It is not illegal to unmask. the problem is when it is done for political purposes, or it is based on fake intelligence, which is known to be fake. Then it is illegal.
The problem was that Nunes falsely portrayed it this way for political purposes. He implied there was something unethical about what Susan Rice did and there was not.
the problem is when it is done for political purposes, or it is based on fake intelligence, which is known to be fake. Then it is illegal.
This is confused. Unmaksing by definition is someone responding to a real piece of US intelligence. Policymakers/officials are not bringing their own intelligence fake or otherwise into the deal. They are reading something captured/prepared by the US Intel agencies and that has already been masked by the US Intel agencies. It Susan Rice's case, she was asking about transcripts of U.S. surveillance of foreign targets. The intelligence was signals intelligence which means there's a recording of this. Susan Rice had nothing to do with capture, reocording or creation of this transcript. It would be impossible for her to do so.
Members of the House and Senate intelligence committees from both parties have traveled to NSA headquarters to review the relevant intelligence reports. "I saw no evidence of any wrongdoing," said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents, who would not agree to be identified further. "It was all completely normal." His assessment was shared by a senior Republican aide who had been briefed on the matter but declined to speak on the record.
The unmaksing controversy is a very clumsy attempt to change the conversation. Because they know what's about to happen this week.
view the rest of the comments →
Commoner ago
I hope this means that there is a lot going on behind the scenes.
RweSure ago
yes, it's going to be a very busy week and folks like Grassley are desperate to find something else to talk about.
Did you hear how much unmasking Devin Nunes did? After accusing others of it?
Commoner ago
It is not illegal to unmask. the problem is when it is done for political purposes, or it is based on fake intelligence, which is known to be fake. Then it is illegal.
Are_we__sure ago
This is true.
The problem was that Nunes falsely portrayed it this way for political purposes. He implied there was something unethical about what Susan Rice did and there was not.
This is confused. Unmaksing by definition is someone responding to a real piece of US intelligence. Policymakers/officials are not bringing their own intelligence fake or otherwise into the deal. They are reading something captured/prepared by the US Intel agencies and that has already been masked by the US Intel agencies. It Susan Rice's case, she was asking about transcripts of U.S. surveillance of foreign targets. The intelligence was signals intelligence which means there's a recording of this. Susan Rice had nothing to do with capture, reocording or creation of this transcript. It would be impossible for her to do so.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/susan-rice-did-nothing-wrong-say-both-dems-republicans-n747406
The unmaksing controversy is a very clumsy attempt to change the conversation. Because they know what's about to happen this week.
Commoner ago
we don't know why susan Rice or whoever did it. That is why there needs to be an investigation. Susan rice is a proven liar.
Are_we__sure ago
Actually we do know why. The masked name was a potential national security threat.
It was a ruotine unmasking.