(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....

(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.”

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.

(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.

(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....

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

(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.

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

(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.

(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.

(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...

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.