obama's unmasking requests toward trumps transition officials

[createdtoworship]

video on a twitter post below:
Eye On The Sparrow on Twitter

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

View attachment 203064

video on a twitter post below:
Eye On The Sparrow on Twitter

So no proofs about what plan they have, nothing done wrong, just guesses by biggest fake news in business. But fake news that Trump supporters like, so not fake news!

 

[Yarddog]

View attachment 203064

video on a twitter post below:
Eye On The Sparrow on Twitter

Do you believe this Main Stream Media report or think it is just another Washington leak of what could be classified info about the investigation?

 

[miamited]

Hi grady,

Who actually made these requests? It's my understanding that Nunes doesn't ever say, although it is believed to have been Susan Rice. However, I imagine that the form has a line that says 'reason for request'. Is it his claim that line is left blank or that the reason is just lame? There were 3 people within the administration at that time that had the authority to submit unmasking requests. Were the requests fulfilled?

As far as I'm aware, it is not illegal to fill out a request such as this. Then it is up to the NSA to investigate the requests and determine if any names should be unmasked. So far it seems to be strictly Nunes who is bringing up this issue. Is he the only one privy to these requests? If there are such requests made in the manner that Rep. Nunes seems to allege, then there may well be some agenda that the requester was wanting to get answers to. However, it is also just as possible, with the allegations made so far, that Rep. Nunes is after some agenda. How do you know which one it is?

Just like President Trump and his constant bleating that Mrs. Clinton should be investigated for her email use. Honestly, what does it matter to him? Mrs. Clinton could go to jail tomorrow for all that he alleges in her email use and it wouldn't change a thing for President Trump. None of his woes are a result or hinge on Mrs. Clinton and her use of emails.

So, for me, until I see some offered actual evidence and not just a bunch of claims made by a couple of people, I'm going to go with these allegations being agenda driven. Now, I readily agree that's just me. Others will have to weigh the evidence so far and make their own choices as to what they think is the truth of the matter.

President Trump has an AG by the name of Jeff Sessions. I understand that they aren't on the best of terms because of President Trump's unwarranted anger of AG Session's decision to recuse himself from the Russia/Trump campaign agenda, but if either of these claims (unmasking/emails) has any basis of illegal activity, then President Trump should be able to get his own AG to open investigations into these matters. It speaks volumes to me that these two issues have been claimed now for at least 6 months and no one has taken up the cause to investigate. Why is that? Why is it that the administration that President Trump put in place doesn't investigate these Republican made allegations? Seems to me there must be some fairly good and reasonable answer to that question.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[createdtoworship]

So no proofs about what plan they have, nothing done wrong, just guesses by biggest fake news in business. But fake news that Trump supporters like, so not fake news!

so why do you think they did it?

 

[createdtoworship]

Hi grady,

Who actually made these requests? It's my understanding that Nunes doesn't ever say, although it is believed to have been Susan Rice. However, I imagine that the form has a line that says 'reason for request'. Is it his claim that line is left blank or that the reason is just lame? There were 3 people within the administration at that time that had the authority to submit unmasking requests. Were the requests fulfilled?

As far as I'm aware, it is not illegal to fill out a request such as this. Then it is up to the NSA to investigate the requests and determine if any names should be unmasked. So far it seems to be strictly Nunes who is bringing up this issue. Is he the only one privy to these requests? If there are such requests made in the manner that Rep. Nunes seems to allege, then there may well be some agenda that the requester was wanting to get answers to. However, it is also just as possible, with the allegations made so far, that Rep. Nunes is after some agenda. How do you know which one it is?

Just like President Trump and his constant bleating that Mrs. Clinton should be investigated for her email use. Honestly, what does it matter to him? Mrs. Clinton could go to jail tomorrow for all that he alleges in her email use and it wouldn't change a thing for President Trump. None of his woes are a result or hinge on Mrs. Clinton and her use of emails.

So, for me, until I see some offered actual evidence and not just a bunch of claims made by a couple of people, I'm going to go with these allegations being agenda driven. Now, I readily agree that's just me. Others will have to weigh the evidence so far and make their own choices as to what they think is the truth of the matter.

President Trump has an AG by the name of Jeff Sessions. I understand that they aren't on the best of terms because of President Trump's unwarranted anger of AG Session's decision to recuse himself from the Russia/Trump campaign agenda, but if either of these claims (unmasking/emails) has any basis of illegal activity, then President Trump should be able to get his own AG to open investigations into these matters. It speaks volumes to me that these two issues have been claimed now for at least 6 months and no one has taken up the cause to investigate. Why is that? Why is it that the administration that President Trump put in place doesn't investigate these Republican made allegations? Seems to me there must be some fairly good and reasonable answer to that question.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

thanks for the info, that helps

 

[miamited]

so why do you think they did it?

Hi grady,

Don't mean to be intrusive to your conversation with yonny, but...

If you're asking why one might think that the National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, might have sent over a ton of these unmasking requests, then I'd like to offer up an explanation that seems perfectly plausible to me.

Apparently there were some communication intercepts that started ringing some bells. Things were being transcribed from these intercepts that so-and-so and so-and-so were in a conversation and some of the things being discussed was causing Mrs. Rice to question who was saying these things. I mean let's face it, if someone's listening in on conversations between Russian agents or diplomats, which is a perfectly normal and regular occurrence, and in a conversation you hear, 'Well, I think I speak for the Trump campaign that such and such and so and so..." Then the person who is the National SECURITY Advisor might legitimately wonder, who's saying this? Who is this person speaking to a Russian diplomat and saying that they're speaking for the Trump campaign? I mean the Trump campaign is just a campaign organization. Their candidate isn't yet the president and so what are they doing getting involved in what appears to be some clandestine meeting with foreign diplomats. I wonder what this is all about?

Ok, so the National SECURITY Advisor decides that this conversation warrants some looking into and fills out a request to unmask the American citizen in the conversation. After all, she's the National Security Advisor. Her job is to be aware of and investigate possible national security issues. Now, I'm just listing one conversation, but there may well have been, and apparently were, a number of such conversations that the National Security Advisor determined needed some deeper investigation. So, everytime she's listening to these redacted conversations, or reading the transcripts of them, she stops and fills out another unmasking request. Every conversation would identify the American as just some unknown person and so even between various conversations, she wouldn't even know if it was always the same person talking without the unmasking of names. Most of these would have been transcripts and so she wouldn't even have been able to match the sound of the voices in the various reported conversations.

So, there's certainly a possibility, and I think fairly strong, that she was just doing what she would have normally done in reading interception transcripts whether it had been someone on the Trump campaign team or the guy at the corner grocery store calling a Russian diplomat and having the conversation that was reported.

However, as I said, in the performance of her job, she might likely have been carrying on just as she normally would have if it was any American citizen having the kind of conversations that were recorded. Now, if the NSA upon receipt of such requests did unmask the names and someone feels that they shouldn't have been unmasked, the onus falls on the NSA for having released the names under improper circumstances. Susan Rice has not committed any crime in just asking for the names to be unmasked unless she lied about the purpose on the request form.

Rep. Nunes claims that some of her 'reasons' for requesting the unmasking were not sound reasons, but that doesn't then mean that she lied or made up false pretenses for requesting the unmasking. It just means that, according to Rep. Nunes, the reasons seemed rather lame. So far, he seems to be the only person of all the hundreds of people involved in security issues with the government that is making this claim. Why is that? If it's believed that she lied or made up false reasons for requesting the unmasking, then surely at least a handful of people involved in these unmasking requests would be jumping on the band wagon. But, that doesn't seem to be the case. Why is that?

Anyway, I think this scenario is very likely quite close to the actual causes and events that occurred near the end of President Obama's term. And it all seems to have been happening and more requests for unmasking were being made at the end of President Obama's term because that's when these conversations began to draw attention.

Look, the National Security Advisor has a job and that job has duties that are a part of that job title. Checking out possible security breaches and other national security occurrences is a part of that job title. If you were the National Security Advisor and you were receiving these redacted security transcripts, you likely would have done exactly the same thing. It's your job!

BTW, I'm not even sure that the unmasking request asks 'what' the intended use of such information is. I could be wrong, however, I haven't actually seen one of the forms.

God bless you
In Christ, ted

 

[EpiscipalMe]

"Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) cast aspersions on his fellow Republican’s attempt to interfere with the investigation last week, saying, “The unmasking thing was all created by Devin Nunes, and I’ll wait to go through our full evaluation to see if there was anything improper that happened.”"
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/07/tr...ed-unmasking-story-attacking-obama-officials/

 

[createdtoworship]

"Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) cast aspersions on his fellow Republican’s attempt to interfere with the investigation last week, saying, “The unmasking thing was all created by Devin Nunes, and I’ll wait to go through our full evaluation to see if there was anything improper that happened.”"
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/07/tr...ed-unmasking-story-attacking-obama-officials/

Right, I believe that fake news over the intelligence committee any time.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Right, I believe that fake news over the intelligence committee any time.

It is a quote from the chair of the senate intelligence committee. Feel free to demonstrate it is fake if you can.

 

[createdtoworship]

It is a quote from the chair of the senate intelligence committee. Feel free to demonstrate it is fake if you can.

No its a quote from your news source check again.

 

[createdtoworship]

Hi grady,

Who actually made these requests? It's my understanding that Nunes doesn't ever say, although it is believed to have been Susan Rice. However, I imagine that the form has a line that says 'reason for request'. Is it his claim that line is left blank or that the reason is just lame? There were 3 people within the administration at that time that had the authority to submit unmasking requests. Were the requests fulfilled?

As far as I'm aware, it is not illegal to fill out a request such as this. Then it is up to the NSA to investigate the requests and determine if any names should be unmasked. So far it seems to be strictly Nunes who is bringing up this issue. Is he the only one privy to these requests? If there are such requests made in the manner that Rep. Nunes seems to allege, then there may well be some agenda that the requester was wanting to get answers to. However, it is also just as possible, with the allegations made so far, that Rep. Nunes is after some agenda. How do you know which one it is?

Just like President Trump and his constant bleating that Mrs. Clinton should be investigated for her email use. Honestly, what does it matter to him? Mrs. Clinton could go to jail tomorrow for all that he alleges in her email use and it wouldn't change a thing for President Trump. None of his woes are a result or hinge on Mrs. Clinton and her use of emails.

So, for me, until I see some offered actual evidence and not just a bunch of claims made by a couple of people, I'm going to go with these allegations being agenda driven. Now, I readily agree that's just me. Others will have to weigh the evidence so far and make their own choices as to what they think is the truth of the matter.

President Trump has an AG by the name of Jeff Sessions. I understand that they aren't on the best of terms because of President Trump's unwarranted anger of AG Session's decision to recuse himself from the Russia/Trump campaign agenda, but if either of these claims (unmasking/emails) has any basis of illegal activity, then President Trump should be able to get his own AG to open investigations into these matters. It speaks volumes to me that these two issues have been claimed now for at least 6 months and no one has taken up the cause to investigate. Why is that? Why is it that the administration that President Trump put in place doesn't investigate these Republican made allegations? Seems to me there must be some fairly good and reasonable answer to that question.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

I had to block you due to posts in other threads, I apologize, I like what you have to say, but I don't have to put up with the "holier than thou" attitude. God Bless, I hope God blesses your experience here on CF.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

so why do you think they did it?

It is bad thinking that you want me to have solution. It not important. What important is person come up with crazy idea and you believe crazy idea. Is bad way to think. You need to stop it.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

No its a quote from your news source check again.

Right, and the news source was quoting the Senate Intelligence Committee chair.

Basically, he is saying it is amateur hour on the House side with Nunes.

Feel free to disprove the story if you think it is "fake."

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

It is a quote from the chair of the senate intelligence committee. Feel free to demonstrate it is fake if you can.

Does not matter. If disagrees with what Trump think then is fake news. That is definition of fake news.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

Hi grady,

Don't mean to be intrusive to your conversation with yonny, but...

If you're asking why one might think that the National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, might have sent over a ton of these unmasking requests, then I'd like to offer up an explanation that seems perfectly plausible to me.

Apparently there were some communication intercepts that started ringing some bells. Things were being transcribed from these intercepts that so-and-so and so-and-so were in a conversation and some of the things being discussed was causing Mrs. Rice to question who was saying these things. I mean let's face it, if someone's listening in on conversations between Russian agents or diplomats, which is a perfectly normal and regular occurrence, and in a conversation you hear, 'Well, I think I speak for the Trump campaign that such and such and so and so..." Then the person who is the National SECURITY Advisor might legitimately wonder, who's saying this? Who is this person speaking to a Russian diplomat and saying that they're speaking for the Trump campaign? I mean the Trump campaign is just a campaign organization. Their candidate isn't yet the president and so what are they doing getting involved in what appears to be some clandestine meeting with foreign diplomats. I wonder what this is all about?

Ok, so the National SECURITY Advisor decides that this conversation warrants some looking into and fills out a request to unmask the American citizen in the conversation. After all, she's the National Security Advisor. Her job is to be aware of and investigate possible national security issues. Now, I'm just listing one conversation, but there may well have been, and apparently were, a number of such conversations that the National Security Advisor determined needed some deeper investigation. So, everytime she's listening to these redacted conversations, or reading the transcripts of them, she stops and fills out another unmasking request. Every conversation would identify the American as just some unknown person and so even between various conversations, she wouldn't even know if it was always the same person talking without the unmasking of names. Most of these would have been transcripts and so she wouldn't even have been able to match the sound of the voices in the various reported conversations.

So, there's certainly a possibility, and I think fairly strong, that she was just doing what she would have normally done in reading interception transcripts whether it had been someone on the Trump campaign team or the guy at the corner grocery store calling a Russian diplomat and having the conversation that was reported.

However, as I said, in the performance of her job, she might likely have been carrying on just as she normally would have if it was any American citizen having the kind of conversations that were recorded. Now, if the NSA upon receipt of such requests did unmask the names and someone feels that they shouldn't have been unmasked, the onus falls on the NSA for having released the names under improper circumstances. Susan Rice has not committed any crime in just asking for the names to be unmasked unless she lied about the purpose on the request form.

Rep. Nunes claims that some of her 'reasons' for requesting the unmasking were not sound reasons, but that doesn't then mean that she lied or made up false pretenses for requesting the unmasking. It just means that, according to Rep. Nunes, the reasons seemed rather lame. So far, he seems to be the only person of all the hundreds of people involved in security issues with the government that is making this claim. Why is that? If it's believed that she lied or made up false reasons for requesting the unmasking, then surely at least a handful of people involved in these unmasking requests would be jumping on the band wagon. But, that doesn't seem to be the case. Why is that?

Anyway, I think this scenario is very likely quite close to the actual causes and events that occurred near the end of President Obama's term. And it all seems to have been happening and more requests for unmasking were being made at the end of President Obama's term because that's when these conversations began to draw attention.

Look, the National Security Advisor has a job and that job has duties that are a part of that job title. Checking out possible security breaches and other national security occurrences is a part of that job title. If you were the National Security Advisor and you were receiving these redacted security transcripts, you likely would have done exactly the same thing. It's your job!

BTW, I'm not even sure that the unmasking request asks 'what' the intended use of such information is. I could be wrong, however, I haven't actually seen one of the forms.

God bless you
In Christ, ted

Thank you, is very good answer.

 

[createdtoworship]

It is bad thinking that you want me to have solution. It not important. What important is person come up with crazy idea and you believe crazy idea. Is bad way to think. You need to stop it.

So you have no clue.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

So you have no clue.

I know I can not read the mind. Can you, or are you just being gullible for some person with crazy idea?

 

[createdtoworship]

I know I can not read the mind. Can you, or are you just being gullible for some person with crazy idea?

it is a crazy idea, and I don't know why dem's would do it.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

it is a crazy idea, and I don't know why dem's would do it.

You are still being the gullible person. Why you think so poorly? I help you think better, OK? First question is easy, please do the answer - How you know Eye of Sparrow is correct?