"Obama wiretapped Trump Tower - well, just kidding, dunno really"

[Kidlicious]

did she request transcripts and unmasking names of other people?
why didn't she (and Obama) disclose the stuff before the election?

According to Evelyn Farkas as much information as possible was collected and given to as many people as possible. Some information was leaked out that's how Flynn got fired.

[Berzerker]

did the leaks happen before or after the election?

you're not answering my questions, so I'll assume you dont have the information I'd like before making a judgement.

you're accusing this woman, is she the leaker?

so far I'm left believing some people in the intel industry dont like the Trumpets and thought we the people should know about their relationship with the russians

[Kidlicious]

did the leaks happen before or after the election?

you're not answering my questions, so I'll assume you dont have the information I'd like before making a judgement.

you're accusing this woman, is she the leaker?

so far I'm left believing some people in the intel industry dont like the Trumpets and thought we the people should know about their relationship with the russians

Nobody has all the information.

IDK if she personally leaked information. Someone did. They spread the information around.

Yes, it looks like Trump has enemies in the government, including the IC. If they have dirt on him why aren't they leaking that?

[Berzerker]

IDK if she personally leaked information

so why are you accusing her and Obama?

seems to me they would have leaked this before the election

how do you know it aint republicans leaking?

[Kidlicious]

so why are you accusing her and Obama?

seems to me they would have leaked this before the election

how do you know it aint republicans leaking?

There are two issues. One is the leaks. The other is spying on political opponents. Both are horrible. Also, the information was given to others, making in more likely to be leaked.

[kentonio]

There are two issues. One is the leaks. The other is spying on political opponents. Both are horrible. Also, the information was given to others, making in more likely to be leaked.

Funny how you don't give a single damn about the idea of his people talking to Russian spies. When did partisan politics start to come above country for you?

[Kidlicious]

Funny how you don't give a single damn about the idea of his people talking to Russian spies. When did partisan politics start to come above country for you?

Talking to Russians is not a crime. I'm not a New McCarthyist like you people.

[Berzerker]

There are two issues. One is the leaks. The other is spying on political opponents. Both are horrible. Also, the information was given to others, making in more likely to be leaked.

Yes, I can see you're just devastated about the hacking and leaking of Democrat accounts.

Talking to Russians is not a crime. I'm not a New McCarthyist like you people.

Depends on what they're talking about, but you are accusing people while admitting you dont even know if they're guilty.

[Broken_Erika]

The New MacCarthyism is brought to you by Breitbart,

[grumbler]

No. Wiretapping is legal, with a warrant BTW. It doesn't matter that they didn't wiretap. Not one bit. You are uselessly focussing on that claim. The phone conversations were already recorded. The IC was analysing them and using them in their investigation, AND THE NAMES WERE MASKED. Then the WH requested that the names be unmasked and the documents be sent to the WH. Again, the WH is not supposed to do criminal investigation. That is what the IC is for.

Now the issue is why we're the names unmasked at the request of the WH when the IC had not unmasked the names prior to that in their investigation. That's what we need to know, and we don't.

WTF?! No intelligence official has said that there is an investigation. The fake news has not even reported that.



Having conversations with Russian agents means NOTHING! Big fat zero! I don't care who is suspicious. You can be suspicious of whoever you want. What you can't do is spy on your political opponents because you are suspicious of them. Anyone who says that is an insane authoritarian!

The White House officials are know, in intelligence parlance, as "users." They are the people for whom the IC collects information. Users can request unmasking when they need to know the identities of the other parties to a conversation in order to use the information collected. The WH had no way of knowing that the other people in the conversations with the Russians were Trumpeters. The names were unmasked because of intelligence needs. Unsurprisingly, they were Trumpeters.

The IC never unmasks US citizen participants in foreign collection operations - they don't need to. Intelligence analysts already know the identities of all parties to a conversation. The names are masked before the intelligence is delivered to users. It is users who decide when unmasking is necessary. This has been true for as long as the FISA has been in place.

What, precisely, is being investigated by the FBI is classified for the moment. Illegal collusion with the Russians is certainly on the table.

[Kidlicious]

Yes, I can see you're just devastated about the hacking and leaking of Democrat accounts.

Do you understand what an abuse of power is? Whoever hacked Hillary and the DNC did not abuse authority. No I do not agree with hacking, but it's not the same thing. An abuse if power is very serious.

Depends on what they're talking about, but you are accusing people while admitting you dont even know if they're guilty.

She said that she didn't know anything about it. Then when they found out she admitted it. So why did she deny it? Why isn't ANYONE coming forward about this to help the investigation? The IC is helping but some anonymous sources told FOXNEWS that the IC is stonewalling. That's really really bad. If that's true we have a very serious problem.

[Kidlicious]

The White House officials are know, in intelligence parlance, as "users." They are the people for whom the IC collects information. Users can request unmasking when they need to know the identities of the other parties to a conversation in order to use the information collected. The WH had no way of knowing that the other people in the conversations with the Russians were Trumpeters. The names were unmasked because of intelligence needs. Unsurprisingly, they were Trumpeters.

The IC never unmasks US citizen participants in foreign collection operations - they don't need to. Intelligence analysts already know the identities of all parties to a conversation. The names are masked before the intelligence is delivered to users. It is users who decide when unmasking is necessary. This has been true for as long as the FISA has been in place.

What, precisely, is being investigated by the FBI is classified for the moment. Illegal collusion with the Russians is certainly on the table.

I don't know where you are getting all of this. Only high level intelligence officers can make a decision to unmask. They only do so if it is necessary for the investigation. Rice should never have asked for names to be unmasked because she isn't an investigator. She can ask for reports. If names are masked it's because they don't need to be unmasked for purposes of the investigation.

So we still don't know what is going on. She hasn't explained. But she will have to if they put her under oath and ask her questions, which hopefully happens. If it doesn't it means one of two things. One she had good reason and your conspiracy theory is correct. Or two, that our government is very corrupt and we are now living in a banana republic.

[grumbler]

I don't know where you are getting all of this. Only high level intelligence officers can make a decision to unmask. They only do so if it is necessary for the investigation. Rice should never have asked for names to be unmasked because she isn't an investigator. She can ask for reports. If names are masked it's because they don't need to be unmasked for purposes of the investigation.

So we still don't know what is going on. She hasn't explained. But she will have to if they put her under oath and ask her questions, which hopefully happens. If it doesn't it means one of two things. One she had good reason and your conspiracy theory is correct. Or two, that our government is very corrupt and we are now living in a banana republic.

I get this from personal experience and from knowing how the FISA system works. Unmasking is not done at the request of "investigators;" it is done at the request of users, like Rice. Names are masked automatically, and unmasked if the user can make a case that the intelligence needs to be unmasked to make sense of it. We don't know what is "going on" because the information is classified. Even unmasked portions of classified reports are classified. There is no conspiracy here. This is how the system works, even if you want to make it something else. There is a case to be made that "our government is very corrupt and we are now living in a banana republic," but that has far more to do with Trump's unwillingness to disentangle himself from his business interests while serving in an office that makes his businesses money, and his administration's general ignorance and arrogance.

[Kidlicious]

I get this from personal experience and from knowing how the FISA system works. Unmasking is not done at the request of "investigators;" it is done at the request of users, like Rice. Names are masked automatically, and unmasked if the user can make a case that the intelligence needs to be unmasked to make sense of it. We don't know what is "going on" because the information is classified. Even unmasked portions of classified reports are classified. There is no conspiracy here. This is how the system works, even if you want to make it something else. There is a case to be made that "our government is very corrupt and we are now living in a banana republic," but that has far more to do with Trump's unwillingness to disentangle himself from his business interests while serving in an office that makes his businesses money, and his administration's general ignorance and arrogance.

This is being investigated by the SIC. We can't see the documents, but the investigators need to see them. Anyone with information has a duty to cooperate with the investigation. That's not happening, and it matters that it isn't.

Rice is a liar. She lied about this, which makes her a suspect, period.

[kentonio]

This is being investigated by the SIC. We can't see the documents, but the investigators need to see them. Anyone with information has a duty to cooperate with the investigation. That's not happening, and it matters that it isn't.

Rice is a liar. She lied about this, which makes her a suspect, period.

And yet again you seem to be completely ignoring the elephant in the room, which is not the unmasking of names in an intelligence document, but rather the subject of those documents in the first place. The allegations are that the President of the United States and his political team colluded with Russian intelligence agencies to fix an American election, with the added possibility that the Russians have blackmail materials on the President.

Now you might think that is not likely. You might think the whole thing is bull**** even, but even if you think that, is it not logical and sensible to support an independant investigator to clear the whole thing up? Yet you seem to not give these allegations a seconds consideration, yet you're livid about some crap about unmasking names, which in the grand scheme of things wouldn't even come close to the dynamite allegations being posed the other way.

At some point you either care about your country and its reputation, or you're a stooge for a political party no matter what. Chose one.