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

COMEY: I think other elements of the government that are consumers of our products can ask the collectors to unmask. The unmasking resides with those who collected the information.

And so if Mike Rogers's folks collected something and they sent it to me in a report and it says U.S. person number one and it's important for the FBI to know who that is, our request will go back to them. The White House can make similar requests of the FBI or of NSA but they can't on their -- they don't own their own collect and so they can't on their own unmask. I got that about right? ROGERS: No, that's correct.

COMEY: Yeah.

CID1990 wrote:CNN really has lost whatever credibility they had left after the last couple months

That said, nothing is proven on Rice yet, and the rules are very nebulous in terms of how she could stretch into the "intelligence interest" area on this

But the whole thing can be settled by simply asking Comey

93henfan wrote:The scandal is if names were unmasked to, I don't know, uh, maybe hurt a candidate for President?

Just thinking out loud here. This is a tough one.

CID1990 wrote:CNN really has lost whatever credibility they had left after the last couple months

That said, nothing is proven on Rice yet, and the rules are very nebulous in terms of how she could stretch into the "intelligence interest" area on this

But the whole thing can be settled by simply asking Comey

Chizzang wrote:What exactly does "New Credibility" get you today..?
And I'm being serious

Why would any major news outlet be concerned with credibility..?
Fox is the number one rated "News" channel and they couldn't give a flying frog fart about credibility
Why should CNN..?

It gets you nothing...

Chizzang wrote:What exactly does "New Credibility" get you today..?
And I'm being serious

Why would any major news outlet be concerned with credibility..?
Fox is the number one rated "News" channel and they couldn't give a flying frog fart about credibility
Why should CNN..?

It gets you nothing...

GannonFan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:CNN really has lost whatever credibility they had left after the last couple months

That said, nothing is proven on Rice yet, and the rules are very nebulous in terms of how she could stretch into the "intelligence interest" area on this

But the whole thing can be settled by simply asking Comey

Agree with CNN, the past 6 months have been a descent into disaster for CNN. Sad, they used to be a fairly middle of the ground source of news, but they've decidedly gone to a more partisan approach.

Ivytalk wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Agree with CNN, the past 6 months have been a descent into disaster for CNN. Sad, they used to be a fairly middle of the ground source of news, but they've decidedly gone to a more partisan approach.

The New York Times now claims that CNN has enjoyed a spectacular rebound, thanks to Trump.

Meanwhile, Fox News is paying out millions in sexual harassment settlements because of Bill O'Reilly.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

93henfan wrote:The scandal is if names were unmasked to, I don't know, uh, maybe hurt a candidate for President?

Just thinking out loud here. This is a tough one.

Well, there's no evidence for that.

If there wasn't a multi-agency counter intelligence investigation into Trump and his associates colluding with a foreign power... there wouldn't have to be any evidence. Just her unmasking names would be significant.

Since there IS a vast counter intelligence investigation - we don't know if these were within the scope of the investigation or not.

And, since the intelligence agencies running the investigation would have to approve the unmasking - it seems like they deemed the unmasking relevant. But, we'll see.

The top Democrat on the House Russia investigation, Rep. Adam Schiff, said Wednesday President Donald Trump personally promised documents at the center of "unmasking" allegations would be made available to all members of the House intelligence committee, but that White House staff is fighting those documents' release.

"The President, when I met with him, said that he is happy to have whoever we wanted review the documents. His staff has opposed that, they were opposed to even letting my own staff review the documents, my staff director," Schiff told CNN Wednesday. "So we're still trying to get those documents for the full committee, we would like the White House's help if they are sincere about wanting to share this information and have the oversight functions performed, they are to be facilitating this."

He added, "But as yet we have not been able to make those documents available to the full committee."

GannonFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:What exactly does "New Credibility" get you today..?
And I'm being serious

Why would any major news outlet be concerned with credibility..?
Fox is the number one rated "News" channel and they couldn't give a flying frog fart about credibility
Why should CNN..?

It gets you nothing...

Journalistic integrity. Standing for something. Sure, Fox is the number one rated "News" channel but they've been that way for years. Does that really mean something? Sure, they might get more advertising dollars, but what do advertising dollars mean to a journalist anyway? Places like CNN and ABC News and other roughly middle of the road news outlets were surviving just fine as places of relative journalistic integrity. It wasn't a matter of survival that they changed, it's not like they were financially strapped. You talk of "it gets you nothing" but what exactly is there to be "got"? Those places exist today as they have, they now just don't stand for anything anymore, other than providing entertainment other than news. What have they gained?

JohnStOnge wrote:I think Rice will be fine except she''ll have to go through some Congressional hearings that won't really go anywhere. I withheld judgment for a couple of days but the more I listen to people who talk about this and read about the more I think that all she did was ask that some Americans who were mentioned in intelligence reports be identified. My understanding is that it was totally appropriate and within her authority for her to make the requests.

93henfan wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I think Rice will be fine except she''ll have to go through some Congressional hearings that won't really go anywhere. I withheld judgment for a couple of days but the more I listen to people who talk about this and read about the more I think that all she did was ask that some Americans who were mentioned in intelligence reports be identified. My understanding is that it was totally appropriate and within her authority for her to make the requests.

Your transformation is complete. Congratulations!

93henfan wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I think Rice will be fine except she''ll have to go through some Congressional hearings that won't really go anywhere. I withheld judgment for a couple of days but the more I listen to people who talk about this and read about the more I think that all she did was ask that some Americans who were mentioned in intelligence reports be identified. My understanding is that it was totally appropriate and within her authority for her to make the requests.

Your transformation is complete. Congratulations!

JohnStOnge wrote:I think Rice will be fine except she''ll have to go through some Congressional hearings that won't really go anywhere. I withheld judgment for a couple of days but the more I listen to people who talk about this and read about the more I think that all she did was ask that some Americans who were mentioned in intelligence reports be identified. My understanding is that it was totally appropriate and within her authority for her to make the requests.

houndawg wrote:All this is about is diverting attention from Trmip's ties to the Russian mob.

houndawg wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I think Rice will be fine except she''ll have to go through some Congressional hearings that won't really go anywhere. I withheld judgment for a couple of days but the more I listen to people who talk about this and read about the more I think that all she did was ask that some Americans who were mentioned in intelligence reports be identified. My understanding is that it was totally appropriate and within her authority for her to make the requests.

All this is about is diverting attention from Trmip's ties to the Russian mob.