FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor Trump adviser

Deep state is of no interest to anybody but Trump supporters.

It's a ruse .. a knuckleheaded notion that extraordinary government involvement is required to destroy a clown that lies and tweets like a teenager.
so drop my use of Deep State if it offends thy eye.
address the points

what about the NSA''s raw data ginning up raw data into eailsy shared reports format under the guise of "protecting evidence" by the Obamatrons? - and the resulting ready made pieces for leaking?
Does this not interest you as a civil libertarian?

Are you concerned that Rice asked for unmasking at a ridiculous pace of incidentally collected Americans names?
(she started over a year ago, and it got more and more frequent even after the election) bearing in mind that Rice's role was NOT INVESTIGATIVE?

does any of this concern you as an American, or are you hopelessly mired in partisanship tothe point if it damages Trump -well it MUST BE OK??????
Are you still concerned with principles?
 
so drop my use of Deep State if it offends thy eye.
address the points

what about the NSA''s raw data ginning up raw data into eailsy shared reports format under the guise of "protecting evidence" by the Obamatrons? - and the resulting ready made pieces for leaking?
Does this not interest you as a civil libertarian?

don't hold your breath. The progressive movement only cares about getting their way at any cost. Walter Duranty would thrive today
 
so drop my use of Deep State if it offends thy eye.
address the points

what about the NSA''s raw data ginning up raw data into eailsy shared reports format under the guise of "protecting evidence" by the Obamatrons? - and the resulting ready made pieces for leaking?
Does this not interest you as a civil libertarian?

Are you concerned that Rice asked for unmasking at a ridiculous pace of incidentally collected Americans names?
(she started over a year ago, and it got more and more frequent even after the election) bearing in mind that Rice's role was NOT INVESTIGATIVE?

does any of this concern you as an American, or are you hopelessly mired in partisanship tothe point if it damages Trump -well it MUST BE OK??????
Are you still concerned with principles?

:0) Partisan .. you are FAR more partisan than I am.

Any clue when the last time I voted for a democrat for president was before 2016?

NONE of what you state concerns me more than having a clown stooge as commander-in-chief with my daughter in the military.

Obviously all the Russian contacts don't concern you.

Have you ever served in the military?

No?

'Principles????' You voted for a celebrity clown .. and you're asking me about principles? :0)
 
don't hold your breath. The progressive movement only cares about getting their way at any cost. Walter Duranty would thrive today
excellent and timely reference to Walter Duranty!! :good4u: ( i admit i had to look him up).

You make a good point. The Dem's used to care about civil liberties as much as they did civil rights.
They have become craven power junkies - nominating Hillary because it was "her turn"
despite her turning the State Dept into her personal fiefdom.

They willingly accept Cold War 2.0 because it punishes Putin ( not caring to realize how much it costs us)and diminution of the 4th for some elusive temporal political advantages.

I know you "despise Trump"- but at least he is something different from the establishment
hackneyed politicos that infest the government ( my opinion here)
 
:0) Partisan .. you are FAR more partisan than I am.

Any clue when the last time I voted for a democrat for president was before 2016?

NONE of what you state concerns me more than having a clown stooge as commander-in-chief with my daughter in the military.

Obviously all the Russian contacts don't concern you.

Have you ever served in the military?

No?

'Principles????' You voted for a celebrity clown .. and you're asking me about principles? :0)
the principles mentioned exceed any temporal position of POTUS. Yes I get your "principled partisanship"

i wonder how it is you can't get the same outrage toward the usurpation of civil liberties by what is commonly called the "deep state" or if you prefer the massive politicization of the IC and it's leadership?
Surely this is worth some outrage on your part?
 
the principles mentioned exceed any temporal position of POTUS. Yes I get your "principled partisanship"

i wonder how it is you can't get the same outrage toward the usurpation of civil liberties by what is commonly called the "deep state" or if you prefer the massive politicization of the IC and it's leadership?
Surely this is worth some outrage on your part?

NONE of what you're talking about here makes any sense whatsoever to me.

There is no 'deep state' .. just the US government and the IC .. and if the US government and the IC didn't want Trump to be president, he wouldn't be the president.

ALL else is just noise.
 
are you hitting on me now?

I'm not dropping any soap around you for sure!

I guess I'll have to dumb my posts down as much as I can, cuntwhistle. You really are that stupid. Because of your massive stupidity, I'll restate.

Bend over and smell your own shit-filled Depends, scrote-licker. It's you full of shit. Comprende now, twatwaddle?
 
NONE of what you're talking about here makes any sense whatsoever to me.

There is no 'deep state' .. just the US government and the IC .. and if the US government and the IC didn't want Trump to be president, he wouldn't be the president.

ALL else is just noise.
electoral vote counts still haven't been overthrown by the IC. Or Russia for that matter
what is the "US government?" . a conglomeration of perpetual bureucrats, political appointees, and elected officials

My contention is the elected official (Obama) abused so called the wall of of separation of the NSA and the other intelligence agencies to allow low level (raw - not contextualized) data to become reports
( data is raw info. reports are un-analyzed info packaged into a report format) by "ginning up" ( my words) of such raw data under the guise of preservation of evidence to flood the IC agencies.
This allowed many more eyes (officials /leadership,and caseworkers) to have access to the ginned up data in the packaged report form ( again based on raw intel) which can be leaked to the servile press.

The other part is Rice's unmasking of US citizen's names under the guise of needing more clarification
of national security info from incidentally collected transcripts (that are already reports) to IC leadership
and to Ben Rhodes and political appointees for dispersement and leaking of those unmasked names to the press


From The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/...to-share-intercepted-communications.html?_r=0

In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people.
 
Congress expands 'unmasking' probe amid questions over Rice role
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...king-probe-amid-questions-over-rice-role.html
Until now, the investigation focused on how the identities and communications of Trump transition members were collected by U.S. intelligence agencies and then revealed to, and disseminated among, high-ranking members of the Obama administration.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., now plans to audit files from the National Security Agency and White House to determine whether identities and conversations of presidential candidates -- or members of Congress -- also were swept up during NSA surveillance of foreign leaders. He also plans to review whether Obama’s National Security Council and White House counsel collected and distributed the intelligence for reasons unrelated to foreign intelligence.

“We will be performing an accounting of all unmasking for political purposes focused on the previous White House administration,” a member of the committee told Fox News. “This is now a full-blown investigation.”

Staffers on the Senate committee told Fox News they also have expanded their investigation into whether presidential candidates were unmasked and information was misused -- and what role former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, among others, played following reports that she requested Trump-affiliated names be unmasked.

For a private U.S. citizen to be “unmasked,” or named, in an intelligence report is extremely rare and typically only done if it has some foreign intelligence value. Typically, the American is a suspect in a crime, is in danger or has to be named to explain the context of the report.

The intelligence reports that Rice and others in the administration reportedly assembled are similar to what a private investigator might piece together, congressional and U.S. intelligence sources said. In some cases, rather than documenting foreign intelligence, the files included salacious personal information that, if released, could be embarrassing or harmful to the person’s reputation, U.S. intelligence and House Intelligence Committee sources said.

These reports were then disseminated to about 20 to 30 people who had classified clearance in the Obama administration hierarchy, these sources said.

Trump, members of his family, and members of his campaign and transition teams, were likely subjects of “incidental electronic surveillance” by U.S. intelligence agencies, Fox News reported.

Sources told Fox News that names were then sent to all those at the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan -- as well as Rice and her former deputy Ben Rhodes, even though the names were supposed to be reported only to the initial requester.

If the names were unmasked in intelligence reports and then leaked to the media for political reasons, it could constitute criminal behavior.
 
Fox News reported Tuesday night that members of the House Intelligence Committee have expanded their investigation into the Susan Rice surveillance controversy.

Appearing on The O'Reilly Factor, investigative reporter Adam Housley said the following:

They're looking into allegations where Americans including politicians have possibly been unmasked and had their information collected into the files, similar to what they did to the Trump team.

Housley also said that both the House and Senate investigations are being stonewalled:

They say the FBI is being very difficult. We're told [investigators] just want to know about the unmasking. How frequent was this? Who was doing it? Why were they being unmasked?

Housley added:

[A Committee member says the FBI is] going to have to turn everything over or we're not going to authorize the congressionally approved 702 program which allows them to do this in the first place. This investigation is full-blown.

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, is up for reauthorization in 2017. The program surveils non-U.S. persons believed to be located outside the United States, incidentally sweeping up the communications of Americans as well, in order to acquire foreign intelligence.

O'Reilly asked Malia Zimmerman, an investigative reporter working with Housley, if the FBI was investigating the case. Zimmerman answered:

There's a big question about the FBI's role in this and there's concern in the House about generally how the FBI is handling this case.

She added that FBI Director James Comey has yet to come back to the Hill to answer the 100 questions the House Intelligence Committee wants answered:

The FBI claims to be "preparing the information," but it's been four weeks, Bill.


O'Reilly suggested getting Attorney General Jeff Sessions involved, "because he's Comey's boss."

Housley said they were making progress on the story, but because of the sensitive and classified nature of the information, it's been difficult work.

Zimmerman added that some of the whistleblowers who have been talking to them may come forward and provide testimony to the House Intelligence Committee:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/04/12/report-house-investigation-of-susan-rice-scandal-expanding/
 
Obama and Clinton were grasping at straws, nothing came out of it. just like nothing will come out of the latest "The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming witch hunt conspiracy.

And after all of this dust settles, nothing the left says, does, or proclaims will have any meaning to anyone.
They can't even poll watch anymore after that precise call on election day.

So, what we need is for Ruth Bader to ride off into planet senile, and this countries values, reputation, and future is back where it began. Steadfast, God fearing principles, rooted in success
 
it is the rise of the NSA and the ability to collect metadata -along with internet tracking and Email monitoring that have caused the IC to become a pernicious offender of the 4th.

To answer more directly: our's is a paperless/keystroke world,and the IC has keys to unlocking every byte of it.

The law has always played catch-up ball to technology. This is not different. The issue is your infusing that phenomenon with fictional perhaps literature engendered paranoia with talk of ominous deep state secret cabals. Life is a boring drag, and your fictional deep state is a bunch of entrenched pencil pushers trying to make it to Friday night and a beer, same as the smelly shoe clerks at DMV.
 
The law has always played catch-up ball to technology. This is not different. The issue is your infusing that phenomenon with fictional perhaps literature engendered paranoia with talk of ominous deep state secret cabals. Life is a boring drag, and your fictional deep state is a bunch of entrenched pencil pushers trying to make it to Friday night and a beer, same as the smelly shoe clerks at DMV.

fictional deep state? lol

like tin whiskers - it's real.
 
Back
Top