- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Explaining the fine details, RE: unmasking & 702
Posted on 4/3/17 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 4/3/17 at 2:56 pm
All of this "unmasking" falls under the FISA 702 rules. NOT the straight FISA warrant rules which permit the specific nuance or granting surveillance of an American.
Meaning anyone with clearance can use the loophole in the 702 rules to search and unmask an American that the AG (which was Lynch) and/or the DNI (which was Clapper) had certified as "intelligence worthy of national security" (renewed the surveillance of the foreign entity on the other side of the conversation).
So if the Russian Ambo had been re-authorized annually for 702 surveillance, then any American who spoke to him was accessible in the search query. And anyone with top level clearance (i.e. the 20 people Comey mentioned) could unmask that American. Susan Rice included.
THIS is how and why the Libs are saying it was supposedly "legal".
Now combine this 702 loophole with AG Lynch's (at the obvious behest of Obama) restructuring of the EO 12333, which changed the dissemination rules of "foreign intelligence worthy of national security", and we can see clearly a concerted effort of this administration to "cover their arse" IF this unmasking and dissemination were ever exposed.
What they don't get is that the oddly timed changing of that EO actually CONFIRMS their obvious improprieties.
They may have made it all "technically" legal, but in doing so they sealed the fact that they were doing this for completely unethical reasons.
In the end on this, they are not going to be able to explain why or how Trump's conversations with the Australian PM and Mexican President supposedly met the requirement of "intelligence worthy of national security". Which means the use of 702 to unmask Trump on those calls couldn't possibly have had proper intelligence value or met the requirements.
In addition to these intelligence reports from these unmaskings being leaked to the Press. Whomever is responsible for the unmasking MUST also be held accountable for the subsequent mishandling. You can't legally produce intelligence reports and then brief the likes of Hillary and Farkus, and then the intel ends up in the media, and suddenly claim "not my fault someone leaked classified material!"
This is a very obvious abuse of our surveillance capabilities. They crossed the line, and then consciously made it legal after the fact when they realized Hillary lost.
This should bring on a RICO case that destroys Obama, everyone around him, and his legacy. And the Democrats should be relegated to neutered eunuchs with dunce hats on sitting in the corner while Republicans govern from an unstoppable comfortable majority.
Meaning anyone with clearance can use the loophole in the 702 rules to search and unmask an American that the AG (which was Lynch) and/or the DNI (which was Clapper) had certified as "intelligence worthy of national security" (renewed the surveillance of the foreign entity on the other side of the conversation).
So if the Russian Ambo had been re-authorized annually for 702 surveillance, then any American who spoke to him was accessible in the search query. And anyone with top level clearance (i.e. the 20 people Comey mentioned) could unmask that American. Susan Rice included.
THIS is how and why the Libs are saying it was supposedly "legal".
Now combine this 702 loophole with AG Lynch's (at the obvious behest of Obama) restructuring of the EO 12333, which changed the dissemination rules of "foreign intelligence worthy of national security", and we can see clearly a concerted effort of this administration to "cover their arse" IF this unmasking and dissemination were ever exposed.
What they don't get is that the oddly timed changing of that EO actually CONFIRMS their obvious improprieties.
They may have made it all "technically" legal, but in doing so they sealed the fact that they were doing this for completely unethical reasons.
In the end on this, they are not going to be able to explain why or how Trump's conversations with the Australian PM and Mexican President supposedly met the requirement of "intelligence worthy of national security". Which means the use of 702 to unmask Trump on those calls couldn't possibly have had proper intelligence value or met the requirements.
In addition to these intelligence reports from these unmaskings being leaked to the Press. Whomever is responsible for the unmasking MUST also be held accountable for the subsequent mishandling. You can't legally produce intelligence reports and then brief the likes of Hillary and Farkus, and then the intel ends up in the media, and suddenly claim "not my fault someone leaked classified material!"
This is a very obvious abuse of our surveillance capabilities. They crossed the line, and then consciously made it legal after the fact when they realized Hillary lost.
This should bring on a RICO case that destroys Obama, everyone around him, and his legacy. And the Democrats should be relegated to neutered eunuchs with dunce hats on sitting in the corner while Republicans govern from an unstoppable comfortable majority.
This post was edited on 4/4/17 at 7:56 am
10
Posted on 4/3/17 at 2:57 pm to BeefDawg
Posted on 4/3/17 at 3:23 pm to BeefDawg
quote:
Meaning anyone with clearance can use the loophole in the 702 rules to search and unmask an American that the AG (which was Lynch) and/or the DNI (which was Clapper) had certified as "intelligence worthy for the sake of national security" (renewed the surveillance of the foreign entity on the other side of the conversation).
I am not sure that's exactly how it works, but you're right that this was almost certainly 702 surveillance.
quote:
So if the Russian Ambo had been re-authorized annually for 702 surveillance, then any American who spoke to him was accessible in the search query. And anyone with top level clearance (i.e. the 20 people Comey mentioned) could unmask that American. Susan Rice included.
I think you're confusing two things. The people who do the physical unmasking are not the same people who request the unmasking. At the NSA, there are 20 people who are authorized (have the physical ability) to unmask names. However, they don't just unmask willy nilly -- they only do it when someone else asks them to. In other words those 20 people just "follow orders."
Now, who is that someone else? People like James Clapper, Brennan, Mike Rogers, James Comey, Loretta Lynch and various people at the NSC in the White House. The head of the NSC was Susan Rice and she is the one guilty in this instance. But she was not the only one authorized to ASK for unmasked names. I would not be surprised if other officials did the same thing.
quote:
Now combine this 702 loophole with AG Lynch's (at the obvious behest of Obama) restructuring of the EO 12333, which changed the dissemination rules of "foreign intelligence worthy of national security", and we can see clearly a concerted effort of this administration to "cover their arse" IF this unmasking and dissemination were ever exposed.
Yep. Funny thing is that the NYT reported this first. Little did they know they were publishing Obama's plans to promote a cover-up.
quote:
In the end on this, they are not going to be able to explain why or how Trump's conversations with the Australian PM and Mexican President supposedly met the requirement of "intelligence worthy of national security". Which means the use of 702 to unmask Trump on those calls couldn't possibly have had proper intelligence value or met the requirements
Yes, people keep forgetting that Trump's calls with the Aussie and Mexican PM's were not only recorded, but leaked to the press (both felonies). And if we find out that NSA was not authorized to monitor the Aussie PM, then that in itself could be another crime.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 3:27 pm to Deuces
I honestly won't be surprised if we don't re-authorize the FISA 702 rules in the December vote.
Or maybe they just completely re-write them so they can't be abused.
Anyone have any clue why Trump hasn't changed back EO 12333 from what Lynch changed in January?
Or maybe they just completely re-write them so they can't be abused.
Anyone have any clue why Trump hasn't changed back EO 12333 from what Lynch changed in January?
Posted on 4/3/17 at 3:31 pm to BeefDawg
So because Rice did something that was legal, Obama should go to jail. Makes perfect poli board sense.
quote:Yeah, that went so well with Trumpcare
while Republicans govern from an unstoppable comfortable majority.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 3:38 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
So because Rice did something that was legal
There's no shortage of things this country has done that was legal yet absolutely abhorrent to justice. Civil asset forfeiture, internment camps, rendition, suspending habeas corpus...
I am sure you support those things as well because they were legal the the time too.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 3:39 pm to AUstar
What you are saying is the 702 makes it legal to look at the info? The leaking is what makes it illegal.
How hard is it to find the leakers? The media is great at finding staff or members of congress to leak. Find them and prosecute.
Clinton Watts said during the Senate hearing that the Russians are targeting Trump with fake news in Tweets. He said that this is a way Trump Towers could have been hacked.
Edit: Just turned it on CNN and saw it on Tapper
How hard is it to find the leakers? The media is great at finding staff or members of congress to leak. Find them and prosecute.
Clinton Watts said during the Senate hearing that the Russians are targeting Trump with fake news in Tweets. He said that this is a way Trump Towers could have been hacked.
Edit: Just turned it on CNN and saw it on Tapper
This post was edited on 4/3/17 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 4/3/17 at 3:39 pm to BeefDawg
quote:
Or maybe they just completely re-write them so they can't be abused.
Come on man. These rules were written to give whatever admin is in power enough broad authority to do what they want without fear if legal trouble.
That won't change anytime soon.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 3:41 pm to BeefDawg
Didn't Comey and/or Rogers say that 702 had nothing to do with any of this?
Am I remembering this right?
Am I remembering this right?
Posted on 4/3/17 at 3:41 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
So because Rice did something that was legal, Obama should go to jail. Makes perfect poli board sense.
This board is going to be massively disappointed
This post was edited on 4/3/17 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 4/3/17 at 3:44 pm to BeefDawg
I have been busier than usual and haven't been keeping up: who was unmasked, and to whom were they unmasked? is this just Flynn that this was in reference?
Posted on 4/3/17 at 3:45 pm to AUstar
quote:
And if we find out that NSA was not authorized to monitor the Aussie PM, then that in itself could be another crime.
This would be huge. It would prove intent specifically to surveil Trump and eliminate the argument that his conversations were collected incidentally.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 3:45 pm to BeefDawg
quote:
What they don't get is that the oddly timed changing of that EO actually CONFIRMS their obvious improprieties. They may have made it all "technically" legal, but in doing so they sealed the fact that they were doing this for completely unethical reasons.
All of this. But they also know that unethical doesn't equal illegal. And they don't give a frock about conducting unethical maneuvers.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 3:48 pm to AUstar
The way 702 works is different than straight FISA requests.
FISA requests are made by a select few in front of a committee of judges who grant surveillance and access for unmasking of an American based on certain criteria.
702 is different in that there is no "request" to unmask. The original intent of the surveillance doesn't even require the FISA court or judges.
The AG and/or DNI must "certify" that the target of surveillance is a foreign entity outside the US. And that's all that's required. Then these target's communications are all recorded and banked in a database.
These certifications have to be renewed every 12 months if they want the entity's communications to continue to be saved.
Now where the "loophole" comes into play is that anyone with proper security clearance can access the database of those saved communications. And in the process of that access, IF an American is on the other side of that communication, rule 702 allows any one of those 20 people to unmask that American and just call it "incidental capture of intercepted communications."
HOWEVER, they must also then certify that the unmasking is needed because there is "intelligence worthy of national security".
THIS is why they are able to say these intercepts and unmasking has been "technically" legal.
No FISA was needed. It's a jacked up loophole that can be easily abused, as is the case here.
Now add in the EO 12333 change and they even made it so the dissemination was "technically" legal too.
Except it was all unethical as hell, AND clearly some of the unmasking did not meet the requirements of "intelligence worthy of national security", AND the dissemination obviously resulted in illegal leaks.
Someone has to go down for this. I can't see how they could possibly weasel their way out of it.
FISA requests are made by a select few in front of a committee of judges who grant surveillance and access for unmasking of an American based on certain criteria.
702 is different in that there is no "request" to unmask. The original intent of the surveillance doesn't even require the FISA court or judges.
The AG and/or DNI must "certify" that the target of surveillance is a foreign entity outside the US. And that's all that's required. Then these target's communications are all recorded and banked in a database.
These certifications have to be renewed every 12 months if they want the entity's communications to continue to be saved.
Now where the "loophole" comes into play is that anyone with proper security clearance can access the database of those saved communications. And in the process of that access, IF an American is on the other side of that communication, rule 702 allows any one of those 20 people to unmask that American and just call it "incidental capture of intercepted communications."
HOWEVER, they must also then certify that the unmasking is needed because there is "intelligence worthy of national security".
THIS is why they are able to say these intercepts and unmasking has been "technically" legal.
No FISA was needed. It's a jacked up loophole that can be easily abused, as is the case here.
Now add in the EO 12333 change and they even made it so the dissemination was "technically" legal too.
Except it was all unethical as hell, AND clearly some of the unmasking did not meet the requirements of "intelligence worthy of national security", AND the dissemination obviously resulted in illegal leaks.
Someone has to go down for this. I can't see how they could possibly weasel their way out of it.
This post was edited on 4/3/17 at 4:12 pm
Posted on 4/3/17 at 3:51 pm to Decatur
quote:
Didn't Comey and/or Rogers say that 702 had nothing to do with any of this?
Comey did say at his hearing that someone connected to Trump was under a FISA warrant. He didn't say it directly but he strongly implied that it was Mike Flynn.
But what we're talking about here isn't about Flynn, but about other people on Trump's team who were being picked up under 702 (incidental collection during foreign surveillance).
Posted on 4/3/17 at 3:53 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
So because Rice did something that was legal, Obama should go to jail. Makes perfect poli board sense.
If it was made legal after the fact....then yes. When the act was committed it was an illegal act, If I am understanding all of this.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 3:56 pm to beastieboys
quote:
This board is going to be massively disappointed
I would be shocked if he goes to jail. His legacy could be severely damaged, though, and that would probably hurt him more than jail.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 4:00 pm to BeefDawg
quote:
HOWEVER, they must also then certify that the unmasking is needed because there is "intelligence worthy of national security".
If the certification was knowingly false then that could constitute Perjury.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 4:04 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
If it was made legal after the fact....then yes. When the act was committed it was an illegal act, If I am understanding all of this.
You're confused.
Rule 702 under the FISA law has been there for a while. It's very susceptible to abuse, but it makes intercepted communications of Americans and their unmasking legal without a FISA warrant as long as the communications happened while the target of the surveillance was a foreign entity outside the US AND the unmasking revealed "intelligence worthy of national security".
What they did after the fact was change EO 12333, which allowed the dissemination of the intelligence resulting from 702 collections to be disseminated to a much broader amount of people.
That increased the number of people (Obama surrogates and loyal Democrats) who might "leak" the information by a big factor, making it near impossible to pin down who might be the leaker.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 4:06 pm to BeefDawg
quote:
Now combine this 702 loophole with AG Lynch's (at the obvious behest of Obama) restructuring of the EO 12333, which changed the dissemination rules of "foreign intelligence worthy of national security", and we can see clearly a concerted effort of this administration to "cover their arse" IF this unmasking and dissemination were ever exposed.
:adjusts tinfoil:
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News