UPDATE: Susan Rice Confirms Her “Unmasking Requests” Were for President Obama’s Daily Briefing (PDB)…

With a general set of narrative ‘talking points’ in hand President Obama’s Former National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, appeared this morning on MSNBC for an interview with Andrea Mitchell.  This is the ‘We-Have-To-Respond-phase‘,  which necessitates the optic.

Andrea Mitchell is considered a trustworthy ally of the Clinton/Obama political networks; as such, it is not a surprise to see Mitchell selected as the interviewer.  Mitchell’s use of wording carefully guides Susan Rice through the narrow path of self-incrimination by providing plausible deniability for verbal missteps.

You already know the routine.  MSNBC is the favorable proprietary venue. Mitchell plays the role of media-legal-adviser, her client is Susan Rice.  Live interviews are always the greatest risk (see: Evelyn Farkas)  The full interview is below:

However, that said, there are some interesting aspects to the interview:

Susan Rice @00:51 – …”Let me explain how this works.  I was a National Security Adviser, my job is to protect the American people and the security of our country.  That’s the same as the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and CIA Director.; and every morning, to enable us to do that, we receive – from the intelligence community – a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us –on a daily basis– to give us the best information as to what’s going on around the world.”

[Note, Susan Rice is describing the PDB]

“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to.  Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.

And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”

OK, so right there, in the very beginning of the forward narrative, Susan Rice is confirming the “unmasking” request(s) which can be pinned upon her, are directly related to her need to understand -on behalf of President Obama- intelligence for the President’s Daily Briefing (the PDB).  This was a previous question now answered.

This is EXPLOSIVE, and here’s why.

Remember, the President’s Daily Brief under President Obama went to almost everyone at top levels in his administration.  Regarding the Obama PDB:

[…]  But while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.

In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers.

By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments. (link)

Pay attention to that last part.  According to the Washington Post outline Obama’s PDB’s were going to: “Deputy Secretaries of national security departments”.

Today, Susan Rice defined the Obama national security departments to include: “State” – “Defense” (Pentagon includes NSA) and “CIA”….

So under Obama’s watch Deputy Asst. Secretaries of Defense had daily access to the PDB.  And who was an Obama Deputy Secretary of Defense?

.

See how that works?

.

Susan Rice is admitting to “unmasking” names within intelligence reports to give her context for how they pertain to the overall briefing material.   That briefing material is the PDB. That PDB goes to dozens of political people and political entities, including former Asst. Deputy of Defense, Evelyn Farkas.

Susan Rice unmasked names for the PDB which was also shared with Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense, Evelyn Farkas.

Now, go back to Farkas’s March 2nd MSNBC statement for additional context:

“I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill [Democrat politicians], it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration.”

Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.

So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more.  We have very good intelligence on Russia; so then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to the Hill.  … That’s why you had the leaking”.

[Link to Farkas MSNBC Interview and Transcript]

.

That right there is the story.  With dozens of people with access to President Obama’s PDB, Rice’s unmasking of the intelligence report names gave dozens of people direct access to unmasked intelligence – including Obama officials who could, perhaps did, use the PDB for specific and intentional political purposes, as outlined by Evelyn Farkas who was one of the recipients of the unmasked intelligence.

.

If you know how concentric circle political safety is constructed, you will notice that Susan Rice is now hugging the security of the Presidency.   No space.  To take Rice down, means to take down President Obama – safe play on her part.

Reverse the safety.   No-one in media or congress is going to allow President Obama to be taken down; ergo, everyone will protect Susan Rice.  They have no choice.

[Also note how when shifting from rehearsed talking point (script) to cognitive explanation of Rices’ point , the noun shifts from “U.S. Person” to “U.S. Official”.]

“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to.  Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.

And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”

It’s subtle (like a Freudian slip), but Rice accidentally outlines her filter, her psychological trigger, for when to request the unmasking.  She’s looking for the politics behind the intelligence.  She’s looking for “U.S. Officials” in masked intelligence reports.

Mrs. Rice then follows up with a “hypothetical example” that is ridiculous as she describes.  The example provided (a sketchy dude in mom’s basement) would NEVER reach the level of PDB; it would be pre-filtered, researched and reviewed for value.  The PDB NEVER contains such banal information as Rice describes.

The interview goes much further.  There is a lot of news in this interview.  There is also a tremendous amount of double-speak and self-contradiction; in some cases between sentences that follow each other.

Notice how Susan Rice contradicts herself about what the intelligence community puts into the PDB.  Remember, Rice considers the PDB intel community to be very specific:  James Clapper (DNI), John Brennan (CIA) and Defense Department (which would be the Pentagon and NSA Mike Rogers).  And she states they would never send the President innocuous things unworthy of review….

.

.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, CIA, Conspiracy ?, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Desperately Seeking Hillary, DHS, Election 2016, media bias, Notorious Liars, NSA, President Trump, propaganda, Russia, Susan Rice, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

674 Responses to UPDATE: Susan Rice Confirms Her “Unmasking Requests” Were for President Obama’s Daily Briefing (PDB)…

  1. The most amazing thing of all ( a miracle perhaps) is that Trump actually ended up winning the Presidency . We all knew the MSM , GOPe backstabbers, the agenda polls , the Hillary machine and voter fraud were full bore in his face every day of the campaign . . We didn’t know ( maybe he did) about the dirty trick surveillance, which, if they had picked up the tiniest , slightest thing to sink him, would have been leaked at warp speed with full media coordination. I really think a lesser man and a traditional regular politician would have fallen into their surveillance trap and I really think the bad actors in the Obama cartel certainly had that expectation as well . .

    Liked by 36 people

  2. Andrew J Falsinator says:

    Liked by 14 people

  3. MfM says:

    It’s always been clear to me that Trump won because the Democrats couldn’t cheat enough. Now it’s become clear that it wasn’t just the Democrat Party it was the whole of Washington intelligence weaponized against Trump.

    That’s why Trump couldn’t seem to get a ‘Preference Cascade’ going, at this point there whole game of dirty politics should be falling apart, but the loyal Democrat base is just getting angry not felling betrayed.

    I wish they could find evidence on spying against Bernie… I hope that is to come.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. maxmbj says:

    I’ve discovered the best comeback to any shill argument: Trump won. That one fact, stated with gusto, really, really sets off shills. And when they punch back, you simply say it again.

    Trump won, shills. He’s changing everything. And he’ll win again.

    Sucks for you, doesn’t it?

    Liked by 16 people

  5. angryduc says:

    They requested a FISA during the Obama/Jarrett failed coup of Turkey. …. it wasn’t an accident, it wasn’t incidental

    it was to unmask the person who foiled the coup in Turkey that would have placed US Nukes either under Muslim Brotherhood control or directly Iran. That is why Turkey’s Erdogan blamed Obama for the coup attempt.

    This is why Flynn consulted Erdogan. Flynn saved the world from Nuclear Holocaust.

    Liked by 19 people

  6. Unfortunately for the skunks who ran this operation, there are dozens or scores of civil service functionaries who know the details of how this operated.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. kenmar1965 says:

    Thanks Sundance for posting this update.
    I was thinking that the PDB only went to the POTUS.
    I also assume/assumed that once names were unmasked, they were only visible “upwards”, to people with higher security clearances….not laterally, or downward.

    Liked by 5 people

  8. Of course, the 1st person Rice would speak to in the media would be Andrea Mitchell. They are literally as thick as thieves.

    Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan, a founding member of the Trilateral Commission, of which Susan Rice was a member until her Obama appointment as Ambassador to the UN.

    Zbigniew Brzezinski was also a founder of the Trilateral Commission, and since his daughter Mika co-hosts Morning Joe on MSNBC, be looking for an appearance by Rice there, too.

    Liked by 8 people

  9. maxmbj says:

    Roy Williams, by the way, revealed that he’s an arse. He said he’d have to think about coming to the White House. I hadn’t known he was an arse till now. Glad he outed himself. Now I can root against a north Carolina with gusto.

    #RoyWilliamsIsAnArse

    Like

  10. JoD says:

    Nunes “viewed” the info on 3/27, but also said that he was “aware” of the info back in January.
    He also stated recently that he knew who the “unmasker” was. We don’t know when he became aware of the identity of the “unmasker”….Susan Rice. (If any of this crap is to be believed.)
    Note that on 3/20 while questioning Comey (he’s not our homey), Gowdy specifically asked who would have access to “unmasked” name(s). James Clapper? John Brennan? Ben Rhodes?
    Susan Rice? IMO, no coincidence. Probably 1/2 of Congress knew it was her. It is very possible that Susie knew for days, weeks or even months that they were going to identify her as the “unmasker”. She would have had ample time to prepare for the big reveal and could count on the help of the Demomedia to run to the rescue.
    I don’t think that Joe Blow or Josie Blow have any idea how well the Uni-party orchestrates all of this BS behind the scenes.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Ross says:

      So Comey was clever to only answer directly to the names mentioned. There were a lot more people who knew the unmasked people given the above saying the PDB went to 30 odd people.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Joe S says:

    HAs anyone searched Anthony Weiner’s computer for the PDBs with dates beginning after Hillary left state?

    Liked by 8 people

    • nonniemae says:

      Don’t you wish a team of regular people who work, pay their taxes and have common sense could ask the freaking questions? It seems like the congressional committees play patty cakes with these liars.

      Liked by 4 people

    • bofh says:

      I think that whatever is on Weiner’s computer is so frightening that it will never be allowed to see the light of day. Sort of a Mutually-assured-destruction kind of defense.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. WSB says:

    “I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to. Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.

    And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and asses it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”

    So, I am confused. I understand that this looks as though Rice was attempting to self-correct. However, The PDB is domestic and international, I assume. So, is it possible Susan Rice is speaking about unmasking US officials talking to US Persons? And then is it possible there was domestic surveillance on US Persons?

    At Nunes’ presser, outside the WH, he said there was no connection to Russia in the material he saw. However, he did not say if there were any other INTERNATIONAL connections? So is it possible that he saw domestic surveillance, and was ‘US Person’ unmasked with the domestic surveillance product? If so, it could only be due to an FBI investigation, no?

    Like

  13. BMG says:

    Where the heck is Sessions? Awfully quiet at the DOJ. Perhaps waiting for Rosenstein & Gorsuch to be approved? If so, someone in the Oval Office has got to wake up Turtles McConnel and get these approvals done. Isn’t this Pence’ job; Head Honcho liaison to Congress?
    Seems all he’s doing is swearing in those nominees that have been approved. AI Robot can do that. Not impressed.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Gabriel says:

    From an article at FoxNews:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/04/04/former-cia-analyst-susan-rices-nsa-demasking-denials-dont-add-up.html

    “As a former CIA analyst who has handled requests for demasking the names of American citizens for a U.S. policymaker, I thought Rice’s claims in her interview did not add up.”

    “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. ”

    “Rice also said there is an Intelligence Community process to review whether to approve demasking requests. This seemed to be an attempt by Rice to make her requests look legitimate because NSA carefully reviewed them. ”

    “In fact, this review is pro forma. If a senior official gives what appears to be a national security reason, demasking requests are almost always approved. “

    Liked by 11 people

    • Chewbarkah says:

      It would seem that the logs will show the frequency of Rice’s requests for unmasking over a long period, as well as the types of material she typically requested unmasking for. My guess is that her anti-Trump unmasking was contrary to her established pattern. I wonder if she unmasked any of the Clinton pay-tp-play operations with the Russians.

      Liked by 8 people

    • Charles says:

      I too was going to post your excerpts… they are germane.

      I would also not however that “[demasking requests] actually are not routine and taken very seriously by NSA.” … “In fact, this review is pro forma.”

      This needs elaboration.

      “pro forma review” of demasking requests by whom???

      The NSA take such requests very seriously, but a “pro forma review” is not serious. So who does pro forma reviews?

      Liked by 2 people

    • sundance says:

      Ergo a pissed off Mike Rogers.

      .

      Just Sayin’ 😀

      Liked by 4 people

  15. GREENMIRROR says:

    Citizen “The Deep State” is fiction.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Chewbarkah says:

    Rice’s comments create a strong possibility that someone in the IC was feeding her, by prior arrangement, raw anti-Trump material for her to unmask and distribute through the PDB or otherwise. The sort of things that Flynn and Manafort seemed to be involved in were not PDB level. This was all an arranged game in which Rice was just one player.

    Liked by 4 people

  17. littlebird160 says:

    Liked by 2 people

  18. mccall1981 says:

    House Intelligence Committee Will Ask Susan Rice to Testify:

    Liked by 2 people

  19. trapper says:

    So, just as Rice was the face of the phony video narrative on Benghazi, she is now the face of the phony Russia hacking narrative. Does she volunteer to be ridiculous, or does she just have a natural talent for it?

    Liked by 7 people

  20. Daniel says:

    Why would the PDBs go to so many people? To answer that, I’m reminded of the mob boss’s way of issuing orders. They don’t issue orders… the directives are implied in other ways.

    The Obama administration needs to be prosecuted under RICO. There will not likely be a smoking gun that takes down Obama specifically.

    Liked by 6 people

    • judyw says:

      And I am still waiting for the “sick” part of Trump’s tweet to be revealed. That word was used for a reason.

      Liked by 6 people

      • The Boss says:

        Good point…

        Liked by 2 people

      • missmarple2 says:

        I absolutely agree. From the visceral outrage President Trump dislayyed in his tweets (and particularly that “sick” comment, I inferredthat family members were spied on and personal details were given to Obama. Whether this was medical information or relationship problems or whatever, something upset President Trump a lot.

        And that means he will NOT let this go.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Sylvia Avery says:

          This is what I have been thinking, also. I have been speculating, endlessly, and without any information at all but what if Melania called her folks at home in Slovenia (ding! ding! ding! foreigners! Almost Russians!) and happens to mention a health issue, a female complaint or something, or a health issue regarding Barron? If I were the President I would be ballistic. His tweet had a real tone of personal outrage. And face it, normal people would share that feeling.

          Liked by 3 people

      • Fe says:

        Yes I made this point myself earlier this week in another thread.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ronheinzkaboot says:

        has to mean they were spying on a family member. Ivanka? They disseminated embarrassing info on her. That’s the first thing I thought of when I saw “sick”
        But even just listening to his cell conversations with his friends is “sick” when you think about it.

        Like

        • judyw says:

          Oh, I didn’t even allow myself to imagine what it could be but that makes perfect sense…one thing for sure, we are more likely to know sooner what Trump meant by “sick” than we know who Obama really is and where he came from!

          Like

  21. Howie says:

    We don’t need no Intelligence Coverup Committee
    We don’t need no FBI ongoing coverup investigation
    We don’t need no CIA
    We don’t need no MSM
    Hey, all we need is Sundance
    Leave those crooks behind

    Streaming Sunshine at CTH

    Liked by 7 people

  22. Gabriel says:

    I would guess someone has some serious dirt on her. Have never seen anyone throw themselves under the bus the way she has.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Donna in Oregon says:

    Rice lied, Obama spied….

    Liked by 6 people

    • Paul Killinger says:

      You’ve hit the nail on the head…

      Susan Rice didn’t dream up the “unmasking” of otherwise anonymous “US persons” on her own.

      She was following orders by doing what her President ASKED HER TO DO!

      Like

  24. gary says:

    Sundance!
    I have only one thing to say to you , sir ….

    Brilliant Article you wrote, … simply brilliant!

    Hopefully Hannity , Carton,and others will pick up on it, and THIS TIME give you credit for your research.

    Go Sundance Go

    And
    Go Trump Go

    Liked by 7 people

  25. doofusdawg says:

    the key is that Nunes said that the reports he saw had nothing to do with Russia. Rice’s only defense is that everything she did was in support of the ongoing Trump/Russia investigation. Go get her Trey.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Paul Killinger says:

      I would rather rely on the freshmen Congresswoman from NY for probing questions.

      Trey’s inquiries have an unfortunate history of going Nowhere.

      Liked by 1 person

  26. jeans2nd says:

    In this interview, one small item was heard more than once. Rice says that Rice was not the only person asking for the unmasking. Rice says more than once that other persons were also asking for unmasking of U.S. Person(s). One would think the White House logs could confirm or repudiate that as false.

    One question not clear to me. Obama asked for additional info on “Russian hacking” supposedly in Jan 2017 iirc. Would that info requested be included in the PDB, or in a separate report? Or does that even matter?

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Steven Hitt says:

    I am looking forward to some indictments…….at least for the scape goats that stand in for that sorry bastard Obama.

    Liked by 1 person

    • farmhand1927 says:

      If there was at least one high profile indictment, the nameless, faceless Deep Stater’s embedded down in office cubicles would likely get worried that the lid is about to blow and hopefully some would come forward as whistleblowers.

      Like

  28. Mary's lamb says:

    All the surveillance they did on Trump and they’ve got nothing but an old Access Hollywood tape.

    We have a winner. Thank God.

    Liked by 5 people

    • andi lee says:

      Which, by the way, was illegally obtained and illegally released. California has a “two-party” consent law. I’m positive, DJT did not “consent” to the recording, aside from the fact, he didn’t “do” anything illegal, because he aknowledged “willingness” of a wanton woman.

      Liked by 2 people

  29. Richard_Iowa says:

    Ahhhhhhh, the ol’ “get the classified info for the PDB so it can be deseminated” trick. Well, that should be easily verified. Maxwell Smart and Agent 99 would be proud. So much fake news to read, and so little time.

    Like

  30. Howie says:

    The boss is saving the ‘Last Sundance’

    Liked by 2 people

  31. mcfyre2012 says:

    It’s always a show to watch when the democrats get busted in their shenanigans. For the past decade, I’m always left in a quandary…which is the greater problem with the democrats?

    That they’re mean and evil? Or that they’re so inept and incompetent at what they do?

    I miss the days of intrigue and plausible deniability. Nowadays, it’s just absurdity.

    Liked by 3 people

  32. I want my innocence back!! As Sundance says, once you see the strings, you can’t help but see the marionettes. I’m sick to my stomach at the thought that there will be yet another theatrical performance on Capitol Hill, while nothing of consequence happens to the traitors of this country. Why isn’t the media clamoring for info as to the specific whereabouts of their beloved Prince Obama? The one who said he wasn’t going away quietly. Why isn’t he commenting, even from afar?? He never ceased to wag that finger at us for 8 years and give his unsolicited two cents. I want the same energy that has been expended trying to malign and impugn our President spent on tracking that wad down and exposing him for the evil he is. Apologies in advance for the whining — I’m into a 2nd glass of Pinot, so the wine-ing is officially on.

    Liked by 6 people

  33. Tyler McKinley says:

    She’ll walk. No protected person is ever held accountable. Now if were one of us bozos; they’d hang us. Not a protected person though. Farkas is another protected person. Lerner another.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. gamecock123 says:

    I agree with Sundance that this will be a dead fish like Benghazi. I expected as much when those Rino’s were calling for Trump to “explain himself” but most of all, the lack of defending Trump when we all knew Trump wouldnt have tweeted that had unless it was true. I believe alot of them are in on it. In fact, Id bet the ranch and my horses on it. And therefore lies my problem. I expect the liberals to be my enemy and try to destroy my values and all.. I get it and I can take it. I respect it cause at least they honest about it.. their dislike of me. But those Rinos, those CONservatives that used me over and over….I cant take them no more. Campaign on one thing and turned around stab us in the back every chance they get. I agree Obama aint going down but why not McCain. I know I may sound crazy, maybe I am but I’d gladly to whatever leverage I had on the democrats and use it to set free for an info in exchange to take down McCain, Graham, Ryan, McConnell and Rubio and put the rest on notice. Dont tread on me!

    Liked by 4 people

  35. WSB says:

    I just heard the word ‘Executive Privilege”. Is it possible for a former President to be able to grant that?

    Like

    • gamecock123 says:

      That good question. It should just be for himself. He was elected but those other buffoons werent

      Liked by 1 person

    • andi lee says:

      Obama & lawyers already attempted through draconian law (Magna Carta) – “A King does no wrong”. FAIL.

      Liked by 1 person

    • John Gardner says:

      That’s an issue worth a google or two! I doubt he can do it retrospectively; rather, he (and/or she) will argue both he and she (as his agent) had it all along and that any violations resulted from the President’s exercise of judgement or discretion in the execution of duties as established by the constitution or law and are therefore unprosecutable. IMHO, the nexus between national security issues and what these people actually did is a real stretch — WAY beyond what I would be prepared to accept.

      Before barfing, recall that President Trump’s defense of his immigration hiatus EO essentially says the same thing. The difference, of course, is that Trump has very specific statutory and Constitutional authority (clearly intended to give him, and only him, full authority to determine who will or won’t be admitted into the US) behind him which is directly on point (and, there are court cases upholding his view).

      Liked by 1 person

  36. dayallaxeded says:

    Dirty Rice and a side of Beef

    Liked by 2 people

  37. Ted says:

    So many things wrong with this, but right off the bat Why the hell wasn’t this her excuse earlier if she was just doing her job. “Nothing to see here…. Just doin’ my job. Perfectly reasonable. Everybody does this. Would a told ya sooner and saved everyone a lot f time, but…. Well ,frankly I just thought of this.”

    Liked by 2 people

  38. Been waiting my whole adult life for the carnage that is about to eat through the human debris in DC. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

    Liked by 4 people

  39. Eaglemom says:

    Interesting……..Andrew McCarthy of National Review really breaks down what Rice was really doing……

    Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies. (FBI,CIA,NSA)

    The national-security adviser is not an investigator. She is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic-party interests.

    To summarize: At a high level, officials like Susan Rice had names unmasked that would not ordinarily be unmasked. That information was then being pushed widely throughout the intelligence community in unmasked form . . . particularly after Obama, toward the end of his presidency, suddenly — and seemingly apropos of nothing — changed the rules so that all of the intelligence agencies (not just the collecting agencies) could have access to raw intelligence information.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446415/susan-rice-unmasking-trump-campaign-members-obama-administration-fbi-cia-nsa

    Liked by 4 people

  40. fangdog says:

    The most important for Donald Trump with the greatest impact with voters will be restoring America; “No one is above the law”. People may not fully understand; immigration, health care, tax reform and regulations, however, Americans do understand injustice when they see it applied in a two-law society. No greater justice than, “Everyone equal in the eyes of the law”.

    This will be the Trumps greatest triumph.

    Liked by 3 people

  41. Charles says:

    http://lawnewz.com/opinion/susan-rice-may-have-committed-crime-if-she-circulated-trump-team-intercepts-for-politicized-purposes/

    “The key question now is simple: what legal basis did Susan Rice have to order the unmasking of Trump team members? If the information was inadequate to justify a FISA warrant (or the Obama White House wanted to keep some members of the intelligence community out of the loop?), what permissible purpose justified the unmasking? How significant is this?”

    “Some defenders of Rice suggests she could label anything she wanted of “foreign intelligence value,” under the implementing regulatory protocols and thereby label it “foreign intelligence information” under the statute. The law is not so broad. Instead, the statute requires “foreign intelligence information” be “necessary to” the “conduct” of “foreign affairs” and to the person’s position, and further employs a more limiting specific definition in the regulations in USSID for warrant-less seizures, as necessary to make it constitutional under the 4th Amendment. That definition is limited to criminal conduct type behavior, or its security equivalent. That is why the regulatory protocols give specific “examples of the type of information that meet this standard” of “foreign intelligence value.” What are those examples? Criminal-type behavior or imminent security risks. Why those restrictions? Because that makes it conform to the First and Fourth Amendment limitations on the intercept of Americans’ private political conversations.”

    Put most simply, neither the 1st Amendment nor the 4th Amendment has a “talking to foreigners” exception.

    Liked by 3 people

  42. peachteachr says:

    James E. Mitchell interrogated Khalid Mohammed and wrote a memoir about it says that Rice’s use pronouns was the big deception move he noticed. She used them to distance herself and at other times to tie her actions to presidential powers.
    Who sends out the biggest liar in the USA to say this stuff? Is it getting hot in here

    Like

  43. CountryclassVulgarian says:

    Can the swamp possibly get any deeper or stinker?

    Like

  44. JAS says:

    My take so far: This had to be a “REQUEST” for the intelligence. There is no other visible option at this point. The only two options for a REQUEST at this time are as follows:

    1) A FISA request. By the very nature of the FISA process it has to be a request. We have not heard anything about the FISA requests lately, probably because it would make it so obvious.

    2) NSA general collection. Millions of data transfers, including conversations, recorded every single day. For someone to zero in on Trump and associates it WOULD HAVE TO BE REQUESTED. The reason is simple. The content of that intelligence would never make it into the PDB.

    And so there it is in a nutshell – there was A REQUEST. The question then becomes, WHO made the request.

    Liked by 1 person

    • JAS says:

      And how those requests ended in the PDB.

      Liked by 1 person

      • And who in the bureaucracy did the tech work that sent the product up the food chain.

        Certain people KNOW…

        Liked by 2 people

        • Sessions’ staff should be interviewing them now.

          However, I doubt that it is happening, sad to say.

          Like

          • JAS says:

            It’s a really simple question: WHO MADE THE REQUEST FOR THE INTELLIGENCE TO SHOW UP ON THE PDB!

            Liked by 2 people

          • Sylvia Avery says:

            **Coeur d’Alene is the most gorgeous spot on earth.** I expect great things from Jeff Sessions, but the Senate still hasn’t even approved his deputy. The DOJ (along with State Dept.) is the stinking heart of the swamp. After 8 years of the the most hideously partisan, corrupt AG’s this country has ever seen, Jeff Sessions needs to fire all political appointees even though it may take 4 years to get replacements through Congress. For those that aren’t political appointees but are “career staff” but still blindingly loyal to Obama, what in the world to do? There are things that can be done, but it all takes time and meanwhile the Trump Administration is being attacked legally on everything so we need good lawyers to defend us. (Sanctuary Cities, Exec Orders on Immigration, Voter Fraud, etc.) It is a HUGE job. I’d like it all done immediately, but I sure don’t see how that will happen.

            Like

  45. Simple Jack says:

    Susan Rice told a little big lie in this interview that is being ignored in favor of other angles on this story, starting @ around 2:30:

    “…and there is a long standing, established process to decide whether that information as to who the identity of the US person was, could be provided to me. So they take that question back, they put it through a process, and the intelligence community made the determination as to whether or not the identity of that American individual could be provided to me.”

    This statement is 100% parseltongue. Susan Rice had the implied authority to order the unmasking of American persons identified in these intercepts. The National Security Advisor works at the right hand of the President. Any request coming from the Advisor, is literally coming from the President’s office. The practical reality is that no one at NSA/CIA who wanted to keep their job was going to deny an unmasking request from the President’s National Security Advisor, especially after Obama’s late revision of EO 12333, which gave many people access to raw (pre-masking) intelligence data.

    Liked by 3 people

    • JAS says:

      This is what they want – to get us into the woods and into the minutia. That’s always the escape plan they use. Ask the question – who requested that the intelligence be included in the PDB?

      Liked by 1 person

    • andi lee says:

      Hm. Through Obama’s EOs, he delegated his power of (office) authority to department heads. (And boyhowdy, was there a lot of them!) Never fully understood why Obama would do that. 🙃

      Like

  46. Bonnie says:

    So what was the reason they needed the names unmasked it wasn’t the Russians. Appears they just wanted info to win the election. Revoke the governments right to collect this incidental data they have already abused it. I want the house of representatives to have a little more power. The excuse they are all using is we interpreted the law different.
    So why can’t I use the same defense?

    Like

  47. Pingback: Rice Confirms, She Ordered “Unmasking” For Obama’s Daily Briefing – IOTW Report

  48. katherine009 says:

    Rice’s example doesn’t really make sense to me. Why would her knowing who the US Person was in the bomb example help her understand if it was a real threat or a guy in a basement? Wouldn’t the FBI do at least some preliminary investigation before passing the intel up for the PDB?

    Is her job to double check the FBIs math?

    Liked by 1 person

  49. Comrade Mope says:

    From Evalyn Farkas’ own 1/12/17 op-ed speaking on the “Buzzfeed dossier”:

    “However, journalists and the world should not dismiss it entirely of hand. There are some things in it that are plausible—the internal Kremlin debate about their intelligence operation, why Putin’s chief of staff was suddenly fired and other items that ring true to those of us who have read intelligence reports on Russia. [fired Aug. 12, 2016]

    And clearly the intelligence community wanted the president-elect to take at least the existence of this report, if not its content, seriously.

    A two-page addendum regarding this report was attached to the intelligence community’s report on the Russian operation against the 2016 electoral elections.”
    http://www.newsweek.com/does-putin-have-something-trump-we-need-know-obama-should-tell-us-542047

    Here she admits knowing the Buzzfeed dossier was attached to an IC report. At the time of this op-ed, she had been out of government for almost a year and a half. How would she know what was in an IC report?

    I think the answer is simple: Hillary never lost her clearance.

    “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences,” Comey said. “To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”

    As a former secretary of State — and before that, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee — she had a top-secret security clearance, and almost certainly maintains it. “I’m sure she does hold a clearance, and she should,” Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told Bloomberg News in February.

    But Clinton doesn’t need one to have access to intelligence briefings given to major presidential nominees. And if she’s elected president, the laws governing security clearances won’t apply to her.

    Neither the State Department, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence nor the Clinton campaign would not comment on Clinton’s security clearance Tuesday.”

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/07/05/hillary-clinton-fbi-investigation-security-clearance/86709410/

    I think it is pretty clear the PDBs were sent to Clinton during the campaign- just like debate questions, only different. Then the administration got angry at the Russians for exposing the complete disregard for security.

    Liked by 5 people

    • ronheinzkaboot says:

      I believe this is the crux of the biscuit. The Clinton Campaign got the PDB and had access to the intel pulled on Trump, his family, supporters and his team.
      Sen. Grassley has already confirmed she, Cheryl Mills, Human and another staffer had their clearances extended as “research assistants”
      Can you imagine that? After Comey said she handled classified information carelessly.

      The press has lost all curiosity to ask was Trump intel of strategic value to the HRC campaign included in the PDB? did Hillary or her staff have access to the PDB?

      The HRC press release about the bank computer server in Trump Tower, sure seems like she knew about that FISA warrant or their planted bot to get that Russian bank server to ping a Trump Tower server before it was in the press. It also looks like she couldn’t sit on the inside info and probably let it out before “there was any there there”.
      (read about the Alpha Bank server, it sounds like they (OA) were trying to force a reason to surveil Trump Tower, maybe the Awan bros work)

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s