Report: U.S. Citizen Names Unmasked ‘for Political Purposes’ to ‘Embarrass Trump and His Team’
Indicated individual who unmasked names of US citizens is high up the intel food chain
Fox News is reporting the individual who unmasked names of US citizens in intelligence reports is a high-ranking, well-known individual. The network also alleges Trump and the names of members of his transition team were unmasked for purely political purposes.
Adam Housely, Fox News reporter on the Nunes/intel report beat, confirmed a New York Times report from Thursday, which named two individuals they believed were Nunes sources. Housely clarified that Ezra Cohen-Watnick and Michael Ellis were not sources but were helping Chairman of the House Intel Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, navigate the intel waters.
Nunes’ source is still unknown.
Democrats claim Nunes was and is colluding with the White House on the story as a means to distract from FBI’s investigation into Trump and his associates alleged Russian ties.
Nunes confirmed he viewed the information showing the unmasking of US citizens on White House grounds, a secure location.
Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The network also alleges Trump and the names of members of his transition team were unmasked for purely political purposes.
Democrat operatives did something for purely political purposes?
This is my shocked face. (I seem to be saying that in comments a lot today. 😉 )
Isn’t this a sideshow of a sideshow?
Where is the proof or even the slightest bit of evidence that Obama tapped Trump @ Trump Tower? And yes, that is what Trump 1st claimed unless you spin it like a top.
“Orange Peril”! What a cute name for a silly leftie!
Are you equally outraged that hussein promised that everyone could keep their health insurance and doctor?
I ask you, which causes you greater concern?
Hmmmmmm…….Orange…….Peril…..
It must be Hillary Clinton!
Say hello to Billy-Bob Killary!
The person responsible is either Brennan, or Clapper. My money’s on Brennan. But I am only guessing; the people who have seen the evidence know exactly who it is.
This is no sideshow. I would describe the outgoing administration misusing the Nation’s intelligence services to spy on political adversaries as a blockbuster event. At least an order of magnitude worse than Watergate.
The proof lies in classified material. So we (the public) can’t yet see it. But it appears clear that Nunes has the proof. And that proof is being examined by others, including Schiff (who now will no longer be able to freely lie about it) even as I type.
But keep on with that senseless carping, you liberal loony!
Touche!
To say nothing of all their illegal spying on normal, ordinary citizens, such as say….Tea Party Members…..
RE: “This is no sideshow. I would describe the outgoing administration misusing the Nation’s intelligence services to spy on political adversaries as a blockbuster event. At least an order of magnitude worse than Watergate.”
What did Obama know, and when did Obama know it?
If you were trying to convey to the masses that your team was surveilled by the past administration, what word would come to mind first? Wiretap. It is like saying “I need a Kleenex” instead of “I need a tissue”. Wiretap to the layman means that someone listened in on your private conversations and with the advent of cell phones, obviously does not mean a wire. Grow the f*ck up and think like a man.
You’ve got it!
You know its the Uni-Party when they sic the Grammar Queens, and Pearl Clutchers onto ya…..
when you see “wire tapped” in a tweet do you take that literally or do the quotes mean something?
Things Trump tweeted:
“How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!”
“Is it legal for a sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!”
“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”
“I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!”
You honestly think he was talking about unmasking contextual identifiers of references to US citizens made by lawfully intercepted communications of foreign intelligence targets that occurred after the election?
Yes.
You are just being stupidly idiotic. As someone said, Trump supporters take him figuratively, and his opponents try to trip him up by taking him literally, when he wasn’t speaking literally, but figuratively. Technically (and literally) it is exceedingly rare to actually “wiretap” phones anymore, since that literally means putting taps on the tip and ring connectors to a phone line and connecting a recording device in parallel electrically to the phone. That sort of “wiretapping” has become almost extinct since, for the most part, phones don’t come into houses or businesses any more as twisted pairs from the local substation (which is where the “wiretaps’ were typically installed). Doesn’t matter – if the FBI wants to intercept your phone calls, they still have to get a warrant under the “Wiretap Act” (or FISA). Wiretapping has become synonymous with interception of, in particular, phone calls, but also, legally now, includes point-to-point electronic communications such as email and text messaging.
40 years ago, when FISA was enacted, the FBI used tip and ring wiretaps to intercept phone calls to and from the Soviet embassy, their ambassador’s house, etc. no different than what they were using for intercepting calls by the mafia. Neither the Wiretap Act or FISA have changed significantly in regards to the types of communications that they cover in the interim. But instead of intercepting phone calls by tapping tip and ring of the target phone, the FBI intercepts cell phone calls either at a central office, substation, or locally. Same rules apply, and you would be laughed out of court if you tried to argue that the law didn’t apply because the interception wasn’t literally “wiretapping”.
The rest of your argument is just fluff. The point is that, using the standard vernacular, Trump was saying that electronic commerce inactions by him and his team were intercepted by the Obama Administration. You are talking about how they skirted (or violated) the law to effect the interception, and not that it was done.
And notably, Trump really never said that they were the legal target of the wiretapping, which seems to be part of your argument. He just said that it was done, which app ARs to be true.
I always laugh at the statements that 17 intelligence agencies agree that the Russians hacked the election. Yes, even when the statements come from the US Government.
Here is a list of the 17 US Intelligence agencies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community
There are a goodly number which have no operational interest in tracking whether Russian hacked the elections. However, I will leave you with just two:
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency – exploits imagery, imagery intelligence (IMINT) and geospatial information.
National Reconnaissance Office – It designs, builds, and operates the Reconnaissance satellites of the United States government, and provides satellite intelligence,
Orange merely deminstrstes the hypocrasy of left. No evidence required for Russua allegations but screams blue murder demanding evidence at the merest hint that the black baby jesus tapped Trump and his team purely for political purposes.
Democrats, no good for anyone or anything.
Mailman
The left is certainly hypocritical, but I don’t see how this demonstrates it. Trump made a claim that Obama wiretapped him during the election. He didn’t just say it’s possible, or that it should be investigated, he said it happened. He said it several times. He even said when it happened several times. He is the one who would be in the best position to provide evidence of this, since he is the President, and has both control of the agencies that would have been used to do this and the power to declassify the evidence he finds, yet he has provided none.
Nobody on the left in nearly the same position as Trump has actually asserted that Trump colluded with Russia. They are asking for an investigation. There is at least some evidence Trump colluded with Russia, in the form of video of him asking Russia to hack his opponent and statements from close associates of his that they had prior knowledge of some of the actions Russia took. Nobody on the left has unfettered access to the places that would contain any evidence of such collusion.
There not even close to each other.
“Nobody on the left in nearly the same position as Trump has actually asserted that Trump colluded with Russia.”
Where have you been the last two weeks? Rep. Schiff has said over and over that there is smoke and he has circumstantial evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians is the fire. Where is it? As for your absurd recalling of the campaign speech where Trump in a humorous moment said he hoped the Russians would expose hillary. As a typical lib, you have no sense of humor and cannot tell truth from fiction.
“Where have you been the last two weeks? Rep. Schiff has said over and over that there is smoke and he has circumstantial evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians is the fire. Where is it?”
I’m not sure what exactly you mean by “is the fire”, but Schiff has only said there is circumstantial evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, he has not asserted that it actually happened. He has not actually accused Trump or his campaign of collusion, he has just said it deserves investigation, which is exactly what I claimed. It’s also worth noting, Schiff does not have the legal authority to declassify documents.
“As for your absurd recalling of the campaign speech where Trump in a humorous moment said he hoped the Russians would expose hillary. As a typical lib, you have no sense of humor and cannot tell truth from fiction.”
Don’t people reveal truths about themselves through jokes?
Schiff, in a fit of anger over Nunes, finding the evidence of Obama’s little spy ring, stated clearly, that ‘he has seen evidence that is more than circumstantial substantiating the claims of Trumps collusion with Russia.
I believe that was a few day’s after the Comey and Rodgers testimony that AGAIN concluded that no evidence of collusion existed.
You don’t understand even basic aspects of what is going on or of what Nunes has asserted. I’m embarrassed for you.
why should he be embarrassed? Originally, most everyone thought that Trump, in his usual way, had overstated the situation, that Flynn had talked to the one person the FBI has had standing FISA warrants for tapping the phones of for the last 40 years – the Russian (and before that, Soviet) ambassador. Even then, it was problematic, since there had not been the required FISA minimumization, despite a complete lack of legal justification to the contrary. But, it turns out, in the recent revelations, that the Obama Administration was intercepting calls left and right of Trump and his team, and they weren’t all talking to the Russian ambassador at the time.
The FISA unmasking looks more and more like an attempt to bypass FISA and the Wiretap Act and use quasi-legally obtained intercepts to surveil trump and his people. You can parse words as much as you like, but that is the reality of what appears to be emerging – surveillance by members of the Obama Administration of communications by the Trump team. Not once, but almost routinely.
Meanwhile Rep Schiff is doing what ranking Dems seem to do so often these days when the heat on a Dem Administration gets too hot – desperately trying to change the subject to anything else. He isn’t the first, and surely won’t be the last. This is little different that what we have seen, in particular, Rep Cummings do on multiple occasions. Or what Rep Waters does in her, almost daily, meltdowns. There is no evidence, after months of searching, and assertions to the contrary by Dir Comey, etc, that there is any evidence supporting the Russian coordination theory. None. Yet, the more evidence that cones out showing that Trump was figuratively right about him and his team having been surveiled by the Obama Administration, the more desperate Reps Schiff, Waters, etc sound in their pushing of their Russian collaboration theory.
So, if anyone should be embarrassed, it is you, trying to change the subject and obscure what is going on right now – the emergence of a major scandal that may do serious damage to the Obama legacy, and may land some of his people in prison.
There is at least some evidence Trump colluded with Russia, in the form of video of him asking Russia to hack his opponent and statements from close associates of his that they had prior knowledge of some of the actions Russia took.
There is no such video, and no such statements. Trump did not ask Russia to crack anything, and especially not a server that had already been “wiped with a cloth”; he asked Russia to release information that he (and everyone else) assumed it already had.
If you have evidence of a Trump associate claiming to have known that the Russians were going to crack the DNC and Podesta email accounts before it happened, I dare you to cite it.
Kemberlee, where did you find “indicted”?
“Indicated individual who unmasked names of US citizens is high up the intel food chain”
More important to this whole proceeding:
How soon will we see PROSECUTION of this “high-ranking, well-known individual.”
His actions are a clear violation of Federal Law. It’s time the Obama Administration higher-ups started looking at the world through BARS for their illegal acts.
The leftist, as usual, start parsing. They are Humpty Dumpty, explaining that words mean what he says they mean, no more, no less.
‘Wire tap’ is the generic term, one used by the NYT, and other media outlets. So Trump is as stupid, (or wise) as they are.
The end result is, Obama, by his actions concerning FISA surveillance, was reading communications of the Trump campaign and transition team.
Get the picture in your minds eye. Obama, personally, took official actions, allowing his political team to read Trumps communications.
That’s called willful spying.
Nunes’ claim is that information about Trump transition members, gleaned from communications of legitimate foreign intelligence targets that occurred after the election, was included in intelligence reports that didn’t properly mask contextual identifiers indicating the identities of those Trump transition members that the foreign intelligence targets were discussing. He doesn’t even assert that Trump transition team members were on the other end of the line, and he certainly doesn’t asset that Trump campaign members were, in any sense of the word, wiretapped.
Jeh Johnson….”high up, not FBI”
This may or may not help put things in perspective but I need to note it nonetheless: General Flynn was “caught” communicating with a Russian official as the result of a wiretap ! So, if no actual “wiretap” existed, what was it that was used to intercept that conversation? Psychic readings?
It is clear that wiretapping occurred, even if it turns out that some other sort of electronic spying was used; “wiretap” is the generally accepted generic term for this sort of eavesdropping on people’s communications. So, wiretapping happened; the only remaining questions have to do with who carried it out, why it was done, and who “suggested” it. My bet is on some friend of Hillary who had the clout to “suggest” such a black op (hint, hint).
Before Trump first Tweeted that Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower, the Dems were screaming that no surveillance of Trump of his associates had occurred. Then they threw in the “incidental collection” argument and said that Flynn was recorded talking to the Russian ambassador who was the target of the intercepts, not Flynn or a member of the Trump organization. Then they walked that back and admitted that surveillance had occurred, but only in relation to the alleged Trump-Russia conspiracy. Then Nunes gets a heads up that there are documents in the possession of the WH which show that the Trump organization was under electronic surveillance. Nunes goes to the WH and says that he has seen documents which show that American citizens were beign actively monitored and that there was no apparent link to any Russian investigation. He said that he was precluded from speaking further due to security rules and laws.
Up to speed here? First the Dems claim that there is no surveillance of the Trump campaign or transition team. Then that it was incidental to surveillance placed upon the Russian ambassador. The that there was surveillance on the Trump team, but that it was done as part of an official investigation [Comey denies that any surveillance was being done by the FBI]. Now Nunes views documents, at the WH [indicating that they are likely WH documents such as DIRs] and states that the documents which he viewed confirm that the Trump organization was under direct surveillance and that there was no indication that this surveillance was in regard to any investigation into Trump-Russian collusion. He says the he can not release specifics due to classified document laws. So, at this point it appears that Trump was correct, at least to the extent that he was under government surveillance. But, it gets better. The Dems, along with their propaganda wing, the MSM, launch an all-out scorched earth attack on Nunes, replete with character assassination. Why? Perhaps because everything that the Dems have been saying is, at best, inaccurate or, at worst, a lie. The attack on Nunes is designed to protect one person, as it has already been shown that Trump was under surveillance and that classified material was disseminated illegally. That person is the former President of the United States, barack Obama. If Nunes viewed material in WH DIRs and it indicated that the surveillance was not either incidental or part of an investigation for which a FISA warrant existed, then it is reasonable to assume that Obama had knowledge that it was progressing. And, if he had knowledge and failed to order it shut down immediately, then he gave tacit approval to the activity.
See the reason for the uproar from the Dems? They may not know what information was shown to Nunes at the WH. But, they suspect that it could be enough to create an earthshaking scandal for the former President and their party.
Rumor is out there and rampant that it was Jeh Johnson that did the unmasking. Stay tuned.