obama speechwriter) state that this is, at the very least, unusual.

But hey, lets go get worked up over shaking a Russian diplomat's hand at a public function.... When *that* happens, everyone must get into a *serious* lather...

(08-06-2017 02:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-06-2017 01:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Rice was one of 20 people who have the ability to unmask American citizens who have been caught up in foreign intelligence gathering. How is it odd for her, when given a report that just refers to someone as "American citizen" to request that their name be unmasked?

I would see the severity of this if it was revealed that the intelligence community was targeting Trump specifically, with no evidence of Russian attempts to influence the election. But the intelligence community increased their surveillance of Russian actors as facts were revealed about Russian actions (just read that great Wash PO (?) article about the Obama admin's response). In that push, they swept up American citizens and unmasked their identities to understand who was talking with Russian actors. It turns out some of those people were connected to the Trump campaign.

With all of the information that is public, there really isn't evidence to try and make this into an issue. If there had been more to come out and more people in the current admin were publicly investigating, than I would be skeptical too. But McMaster holds a lot of weight, IMO, and without other evidence, I'm just not sold on this being a big deal. My mind could be changed with more evidencr - either direct or circumstantial.

You seem perfectly content to show zero consideration to the statement of “From my direct experience dealing at this level, that is never done[.]" from someone ostensibly having been in that loop. Your right on how much import to give that.

Every single actor that I have seen that has commented on the Rice-Powers requests (save for one, from the Obama speechwriter) state that this is, at the very least, unusual.

But hey, lets go get worked up over shaking a Russian diplomat's hand at a public function.... When *that* happens, everyone must get into a *serious* lather...

That's because the current NSA, McMasters, is of the opinion Rice did nothing wrong. The opinion of a current Trump official in the same role, who is now operating in a similar fashion, holds more weight than officials who are not in the administration and did not have the same position.

And your reference back to Russia is a false equivalence, these are two separate issues and there is no reason one can feel differently about both. I'm also not saying that, after Nunes raised this issue that it shouldn't have been investigated, but it has been, and so far there have been results that suggest nothing was done improperly.

On a lighter note, God bless The Onion.

http://www.theonion.com/article/leaking-...lMarketing

(08-06-2017 01:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My bottom line--I'm perfectly happy if all hellfire rains down on Trump and he ends up in prison, as long as the same levels of attack are pursued with equal vigor against the violators in the prior administration.

+1

Stephen "your cosmopolitan bias is shocking!" Miller, lives in a million dollar condo with the slogan "the new ideal for sophisticated, modern, urban living". Which appears to have been bought by his daddy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reli...c216aecc50

Such a relatable average Joe!

Here he is running for class president in high school, making it clear the janitors are there to serve him and the other rich kids at Santa Monica High.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ_OIC3-W3c

So glad we didn't end up with a bunch of coastal elites running things.

A house owned by Manafort was raided by the FBI in pre-dawn hours this morning.

Just another sign of a massive witch-hunt, huh?

It isn't a sign of guilt, but I think this is good evidence that the Russia investigation and questions about Trump's campaign are not entirely made up.

(08-09-2017 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  A house owned by Manafort was raided by the FBI in pre-dawn hours this morning.

Just another sign of a massive witch-hunt, huh?

It isn't a sign of guilt, but I think this is good evidence that the Russia investigation and questions about Trump's campaign are not entirely made up.

The FBI is clearly controlled by the "fake news" media and in on the witch hunt.

I really have no idea where all this is headed. My best guess is that Trump has a lot of awkward ties to unseemly people in Russia, as has long been rumored, and his attempts to to hide them are going to be what comes back to bite him. But I have no inside info, obviously.

(08-09-2017 10:26 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2017 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  A house owned by Manafort was raided by the FBI in pre-dawn hours this morning.

Just another sign of a massive witch-hunt, huh?

It isn't a sign of guilt, but I think this is good evidence that the Russia investigation and questions about Trump's campaign are not entirely made up.

The FBI is clearly controlled by the "fake news" media and in on the witch hunt.

I really have no idea where all this is headed. My best guess is that Trump has a lot of awkward ties to unseemly people in Russia, as has long been rumored, and his attempts to to hide them are going to be what comes back to bite him. But I have no inside info, obviously.

I've said for a while that I doubt Trump himself was actively trying to work with Russia, but that his associates were. And also that he is going to get screwed on money laundering charges - he has been in bed with too many dirty wealthy Russians and done too many weird real estate deals to have stayed clean himself.

Also, I'm pretty sure almost all of the dossier is real - there have been too many things proven true for me to brush it off.

(08-09-2017 10:26 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2017 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  A house owned by Manafort was raided by the FBI in pre-dawn hours this morning.

Just another sign of a massive witch-hunt, huh?

It isn't a sign of guilt, but I think this is good evidence that the Russia investigation and questions about Trump's campaign are not entirely made up.

The FBI is clearly controlled by the "fake news" media and in on the witch hunt.

I really have no idea where all this is headed. My best guess is that Trump has a lot of awkward ties to unseemly people in Russia, as has long been rumored, and his attempts to to hide them are going to be what comes back to bite him. But I have no inside info, obviously.

So I actually misread the article - this happened last month on July 26.

That was oddly the same day Trump went on Twitter about a transgender ban...

Some telling comments from foreign diplomats.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli....dcJ8377OZ

None of this is surprising, of course.

"My first order as President was to renovate and modernize our nuclear arsenal. It is now far stronger and more powerful than ever before...."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...9152711680

Is there any part of this statement that is not false?