Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/327027 ... el-reports

Bloomberg reports that National Security Council senior director for intelligence Ezra Cohen-Watnick spearheaded the review into unmasking policies and first learned that Rice made multiple unmasking requests about individuals who were connected with the Trump transition.

Here's one reason I was pretty sure Rice was involved, especially after Nunez's visit to the WH-

Nunez is a fairly shrewd guy and he knew that he was going to take heat for his meeting. Whatever he was shown almost certainly had to have come from the NSA, and it was important enough that he had to be shown in a SCI environment, because the WH correctly doesn't trust wide distribution because of leaks. AND he was willing to be pilloried in the press. They wanted whatever info it was to go directly to the applicable member of Congress.

That means someone highly placed at the WH (not DoJ and likely not Clapper) was playing games. That leaves Rice. She had the most wiggle room in terms of "official" behavior. DoJ officials are much more constrained by the rules because they are law enforcement.

But now knowing what we now know, there are a couple of very interesting things:

The CIA, several weeks ago pushed hard for Cohen-Watnick to be removed or moved from his post. Why?

Nunez said that the incidental collections of Trump campaign people were from intercepts NOT related to Russia. And, these intercepts predate Trump's nomination by the GOP, when it started looking like he'd be the nominee.

I also noticed Schiff's muted response after being shown the same documents at the WH. Why? He's been rather quiet since, other than repeating previous anodyne statements

Now that Schiff knows, rest assured the spin machine is going into overdrive, but the previous admin is working at an extreme disadvantage..... they cant access the info anymore, and when a Congressional committee starts looking, nobody is going to be stonewalling like the IRS and the AG did back in the good ol days.

It is going to get very interesting over the next few weeks. Comey isnt going to lie for Susan Rice. If she was unmasking people independently of the FBI investigations (which means she was "requesting" it from her subordinates at NSA) - then she'll be clearly culpable

None of this should come as a surprise to anyone. The previous admin has a very suspicious surveillance history-


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:
The CIA, several weeks ago pushed hard for Cohen-Watnick to be removed or moved from his post. Why?

I thought McMaster was the one that pushed for his removal and Trump personally stepped in to stop it.

Cohen-Watnick and Ellis appear to be leading an effort among White House staff to find anything in the intelligence to justify Trump's tweets and distract from the Russia investigation. That's jmo, though.

So, does Rice take the ultimate fall...or does it go higher, like Jarrett or Obama?

Hogan sighting! Aren't you required to put a "yall" in there somewhere now?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
The CIA, several weeks ago pushed hard for Cohen-Watnick to be removed or moved from his post. Why?

I thought McMaster was the one that pushed for his removal and Trump personally stepped in to stop it.

Cohen-Watnick and Ellis appear to be leading an effort among White House staff to find anything in the intelligence to justify Trump's tweets and distract from the Russia investigation. That's jmo, though.

There's nothing to the Russia investigation. That's my take at this point.

The FBI is investigating evidence that has already been made widely available in the IC.... by Ms. Rice. I find it extremely hard to believe that hard evidence of collusion would be so well tended at this point.

I could be wrong, but there's a lot of body language out there indicating that there's no fire in terms of the Trumpers playing with theRussians to throw the election.

There may be some individual wrongdoing on the part of Flynn, and if there is I certainly hope he pays for it, because I'd surely be in jail.

BTW- your comment on Cohen-Watnick is immaterial. Every administration shills dirt on the previous one. If there's no "there" there, then what do C-W's motivations matter?

Finally, it was the CIA that was behind the push to remove C-W. Twice. The second time they advised McMaster they would rather have someone else in the job and he went upstairs with it. He's a Flynn guy and that could be the simple explanation. But the timing is suspicious. BTW- the WaPo takes your stance and in the same article confirms the CIA push:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html

The irony here is that WaPo and other outlets don't realize it yet, but they are helping ... not hurting...the Trumpers. When they realize what is happening they'll page five all of this- because when the FBI comes back with no Russia collusion all that will be left is.... Trump saying "See? Told ya!"

And Susan Rice


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:There's nothing to the Russia investigation. That's my take at this point.

The FBI is investigating evidence that has already been made widely available in the IC.... by Ms. Rice. I find it extremely hard to believe that hard evidence of collusion would be so well tended at this point.

So, you think all evidence has already been leaked? There are still stories being leaked almost every day.

Yes, no smoking gun. But, we'll see. If all of the evidence consisted of what has been leaked so far - would the FBI still be investigating after 10 or 11 months?

CID1990 wrote:I could be wrong, but there's a lot of body language out there indicating that there's no fire in terms of the Trumpers playing with theRussians to throw the election.

There may be some individual wrongdoing on the part of Flynn, and if there is I certainly hope he pays for it, because I'd surely be in jail.

Yeah, I think, at this point... the most likely fallout from this is a few individuals go down. Probably Flynn, Manafort, Page, and Stone. Most smoke with Flynn and Manafort.

They could even have collusion evidence on Manafort... and, Trump could pretty easily escape with a "I had no knowledge of this" defense. And, maybe it's even true.

CID1990 wrote:BTW- your comment on Cohen-Watnick is immaterial. Every administration shills dirt on the previous one. If there's no "there" there, then what do C-W's motivations matter?

But, isn't that ultimately your problem with Susan Rice: playing politics with intelligence? It seems like C-W and Ellis have been playing politics with intelligence, but perhaps not?

Col Hogan wrote:So, does Rice take the ultimate fall...or does it go higher, like Jarrett or Obama?

But....but....Benghazi!

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CID1990 wrote:There's nothing to the Russia investigation. That's my take at this point.

The FBI is investigating evidence that has already been made widely available in the IC.... by Ms. Rice. I find it extremely hard to believe that hard evidence of collusion would be so well tended at this point.

So, you think all evidence has already been leaked? There are still stories being leaked almost every day.

Yes, no smoking gun. But, we'll see. If all of the evidence consisted of what has been leaked so far - would the FBI still be investigating after 10 or 11 months?

CID1990 wrote:I could be wrong, but there's a lot of body language out there indicating that there's no fire in terms of the Trumpers playing with theRussians to throw the election.

There may be some individual wrongdoing on the part of Flynn, and if there is I certainly hope he pays for it, because I'd surely be in jail.

Yeah, I think, at this point... the most likely fallout from this is a few individuals go down. Probably Flynn, Manafort, Page, and Stone. Most smoke with Flynn and Manafort.

They could even have collusion evidence on Manafort... and, Trump could pretty easily escape with a "I had no knowledge of this" defense. And, maybe it's even true.

CID1990 wrote:BTW- your comment on Cohen-Watnick is immaterial. Every administration shills dirt on the previous one. If there's no "there" there, then what do C-W's motivations matter?

But, isn't that ultimately your problem with Susan Rice: playing politics with intelligence? It seems like C-W and Ellis have been playing politics with intelligence, but perhaps not?

Keep fighting the fight.

89Hen wrote:Hogan sighting! Aren't you required to put a "yall" in there somewhere now?

It's y''all, or the possessive y'alls...



I'm learnin'

Col Hogan wrote:

89Hen wrote:Hogan sighting! Aren't you required to put a "yall" in there somewhere now?

It's y''all, or the possessive y'alls...



I'm learnin'

Howdy

CAA Flagship wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
So, you think all evidence has already been leaked? There are still stories being leaked almost every day.

Yes, no smoking gun. But, we'll see. If all of the evidence consisted of what has been leaked so far - would the FBI still be investigating after 10 or 11 months?



Yeah, I think, at this point... the most likely fallout from this is a few individuals go down. Probably Flynn, Manafort, Page, and Stone. Most smoke with Flynn and Manafort.

They could even have collusion evidence on Manafort... and, Trump could pretty easily escape with a "I had no knowledge of this" defense. And, maybe it's even true.



But, isn't that ultimately your problem with Susan Rice: playing politics with intelligence? It seems like C-W and Ellis have been playing politics with intelligence, but perhaps not?

Keep fighting the fight.

AnalJelly's just trying to climb the ladder in the Trump trigger poll.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:

It's y''all, or the possessive y'alls...



I'm learnin'

Howdy

You need to add y'all at the end...

Howdy, y'all.

89Hen wrote:Hogan sighting! Aren't you required to put a "yall" in there somewhere now?

I thought it was 3 claps and the refrain, " deep in the heart of Texas".

Just thought I'd quote the last statement in the linked article:

There is still no evidence to support Trump's claim that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower.

JohnStOnge wrote:Just thought I'd quote the last statement in the linked article:

There is still no evidence to support Trump's claim that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower.

Yes the media remains as stuck on stupid as you.

Unless making wild tweets is criminal- he'll continue to make these claims and you'll continue to focus on them

CID1990 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Just thought I'd quote the last statement in the linked article:

Yes the media remains as stuck on stupid as you.

Unless making wild tweets is criminal- he'll continue to make these claims and you'll continue to focus on them

Burn.

CID1990 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Just thought I'd quote the last statement in the linked article:

Yes the media remains as stuck on stupid as you.

Unless making wild tweets is criminal- he'll continue to make these claims and you'll continue to focus on them

Wow...apparently Cid ran out of bubble gum long ago.

Ibanez wrote:

89Hen wrote:Hogan sighting! Aren't you required to put a "yall" in there somewhere now?

I thought it was 3 claps and the refrain, " deep in the heart of Texas".

Affirmative:

Ibanez wrote:

89Hen wrote:Hogan sighting! Aren't you required to put a "yall" in there somewhere now?

I thought it was 3 claps and the refrain, " deep in the heart of Texas".

4 claps.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CID1990 wrote:There's nothing to the Russia investigation. That's my take at this point.

The FBI is investigating evidence that has already been made widely available in the IC.... by Ms. Rice. I find it extremely hard to believe that hard evidence of collusion would be so well tended at this point.

So, you think all evidence has already been leaked? There are still stories being leaked almost every day.

Yes, no smoking gun. But, we'll see. If all of the evidence consisted of what has been leaked so far - would the FBI still be investigating after 10 or 11 months?

CID1990 wrote:I could be wrong, but there's a lot of body language out there indicating that there's no fire in terms of the Trumpers playing with theRussians to throw the election.

There may be some individual wrongdoing on the part of Flynn, and if there is I certainly hope he pays for it, because I'd surely be in jail.

Yeah, I think, at this point... the most likely fallout from this is a few individuals go down. Probably Flynn, Manafort, Page, and Stone. Most smoke with Flynn and Manafort.

They could even have collusion evidence on Manafort... and, Trump could pretty easily escape with a "I had no knowledge of this" defense. And, maybe it's even true.

CID1990 wrote:BTW- your comment on Cohen-Watnick is immaterial. Every administration shills dirt on the previous one. If there's no "there" there, then what do C-W's motivations matter?

But, isn't that ultimately your problem with Susan Rice: playing politics with intelligence? It seems like C-W and Ellis have been playing politics with intelligence, but perhaps not?

Focus, SK

What Rice did is potentially criminal. What the WH counsel's office is doing is not, under any reading.

My problem is with criminal activity and people in the government doing it with impunity (my ass is still chapped over the IRS shenanigans...). That includes colluding with foreign powers to throw an election and using the power of the NSA to snoop on a political campaign. If it was happening before an official FBI investigation, then the jig is up, and no amount of "it was an investigation" is going to change it. The rules on the capture of US citizens in intercepts is very clear. Abusing government authority should be dealt with harshly, whether it is a cop beating a handcuffed prisoner all the way up to a government official breaking rules governing snooping on USCs.

I'd like to see a baker's dozen of people go to jail over any or either of these issues if they can be proven. Unethical behavior in government is becoming WAY too normalized, as is a very loose devotion to the rule of law. It is time to make an example of people.

Fortunately for the small army of degenerates in the government, I am not the President.

BTW- yes, the FBI would still be investigating, because as with all signals intel, things need to be corroborated, and the usual methods (like talking to the involved parties) doesn't work because of methods concerns. That takes a while, and frequently ends up going nowhere. That's why I'm fairly convinced that the FBI has already reached a conclusion on collusion, but not on the more easily provable things, like money changing hands in the case of Flynn. If the FBI starts calling people in to chat without offers of immunity, then we'll know they have something chargeable and they want to catch them lying.

IF someone gets caught having coordinated with the Russians, then all this other stuff (Rice, etc) goes away. But if the FBI comes back with nothing like they did with Clinton, Rice may want to retain a lawyer.

Cid is ripping the fucking TITS off this thread.

CID1990 wrote:What the WH counsel's office is doing is not, under any reading.

Who leaked classified information to score political points? It was [most likely] Cohen-Watnick, or Ellis or, [less likely] WH counsel's office. No?

I thought this was an issue you cared deeply about a week ago?

CID1990 wrote:If the FBI starts calling people in to chat without offers of immunity, then we'll know they have something chargeable and they want to catch them lying.

Huh? Has this not happened?

We know Flynn has been interviewed by the FBI. And that he lied to them.

Flynn reportedly lied to FBI about sanctions talk with Russian envoy
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02 ... envoy.html

I agree with you in the case of other potential targets like Manafort, Page, and Stone. When they start interviewing them... the conclusion will be sooner, rather than later.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CID1990 wrote:What the WH counsel's office is doing is not, under any reading.

Who leaked classified information to score political points? It was [most likely] Cohen-Watnick, or Ellis or, [less likely] WH counsel's office. No?

I thought this was an issue you cared deeply about a week ago?

CID1990 wrote:If the FBI starts calling people in to chat without offers of immunity, then we'll know they have something chargeable and they want to catch them lying.

Huh? Has this not happened?

We know Flynn has been interviewed by the FBI. And that he lied to them.

Flynn reportedly lied to FBI about sanctions talk with Russian envoy
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02 ... envoy.html

I agree with you in the case of other potential targets like Manafort, Page, and Stone. When they start interviewing them... the conclusion will be sooner, rather than later.

Nobody leaked anything, SK.

The WH counsel's office gave the info to Nunez. That's not leaking unless providing related intel to a committee chair who is cleared for it (and actually has need to know) is leaking. It was unorthodox, but not inappropriate

You'd be closer to the mark if you characterized Trump's wiretapping tweet as leaking, or Nunez giving his little teaser conference

The FBI asking Flynn about his calls with the AMB wasn't pursuant to a charge they already had on him- and that, along with his failure to register as a foreign agent, is likely why he's offering testimony in exchange for immunity.

And here's the thing: thus far that's all they have on Flynn (and they could charge him today)

Do you want to ask me how I know, or do you want to suss it out in your own mind first? You can do it

CID1990 wrote: Nobody leaked anything, SK.

The WH counsel's office gave the info to Nunez. That's not leaking unless providing related intel to a committee chair who is cleared for it (and actually has need to know) is leaking. It was unorthodox, but not inappropriate

I was talking about the Bloomberg article that broke the Susan Rice story today.

It cited "two US officials" and Rice's unmasking requests. I assume unmasking requests would be classified? No?