Susan Rice suggests race, gender bias linked to 'unmasking' backlash

hanger4 said:

"and had a court sign off on it."

Court/s don't sign off on an unmasking request, the collecting agency does and they have strict guidelines (law) to follow.

Click to expand...

Yes, they do. Unmasking requires a formal request, which is reviewed by a FISA court, and either approved or rejected. If it's approved, the unmasked information is given ONLY to the individual requesting it; it is not disseminated to anyone else without a second formal request, which is reviewed by a FISA court... etc., etc.

DiAnna said:

Yes, they do. Unmasking requires a formal request, which is reviewed by a FISA court, and either approved or rejected. If it's approved, the unmasked information is given ONLY to the individual requesting it; it is not disseminated to anyone else without a second formal request, which is reviewed by a FISA court... etc., etc.

Click to expand...

I can find nowhere that a FISA court approves or disapproves a requested unmasking;

"This brings me back to the issue of Rice’s conduct. Even in her role as national security advisor, Rice lacked the authority to compel the unmasking of U.S. persons’ identities in the NSA documentation she was apparently provided in the course of her official duties. At most, she could request that the identities be unmasked, and NSA could either approve or deny the request. Even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that the NSA representative detailed to the National Security Council (over which Rice presided) had the authority to grant her unmasking request(s), and if we also assumed that NSA official did not feel it was prudent to seek approval from someone of greater seniority at NSA, Rice would still would have had to convince the NSA official that the circumstances justified the unmasking. It may ultimately come to pass that new information comes out demonstrating not only that Rice’s unmasking request was strictly politically motivated, but that the decision by NSA to approve it was similarly political. In all honesty, that scenario is unlikely and improbable, but certainly not impossible."

Rice was within legal rights to 'unmask' Trump associates | TheHill

But I'm more than willing to look over whomever or whatever told you that. All a FISA court does is issue secret surveillance warrants.

DiAnna said:

Yes, they do. Unmasking requires a formal request, which is reviewed by a FISA court, and either approved or rejected. If it's approved, the unmasked information is given ONLY to the individual requesting it; it is not disseminated to anyone else without a second formal request, which is reviewed by a FISA court... etc., etc.

Click to expand...

Another link DiAnna;

"The procedures for doing so are less well understood than the minimization process, but about 20 officials at the National Security Agency have the authority to approve an unmasking, NSA Director Michael Rogers told the House Intelligence Committee last month. Especially sensitive requests would come to his attention personally. "I'm the senior-most of the 20 individuals. Requests will be pushed to my level, say 'Hey, sir, we just want to make sure that you're comfortable with this,'" he said."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ligence-agencies-treat-us-citizens/100026368/

And another;

NSA Director: Decision to Unmask ?Really Important? People Can Depend on Whether He?s ?Comfortable?

The heat must be turned up on Rice for her to make such an unfounded statement in an attempt to divert the conversation. I can't imagine the NSA will be particularly supportive of Rice just now, given the subject at hand, which isn't her gender or race. It's her unmasking and sharing that's being questioned.

Cardinal said:

The bull**** unmasking thing is the latest "Obama said you didn't build that" of the day. Every news cycle has something this monumentally idiotic, and requires that the people propagating the story deliberately ignore context and purposefully distort definitions.

Click to expand...

This story is dishonest GOP partisan hackery firing on all cylinders. Where was the wrath for American citizens being illegally surveilled for literally the last 15 years? I'm under the impression that, 4th amendment violations happen quite commonly in post-9/11 America. Bush's FBI did warrantless wiretapping back in early '00s. The PATRIOT ACT hardly incensed conservatives. It was liberals who were pissed about that. Edward Snowden exposed that the NSA has been spying on American citizens in an indiscriminate way. The Snowden topic is more complicated than that, but the Snowden revelations came to light, what, f o u r years ago? Conservatives had 4 years to become outraged about 4th amendment rights. The GOP desperation to deflect to anything but, Michael Flynn getting caught talking to the Russians, lying about it and then Trump covering for his ass is pathetically puerile. Next time a loose cannon Democrat wants to do 1/2 the **** the Republicans fabricate they better do some ****ing damage to that party of liars and clowns.

DiAnna said:

Yes, they do. Unmasking requires a formal request, which is reviewed by a FISA court, and either approved or rejected. If it's approved, the unmasked information is given ONLY to the individual requesting it; it is not disseminated to anyone else without a second formal request, which is reviewed by a FISA court... etc., etc.

Click to expand...

Susan Rice has more reason to tweet about witch hunts than Trump.. the hypocrisy is stupefying.

Fenton said:

No, I think bashing her is justified because she's preeminent liar

Click to expand...

I don't care what anybody says. I think the best fun of all is bashing her because she is a black female who got caught with both hands AND her fat ass in the cookie jar. Say, would it be considered racist if they put her and Loretta Lynch and Corrine Brown in the same cell? Hot damn, I just came up with a solutionut Hillary in there too and they can call it the Oreo Cookie Club.

They could open a prison law firm, Brown Rice and Lynch Clinton. Schmokin'!