- 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
re: Explaining the fine details, RE: unmasking & 702
Posted on 4/3/17 at 4:10 pm to cajunandy
Posted on 4/3/17 at 4:10 pm to cajunandy
quote:
If the certification was knowingly false then that could constitute Perjury.
I'm not sure what the breech of requirements would be considered, but I think there is too much subjectivity here that the abuser could argue damn near any rationale for why they certified the worthiness of unmasking and it would be hard to prove a contradiction.
However, I can't rationally come up with an argument that supports the worthiness of unmasking Trump speaking to the Australian PM and Mexican President. And this might be the smoking gun.
0
Posted on 4/3/17 at 4:22 pm to Spaulding Smails
quote:
:adjusts tinfoil:
Do you have a rational explanation why an EO that covers the dissemination of intelligence during foreign entity incidental collection was changed at the very last minute?
It just so happens to very conveniently apply to this EXACT type of particular collected intelligence.
You don't think the timing is incredibly odd and convenient?
Posted on 4/3/17 at 5:20 pm to AUstar
quote:
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).
What reports are you referring to?
Posted on 4/3/17 at 5:34 pm to Decatur
quote:Those not pertaining to Flynn.
What reports are you referring to?
Posted on 4/3/17 at 5:35 pm to Decatur
quote:
What reports are you referring to?
Nunes explained that he saw dozens of Intelligence Briefings reports that show several members of Trump's team unmasked from incidental intercepts that has nothing to do with Russia.
This is what Libs here with the "Rice was just doing her job" excuse are failing to remember, apparently.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 5:39 pm to BeefDawg
quote:
the oddly timed changing of that EO
They had been working on the final revisions for over a year. Here is a story about it from February 2016.
In fact, President Bush got the ball rolling in 2008. LINK
Posted on 4/3/17 at 5:52 pm to Speedy G
quote:
They had been working on the final revisions for over a year.
The language in the Loretta Lynch change could have been done years prior.
What you don't understand is that the change was very specific to dissemination of 702 incidental intercepted communications.
Many people here mistakenly believe it applies to all of FISA, but that's not accurate. It was explicitly applicable to dissemination of 702 intelligence only.
Which, very conveniently, happens to be the exact type of intelligence everyone is currently discussing with regards to the Susan Rice unmaskings AND what Senator Nunes explained he just saw dozens of intelligence briefings of Team Trump incidental intercepts.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 6:53 pm to BeefDawg
quote:
What you don't understand is that the change was very specific to dissemination of 702 incidental intercepted communications.
Many people here mistakenly believe it applies to all of FISA, but that's not accurate. It was explicitly applicable to dissemination of 702 intelligence only.
The new EO 12333 Raw SIGINT Availability procedures expressly do not apply to Sec. 702 authority. Also, does not apply to FISA collection.
quote:
The procedures include significant protections for the civil liberties and privacy of U.S. persons. As detailed in the fact sheet, the procedures:
Only allow IC elements to access raw SIGINT in circumstances where the information will further a foreign intelligence or counterintelligence mission in a significant way.
Do not permit raw SIGINT to be accessed for law enforcement purposes.
Do not apply to information collected under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, including Section 702.
Establish rules that a recipient IC element must follow when accessing, processing,
or retaining raw SIGINT, or disseminating information derived from SIGINT. These rules closely follow those used by the NSA.
Set up extensive training, auditing, oversight, and compliance requirements that are comparable to the NSA’s for similar activities.
Require periodic reauthorization of access and high-level reviews of activities conducted under the procedures.
LINK
It's almost as if the HSCI Republicans don't really understand the 702 authority, yet they seemed to be making veiled threats to can it. It doesn't appear to be implicated in the current controversy. What's this all about?
Posted on 4/3/17 at 7:02 pm to AUstar
That is the Noose. The Aussie and Mexicn calls that were monitored and released. They have NO BASIS, legally or otherwise to use in defence of listening into the President here.
How could they go to a court and get permission to listen in on those 2 leaders? How the hell could they present that link in with muhhhh Russians?
How could they go to a court and get permission to listen in on those 2 leaders? How the hell could they present that link in with muhhhh Russians?
Posted on 4/3/17 at 7:04 pm to GenghisKhan
quote:
The Aussie and Mexicn calls that were monitored and released.
What indications are there that these calls were intercepted by the US government?
Couldn't people in the various rooms just overhear the convos and spill to the press?
This post was edited on 4/3/17 at 7:05 pm
Posted on 4/3/17 at 7:11 pm to Decatur
quote:
What indications are there that these calls were intercepted by the US government?
Couldn't people in the various rooms just overhear the convos and spill to the press?
theoretically possible, but once it is established without any doubt that the Obama admin was actively participating in monitoring Trump, why would you think this information wasn't collected in that manner? especially information that sensitive and almost assuredly protected ?
This post was edited on 4/3/17 at 7:11 pm
Posted on 4/3/17 at 7:11 pm to Decatur
One would think there are pretty sound proof walls in the Oval Office and offices in Trump Tower. Reckon?
Or if you want to believe that the conversations went down in the Pro Shop at Mar Lago where Jeffe worked, fine by me.
Or if you want to believe that the conversations went down in the Pro Shop at Mar Lago where Jeffe worked, fine by me.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 7:14 pm to GenghisKhan
quote:
One would think there are pretty sound proof walls in the Oval Office and offices in Trump Tower. Reckon?
White House should be secure. Trump Tower is likely littered with bugs and spies.
But I'm thinking there were other people in the room on both sides of the call that could talk to the press.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 7:16 pm to Decatur
quote:
But I'm thinking there were other people in the room on both sides of the call that could talk to the press.
i'm sure Trum's inner circle wanted nothing more than to leak negative stories about him to liberal outlets
Posted on 4/3/17 at 7:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
The immediate leaks to the press lead me to believe it came from people overhearing the calls. Most likely on the foreign end.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 7:18 pm to Decatur
didn't both foreign reps come out publicly like a day (or less) later to say the conversations were nothing like they had been reported?
why would they leak the story to hurt Trump, only to do Trump a solid a day later and make the press look bad?
why would they leak the story to hurt Trump, only to do Trump a solid a day later and make the press look bad?
Posted on 4/3/17 at 7:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:So the Obama admin was monitoring Trump after he had taken office?
theoretically possible, but once it is established without any doubt that the Obama admin was actively participating in monitoring Trump, why would you think this information wasn't collected in that manner? especially information that sensitive and almost assuredly protected ?
Posted on 4/3/17 at 7:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
why would they leak the story to hurt Trump, only to do Trump a solid a day later and make the press look bad?
Why do some people talk bad behind other people's backs?
This post was edited on 4/3/17 at 7:22 pm
Posted on 4/3/17 at 7:25 pm to JuiceTerry
i'm not the biggest expert on this story (because everyone is lying and using fake "sources" to do so), but IF there was some monitoring of Trump that he was not a fan of, i can definitely see friction (or fear) from those who were doing the monitoring. also, it's not like Trump took office and the bureaucracy was cleansed of Obama sycophants who were placed in positions of power by his people. just look at the chick who was acting AG who refused to do her duty re: Trump's Immigration Order. under Obama, the US government created the largest domestic spying program in the history of mankind, vestiges of that power loyal to Obama will be around for a while
Posted on 4/3/17 at 7:25 pm to Decatur
i get that, but then helping Trump a day-ish later? it just invalidates any of the negativity
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News