Obama National Security Adviser Ordered Unmasking Trumpites

[Forty Two]

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/susan ... ing-trump/

Former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova.

“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”

Other official sources with direct knowledge and who requested anonymity confirmed to TheDCNF diGenova’s description of surveillance reports Rice ordered one year before the 2016 presidential election

.

I wonder what the former President knew and when did he know it?

http://nypost.com/2017/04/03/fresh-evid ... operation/

[L'Emmerdeur]

So diGenova, the hack who for the past 20 years has been jumping at any chance to get his face on TV to yap about right wing hit jobs on Democrats asserts without basis that Rice acted illegally, and you're happy to quote from the idiot propaganda site "Daily Caller." Business as usual and nothing to see here, really.

The original source of the Rice story actually admits that her action was "likely" legal, and I've seen no credible basis for the assertion that what she did was illegal. Rather the contrary.

It’s easy enough to see how a senior Obama administration official requesting the unmasking of Trump associates could cause a tempest. But less so when you consider the specific associate.

“The national security advisor, every day, as part of the National Security Council, gets a compilation of intelligence reports every morning,” says [Elizabeth] Goitein [co-director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program]. “To the extent that the reports include US person information that has been masked, per standard procedure, you would certainly expect the people who received those reports to be among the people who are requesting the unmasking.”

That aligns with a brief interview Rice gave to NBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “There were occasions when I would receive a report in which a US person was referred to, name not provided,” Rice said. “Sometimes in that context in order to understand the importance of that report, and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out or request the information as to who that US official was.”

All of which, again, isn’t just legal. It’s routine, especially for someone in Rice’s position at the time.

“There’s certainly nothing illegal about it,” says [Carrie] Cordero [a national security lawyer who has worked directly on FISA process issues]. “The decision to request an unmask is a judgment call based on an individual’s national security responsibilities, and their need to understand the context.”

More interesting is the possible connection with Nunes's antics of late. "De-Derping the 'Un-Masking' Story"

Why did Cohen-Watnick and Michael Ellis, a junior lawyer who used to work for Chairman Nunes, call Nunes late in the evening and have him rush over to the White House to see the 'smoking gun' information that supposedly validated President Trump's 'Obama wiretapping' tweets? Remember, this overnight cloak and dagger stunt was followed the next day by Nunes going and 'briefing' President Trump about the new information.

So the White House briefs Nunes in the middle of the night and then Nunes returns to the White House in the morning to brief Trump?

That never made sense.

But it makes perfect sense if Cohen-Watnick (Mike Flynn's protege, remember) got shut down by [White House Counsel Donald] McGahn and then decided to backchannel his findings to Trump supporters on the Hill in order to do an end run around his bosses. It also explains why Nunes had to see the documents at the White House (likely at Ellis's or Cohen-Watnick's desk) rather than on Capitol Hill or at a relevant intelligence agency. Showing him the material anywhere else would have required letting others know what they were doing. Of course, it also explains why Nunes would need to brief Trump: because Cohen-Watnick probably wasn't allowed to do so directly.

This is, I grant, informed speculation. But it explains pretty much all the facts and mysteries about the Nunes overnight caper, his continuing inability to explain it in any clear or consistent way and his eventual refusal to discuss it with anyone else on his Committee.

[Forty Two]

I posted the news story, and you gripe I cited the Daily Caller....and then you cite "Talking Points Memo."

Look, I don't care what you cite. But the fact that right now there are two competing camps on this issue doesn't mean there is something wrong with posting the article for discussion. Thanks for the contribution, but it's not necessary to take a personal dig at me in the process. Are the only threads here that you think are allowable are ones that are about events that cannot be disputed?

The National Security Council's senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting the review, according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.

One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.

Last month when she was asked on the "PBS NewsHour" about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were swept up in incidental intelligence collection, Rice said: "I know nothing about this," adding, "I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today."

Rice's multiple requests to learn the identities of Trump officials discussed in intelligence reports during the transition period does highlight a longstanding concern for civil liberties advocates about U.S. surveillance programs. The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.

So, yes, he said likely within the law, but by a a "standard that can apply to almost anything."

much about this is highly unusual: if not how the surveillance was collected, then certainly how and why it was disseminated.

[Brian Peacock]

When the US intelligence agencies undertake surveillance of foreign individuals US citizens are often caught up in that surveillance. How could they not? But the identities of these people are kept secret in the investigation material - they are 'masked'.

The identity of those citizens can and may be 'unmasked' by the intelligence agencies if it's considered relevant to the investigation or necessary to understanding the context and/or content of the material, such as bank statements, meetings, or a surveilled conversation etc. These unmaskings do not involve publicly sharing the identity of the individuals. Requests are predominantly from, granted to, and limited to other federal agencies.

A national security adviser to the president is fully entitled to make such a request - that is; a request to the agency or agencies presenting material to 'unmask' the redacted identities of individuals in specific material. Such requests have to be justified on certain grounds, predominantly that the identity of the masked individual is pertinent to understanding the nature of the material.

If Rice did this it would have been to find out the identity of the individuals mentions in reports in order to understand those reports and possibly to make informed decisions, not to reveal the identities of people she already knew to be under investigation or to be swept up in surveillance.

Such a request is not an order.

A national security advisor to the president has no authority to order the intelligence agencies to disclose the masked identities of US citizens in material passed to them. The intelligence agencies themselves receive a request and have to decide if the 'unmasking' is relevant to the material and/or if it will have an impact on an investigation.

This whole story, which simultaneously 'broke' on Breibart and its surrogate and associated websites and outlets, is an equivocation on the word 'unmasking' and a lie about the scope and powers of a national security advisor to the president to 'order' an 'unmasking'. The question is, where would Breibart get such information and why would they misrepresent it, or have it misrepresented to them, so?

[Forty Two]

If Rice did this it would have been to find out the identity of the individuals mentions in reports in order to understand those reports and possibly to make informed decisions, not to reveal the identities of people she already knew to be under investigation or to be swept up in surveillance.

It "would have been?" Or, it was? Has Rice explained why she asked for the identities and made spreadsheets specifically of the Trump-related persons? What "investigation" was it relevant to, and why?

Such a request is not an order.

A national security advisor to the president has no authority to order the intelligence agencies to disclose the masked identities of US citizens in material passed to them. The intelligence agencies themselves receive a request and have to decide if the 'unmasking' is relevant to the material and/or if it will have an impact on an investigation.

Indeed, relevant to what material, in this case specifically?

[Brian Peacock]

If Rice did this it would have been to find out the identity of the individuals mentions in reports in order to understand those reports and possibly to make informed decisions, not to reveal the identities of people she already knew to be under investigation or to be swept up in surveillance.

It "would have been?" Or, it was? Has Rice explained why she asked for the identities and made spreadsheets specifically of the Trump-related persons? What "investigation" was it relevant to, and why?

Such a request is not an order.

A national security advisor to the president has no authority to order the intelligence agencies to disclose the masked identities of US citizens in material passed to them. The intelligence agencies themselves receive a request and have to decide if the 'unmasking' is relevant to the material and/or if it will have an impact on an investigation.

Indeed, relevant to what material, in this case specifically?

I don't know.. If you do let us know.

I used the interrogative conjunction there only for example - which seems pretty clear to me. I am certainly not suggesting she didn't make such a request.

Do you agree:

• that this was a legitimate request, not an order,
• that she didn't unmask anyone publicly, and that she wouldn't have known the identities of the masked individuals beforehand and therefore could not request they be unmasked on that basis,
• that it's appropriate for someone in her position to make these requests in relation to intelligence material a national security advisor to the president has every right to review.

[L'Emmerdeur]

. . . it's not necessary to take a personal dig at me in the process.

This from the person who can't get enough of pointing out the ridiculous antics of those who choose to be offended because of their super-sensitive political feels. Go ahead and quote me taking "a personal dig" at you in that post.

[pErvinalia]

Liberal: I my not agree with what you say, but I respect your right to say it.

42: Stock picking on me!

[Forty Two]

I don't know.. If you do let us know.

Rice would know, now wouldn't she? Also, others in the former administration who worked with her on the issue, they ought to know. And, the NSA ought to know, right? Nobody's talking yet.

Ought we assume they had a good reason and demonstrable relevance? Or, ought we ask them to show us? If we are to just trust them, does the law extend the same trust to the current administration? Should it?

I used the interrogative conjunction there only for example - which seems pretty clear to me.

I am certainly not suggesting she didn't make such a request. The word "order" was contained in the articles I read. The word "request" is used throughout various articles on the topic, and it appears that the implication is that a request from the President of the United States' National Security Adviser is not exactly "may I please, pretty please with sugar on top, if it's not too much trouble, have the names of the people in the Trump group who were masked in the intelligence snooping?" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ntel-bloo/

So, I will admit that I don't know if it was an order, or the equivalent of an order, or a request. However, even if it was a mere request, the unmasknig of the names is not supposed to be done as a matter of course, like a rubber stamp. Why she was requesting to see the names, and why she made spreadsheets of them, and who she distributed the info to is rather relevant to the question.

Do you agree:

• that this was a legitimate request, not an order,

I don't admit its legitimacy. Since legitimacy is a question that you have indicated depends on relevance to an existing investigation, neither of us knows if it's legitimate or not. I'm happy to call it a request, with the caveat that a request from the National Security Adviser to the President is not without potential equivalence to an order. But, admittedly, I do not know for sure. So, I will admit that she made various requests, but I do not admit that it is legitimate. I admit it could be legitimate. I think when people say it was "likely legal" they mean that she's not a fucking idiot, and if she wanted the information she wold give herself a colorable explanation for why she got it. Thing is, we don't know what that explanation is.

[*]that she didn't unmask anyone publicly, and that she wouldn't have known the identities of the masked individuals beforehand and therefore could not request they be unmasked on that basis,

No, but she would know that they were US citizens and she requested the unmasking of Trump related individuals, at least that is what I have gathered from reading this. It was known that Trump people were involved. Whether she disseminated it publicly is beside the point. The masking protection is not just to prevent doxing to the public. It's to prevent prosecutors, political operatives, and the like from getting the information.

The whole point of it was to justify the snooping. It was "we are going to snoop the fuck out of the calls to foreign officials, but don't worry, you US citizens are afforded plenty of protections..."

[*]that it's appropriate for someone in her position to make these requests in relation to intelligence material a national security advisor to the president has every right to review.[/list]

That begs the question. What relation did the category of persons unmasked have to a legitimate investigation? She doesn't have the right to unmask anyone she wants. There is a standard that must be met. Albeit, some of the articles I've read have said that the standard is extraordinarily weak, and she'd have to be pretty incompetent to not be able to form a coherent explanation as to why she would want to see the information, but that has been identified as one of the civil rights problems. It's a hollow protection that really is no protection at all for US citizens.

Reverse the parties here. Let's say it was John Hadley, George W. Bush's National Security Adviser, who asked for unmasking of the names of Obama group and transition team members who were picked up on the telephone communicating with foreign officials in November, December and January, 2008-09, and it was found out that the Bush Administration was basically investigating the incoming President's team. Same facts as are present with Rice. Would you post here that it was a big nothing?

[Forty Two]

. . . it's not necessary to take a personal dig at me in the process.

This from the person who can't get enough of pointing out the ridiculous antics of those who choose to be offended because of their super-sensitive political feels. Go ahead and quote me taking "a personal dig" at you in that post.

I may have misread your first paragraph, the business as usual bit, which I took to refer to my citation of a source you found not appropriately reliable. However, since you appear to be implying that you did not mean to take a personal dig at me, and I see that I may have misread the "business as usual" as applying to me rather than to the Rice issue, I withdraw my comment in that regard.

But, there is a difference between digs at a person on this forum, like if I take a poke at you, and laughing at people who are not on the forum. We're not supposed to personally attack other forum members. So, suggesting that I can't get enough of pointing out antics of others is not really a good analogy.

Also, I generally discuss issues, and I don't just mock people. If I see a riot or something, I post an article about it and open the floor for discussion about it. I fail to see what's wrong with my posting various person's antics. Lots of people post about antics on this forum. The whole news and current events section is practically dedicated to antics of various people or another. Isn't the reality here that you don't mind taking people to task for antics, you just prefer it to be other people's antics, right?

[Brian Peacock]

I don't know.. If you do let us know.

Rice would know, now wouldn't she? Also, others in the former administration who worked with her on the issue, they ought to know. And, the NSA ought to know, right? Nobody's talking yet.

Ought we assume they had a good reason and demonstrable relevance? Or, ought we ask them to show us? If we are to just trust them, does the law extend the same trust to the current administration? Should it?

I used the interrogative conjunction there only for example - which seems pretty clear to me.

I am certainly not suggesting she didn't make such a request. The word "order" was contained in the articles I read. The word "request" is used throughout various articles on the topic, and it appears that the implication is that a request from the President of the United States' National Security Adviser is not exactly "may I please, pretty please with sugar on top, if it's not too much trouble, have the names of the people in the Trump group who were masked in the intelligence snooping?" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ntel-bloo/

So, I will admit that I don't know if it was an order, or the equivalent of an order, or a request. However, even if it was a mere request, the unmasknig of the names is not supposed to be done as a matter of course, like a rubber stamp. Why she was requesting to see the names, and why she made spreadsheets of them, and who she distributed the info to is rather relevant to the question.

Do you agree:

• that this was a legitimate request, not an order,

I don't admit its legitimacy. Since legitimacy is a question that you have indicated depends on relevance to an existing investigation, neither of us knows if it's legitimate or not. I'm happy to call it a request, with the caveat that a request from the National Security Adviser to the President is not without potential equivalence to an order. But, admittedly, I do not know for sure. So, I will admit that she made various requests, but I do not admit that it is legitimate. I admit it could be legitimate. I think when people say it was "likely legal" they mean that she's not a fucking idiot, and if she wanted the information she wold give herself a colorable explanation for why she got it. Thing is, we don't know what that explanation is.

[*]that she didn't unmask anyone publicly, and that she wouldn't have known the identities of the masked individuals beforehand and therefore could not request they be unmasked on that basis,

No, but she would know that they were US citizens and she requested the unmasking of Trump related individuals, at least that is what I have gathered from reading this. It was known that Trump people were involved. Whether she disseminated it publicly is beside the point. The masking protection is not just to prevent doxing to the public. It's to prevent prosecutors, political operatives, and the like from getting the information.

The whole point of it was to justify the snooping. It was "we are going to snoop the fuck out of the calls to foreign officials, but don't worry, you US citizens are afforded plenty of protections..."

[*]that it's appropriate for someone in her position to make these requests in relation to intelligence material a national security advisor to the president has every right to review.[/list]

That begs the question. What relation did the category of persons unmasked have to a legitimate investigation? She doesn't have the right to unmask anyone she wants. There is a standard that must be met. Albeit, some of the articles I've read have said that the standard is extraordinarily weak, and she'd have to be pretty incompetent to not be able to form a coherent explanation as to why she would want to see the information, but that has been identified as one of the civil rights problems. It's a hollow protection that really is no protection at all for US citizens.

Reverse the parties here. Let's say it was John Hadley, George W. Bush's National Security Adviser, who asked for unmasking of the names of Obama group and transition team members who were picked up on the telephone communicating with foreign officials in November, December and January, 2008-09, and it was found out that the Bush Administration was basically investigating the incoming President's team. Same facts as are present with Rice. Would you post here that it was a big nothing?

I think you're muddying the waters there a bit. You seem to be saying that the public needs access to the actual intelligence material in order prove that Rice didn't do anything wrong. You know that asking someone to prove a negative is a logical fallacy don't you? You're also implying that the classified nature of the material is offering Rice some kind of protection which she shouldn't have.

Yes, Rice would know that the identities redacted in the material she was looking at were US citizens swept up in an intelligence investigation - no doubt that would be made clear in the material itself. So what?

Rice didn't 'unmask' anyone, nor did she order the intelligence agency to unmask anyone. The distinction is important. The president's national security advisor does not have that power, just the authority to make such a request. She would have to justify that request to the intelligence agency concerned, who are then responsible for making the actual decision. You seem reluctant to accept this point. The process is in the public domain - check it out.

This affair strikes me as yet another classic Trump distraction from certain pertinent facts, such as Russian involvement in the election and Trump's connections with Russia. I notice you're avoiding the question of where and how Briebart et al got hold of this information, why they chose to seriously misrepresent the process, or why it was perhaps misrepresented to them, and the eager attempts to imply malicious intent. Personally, I think this story has been put out by the Trump PR machine to trigger those already primed to accept its implications.

[Forty Two]

I think you're muddying the waters there a bit. You seem to be saying that the public needs access to the actual intelligence material in order prove that Rice didn't do anything wrong.

Not necessarily. She can explain the nature of the investigation and why she needed the information, or she can give that information to Senate committee who would oversee or investigate the matter. She doesn't get to just do things without ever having to explain her actions.

You know that asking someone to prove a negative is a logical fallacy don't you?

It's not a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is a type of argument. Asking a question is not a logical fallacy. And, sometimes you can prove negatives. https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosop ... gative.pdf

I haven't asked you to prove anything, by the way. Just to acknowledge that (a) Rice needs to have a reason to request the information related to an investigation, and (b) that we don't know what her alleged reason or need for the information was. We don't know.

You're also implying that the classified nature of the material is offering Rice some kind of protection which she shouldn't have.

I did not imply that. I don't know anything about the information. However, I think we are agreed that she isn't allowed to just unmask anyone she wants on her request, right? She needs a legitimate investigatory reason, yes? And, we don't know what that reason is, do we?

Yes, Rice would know that the identities redacted in the material she was looking at were US citizens swept up in an intelligence investigation - no doubt that would be made clear in the material itself. So what?

Not what i was referring to. Rice would know why she requested the information BEFORE she knew the information revealed by the unmasking. So, she can explain it to us. Her first explanation, about a month or so ago, was that she knew nothing about it. Odd, that. She knew nothing about it. Now, we know she made the requests. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/remem ... le/2619219

Rice didn't 'unmask' anyone, nor did she order the intelligence agency to unmask anyone. The distinction is important. The president's national security advisor does not have that power, just the authority to make such a request.

Which request must be based on something - it must meet some standard. She doesn't have carte blanche to ask that anyone she wants be unmasked.

She would have to justify that request to the intelligence agency concerned, who are then responsible for making the actual decision.

Bingo. What's the justification? We don't know. Rice does. She can tell us (the public), or she can tell a Congressional committee.

You seem reluctant to accept this point. The process is in the public domain - check it out.

I'm not at all reluctant to accept it. Where you stop is at the point that "she has to justify the request" is not the same thing as "she did, in fact, justify the request with something that makes sense."

This affair strikes me as yet another classic Trump distraction from certain pertinent facts, such as Russian involvement in the election and Trump's connections with Russia.

The entire "Russian involvement in the election" thing is a distraction, apparently. Nobody has shown any evidence that the Russians were involved in the election and nobody has shown any "connections with Russia." Have they? I know there is another thread on this, but I haven't seen anything much on that. The hacker items have been severely discredited, there is the piss-gate thing which was absolutely absurd, and there are these phone calls which nobody alleges are anything improper at all. Yet, the Democrats still seem to say that Trump is Putin's man.

I notice you're avoiding the question of where and how Briebart et al got hold of this information, why they choose to seriously misrepresent the process, or why it was perhaps misrepresented to them, and imply malicious intent. Personally, I think this story has been put out by the Trump PR machine to trigger those already primed to accept its implications.

I never cited Breitbart. I thought it was revealed to Bloomberg. See the links above. The names of the people who broke the story are in there. Nobody misrepresented the process, except, perhaps the use of the word "order" instead of "request." But, that's semantics. Rice, of course, did misrepresent something, when she said she knew nothing about it.

Maybe it is from the Trump PR machine. I don't know. I still don't know why Rice needed these people unmasked, and I still don't know why she said she didn't know anything about it.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Pointing out that you're citing a known unreliable source is not a "personal dig," Forty Two. I said nothing negative about you personally, and unless you identify so strongly with the "Daily Caller" that you take a negative comment about their shoddy journalistic standards as a personal offense, you have no basis for asserting that I've attacked you. You've cited the Daily Caller in the past here as if it were a reliable source, thus "business as usual."

The "Daily Caller" is bought and paid for by a Koch Bros. associate, and has a record of using dishonest smear tactics.

"Soros Subject: The Daily Caller lied and falsely reported that 16 states would be using voting machines controlled by a company with 'deep links' to George Soros."

"Daily Caller Caught Lying Again"

"Pearls Before Whine: Comments made by Josh Earnest about diplomatic relations with Japan around the 2016 anniversary of Pearl Harbor did not include a directive that veterans should 'get over it.'"

If you have evidence that the award winning Talking Points Memo has an equally discreditable record, I'm interested in seeing it. You'll note that the author of the TPM piece clearly differentiates between known facts and his personal interpretation of events. As far as I can see there is no dishonesty in that piece.

On the other hand the Daily Caller piece is promoting a bald assertion by diGenova that Rice's actions were illegal (no mention of what statute Rice supposedly violated). Later, it promotes an equally unevidenced assertion that Rice's actions were politically motivated. It also repeats the out of context misrepresentation of the Farkas comment. This is standard fare for the Daily Caller; I learned long ago not to trust anything posted there.

[Brian Peacock]

@42
As the national security advisor to the president Rice would have to convince the intelligence agency that the detail was necessary 'to understanding the context and/or content of the material' provided for review. The agency assess that claim and make a decision accordingly. If a request is refused and contested there is a closed arbitration process for dealing with it.

What I'm saying is that what Rice did was unremarkable, and unless Trump has signed an executive order I'm not aware of, the same conditionality applies to the current presidential national security advisor. What is remarkable is the attempt to make political capital out of such scant pickigs, and perhaps that this has all boiled up the day after Bannon was booted off the joint intelligence advisory committee. I'm not saying that that fact in itself cast doubts about the providence of the information, but the timing is interesting and the spin from Breibart et al is certainly co-ordinated and consistent. That is... curious, to say the least.

You fell for these kind of irrelevant 'concerns' with the released report summary on Russian involvement in the election - something pretty much everybody agrees happened. The problem here is that the Republicans and Trump are doing their best to make the investigation into the extent of Russian interference and Trump's connections with Russia a partisan issue. It isn't - or at least it shouldn't be. At the moment the Republican/Trump response to questions about whether Trump may have done a bad thing is to simply declare that Obama did a bad things too. You do realise that this line of argument seeks to legitimise turpitude on the basis of someone else's turpitude don't you? Are you comfortable with that kind of childishness being played out on this stage in this manner?

This latest mess is yet another reason why an independent special prosecutor with powers to subpoena should be chairing a cross-party commission into the Trump-Russia business. Republican voters have just as much stake in knowing if and how their democratic systems might have been compromised or undermined as Democrat voters - and both should be asking their elected representatives to support such an independent commission.

[Brian Peacock]