DescentBB

Let me be clear: Do I think it’s possible Russia tried to influence the outcome of our elections? Absolutely. In fact, I consider it quite likely. Not because of the unsubstantiated conclusions made in the press, but because intelligence officials I trust tell me that Russia and other nations have attempted to influence our elections for decades, the same way we’ve often dabbled in influencing foreign elections.

However, the disproportionate media and political attention paid to Russia’s alleged efforts in 2016—and to the Russia threat generally—smacks of politics and propaganda. For example, top former Obama intel sources tell me they consider N. Korea, by far, the biggest foreign threat to the U.S. today. But N. Korea is barely mentioned in news reports. These intel officials put Iran and China next on the threat list—both, again, rarely discussed on the news, relative to Russia. The intel experts also mention ISIS and Islamist extremist terrorism as higher on the list than Russia.

Further, when it comes to election-tampering, some intel sources consider China to be a more egregious, proven offender. If you’ve watched politics a little while, you may remember the scandal broken by The Washington Post in 1996. The Post reported evidence of China directing contributions to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the presidential contest between Bill Clinton and Republican Bob Dole—a violation of U.S. law. Eventually, Taiwan-born Maria Hsia, a fundraiser for Clinton Vice President Al Gore, was convicted of illegal campaign fundraising; Taiwan-born Charlie Trie was convicted of improperly attempting to give large donations to the Clinton’s legal defense fund; Taiwan-born Johnny Chung was convicted of violating election law after making large donations to the DNC (which were later returned); and Chinese-born John Huang—a DNC fundraiser and Commerce Department official in the Clinton administration—was convicted of campaign finance fraud.

Ways the U.S. has interfered with elections in other nations

More recently, Obama administration officials reported China has conducted extensive cyber-attacks against the U.S., amounting to billions of dollars in costs in terms of stolen information and destroyed computer networks. But the Obama administration took no actions against China.

Attempted interference in our elections is a serious matter no matter who commits it. But when the media and political response is asymmetric, it makes sense to pay attention to your cognitive dissonance. There’s reason to suspect a narrative is being placed before the public for ulterior motives.

callmeslick wrote:


I hope this one gets full benefit of his military status and gets tried for treason.

National-security experts say Rice's reported requests to identify who was speaking with the foreign officials before Trump was inaugurated were neither unusual nor against the law — especially if, as Lake reported, the foreign officials being monitored were discussing "valuable political information" that required the identity of the people they were speaking to, or about, to be uncovered.

"The identities of US persons may be released under two circumstances: 1) the identity is needed to make sense of the intercept; 2) if a crime is involved in the conversation," said Robert Deitz, a former senior counselor to the CIA director and former general counsel at the National Security Agency.

"Any senior official who receives the underlying intelligence may request these identities," Deitz said, noting that while "the bar for obtaining the identity is not particularly high, it must come from a senior official, and the reason cannot simply be raw curiosity."

....The move by Rice, if she had probable cause, could likely be viewed as routine and expected of high-level intelligence officials, said Paul Pillar, a 28-year veteran of the CIA and former executive assistant to the CIA's deputy director for intelligence.

woodchip wrote:"The identities of US persons may be released under two circumstances: 1) the identity is needed to make sense of the intercept;

......Number 1 might be argued but the release of the identity's name to the public is not allowed and is criminal. This incident will wind up bigger than Watergate. All we need are journalists willing to track down the truth. Forget any of them being from CNN.

callmeslick wrote:actually, no she didn't have to have a damn reason past her damn job description, frankly. She was in the position in which she was the point person in advising the POTUS about threats to the nation, internal and external and recommend actions. She HAD to demand to know names and exactly determine who was saying what to whom about what. Whether that knowledge led to FISA requests, we don't currently know, but I know this much....not one shred of proof suggests for one second that she disseminated that information to a single soul outside of clearance.


Now, the matter at hand isn't yet another near-treasonous attempt by Woody and other lackeys to smokescreen. No, the hard reality is that Ms Rice is hardly the only person with either clearance or interest in having unmasked versions of those transcripts in question. Those unmasked versions would have been available to upper levels of NSA, FBI and Justice officials, among others. Now, those versions should be making the rounds in closed sessions to selected Congressional membership(gang of 8 or whatever). One source among them did say that they have been seeing things for the past few weeks that routinely get submitted to Grand Juries, so make your own conclusion. Bottom line is that smokescreens aside, you're about to watch the largest scandal in the history of the US Presidency get pieced together over the coming months. The beautiful irony will be watching folks given to blather about the 'treason' of Obama et al, and chants of 'lock her up' seeing SEVERAL folks from the Trump admin go to prison, if they don't flee the nation altogether or end up running afoul of their Russian handlers who recruited them. Flynn actually may face a real ugly fate unless he cuts a deal, being a retired General Officer.

So, Woody, spare me your smokescreens. Spare me your outright disgusting treason.

First, Susan Rice denied any knowledge of unmasking the identities of Trump officials named in intelligence reports linked to the president's transition team. Then, the former national security adviser admitted that unmasking occurred, while insisting it wasn't for political purposes.

callmeslick wrote:don't fear CNN, MSNBC now has TWO of the best research journalists on TV(Maddow and Van Sustern).....they'll sort this out for you, Woody.

Vander wrote:So let me get this Rice stuff straight. We had foreign subjects under surveillance, and names of Trump people were either mentioned or directly involved in the surveilled conversations. These names were masked, and she asked for them to be unmasked to make better sense of the intel. If that's the gist, is this supposed to mean something more than proof she was doing her job? Did she leak it like the guys in the White House just did?

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:don't fear CNN, MSNBC now has TWO of the best research journalists on TV(Maddow and Van Sustern).....they'll sort this out for you, Woody.

Two best research journalists? HaHaHaHa. Van Sustern might of been at one time but shes been co-opted by her new job. Maddow is just plain nuts that some of her co workers even acknowledge. All the research you will see is fake news trying to cover Rice's ass.

Vander wrote:So let me get this Rice stuff straight. We had foreign subjects under surveillance, and names of Trump people were either mentioned or directly involved in the surveilled conversations. These names were masked, and she asked for them to be unmasked to make better sense of the intel. If that's the gist, is this supposed to mean something more than proof she was doing her job? Did she leak it like the guys in the White House just did?

callmeslick wrote:

Vander wrote:So let me get this Rice stuff straight. We had foreign subjects under surveillance, and names of Trump people were either mentioned or directly involved in the surveilled conversations. These names were masked, and she asked for them to be unmasked to make better sense of the intel. If that's the gist, is this supposed to mean something more than proof she was doing her job? Did she leak it like the guys in the White House just did?

or did she have a 30 year old, with ZERO intelligence experience, poring through documents looking for dirt to smokescreen a scandal?

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:don't fear CNN, MSNBC now has TWO of the best research journalists on TV(Maddow and Van Sustern).....they'll sort this out for you, Woody.

Two best research journalists? HaHaHaHa. Van Sustern might of been at one time but shes been co-opted by her new job. Maddow is just plain nuts that some of her co workers even acknowledge. All the research you will see is fake news trying to cover Rice's ass.

you'll see. You are a Deleted - Personal Shot, purposefully trying to feed us the same slimy lies that Breitbart is peddling desperately. Sorry, I have no remorse at this point not respecting you as an American citizen, and I never suggested that in the past. Politics gets you so twisted that you can't smell the stench of the Russian connections? Puhlease.

The outrage at Maddow on the ­unhinged left, and the mockery of her among sensible people, is that her sin went far beyond delivering a dud. She assembled an audience only to deliver a great gift to Trump.

woodchip wrote:She leaked it

woodchip wrote:"The identities of US persons may be released under two circumstances: 1) the identity is needed to make sense of the intercept; 2) if a crime is involved in the conversation," said Robert Deitz, a former senior counselor to the CIA director and former general counsel at the National Security Agency.

Number 2 has never been shown. Number 1 might be argued but the release of the identity's name to the public is not allowed and is criminal. This incident will wind up bigger than Watergate. All we need are journalists willing to track down the truth. Forget any of them being from CNN.

woodchip wrote:She admitted to getting the info. So let me play a good liberal:

"Unless someone else can be shown to getting it, the seriousness of the charge means Rice did it unless you can prove otherwise".
Whats a matter? Don't like it being used against your side? Yet it is alright to accuse Trumps people of working with the Russians to fix the election without a shred of evidence.

woodchip wrote:She admitted to getting the info.

So let me play a good liberal:

"Unless someone else can be shown to getting it, the seriousness of the charge means Rice did it unless you can prove otherwise".

Spidey wrote:Well I doubt any Republicans will be wishing Hillary had won...but, I bet many are now wishing a different Republican had won.

callmeslick wrote:MSNBC now has TWO of the best research journalists on TV(Maddow and Van Sustern)...

Vander wrote:

callmeslick wrote:MSNBC now has TWO of the best research journalists on TV(Maddow and Van Sustern)...

For a 2nd opinion on Maddow, The Daily Howler is incomparable.