Obama aides made hundreds of unmasking requests

noise said:
it's not due process if there isn't national security reason to know/ID the unmasked
Click to expand...

Care to fill in the if with facts? I'm assuming it means what it says, a request. Therefore I infer the national security reason is passed upon by the respondent before fulfilling or denying. If it is unmasked, someone responsibly charged with that duty decided, yes, there was a reason, if not, there wasn't and it was not unmasked. Hence due process is satisfied. Are you assuming the process is a sham?
 
Here is a link to the official PDF: https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo...tter_to_dni_unmasking_drafting_assistance.pdf

Doesn't matter some idiot may think of Nunes, he is the Chairman so he writes the letter (usually) from the House Committee on Intelligence, he is representing The Committee's opinions and findings, not his one alone.

This was made possible on Jan. 3, 2017 when AG Lynch signed off on DNI Clapper's order to allow the NSA to more widely share raw signals intelligence with the other 16 agencies. One of the things it did was to remove the NSA's filtering of innocent Americans caught up in routine information gathering. This is when the major leaking to media began.

Unauthorized disclosures, whether the result of disgruntled employees or for the advancement of partisan political ideology, are crimes that can result in the Intelligenge Community’s loss of access to critical intelligence information and can endanger the lives of sources.
Click to expand...

Of those requests, only one offerred a justification that was not boilerplate and articulated why that specific official required the U.S. person information for the performance of his or her official duties.
Click to expand...

The Committee also understands that Obama-era officials sought the identities of Trump transition official within intelligence reports. However, there was no meaningful explanation offered by these official as to why they needed or how they would use this U.S. person information, and thus, the Committee is left with the impression that these officials may have used this information for improper purposes, including the possibility of leaking. More pointedly, some of the requests for unminimized U.S. person information were followed by anonymous leaks of those names to the media.
Click to expand...
 
"A Republican, he serves as chairman of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and served as a member of President Trump's transition team.[2] Nunes's district, numbered as the 21st from 2003 to 2013, is in the San Joaquin Valley and includes most of western Tulare County and much of eastern Fresno County.
In early 2017, he was criticized for his alleged bias in a Congressional investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.[3][4] On April 6, 2017, he temporarily stepped aside from leading that investigation while the Office of Congressional Ethics investigates charges that he improperly disclosed classified information to the public, but he remains committee chairman for other purposes. Nunes has denied the allegations" wiki

Not exactly who I would call an honest broker or the person I'd want spearheading this operation if I cared about credibility of motive. Misery loves company.
 
Micawber said:
Care to fill in the if with facts? I'm assuming it means what it says, a request. Therefore I infer the national security reason is passed upon by the respondent before fulfilling or denying. If it is unmasked, someone responsibly charged with that duty decided, yes, there was a reason, if not, there wasn't and it was not unmasked. Hence due process is satisfied. Are you assuming the process is a sham?
Click to expand...

They made a FISA court request and it was turned down for lack of probable cause. Which should have been a red flag. Then they made another attempt and was successful.

But with all of this illegal snooping on Trump's people, why haven't they come up with anything? Could it be possible Trump wasn't having illicit communications with Russians about the election?

Does that thought ever enter your partisan mind?
 
Last edited:
PackD is getting owned on this thread. And showing once again his complete lack of knowledge of anything legal. Hmmmmm.
 
Micawber said:
Care to fill in the if with facts? I'm assuming it means what it says, a request. Therefore I infer the national security reason is passed upon by the respondent before fulfilling or denying. If it is unmasked, someone responsibly charged with that duty decided, yes, there was a reason, if not, there wasn't and it was not unmasked. Hence due process is satisfied. Are you assuming the process is a sham?
Click to expand...
the entire process is a sham..Powers unmasking requests in the 100's in the election year/ Clappers dissemination policy widely sharing of raw intelligence / the unmasking done with "boilerplate requests"/ and the leaks..

If I didn't know any better I'd say the Deep State/Obama hacks were busy here :palm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top