CNN Exclusive: Classified docs contradict Nunes surveillance claims, GOP and Dem sources say – (followed by my comments)

After a review of the same intelligence reports brought to light by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers and aides have so far found no evidence that Obama administration officials did anything unusual or illegal, multiple sources in both parties tell CNN.

Their private assessment contradicts President Donald Trump’s allegations that former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice broke the law by requesting the “unmasking” of US individuals’ identities. Trump had claimed the matter was a “massive story.”

However, over the last week, several members and staff of the House and Senate intelligence committees have reviewed intelligence reports related to those requests at NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland.
One congressional intelligence source described the requests made by Rice as “normal and appropriate” for officials who serve in that role to the president.
And another source said there’s “absolutely” no smoking gun in the reports, urging the White House to declassify them to make clear there was nothing alarming in the documents.
Still, some members of Congress continue to have concerns about the justification given for the unmasking requests and the standards for the intelligence community to grant such requests, which reveal the private data of US persons mentioned in intelligence reports based on routine intelligence collection aimed at foreign nationals.
Such collection regularly targets officials and nationals from Russia, Taiwan, Israel and other countries.
The lawmakers’ assessment comes after Trump, in a New York Times interview last week, accused Rice of breaking the law.
Trump has not revealed which intelligence reports he is relying on to make his charge that Rice may have acted illegally.
“I think it’s going to be the biggest story,” Trump said. “It’s such an important story for our country and the world.” He also called it “truly one of the big stories of our time.”
Asked by the Times if he believed Rice’s actions were criminal Trump responded, “Do I think? Yes, I think.”
Sebastian Gorka, a Trump foreign policy aide, cast Rice’s actions as worse than the Watergate scandal that felled President Richard Nixon in an interview with pro-Trump Fox News host Sean Hannity.
“Losing 14 minutes of audiotape in comparison to this is a little spat in the sandbox in the kindergarten,” Gorka said.
Rice defended her actions last week on MSNBC, saying her requests were “absolutely not for any political purposes, to spy, or anything.”
“There were occasions when I would receive a report in which a US person was referred to — name not provided, just a US person — and sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance of the report, and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out, or request the information as to who the US official was,” Rice said.
“The notion that some people are trying to suggest, is that by asking for the identity of a person is leaking it, is unequivocally false,” she said. “There is no connection between unmasking and leaking.”
Rice is among the list of witnesses that House and Senate Intelligence officials want to interview as part of its probe into Russian attempts to meddle with the US elections.
House Democrats and Republicans on the Intelligence Committee are near agreement on the list of witnesses to interview, with the GOP mostly focusing on people who may have leaked classified information and the Democrats hoping to question Trump associates who may have ties to Russia.
But the House review has been thrown into turmoil after Nunes last month expressed alarm about the unmasking of US persons, including Trump advisors, caught up in incidental collection. He reviewed the documents on White House grounds with the help of White House officials, despite House Speaker Paul Ryan saying Nunes informed him that the information came from a “whistleblower.”
Critics said Nunes appeared to be giving political cover to Trump in the aftermath of the president’s unsubstantiated tweet last month that Obama ordered wiretaps of Trump Tower to spy on him during the campaign.
Nunes’ office has not responded to CNN’s request for comment.
Nunes last week abruptly recused himself temporarily from the Russia investigation as the House Ethics Committee announced it is investigating whether he revealed classified materials, but he is still serving as chairman of the panel.

TextArt_170407140040

 

Let’s say if court finds that a witness made false statement, and if it is established that it was intentional, in the best case scenario this witness will be dismissed and all of his statements either disregarded or re-examined. But it is also possible that he or she could face legal consequences as the witness was under oath at the time when false statement was made.  

I am not an expert in American Law. However, I would like to know why implementation of the legal requirement to say truth and nothing but the truth while a person is under oath is different when it comes to the President of the United States?

I am not saying that the President shall continuously tell the world nothing but the truth. It would be not possible. I am also clear that the nature of issues of the national security requires the President to set priorities right and not disclose facts to public because it may lead to a wide range of consequences. In this case, decision to keep certain things confidential and avoid the disclosure would be perfectly legal because the President’s job is to protect the nation. 

What I would like to understand, why until now there was nothing done about a few public statements of Donald Trump regarding other individuals (i.e. about Barack Obama and Susan Rice). These statements don’t have anything to do with issues of national security.

As we continue to learn from published reports, investigations were conducted and findings highlight that the statements made by Donal Trump cannot be substantiated by factual evidence.

So. I would think that it should qualify Donald Trump’s previously made statements on Barack Obama and Susan Rice as false. And since there is no indication that Trump was genuinely mislead, I also can conclude that it was intentional.

Actually, I can see potential motive. It is possible that Donald Trump could make these statements with intention to destruct the public and resources of relevant agencies that are in the process of another investigation. The one which has a number of leads indicating that a foreign power might have influenced the outcome of 2016 presidential elections.

As far as I understand, the President of the United States is under oath for a period from inauguration untill the date when his or her term legally expires.

Since at least two confirmed false statements are in place and there are so many other circumstantial evidence flying around, logically I would think that even before Russian investigation is finalised and regardless of its outcome the impeachment should have started yesterday.

Donald Trump supposed to be impeached by now due to compromised credibility and, therefore, severe potential consequences for the entire nation and the world should he remains in power. What is not clear to me is why he is still in power?

BeautyCamera_20170402_201128

 

Advertisements
Advertisements