Article

2017-08-05 Home Front: Politix

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper Says He and Susan Rice Both ‘Did Unmaskings'

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Besoeker 2017-08-05 00:03|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11132 views ] Top

#1 While working for Soetoro, Clapper and Rice did the unmaskings, Comey leaks to NYT, Lynch meets with Clinton at Sky Harbor, Wasserman Schultz has Paki IT people and potential foreign agents on payroll.

Things, they are beginning to take shape.

Posted by Besoeker 2017-08-05 00:54|| 2017-08-05 00:54|| Front Page Top

#2 Why Thanks Dude.

We all knew we needed another "Intelligence Agency"

And one at the UN too!

WHAT?

WAT?

Big Mooshkalah.

Posted by newc 2017-08-05 01:45|| 2017-08-05 01:45|| Front Page Top

#3 "Good on General McMaster, he’s a great soldier and he’s done exactly the right thing here,"

Caroline Glick - The Israel angle on McMaster

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2017-08-05 06:15|| 2017-08-05 06:15|| Front Page Top

#4 Given the Israel haters in USGOV, either God does not love USA anymore or He is setting up another Haman event. Please let it be the latter...

Posted by M. Murcek 2017-08-05 06:58|| 2017-08-05 06:58|| Front Page Top

#5 Thanks for finally coming clean Jim. The investigation must have been breathing down your neck.

Posted by Besoeker 2017-08-05 07:58|| 2017-08-05 07:58|| Front Page Top

#6 "I'm 'moderately confident' that Susan Rice and I illegally unmasked Americans." Jimbo

Posted by JohnQC 2017-08-05 08:13|| 2017-08-05 08:13|| Front Page Top

Please help us piece together the network of leaks Jim.

Posted by Besoeker 2017-08-05 08:18|| 2017-08-05 08:18|| Front Page Top

#8 The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA" Pub.L. 95–511, 92 Stat. 1783, 50 U.S.C. ch. 36) is a United States federal law which prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" suspected of espionage or terrorism).[1] The Act created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. It has been repeatedly amended since the September 11 attacks.

Generally, the statute permits electronic surveillance in two different scenarios.

Electronic surveillance

Without a court order[edit]

The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year, provided that it is only to acquire foreign intelligence information,[5] that it is solely directed at communications or property controlled exclusively by foreign powers,[6] that there is no substantial likelihood that it will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party, and that it be conducted only in accordance with defined minimization procedures.[7]

The code defines "foreign intelligence information" to mean information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential grave attack, sabotage or international terrorism.[5]

"Foreign powers" means a foreign government, any faction of a foreign nation not substantially composed of U.S. persons, and any entity directed or controlled by a foreign government.[8] The definition also includes groups engaged in international terrorism and foreign political organizations.[9] The sections of FISA authorizing electronic surveillance and physical searches without a court order specifically exclude their application to groups engaged in international terrorism.[10]

A "U.S. person" includes citizens, lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens, and corporations incorporated in the United States.

"Minimization procedures" limit the collection of information concerning United States persons by protecting their identities and requiring a court order to retain the communications for longer than 72 hours. The communications can be retained without court order if there is evidence of a crime. Identification of a US person, known as "unmasking", may also be authorized if an agency believes it is necessary in order to understand the intelligence or believes that the person was committing a crime.[11]

The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,[12] and report on their compliance to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.[13]

Since 50 U.S.C. § 1802(a)(1)(A) of this Act specifically limits warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (1),(2), (3) and omits the definitions contained in 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (4),(5),(6) the act does not authorize the use of warrantless surveillance on: groups engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation thereof; foreign-based political organizations, not substantially composed of United States persons; or entities that are directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.[14] Under the FISA act, anyone who engages in electronic surveillance except as authorized by statute is subject to both criminal penalties[15] and civil liabilities.[16]

Under 50 U.S.C. § 1811, the President may also authorize warrantless surveillance at the beginning of a war. Specifically, he may authorize such surveillance "for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress".[17]

With a court order[edit]

Alternatively, the government may seek a court order permitting the surveillance using the FISA court.[18] Approval of a FISA application requires the court find probable cause that the target of the surveillance be a "foreign power" or an "agent of a foreign power", and that the places at which surveillance is requested is used or will be used by that foreign power or its agent.[2][19] In addition, the court must find that the proposed surveillance meet certain "minimization requirements" for information pertaining to U.S. persons.[20] Depending on the type of surveillance, approved orders or extensions of orders may be active for 90 days, 120 days, or a year.[21]

www.WikiPedia.org

Posted by Spike Spomoter7482 2017-08-05 08:46|| 2017-08-05 08:46|| Front Page Top

#9 Therefore, the fundamental questions remains: What evidence did the Obama regime have that Putin was trying to manipulate voting machines in collusion with the Republican candidate Donald Trump?

Answer: None. Zero. Nada.

Posted by Spike Spomoter7482 2017-08-05 08:50|| 2017-08-05 08:50|| Front Page Top

#10 Clarification:

Therefore, the fundamental questions remains: What evidence did the Obama regime have that Putin was trying to manipulate voting machines in collusion with the Republican candidate Donald Trump in order to put the Republican candidate under Obama and Susan Rice's survelience?

Posted by Spike Spomoter7482 2017-08-05 08:53|| 2017-08-05 08:53|| Front Page Top

#11 Little need to examine the motive. The entire Russian election hacking issue is a red herring and a mechanism (cover for action) which enabled intelligence community and 'Deep State' monitoring and interference in the presidential election.

As Yoggi Berra would say "it's all just too much of a coincidence to be a coincidence."

Posted by Besoeker 2017-08-05 09:02|| 2017-08-05 09:02|| Front Page Top

#12 The entire Russian election hacking issue is a red herring and a mechanism (cover for action) which enabled intelligence community and 'Deep State' monitoring and interference in the presidential election.

I'd add in the Iran nuclear deal as well.

Posted by Pappy 2017-08-05 09:37|| 2017-08-05 09:37|| Front Page Top

#13 I'd add in the Iran nuclear deal as well.

Yes indeed. It would be difficult to determine which target enjoyed priority.

Posted by Besoeker 2017-08-05 09:46|| 2017-08-05 09:46|| Front Page Top

#14 it was not done for political purposes whatsoever," he said

"Trust us"

Posted by Frank G 2017-08-05 10:22|| 2017-08-05 10:22|| Front Page Top

#15 Yes indeed. It would be difficult to determine which target enjoyed priority.

The Iran deal was earlier. Increasing access for nearly all and sundry in D.C. in 2016 was reacting to events. More, it was 'deploying chaff'. Makes it rather hard to identify fingerprints when there are so many of them.

Posted by Pappy 2017-08-05 14:22|| 2017-08-05 14:22|| Front Page Top

#16 Given the Israel haters in USGOV, either God does not love USA anymore or He is setting up another Haman event.

"Anti-Zionism" is not the problem. The problem is that both Matis & McMaster are tactically - and not strategically - minded. That is, for them a "victory" in Iraq justifies giving Iran a pass. In short, they're as much a morons - though for different reasons - as their Obama's era predecessors.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2017-08-05 17:40|| 2017-08-05 17:40|| Front Page Top

23:50 trailing wife
21:57 Injun Bucket8891
21:44 Pappy
21:22 trailing wife
21:21 49 Pan
20:58 AlmostAnonymous5839
20:54 AlmostAnonymous5839
20:35 Regular joe
20:17 JohnQC
20:13 Tennessee
20:10 Procopius2k
20:09 Tennessee
20:07 Skidmark
19:25 Iblis
18:46 g(r)omgoru
18:39 trailing wife
18:02 DarthVader
17:51 Raj
17:46 g(r)omgoru
17:42 g(r)omgoru
17:40 g(r)omgoru
16:36 Besoeker
16:14 Albert Dribble4334
16:12 Tom
Merry-Go-Blog