- 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 8:18 pm to JuiceTerry
Posted on 4/3/17 at 8:18 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
So the Obama admin was monitoring Trump after he had taken office?
We know for a fact they were. Michael Flynn's call (that was leaked) took place AFTER Trump was in office. Some Obama holdover was the one who did it. My guess is it was Sally Yates.
0
Posted on 4/3/17 at 9:44 pm to Decatur
quote:
The new EO 12333 Raw SIGINT Availability procedures expressly do not apply to Sec. 702 authority. Also, does not apply to FISA collection.
The is false. I've attached the actual document below and nowhere in it does it mention 702 as part of the exclusion.
Look at Page 1, Section I, subsection B-2.
702 is not excluded anywhere in the document. In fact, Section IV (Page 7 & 8), detail extremely broad and subjective use of FISA subset rules at the behest and discretion of the Attorney General.
And then because 702 is not explicitly excluded, the new dissemination rules in the change can apply, as in this situation.
The EO 12333 formal changes document signed by Lynch Jan 3rd, 2017.
I don't know who put in the "702" portion of your quote, but that's pretty dishonest and manipulative whomever did it.
This post was edited on 4/3/17 at 9:55 pm
Posted on 4/3/17 at 10:08 pm to BeefDawg
quote:
702 is not excluded anywhere in the document.
The Section is not specifically mentioned by itself but it is definitely excluded.
quote:
Look at Page 1, Section I, subsection B-2.
702 is not excluded anywhere in the document. In fact, Section IV (Page 7 & 8), detail extremely broad and subjective use of FISA subset rules at the behest and discretion of the Attorney General. Especially subsection C-2-a-iii (and who knows what's under i & ii... conveniently they are redacted).
Section B is Exclusions: "These Procedures do not apply to...Information that NSA acquires under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), as amended."
"Section 702" is Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. So it's specifically excluded because it is part of FISA.
quote:
I don't know who put in the "702" portion of your quote, but that's pretty dishonest and manipulative whomever did it.
It's directly cut and pasted from the DNI tumblr site. I linked to it. Scroll down to the the first Jan. 12 entry.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 10:09 pm to Decatur
Rexcatur to the rescue, nothing to see with Hillionaire's server, now fricking problems everywhere. 
Posted on 4/3/17 at 10:16 pm to Decatur
quote:
The Section is not specifically mentioned by itself but it is definitely excluded.
Section B is Exclusions: "These Procedures do not apply to...Information that NSA acquires under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), as amended."
"Section 702" is Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. So it's specifically excluded because it is part of FISA.
This can't be true. Again, go look at Section IV. It specifically mentions there are subsets of FISA that are covered under the new changes.
If you were correct about the exclusion applying to all of FISA, then Section IV wouldn't exist.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 10:16 pm to BeefDawg
I don't think we know this either way but it is possible that 702 authority could have been used to collect foreign-to-foreign comms where two foreigners mention the name of a US person in a conversation. In that case the name could be either minimized or unmasked depending on the nature of the conversation. I don't think that is what Trump and everyone are talking about though.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 10:43 pm to Decatur
quote:
I don't think we know this either way but it is possible that 702 authority could have been used to collect foreign-to-foreign comms where two foreigners mention the name of a US person in a conversation. In that case the name could be either minimized or unmasked depending on the nature of the conversation. I don't think that is what Trump and everyone are talking about though.
Come on, man, put your deductive reasoning cap on for a moment.
What did we learn from Nunes' radio interview?
He saw dozens of intelligence briefings reports showing "legal" INCIDENTAL intercepted communications of Team Trump that had nothing to do with Russia or national security related intelligence.
We now know that these American names of Team Trump had to be "unmasked".
So now use some deductive skills and think about this logically.
"Legal unmasking of incidental intercepts". How is this remotely possible?
The only logical answer is 702. Nothing else meets all that criteria.
A FISA warrant intercept wouldn't use the word "incidental". Only 702 would.
Now ask the question, "How do we have a news report from WaPo saying 9 senior intelligence officials with access to intercepted communications are reporting...."?
Again, Nunes said the briefings are "technically legal", but "disturbing abuse of our surveillance capabilities".
How did these classified briefings get legally disseminated to so many people?
The logical answer is Lynch's change to EO 12333.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 10:46 pm to BeefDawg
quote:
Again, go look at Section IV. It specifically mentions there are subsets of FISA that are covered under the new changes.
I read that as allowing someone to use a current FISA target as a selector to query comms already collected under EO 12333 authority. It's not about acquiring material under FISA.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 11:15 pm to BeefDawg
quote:
He saw dozens of intelligence briefings reports showing "legal" INCIDENTAL intercepted communications of Team Trump that had nothing to do with Russia or national security related intelligence.
This could mean any number of things. It certainly does not point to anything improper, much less illegal, by itself. I also don't think it's too beneficial to parse the language used by Nunes. He's kinda been all over the place.
quote:
"Legal unmasking of incidental intercepts". How is this remotely possible?
The only logical answer is 702. Nothing else meets all that criteria.
A FISA warrant intercept wouldn't use the word "incidental". Only 702 would.
I would look to USSID 18 as the framework for analyzing minimization/"unmasking". LINK
quote:
How did these classified briefings get legally disseminated to so many people?
The logical answer is Lynch's change to EO 12333.
If this is really all about the January change to EO 12333, what we're really talking about here are foreign-to-foreign communications where campaign/transition officials are merely mentioned in conversations by foreigners taking place overseas. Maybe a few names got "unmasked" but most names would still be minimized.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 11:23 pm to Decatur
quote:
I read that as allowing someone to use a current FISA target as a selector to query comms already collected under EO 12333 authority. It's not about acquiring material under FISA.
Already collected under EO 12333 authority??
EO 12333 isn't a rules set for the collection procedures of intelligence, it's a rules set for the assembly, use, and dissemination of collected classified materials, and who gets access to it all.
You're acting as if the EO 12333 changes governed FISA or 702 rules. It didn't. This wasn't a re-write of collection procedures, it was a re-write of dissemination procedures and who can access collected classified materials.
What Section IV does is give the AG authority to ACCESS intelligence collected under criteria the AG has discretion to label or interpret (which is rediculously broad power and enables and legalizes abuse). Including a bunch of communications collected under criteria that describes precisely the type of collection done under 702.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 11:38 pm to Decatur
quote:
This could mean any number of things. It certainly does not point to anything improper, much less illegal, by itself. I also don't think it's too beneficial to parse the language used by Nunes. He's kinda been all over the place.
Huh?
We know improper things were absolutely done though. Don't act like this surveillance wasn't 100% about hoping to get political ammunition to undermine Trump and his administration and agenda.
Are you really one of these intellectually dishonest folks who thinks Trump is somehow going to sell our country to Putin? Or that he coordinated an election heist with phishing emails and Democrats own words to each other? Like that was even significant "influence" and the reason Trump won?
quote:
If this is really all about the January change to EO 12333, what we're really talking about here are foreign-to-foreign communications where campaign/transition officials are merely mentioned in conversations by foreigners taking place overseas. Maybe a few names got "unmasked" but most names would still be minimized
That just isn't true. Flynn's transcript with precise wording of his conversation was given to the media. Nunes and others have confirmed Team Trump discussing policy agenda and details of future plans of action.
These aren't just name drops by foreign entities. How are you not seeing this?
Posted on 4/3/17 at 11:51 pm to MizzouBS
quote:
The media is great at finding staff or members of congress to leak. Find them and prosecute.
Hell they went through Sara Palin's trash to try and find something on her yet they have no idea who Bill Ayres and Jeremiah Wright are.
Really laughable and as I've said before.....Herr Goebbels would be so proud of our MSM today!
Posted on 4/4/17 at 4:45 am to BeefDawg
Is there any difference between "technically legal" and just plain old "legal?"
Even the insane people here seem to say that whatever was done was "technically legal." If so, why are we talking about this?
Is this just the ongoing effort to defend Trump's lies about "wiretapping" against the truth?
Even the insane people here seem to say that whatever was done was "technically legal." If so, why are we talking about this?
Is this just the ongoing effort to defend Trump's lies about "wiretapping" against the truth?
Posted on 4/4/17 at 5:35 am to TBoy
It figures the same vermin who were down with using the Irs against political enemies would be down with this.
And this complete lack of morals is all to support shitty destructive policies
And this complete lack of morals is all to support shitty destructive policies
Posted on 4/4/17 at 6:18 am to BeefDawg
quote:
BeefDawg
post more often on the PT please.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 6:28 am to TBoy
You love shite like this don't you?
LINK
quote:
Intelligence sources said the logs discovered by National Security Council staff suggested Rice’s interest in the NSA materials, some of which included unmasked Americans' identities, appeared to begin last July around the time Trump secured the GOP nomination and accelerated after Trump’s election in November launched a transition that continued through January.
quote:
One intelligence professional with detailed knowledge of how the NSA and other intelligence agencies share information with the White House during transitions told Circa that U.S. intelligence reporting on foreign leaders’ perceptions of Trump spiked after his unexpected election win in November, creating a trove of information that could be accessed by the outgoing White House.
LINK
Posted on 4/4/17 at 7:52 am to TBoy
quote:
Is there any difference between "technically legal" and just plain old "legal?"
Even the insane people here seem to say that whatever was done was "technically legal." If so, why are we talking about this?
Is this just the ongoing effort to defend Trump's lies about "wiretapping" against the truth?
Because this was clear exploitation and abuse of surveillance capabilities and NSA technology that was never and should never have been possible.
It's ridiculously unethical. The capability and technology was intended to safeguard the country against foreign entities that mean to do harm to our national security. But delicately written into this law is a tiny loophole that allows very few top brass with the highest of security clearance to use this technology on Americans IF doing so would garner "intelligence worthy of national security".
The problem is, that's a lot of broad subjectivity. What's the easiest way to make sure you've covered this requirement? How about manufacture a narrative about alleged collusion with Russians? Then suddenly you can spy on Americans you claim are allegedly involved in potential activities harmful to national security, thanks to this loophole in the surveillance law.
And then, after their Presidential candidate loses, something they never thought possible, they change the rules for dissemination of this classified material they've been swimming in to cover their arse. They turned something questionably illegal into something legal for the sake of CYA.
Every bit of it is remarkable impropriety, unethical, and abuse of power no matter how you slice it. But lucky for them, it's legal too... well except for the leaking to the media, and very likely briefing Hillary and her surrogates who shouldn't have had security clearance.
This post was edited on 4/4/17 at 7:55 am
Posted on 4/4/17 at 8:42 am to beastieboys
quote:
This board is going to be massively disappointed
I dunno about "this board" but I am massively disappointed that the democrats mentioned in this thread are still alive.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News