Spygate is unravelling

[Brian Peacock]

Do you really think that everyone who doesn't see politics your way is a malignant moral bankrupt?

Who are you asking, and why?

You, because you tossed this little dig in at the end of your response to Joe...

...
I guess if corruption runs against the republicans, it's fine with most folks.

[Cunt]

Do you really think that everyone who doesn't see politics your way is a malignant moral bankrupt?

Who are you asking, and why?

You, because you tossed this little dig in at the end of your response to Joe...

...
I guess if corruption runs against the republicans, it's fine with most folks.

It wasn't much of a dig at Joe, and more at the incuriosty of the media, and democrat supporters.

Maybe you are different. Which Democrat corruption around spygate/obamagate is most bothersome to you? Is it as much of a bother as the obviously sham investigation into Trump/Russia collusion?

[Joe]

So, don't you want to understand what the 'unmasking' was about?

Currently listening to a dude name 'Paul' talking to Dave Rubin about it.

I'll get it figured out, but what puzzles me is why the incuriosity of news agencies...

And others.

I guess if corruption runs against the republicans, it's fine with most folks.

I listen to the Rubin Report from time-to-time, and I have the interview teed up to listen to.

I'll be interested to hear what he has to say, but am mindful that he has his own agenda. As Janis Ian once sang, "every politician is a sewer of ambition."

Heck, the song might be relevant now.

[Cunt]

I'll be interested to hear what he has to say, but am mindful that he has his own agenda. As Janis Ian once sang, "every politician is a sewer of ambition."

I find it a lot easier to trust someone with their bias declared, vs someone skilled at hiding their bias, or pretending they don't have one.

It didn't tell me much of anything, except that Rubin was pretty happy to have him on.

[Joe]

I'll be interested to hear what he has to say, but am mindful that he has his own agenda. As Janis Ian once sang, "every politician is a sewer of ambition."

I find it a lot easier to trust someone with their bias declared, vs someone skilled at hiding their bias, or pretending they don't have one.

It didn't tell me much of anything, except that Rubin was pretty happy to have him on.

I can't say I'm surprised. I've been aware of the problems with FISA for a couple of decades now, and it's a minefield for the political class. National security needs, technology, and the 4th Amendment got slammed together into an ugly compromise that nobody's that happy with. Best old Rand tread lightly.

If you want to learn about the masking/unmasking stuff, Intel.gov has a decent write-up. Sadly, it's a bit long.

The reports collectively document the rigorous and multi-layered framework – including a robust oversight regime and a strong compliance record – that safeguards the privacy of U.S. person information in FISA disseminations. To begin with, individuals may be subject to FISA surveillance only if certain specific conditions are met.

• For example, to conduct electronic surveillance targeting someone inside the United States, FISA requires that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) find that there is probable cause to believe that the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
• Section 702 of FISA may be used only to target non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, who are expected to possess, receive, and or likely to communicate foreign intelligence information responsive to a FISC-approved certification executed by the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General. Section 702 may not be used to target anyone in the United States; nor may it be used to target a U.S. person anywhere in the world.

In addition, FISA requires agencies to follow procedures designed to minimize the collection, retention, and dissemination of U.S. person information, including information from communications that are incidentally collected between a U.S. person and a FISA target.

• These are known as “minimization procedures,” and FISA requires that they be adopted by the Attorney General and approved by the FISC. The FISC has specifically approved NSA, FBI, CIA, and NCTC to directly receive unminimized information collected under FISA. These agencies must in turn abide by minimization procedures directly applicable to each (as further described in the reports).
• These procedures require layers of protections that apply before dissemination, including training requirements, retention limitations, and access and query controls.

The minimization procedures include specific protections concerning disseminations. For example:

• Agencies may disseminate information only to authorized recipients.
• In general, for non-public information concerning an unconsenting U.S. person, agencies may only include the identity of the U.S. person if it itself constitutes foreign intelligence, is necessary for the recipient to understand the foreign intelligence being transmitted, or is evidence of a crime. Agency minimization procedures generally provide for the substitution of a generic phrase or term, such as “U.S. person 1” or “a named U.S. person” when including the identity of the U.S. person does not meet dissemination criteria. This is informally referred to as “masking” the identity of the U.S. person.
• Agency policy and practice can include additional protections. For example, NSA, as a matter of policy, in many cases requires that U.S. person identities be masked, with the identity provided only after a request by an authorized recipient and approval by a senior official. This is true even if including the identity in the original report would have been permitted by the minimization procedures.
• Information collected under FISA is classified, and the unauthorized disclosure of that information is prohibited and may result in criminal liability.
• A robust and multi-layered compliance and oversight framework, involving all three branches of the government, ensures that the minimization procedures are followed.

Now, I'm off to walk the dog, and see what Rand has to say.

[Cunt]

Now, I'm off to walk the dog, and see what Rand has to say.

FISA seems to limit info about US citizens to mask their names, but doesn't '5-eyes' and 'gang of 8' kind of render that stuff moot?

Spying goes along everywhere, but it seems that the only ones well protected are government.

I wish abusing confidentiality had more serious consequences, in general. Lot of weasels find shadows to hide in.

[Joe]

Now, I'm off to walk the dog, and see what Rand has to say.

FISA seems to limit info about US citizens to mask their names, but doesn't '5-eyes' and 'gang of 8' kind of render that stuff moot?

Spying goes along everywhere, but it seems that the only ones well protected are government.

I wish abusing confidentiality had more serious consequences, in general. Lot of weasels find shadows to hide in.

I'll stick to FISA since it's the controversy here and I know more about it. The Russian Ambassador was under surveillance, which makes sense. Embassies are often a base for espionage, so that thing is common. My understanding is Flynn was picked up talking with the Ambassador about sanctions.

So the report goes out to people in the Obama administration with a transcript of Russia's Ambassador to the US discussing sanctions with an unnamed US person.

It seems really reasonable for them to ask for the identity of the person. The Mueller report showed that Trump's team was aware Flynn was talking with the Russian, but they didn't tell the Obama team. For all Obama's people knew, it could have been a spy reporting their plans. It was definitely justification to request the unmasking. In fact, the list with all the people requesting the unmasking says

Each individual was an authorized recipient of the original report and the unmasking was approved through the NSA's standard process, which includes a review of the justification for the request.

So when Trump yells about Obamagate, but can't say what it is, why should anybody get excited?

He's the President and it's his branch of the government which makes him El Jefe Supremo. If he can't come up with specifics, why take him seriously?

The only crime I see here is the leak, and Durham can dig that out.

[Cunt]

My understanding is Flynn was picked up talking with the Ambassador about sanctions.

More than easily explainable, and so justified to look into it.

The only crime I see here is the leak, and Durham can dig that out.

I think the gist is that the whole impeachment was a sham, cooked up by keystone cops.

Those keystone cops got caught doing 'key' things. Unmasking Flynn (who was also leaked right around then) is one of the keys to it.

To me, the whole Russian Collusion thing was a hoax, and if it was indeed a hoax to take action against the elected president, then key pieces like this can be more important than they seem.

Every solid piece of evidence of 'Russian Collusion' has evaporated. Starting with my favourite - the peepee tape.

See, I may not know politics, but I know smut. Worked in the business for YEARS. There is no tape. If there was, not only would people have spread it on every Trump-hating program out there, but even the golden shower folks would be bored with it, and looking for something more corrupt to spank to.

It makes a fine example of the vulgar, shallow and disappointingly shitty kind of lie that the whole story was based on.

[Joe]

My understanding is Flynn was picked up talking with the Ambassador about sanctions.

More than easily explainable, and so justified to look into it.

The only crime I see here is the leak, and Durham can dig that out.

I think the gist is that the whole impeachment was a sham, cooked up by keystone cops.

Those keystone cops got caught doing 'key' things. Unmasking Flynn (who was also leaked right around then) is one of the keys to it.

To me, the whole Russian Collusion thing was a hoax, and if it was indeed a hoax to take action against the elected president, then key pieces like this can be more important than they seem.

Every solid piece of evidence of 'Russian Collusion' has evaporated. Starting with my favourite - the peepee tape.

See, I may not know politics, but I know smut. Worked in the business for YEARS. There is no tape. If there was, not only would people have spread it on every Trump-hating program out there, but even the golden shower folks would be bored with it, and looking for something more corrupt to spank to.

It makes a fine example of the vulgar, shallow and disappointingly shitty kind of lie that the whole story was based on.

The 'gist' is that Obamagate is a sham.

As for Russian Collusion and peepee tapes, you're in the wrong thread.

[L'Emmerdeur]

So, damning evidence has surfaced. An email dated January 20, 2017, from Susan Rice describing a discussion in which Flynn is a topic. Participants included President Obama and FBI Director Comey. What and who may be damned by this evidence we shall leave as an exercise for the reader.

PDF of Rice email

[Cunt]

I saw it. Didn't see it as anything 'damning' though.

It reminds me of the 'bombshell', 'beginning of the end' headlines you see over and over trying to trick rubes into believing that Trump is REALLY going to get it now!

[Cunt]

The 'gist' is that Obamagate is a sham.

As for Russian Collusion and peepee tapes, you're in the wrong thread.

Obamagate is the illegal investigation hinging on the peepee tapes. I presume that Schiff has them, since he keeps saying he saw evidence...he probably just doesn't want to share.

[pErvinalia]

I saw it. Didn't see it as anything 'damning' though.

It reminds me of the 'bombshell', 'beginning of the end' headlines you see over and over trying to trick rubes into believing that Trump is REALLY going to get it now!

'Beginning of the end'? Sounds a bit like 'Spygate is unravelling'...

[Joe]

The 'gist' is that Obamagate is a sham.

As for Russian Collusion and peepee tapes, you're in the wrong thread.

Obamagate is the illegal investigation hinging on the peepee tapes. I presume that Schiff has them, since he keeps saying he saw evidence...he probably just doesn't want to share.

Changed your tune did you? When asked before you said.

Unmasking Flynn, (and lying about it later) led to the authorities threatening his kid, and him with charges in order get at the information they wanted (that Trump was working with Russia)

So the spying that started it all, is probably the biggie, partly because using workarounds to spy on US citizens was happening, but also because of the cover up.

I guess you just don't know which lie to remember.

[pErvinalia]

The 'gist' is that Obamagate is a sham.

As for Russian Collusion and peepee tapes, you're in the wrong thread.

Obamagate is the illegal investigation hinging on the peepee tapes. I presume that Schiff has them, since he keeps saying he saw evidence...he probably just doesn't want to share.

It hinged on Papoadopolous blabbing in London.