# Trump accuses Obama of wiretapping him **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 4, 2017, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-him/781384 "2017-03-04T15:07:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 46
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2017, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-him/781384/901 "2017-04-05T14:00:25Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > What are you talking about? > > The Woodruff question made no reference to “political motivation” or “widely disseminated . . . with little apparent foreign intelligence value.” You have been carrying on at length in this thread with your suggestion that this may have been the focus of Woodruff’s question, and the actual video shows this speculation to have been incorrect. You argued in this thread that Woodruff’s question was primarily about _collection_. I argued that since the newsworthy aspect of Nunes’s statement was not the fact of collection but the disclosure–specifically, that there had been widespread dissemination of the names without an intelligence reason–that the more likely thrust of the question concerned the disclosure, not the collection. If you think this video clip validates your position and not mine, there is truly nothing more to be said here. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2017, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-him/781384/902 "2017-04-05T14:09:47Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > As for your new suggestion, I find it almost as far-fetched. You’re apparently interpreting identities being “disclosed” as being leaked to the public. This is a very dubious suggestion, as the question was certainly about the names being unmasked, not about leaks. > … > So the question was about the collection of data and unmasking of names, and Rice responded that she knew nothing about it, when not only did she know quite a lot about it but she was personally heavily involved. DW:“…caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals and **their identities may have been disclosed** …” The word “unmasked” is not mentioned at all in that question. Are you absolutely positive that when DW said “disclosed” she clearly meant “unmasked”? Because I’m not sure who to believe, you, or my lying ears. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2017, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-him/781384/903 "2017-04-05T14:11:09Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > You argued in this thread that Woodruff’s question was primarily about _collection_. I argued that since the newsworthy aspect of Nunes’s statement was not the fact of collection but the disclosure–specifically, that there had been widespread dissemination of the names without an intelligence reason–that the more likely thrust of the question concerned the disclosure, not the collection. You’re creating a new dichotomy of “collection” versus “disclosure”, when that has not been the focus of your earlier position. What you said then was “_Nunes made lots of claims, including that the unmasking had been widely disseminated, was done for political purposes, and was lacking in intelligence justification. That’s why it’s pretty important to know what exactly Woodruff asked in her question._” You didn’t mention disclosure here, and your suggestion was about being widely disseminated for political purposes, which was not in the Woodruff question. ISTM that you’re now trying to cover for that by saying that “_the disclosure–specifically, that there had been widespread dissemination of the names without an intelligence reason_” in order to try to squeeze your earlier position into the question. Nothing in that. > [@](#): > > If you think this video clip validates your position and not mine, there is truly nothing more to be said here. I certainly do, and you’re probably right. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2017, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-him/781384/904 "2017-04-05T14:13:32Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > This has nothing to do with the press conference that Rice was being asked about. This is from over a month earlier. This presumes that that particular press conference was the only thing being discussed, which I don’t think is clear from the interview. But YMMV (and obviously does). > [@](#): > > Nothing here about leaking to the public. The outlet reporting it states this was about leaks. It shows the frequent (and, IMO, encouraged by Nunes, Trump, and their allies) conflation of “unmasking”, “dissemination”, and “leaks” – they seem to (obviously, in my opinion) want everyone to think Obama/Rice were involved in _leaking information to the public_, when there’s absolutely no evidence of this. Unmasking, when it’s actually accurately described, strikes me (and IMO probably strikes most everyone) as incredibly mundane and trivial with regards to intelligence. So yes, I think it’s entirely reasonable to believe that Woodruff was asking (and Rice was answering) questions about leaks. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2017, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-him/781384/905 "2017-04-05T14:20:36Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This presumes that that particular press conference was the only thing being discussed, which I don’t think is clear from the interview. It’s very clear. She says “in the last few hours we’ve been following a disclosure by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, that …”. I don’t see how anyone could possibly interpret this as being about something else he said over a month earlier. > [@](#): > > The outlet reporting it states this was about leaks. It shows the frequent (and, IMO, encouraged by Nunes, Trump, and their allies) conflation of “unmasking”, “dissemination”, and “leaks” – they seem to (obviously, in my opinion) want everyone to think Obama/Rice were involved in _leaking information to the public_, when there’s absolutely no evidence of this. Unmasking, when it’s actually accurately described, strikes me (and IMO probably strikes most everyone) as incredibly mundane and trivial with regards to intelligence. > > So yes, I think it’s entirely reasonable to believe that Woodruff was asking (and Rice was answering) questions about leaks. So you’re saying that because Breitbart used the word leaks in their headline (though not the story) it makes sense to assume that Woodruff meant and Rice responded about leaks, even though the actual Nunes announcement which they specifically referenced was not about leaks. I think we’re similarly at an impasse here. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2017, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-him/781384/906 "2017-04-05T14:26:27Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > So you’re saying that because Breitbart used the word leaks in their headline (though not the story) it makes sense to assume that Woodruff meant and Rice responded about leaks, even though the actual Nunes announcement which they specifically referenced was not about leaks. No, I’m saying because Nunes (and other Trump allies) have been routinely conflating leaking with unmasking and disseminating/disclosing, it’s reasonable to believe that this discussion was about leaks. Because I think Judy Woodruff really knows what “unmasking” is, and if she wanted to ask about unmasking, _she’d ask about unmasking_. Disclose and disseminate are _different words_ with _different meanings_ than unmasking (and their meanings are much, much closer to “leaking” than “unmasking”). > [@](#): > > I think we’re similarly at an impasse here. Yes – if you insist that the words “disclose” or “disseminate” _must_ mean “unmask”, then we’re at an impasse. I think it’s reasonable to consider that they might have been referring to accusations of leaks. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2017, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-him/781384/907 "2017-04-05T14:29:36Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > You’re creating a new dichotomy of “collection” versus “disclosure”, when that has not been the focus of your earlier position. I encourage you to try to read my posts more carefully, or with more charity, or both. For example: > [@](#): > > It is possible that Woodruff asked Susan Rice whether it’s possible that Trump’s team was subject to incidental **collection** , as you appear to contend. If so, that was a remarkably stupid question. Of course they were. It would make no sense at all for Susan Rice to say she knew nothing about that. > > What is far more likely, because it is what was newsworthy, is that Woodruff referred either to Nunes remarks or mentioned the main thrust of his remarks, which was that **Obama officials disseminated unmasked intelligence without a good reason**. That actually makes sense as a question in this context, unlike the narrow question about the possibility of incidental collection. And it would make perfect sense for Rice to say she knew nothing about that, because it probably didn’t happen! When you’re having a debate, if you don’t read with charity, you end up down awkward rabbit holes in which you’re attacking some version of an argument that might even be a reasonable reading of a post but is neither the intended meaning nor the meaning that best advances the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2017, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-him/781384/908 "2017-04-05T14:37:53Z")
I understood you perfectly. You may have failed to understand what I was saying. Your position all along has been, as you highlight here, that the Woodruff question may have been about “_Obama officials disseminated unmasked intelligence without a good reason_”. But there’s nothing about that in Woodruff’s question. So what you’ve done now is to shift to a dichotomy where there are two things, 1) collection, and 2) disclosure, such that the word disclosure can be stretched to include things like “_Obama officials disseminated unmasked intelligence without a good reason_”, even though that’s not a normal understanding of the word “disclosure”. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2017, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-him/781384/909 "2017-04-05T14:46:32Z")
“Disclosed” is much closer to “disseminate” and “leak” than it is to “unmasked”. Seems obvious to me, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2017, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-him/781384/910 "2017-04-05T14:52:31Z")
Unmasked means disclosed. If something is masked and you unmask it, then you’ve disclosed it. Leaks would fit the word disclosed too, but again, the question was specifically about the Nunes announcement, which was not about leaks but which repeatedly mentioned unmasking. I’m OK with “disseminate”. But Rice was aware of the dissemination. She was a big part of it. RP’s point is that it meant not just dissemination but dissemination without a good reason. (He needs the “without a good reason” to be the focus because his argument is that Rice was responding to the notion that it was done for political reasons.) That’s too much to put into the word “disclose”. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2017, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-him/781384/911 "2017-04-05T15:00:27Z")
What would be the point in asking the former National Security Adviser whether or not she requested the unmasking of some individuals in the reports she regularly received and read? Of course she did. Because she was well within her right to do so as a NSA, using proper channels. There appears to be a comprehensive record of those requests by Rice. ISTM, that’s the documented trail the current administration’s staff used to (selectively) pull the reports which were supplied to Nunes. In this context, _disclosure_, as asked by DW and answered by SR, most certainly is not synonymous with _unmasking_. To insist otherwise is stubbornly wrong headed. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2017, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-him/781384/912 "2017-04-05T15:01:00Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Unmasked means disclosed. If something is masked and you unmask it, then you’ve disclosed it. No, I don’t agree. If the identification remains masked, but is obvious from context, then the identification could be disclosed without being unmasked. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2017, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-him/781384/913 "2017-04-05T15:01:56Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Unmasked means disclosed. If something is masked and you unmask it, then you’ve disclosed it. [I’m pretty sure that’s false.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/04/04/what-unmasking-how-intelligence-agencies-treat-us-citizens/100026368/) > [@](#): > > When the name of a U.S. person is unmasked, that information is provided only to the intelligence official who requested that unmasking, Rice said Tuesday. “There’s no equivalence between so-called unmasking and leaking,” she said. That’s how I understood it too – Rice requested the names be unmasked, and they were, but _only to her_. She didn’t “disclose”, “disseminate”, or “leak” to anyone (at least, there’s no evidence she did). > [@](#): > > Leaks would fit the word disclosed too, but again, the question was specifically about the Nunes announcement, which was not about leaks but which repeatedly mentioned unmasking. > > I’m OK with “disseminate”. But Rice was aware of the dissemination. She was a big part of it. RP’s point is that it meant not just dissemination but dissemination without a good reason. (He needs the “without a good reason” to be the focus because his argument is that Rice was responding to the notion that it was done for political reasons.) That’s too much to put into the word “disclose”. Cite that “Rice was aware of the dissemination” and “a big part of it”? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2017, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-him/781384/914 "2017-04-05T15:06:52Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > What would be the point in asking the former National Security Adviser whether or not she requested the unmasking of some individuals in the reports she regularly received and read? Of course she did. Because she was well within her right to do so as a NSA, using proper channels. There appears to be a comprehensive record of those requests by Rice. THis seems revisionist. Many intelligence people have commented on unmasking being routine and appropriate in some circumstances. But that and the general notion of Trump’s people being swept up was not widely known at the time of the Nunes announcement, which is why it made such a big stir. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > [I’m pretty sure that’s false.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/04/04/what-unmasking-how-intelligence-agencies-treat-us-citizens/100026368/) I meant disclosed to the readers. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Cite that “Rice was aware of the dissemination” and “a big part of it”? According to the latest reports, she’s the one who requested all the unmaskings and reports. As noted earlier, Rice herself has shifted to denying that she did it for political purposes, implicitly acknowledging her role. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2017, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-him/781384/915 "2017-04-05T15:11:12Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > THis seems revisionist. > > Many intelligence people have commented on unmasking being routine and appropriate in some circumstances. But that and the general notion of Trump’s people being swept up was not widely known at the time of the Nunes announcement, which is why it made such a big stir. > I meant disclosed to the readers. > According to the latest reports, she’s the one who requested all the unmaskings and reports. > > As noted earlier, Rice herself has shifted to denying that she did it for political purposes, implicitly acknowledging her role. She never denied requesting unmasking. She denied disclosing. They’re different words and meanings. And certainly different than disseminating. Cite that she had anything to do with disseminating. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2017, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-him/781384/916 "2017-04-05T15:26:40Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > THis seems revisionist. > > Many intelligence people have commented on unmasking being routine and appropriate in some circumstances. But that and the general notion of Trump’s people being swept up was not widely known at the time of the Nunes announcement, which is why it made such a big stir. Revisionist in what sense? We’ve had weeks of discussions if there is any wrong doing in the NSA unmasking surveillance reports. Experts agree, there was not. That an unusual collection of Trump’s people being swept up, while not widely known initially, was certainly cause for concern not only for the previous administration but for the current one. Obviously for very different reasons. The big stir in the Nunes announcement wasn’t due to the fact that Trump’s people were swept up in the surveillance of foreign actors, but the inept skullduggery by which Nunes and the White House went about publicizing these revelations. Remember, Trump & Co. was already under multiple investigations for alleged ties to Russia. Can you honestly claim there was any surprise in those suspicions being confirmed? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2017, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-him/781384/917 "2017-04-05T15:30:31Z")
Revisionist in the sense of using weeks of subsequent discussions to assert that the unmasking etc. would have been unremarkable at the time and therefore wouldn’t have been the intended question. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2017, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-him/781384/918 "2017-04-05T15:37:46Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Revisionist in the sense of using weeks of subsequent discussions to assert that the unmasking etc. would have been unremarkable at the time and therefore wouldn’t have been the intended question. WE are the ones discussing it now, in light of recent reporting on how classified information is handled. Are you suggesting that the National Security Advisor was unclear about the meaning of “unmasking” and “disclosing” during her interview with DW on March 22, 2017? That she needed to wait to have the meanings of these concepts explained to her after the interview with DW? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2017, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-him/781384/919 "2017-04-05T15:55:01Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Revisionist in the sense of using weeks of subsequent discussions to assert that the unmasking etc. would have been unremarkable at the time and therefore wouldn’t have been the intended question. What is the “etc.” after unmasking? There was only unmasking (at least, there’s only evidence of unmasking). No evidence of disclosure, or dissemination, by Rice or anyone else associated with Obama. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2017, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-him/781384/920 "2017-04-05T15:57:05Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > WE are the ones discussing it now, in light of recent reporting on how classified information is handled. We’re discussing it now, but we’re discussing your post #911. In that post you were making a point about the meaning of the question that Judy Woodruff put to Susan Rice before all these weeks of discussion and recent reporting. You said “_What would be the point in asking the former National Security Adviser whether or not she requested the unmasking of some individuals in the reports she regularly received and read? Of course she did. Because she was well within her right to do so as a NSA, using proper channels._”. My counterpoint is that nonetheless, at the time that JW put that question to SR, these were not widely known (which is one reason the Nunes announcement made such a splash), and therefore there would have been a point. So to assert that JW couldn’t have been asking about the collection and unmasking because that’s something which would have been expected is revisionist (or anachronistic, if you will) because at that time that was unexpected. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > What is the “etc.” after unmasking? There was only unmasking (at least, there’s only evidence of unmasking). No evidence of disclosure, or dissemination, by Rice or anyone else associated with Obama. Etc. referred to things like circulation within intelligence (& possibly other government) agencies. Aka dissemination. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-him/781384.md?page=45) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-him/781384.md?page=47)