Why Susan Rice’s Reported ‘Unmasking’ of Trump Officials Raises Very Serious Legal Concerns for Her

Why Susan Rice’s Reported ‘Unmasking’ of Trump Officials Raises Very Serious Legal Concerns for Her​

By Robert Barnes
April 03 2017

Watergate was just a private break-in by private actors. To preclude either Watergate or Cointelpro from ever occurring again, and in response to Justice Douglas’ warnings about illegal uses of electronic surveillance, Congress passed laws to conform surveillance to the twin mandates of the First and Fourth Amendment.

The means our government uses — to protect the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Americans without sacrificing the country’s security needs for information gathering on foreign threats — is a process known as “minimization” and “masking.” The point of the minimization and masking protocols is to insure America’s eavesdropping on foreigners “safeguards the constitutional rights of U.S. persons.” These protocols are not merely internal rules nor discretionary guidelines; they are the necessary legislatively delegated means “required to protect the privacy rights of U.S. persons” provided for by the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. Violating these provisions does more than violate mere regulatory restrictions; violating these provisions violates the Constitutional rights of Americans. That is why the law criminalizes such action when taken “under color of law” by rogue agents.

The law imposes criminal sanctions on government officials who “engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized” by statutes and governing regulations implementing those statutes. This same criminal law makes a person “guilty of an offense” if she intentionally “discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained” in a manner “not authorized” by law.

According to both FBI Director Comey and NSA Director Clapper, no warrant ever authorized the intercepts and electronic surveillance on a member of Trump’s team.

Susan Rice, and the Obama administration, appeared to have often skipped the Constitutional limits on their duties while in office; now might be a good time to buff up on the Fifth Amendment, and the right to counsel. Congress may be calling soon.

(Excerpt)

Read more: http://lawnewz.com/opinion/susan-ri...ump-team-intercepts-for-politicized-purposes/

Why Susan Rice’s Reported ‘Unmasking’ of Trump Officials —DOES NOT—Raises Very Serious Legal Concerns for Her.The former SOS got away with felonies while under active FBI investigations.

1. The FBI destroyed evidence during it’s ‘investigation’ to help protect HRC.
2. Lois Lerner used the IRS to attack Americans clearly a violation of the law.
3. John Koskinen, lied to Congress under oath and has never been prosecuted for it.
4. Eric Holder was held in contempt but managed to keep his job
5. Susan rice lied to the American people repeatedly about what happened in Benghazi

Former SOS Hillary Clinton clearly broke the law by having a private government server in her home- then lied about it for months, then lied about what was on it, then lied about cooperating with investigators, then destroyed evidence, then called the parents of the slain ambassador and his fellow Americans liars- then said what diff does it make? Then, then, and then...
There is no justice when a person is a high ranking official. No matter how serious the crimes committed, or how many felonies they commit. They can and have ordered the assassination of fellow Americans and have never been taken to task for it. Only the little people are held accountable.

 

Susan Rice finally admitted that she requested the unmasking of Trump team but not to leaking those names or using them for political purposes. (LOL) Obama signed an Executive Order to share the intelligence with several additional agencies. Was that to make it harder to find the source of the leaking? How was Obama involved?

I based my reference to Susan Rice's admission based on an interview with her, "her own words"

 

That's a good question. Maybe you should investigate the Rice, Rhodes and Obama's involvement.

 

You enjoy your nothing sandwich. The rest of us will keep our eyes on the Russian ball.

 

Our leaders have to meet and attempt to work with all other world leaders. The only real concern with that is that the intent and purpose is in the best interest of our country.

 

No doubt it was a plausible deniability scheme but also, a scheme to broadcast unmasked individuals to an increased number of recipients. Rice, in fact today, denied public unmasking using that very excuse. The dirty little secret is that by increasing the recipients it was well known that private individuals would be publicly unmasked.

 

That was amazingly banal.

Of course, "our leaders have to meet and attempt to work with all other world leaders"

Trump is only just now figuring that out.

Of course, he has is son in law, whose foreign policy experience is limited to leasing space in office buildings.

 

What would stop them from listening to supreme Court justices and blackmailing them to get their decision . Or spying on Congress and holding things over their way. The were already caught using the IRS for political gain. Dirty.

 

So what's wrong with that. Just how much experience did Barry have when he took the oath of office January 20, 2009? NONE what so ever!!

 

Yeah? The funny thing here is Rice and the Obama Regimme had Trump under surveillance for a year before he was elected. Didn't reveal a thing! When Trump won, they used the media to hand out what they couldn't find. Sad part is......How are all the "snowflakes" gonna handle this?

 

Big mistake on her part, Obama's days of issuing pardons is long gone.