POL: Former Obama official discloses Trump intel/surveillance

[the_mother_thing]

Yes, it's on Faux News, but the video clip is from an MSNBC interview, Farkas admits surveillance of Trump team members, and is quite telling of what was going on pre-inauguration regarding the Obama admin intel community pertaining to the supposed 'incidental collection' of his team's communications.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-rush-to-get-intelligence-on-trump-team.html

Who knows where it will go, if anywhere, but it sure brings up a crap ton of legal questions about herself (Farkas), who told her (as a former employee of the gov, since she had no need to know), and why. And a bunch more as my brain churns through it ...

I hope Farkas finds herself a damn good lawyer post haste ... she's gonna need one!

 

[ruby59]

I just listened to the feed.

But I am not surprised there are crickets here in place of any responses.

They are more concerned with the nonsense.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I just listened to the feed.

But I am not surprised there are crickets here in place of any responses.

They are more concerned with the nonsense.

"FAKE NEWS"

 

[the_mother_thing]

I figured it's because I'm on so many iggy lists so people aren't forced to read facts and truth.

 

[ruby59]

But it was originally on MSNBC.

Now I remember, it was on when Maddow and Hayes took a mental health day because neither one of them would have her on during their hour.

 

[ruby59]

I figured it's because I'm on so many iggy lists so people aren't forced to read facts and truth.

They do discuss that ignore button a lot, but I suspect very few actually use it.

People are definitely reading it, if the nos are any indication.

 

[the_mother_thing]

So Farkas left her gov job in 2015. This leads me to think that either 1) there was surveillance going on even then - two years now - and they still haven't found anything 'charge-worthy' to bring Trump or his team down (save for Flynn, who has since been fired); or, 2) someone in the Obama admin leaked the fact there WAS surveillance going on that "incidentally collected" Trump team members, in which case, Farkas should be compelled to testify and provide her source for such information to help lead to at least one of the leak sources as well as the unmasking of their identities as "Trump team members".

This interview aired on March 2, and Chump tweeted his Obama blame-blast very early morning on March 4th; I'm wondering if perhaps that interview is why he launched the tweet-torpedo.

So much stink surrounding the intel community and Obama admin, yet people wonder why one would question their truthfulness while insisting Trump is the LLPOF.

 

[the_mother_thing]

They do discuss that ignore button a lot, but I suspect very few actually use it.

People are definitely reading it, if the nos are any indication.

I really don't care, Ruby; if anything, I find it amusing (if I am on that many iggy lists) ... good 'ol Jack comes to mind.

 

[ruby59]

So Farkas left her gov job in 2015. This leads me to think that either 1) there was surveillance going on even then - two years now - and they still haven't found anything 'charge-worthy' to bring Trump or his team down (save for Flynn, who has since been fired); or, 2) someone in the Obama admin leaked the fact there WAS surveillance going on that "incidentally collected" Trump team members, in which case, Farkas should be compelled to testify and provide her source for such information to help lead to at least one of the leak sources as well as the unmasking of their identities as "Trump team members".

This interview aired on March 2, and Chump tweeted his Obama blame-blast very early morning on March 4th; I'm wondering if perhaps that interview is why he launched the tweet-torpedo.

So much stink surrounding the intel community and Obama admin, yet people wonder why one would question their truthfulness while insisting Trump is the LLPOF.

So quick to blame Trump. Not a peep that Obama is anything but perfect.

 

[ruby59]

I really don't care, Ruby; if anything, I find it amusing (if I am on that many iggy lists) ... good 'ol Jack comes to mind.

I do not think that many have you on ignore. They are just doing their best to ignore this thread that GASP Trump may have been telling the truth.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Annnnnd the plot thickens ... following her departure from DoD:

Farkas would go on to serve as a foreign policy advisor for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton ...

What an interesting coincidence that the current President's opponent in the very-close 2016 election - the one to point the finger at Russia for the hacks, Trump having Russian ties, etc., - had a former DoD Russian policy expert advising her/her campaign ... an advisor who disagreed with the then-president's decision with regard to Ukraine's support request and subsequently resigned within days of his decision re: Ukraine. Inspector Gadget wonders whether perhaps Farkas did all of this on purpose to whizz back on Obama for his decision contrary to her recommendation, knowing that she perhaps may get an immunity deal to spill her guts, especially since she has a cushy new job now.

So many conspiracy theories with this one ... hopefully it's all entirely debunked or flushed out quickly. It'd be nice to get a lot of this stuff behind us to focus jobs, the economy, etc. ... stuff most every-day people actually give a darn about.

 

[jaaron]

I haven't watched the interview, but I read the transcript, and she didn't say a single thing that wasn't already on record and/or in the NYT article. There was surveillance, they had information, they rushed to preserve it because they were afraid it would disappear, people leaked classified information.

What was new information there

 

[the_mother_thing]

I haven't watched the interview, but I read the transcript, and she didn't say a single thing that wasn't already on record and/or in the NYT article. There was surveillance, they had information, they rushed to preserve it because they were afraid it would disappear, people leaked classified information.

What was new information there

'We the people' (as opposed to just the HIC and intel community) now know a who that can explain & lead to a how (intel leaker), and that 'who' - a former Clinton campaign advisor with ties to the Obama admin - has a couple possible motives for her actions & role in all of this. In other words, there are a whole lot more people who should now be asked 'what they knew, and when did they know it' outside the Trump camp, including some on the Hill, Obama's advisors, and maybe good HRC herself.

 

[E B]

First, a literal to claims of lib crickets. You posted this at 10:30pm last night. Some of us prefer sleep to scaremongering at that hour.

I watched it and I agree with jaaron. I'm not exactly sure what you object to, here- her having the information? She was assistant deputy secretary of defense. Do you know that she doesn't have the clearance to know or handle said information? (Genuinely.). Because the rest, as has been said, is old info. The President literally asked, on record, for a report on the Russian tampering. I know this has been swept up in partisanry now that it possibly involves our sitting president, but that seems to have made some *cough* lose sight of the fact that it was- IS- also a national security matter.

Where does HRC come into it whatsoever?

 

[E B]

Re: Her saying "that's why you have the leaks," that sounded a lot more like speculation than knowledge. Hell, I've been saying that all along. If people like Nunes are in charge of impartially dealing with this information and they do nothing with it or obstruct, I suspect there will be more- but that seems to be a divide, here. Those who are more concerned with Russia's role, and those who are more concerned with where the leaks about Russia's role have come from. Though, not too concerned about where the leaks to Nunes about Russia's role came from, surprisingly. I remember one such poster saying something like, "Whatever, I'm glad it came out!" Good words to live by going forward, I guess!

 

[the_mother_thing]

EB - stay tuned ... to determine my own thoughts & opinions on this, I am piecing together some reported details in chronological order. Will post it in a bit.

And yes, I am a bit of a night owl, even in my ripe old age.

 

[ruby59]

First, a literal to claims of lib crickets. You posted this at 10:30pm last night. Some of us prefer sleep to scaremongering at that hour.

I watched it and I agree with jaaron. I'm not exactly sure what you object to, here- her having the information? She was assistant deputy secretary of defense. Do you know that she doesn't have the clearance to know or handle said information? (Genuinely.). Because the rest, as has been said, is old info. The President literally asked, on record, for a report on the Russian tampering. I know this has been swept up in partisanry now that it possibly involves our sitting president, but that seems to have made some *cough* lose sight of the fact that it was- IS- also a national security matter.

Where does HRC come into it whatsoever?

Funny, how you posted that because I said something similar in response to Jaaron asking why Trump supporters had not posted to his thread.

And for me it is relevant because Trump was called all sorts of vile names here when he brought the subject up, and now we have further proof (an actual person) confirming what he said was true.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Here are some interesting tidbits I found and compiled based on the noted reports/sources and how Farkas ties into it all, and looking at just the ironic timing of it all. Not a 'conspiracy theory'; and obviously, it's a lot of info, so read it if you want, comment, or don't ... whatevs ... I just found it all interesting.

The Farkas Connection:
2012-2015: Farkas served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia, responsible for policy toward Russia, the Black Sea, Balkans, and Caucasus regions and conventional arms control.

9/10-2015: Farkas resigns her post amidst controversies over her recommendations (which the Obama admin rejected just a couple days before she announced resignation) to provide lethal support to Ukraine against Russia.

[NOTE: no more gov security clearance or 'need to know' about anything ‘government’, including any intel investigation]

2016: Farkas served as an advisor to Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Presidential campaign and was up for a position in the Clinton administration if Hillary became President.

2/2017: Vox interview with Farkas (http://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/2/16/14630856/evelyn-farkas-trump-russia-flynn) snippet:

Ezra Klein: What’s your level of alarm after the resignation of Michael Flynn?

Evelyn Farkas: It’s lower than it’s been since the summer, when I was first made aware of all this stuff. I’m like, finally, everybody else sees it! Seriously.

The reason I was so upset last summer was that I was getting winks and hints from inside that there was something really wrong here. I was agitated because I knew the Clinton campaign and the world didn’t know. But I didn’t think it would happen this fast. I didn’t think Flynn would survive a year, but I thought it would be most of the year.

The fact that Flynn is gone is constructive from the perspective of US foreign policy. He was getting it wrong on combating terrorism and Russia. So I feel relieved that he will not be whispering his policy prescriptions in the president’s ear.

3/2/2017: Farkas' statement in interview with Mika at about the 4:50 mark:

“I was urging my former colleagues, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration.”

“Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy … that the Trump folks – if they found out how we knew what we knew about their … the Trump staff dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.”

It seems Obama finally listened to her:

On March 1, 2017, the New York Times reported that, in the last days of the Obama administration, "there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the [American] government..." The information was filed in many locations within federal agencies as a precaution against future concealment or destruction of evidence in the event of any investigation.[85]

So:
- Farkas had unauthorized access to classified intel (via the leaker/s) after her resignation from the government on one presidential candidate while advising the other presidential candidate; and,

- Farkas admits (via her words in the Mika interview) that she was colluding/conspiring with “the Hill” and people in the intel community (with known sensitive/classified info) while advising the Clinton campaign and just prior to Obama leaving office; and,

- Farkas states (again, via her words in the Mika interview, second paragraph) that the senior Obama team knew about all of this.

- Farkas revealed in her own words that it was the Trump team (vs Trump) who were 'acting shady'; translation - the identities were unmasked to her for her to know it was Trump's staff vs him.


The HRC connection:
According to Wikipedia:

Russian President Vladimir Putin repeatedly accused Hillary Clinton, who served as U.S. Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, of interfering in Russia’s internal affairs,[23] and Clinton accused Putin of having a personal grudge against her.[24] Michael McFaul, who was U.S. ambassador to Russia, said that "[Putin] was very upset [with Clinton] and continued to be for the rest of the time that I was in government. One could speculate that this is his moment for payback."[25]

According to Russian security expert and investigative journalist Andrei Soldatov, one of the reasons Russia might try to sway the U.S. presidential election is perceived antipathy between Clinton and the Russian government. Soldatov stated that according to Russia, the U.S. is "trying to interfere in our internal affairs so why not try to do the same thing to them?"[27]

NBC News article from July 2016, citing HRC undermining Putin: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/why-putin-hates-hillary-clinton-n617236
Excerpt:

Several former Obama administration officials said that when Clinton was secretary of state, she was by far the most aggressive and outspoken U.S. official when it came to countering Putin's efforts to consolidate his power domestically, and to expand his sphere of influence in the region and beyond. And when she left government, they say, Clinton became even more combative, going so far as to liken Putin to Hitler in 2014 for his annexation of part of Ukraine. The remark offended not just Putin but the Russian public.

Clinton was already a critic of Putin during her seven years in the Senate, where she was a member of the Armed Services Committee. In 2008, she made headlines for publicly doubting that then-President George W. Bush had gotten a sense of Putin's soul because as a former KGB agent he probably didn't have one.

So:

- HRC’s own ‘shooting off at the mouth’ about Putin while she was a Senator, Secy of State, and as a Presidential candidate appears to be what made her the target of his ‘affection’.

- Mrs. Farkas - an expert on Russia - was there to advise HRC/her campaign on matters related to Russia, and how convenient that she was “getting winks & hints from inside” in the process, suggesting that the Obama administration was also conspiring to support HRC’s campaign by sending her the ‘winks & hints’.

The Obama Connection:
Per Wikipedia:

U.S. President Obama and Vladimir Putin had a discussion about computer security issues in September 2016, which took place over the course of an hour and a half.[120] During the discussion, which took place as a side segment during the then-ongoing G20 summit in China, Obama made his views known on cyber security matters between the U.S. and Russia.[120] Obama said Russian hacking stopped after his warning to Putin.[121] One month after that discussion the email leaks from the DNC cyber attack had not ceased, and President Obama decided to contact Putin via the Moscow–Washington hotline, commonly known as the "red phone", on October 31, 2016.[10] Obama emphasized the gravity of the situation by telling Putin: "International law, including the law for armed conflict, applies to actions in cyberspace. We will hold Russia to those standards."[10]

Also per Wikipedia:

Obama was interviewed about the Russian covert operation on December 15, 2016 in an interview with National Public Radio journalist Steve Inskeep for the next day's Morning Edition program.[120] Obama said the U.S. government would respond via overt and covert methods.[120] The president said the government would be better able to speak to motive behind the Russian operation after the intelligence report he ordered was completed.[120] Obama emphasized Russian efforts caused more harm to Clinton than to Trump during the campaign.[120]

So:
- Is that the same “intelligence report” as that which “incidentally collected” the Trump team’s comms?
- Is this how Farkas was getting her ‘winks & hints’ about Trump, Flynn, and the intel community’s investigation?
- It would appear it is at least as likely as not that Obama himself in fact knew about the intel being collected and who/what was in it, since he ordered the investigation, and one would presume someone would be providing him updates.
- What's up with Obama threatening Putin with war?

The Trump Connection:

Per Wikipedia:

On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks released approximately 20,000 emails sent from or received by DNC personnel.[30] A few days later, at a televised news conference, Trump invited Russia to hack and release Hillary Clinton's deleted emails from her private server during her tenure in the State Department, saying "Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing".[31] He also tweeted: "If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!"[32] Trump's comment was condemned by the press and political figures, including some Republicans;[33] he replied that he had been speaking sarcastically.[34] Several Democratic Senators said Trump's comments appeared to violate the Logan Act,[35][36] and Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe added that Trump's call "might even constitute treason".[37]
...
As of March 2017, the FBI is investigating Russian involvement in the election, including alleged links between Trump's associates and the Russian government.[21] British and the Dutch intelligence have given information to United States intelligence about meetings in European cities between Russian officials, associates of Putin, and associates of then-President-elect Trump. American intelligence agencies also intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates.[149] The New York Times reported that multiple Trump associates, including campaign chairman Paul Manafort and other members of his campaign, had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials during 2016, although officials said that so far, they did not have evidence that Trump's campaign had co-operated with the Russians to influence the election. Manafort said he did not knowingly meet any Russian intelligence officials.[150]

Former ambassadors Michael McFaul and John Beyrle have said they are "extremely troubled" by the evidence of Russian interference in the US election, and both support an independent investigation into the matter, but have dismissed as "preposterous" the allegations that Kislyak participated in it, particularly though his meetings with the Trump campaign. "Kislyak's job is to meet with government officials and campaign people," McFaul stated. "People should meet with the Russian ambassador and it’s wrong to criminalize that or discourage it."[155]

Former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell has stated that he has seen no evidence of collusions between Trump and the Kremlin. "On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all," Morell said.[156]

James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence under President Obama, said there was no evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives as of January 2017 when the intelligence community issued its report on the subject.[157]

So:

- It doesn't appear that Trump commit treason or violate the Logan Act (no charges as of yet, anyway).
- While I don't really doubt Russia was involved in trying to get payback on Clinton via our election, so far, no U.S. Intel agency nor leak has indicated Trump personally colluded, sought or supported Russia's efforts to impact our elections.


There is obviously sooooo much more than this, but the nexus between the first three is what really jumps out at me, and Trump himself seems to have been his usual loudmouth, arrogant self with his comments, perhaps by virtue of his being a very 'green'/new politician who did not realize the weight of his words. No excuse by any means; and I am not suggesting his little hands are clean, but the other three seem dirtier IMO. I don't condone Russian involvement/meddling in our election in the least, but Hills kind of affixed the target on herself with her own Trump-ist comments about Putin, and it seems she was hopeful or reliant on her former opponent whom she aspired to succeed as well as her former opponent’s former Russian policy expert.

Just my $0.02, and I look forward to whomever investigates producing whatever evidence they find so we can put this whole event to bed and get onto the business of getting Americans back to work, kids educated, taxes reduced, borders secured, taxes lowered, and last but not least - our nation’s credibility (hopefully) restored.

 

[E B]

Dang, lady! That's quite the write-up. It's mostly assumptions, though, and I'm old enough to remember you chastising us for doing the same. YESTERDAY.

Where do you see that Farkas was receiving classified information? Winks, hints, and knowing things about Trump camp and Russia does not equal information she couldn't know.

The Hillary connection I can see some legitimate concern with if she was passing classified information to her camp from Obama, but that makes a lot of leaps that we can't quite clear with information we know. Hillary herself seemed to be aware of Trump's connection to Putin, but that certainly doesn't mean she received classified information from Farkas (or Obama- information from at all). The Steele dossier was originally compiled as oppo, IIRC. By Republicans.

The Obama connection is the most tenuous. The "intelligence report" he ordered was any information the ICs were able to compile before he left office, as was his right. He was the CoC, and this is a national security issue. One of the presidential candidates just so happens to, if smoke equals fire, be involved somehow. I know this automatically makes it easily partisan for some of you, but if only it were that easy.

- It would appear it is at least as likely as not that Obama himself in fact knew about the intel being collected and who/what was in it, since he ordered the investigation, and one would presume someone would be providing him updates.

I don't understand the issue, here, for reasons above. He had access to any information he needed, from the entire IC.

I see absolutely no issue with them spreading the information to as many places able to receive it (as in those with proper clearance) as possible. There is little doubt now with the Nunes news, and in the last hour the Flynn news, that if there's guilt, they would have buried it halfway to the center of the earth. Why make sure the information couldn't be buried if it was nothing? WHY, if reports are true, is Flynn looking for immunity if it was nothing? We shall see!

 

[redwood66]

Actually this might belong here rather than the Russia thread.

Well the fallout from this might be interesting if it is proven she is the one who did it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...ser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel

If she did it I have a problem with lying about it to the press.

Rice herself has not spoken directly on the issue of unmasking. Last month when she was asked on the "PBS NewsHour" about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were swept up in incidental intelligence collection, Rice said: "I know nothing about this," adding, "I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today."

 

[AnnaH]

Wouldn't be the first big Rice lie. Remember the Benghazi video whopper?
IF anything comes of it, maybe Rice is the fall guy.

 

[redwood66]

Wouldn't be the first big Rice lie. Remember the Benghazi video whopper?
IF anything comes of it, maybe Rice is the fall guy.

Yes, but do we honestly think that ANYTHING Rice knew was not known by Obama? If her requests for the unmasking were not solely politically motivated then I am a monkey's uncle. The names of US persons were masked in the reports because the were not deemed to be criminal in nature, yet she needs to know who they are? And then how did those names get to the press?

 

[AnnaH]

Agree, but there will never be a glove on the former Prez.

 

[jaaron]

Huh. I suppose it would be shocking if the head of the NSA asked to know who had been caught up in an investigation? And even more shocking if she told the president.

 

[Tekate]

Actually this might belong here rather than the Russia thread.

Well the fallout from this might be interesting if it is proven she is the one who did it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...ser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel

If she did it I have a problem with lying about it to the press.

Rice herself has not spoken directly on the issue of unmasking. Last month when she was asked on the "PBS NewsHour" about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were swept up in incidental intelligence collection, Rice said: "I know nothing about this," adding, "I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today."

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/04/breaking-villainous-susan-rice-news-yet-again

This is called throwing wood in the fire to see if it will take the heat off Trump. We need a LOT more information.. so let's get an impartial group to do it.

 

[redwood66]

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/04/breaking-villainous-susan-rice-news-yet-again

This is called throwing wood in the fire to see if it will take the heat off Trump. We need a LOT more information.. so let's get an impartial group to do it.

I almost spit out my coffee!!! You link Mother Jones and use impartial in the same post?

I hope I am misunderstanding and you really mean someone other than Mother Jones. I purposely did not link InfoWars or Breitbart on this.

 

[redwood66]

Huh. I suppose it would be shocking if the head of the NSA asked to know who had been caught up in an investigation? And even more shocking if she told the president.

Please tell me the reason an outgoing national security adviser would need to see names unmasked in reports if not for political reasons? If they are masked then someone in the agency that collected deemed them not to be criminal in nature.

Edit - the national security adviser is not head of the NSA - that is the Director of National Intelligence. The national security adviser sits on the National Security Council.

Excerpt from Bloomberg article:

The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations -- primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.

 

[E B]

Wait...someone with the authority to have names unmasked, only to show them to other people with the proper authority/security clearance to see them in the middle of an investigation is an issue because...? I see that "outgoing" seems to be a sticking point. When does problematic 'outgoing' start? A week before? A month before? A year before? Should she or Obama not have done their jobs at all because they're members of the opposite party? I know this stance has been repeated here but it is so bizarre to me.

I'm not seeing anything illegal here (which is now the benchmark for when we're allowed to be upset, if ya haven't heard) and only unethical if you assume it's for partisan reasons, and I'm just not seeing any evidence of that here.

Keep throwin, Trump team. Something's bound to stick!

 

[redwood66]

Oh EB come on. Sure she has the authority. If it was just another day at the office why would she lie to PBS just 10 days ago saying she knew nothing about Trump people being swept up in surveillance? She served on the National Security Council as the representative of President Obama to keep him informed of national security issues. Hopefully it will all come out soon.

 

[Tekate]

I almost spit out my coffee!!! You link Mother Jones and use impartial in the same post?

I hope I am misunderstanding and you really mean someone other than Mother Jones. I purposely did not link InfoWars or Breitbart on this.

Yes you misunderstood me - I was showing another side to the story with MJ AND suggesting we need an impartial group to investigate this..