It was impossible for Susan Rice’s “unmasking” to be directed at Trump

CNN had a good segment last night with terrorism expert Juliette Kayyem, among others. Kayyem raised an excellent point about “unmasking,” that proves that whatever Susan Rice, or anyone else in the Obama administration did, it’s simply impossible that their motive was political.

As background, you know that Donald Trump has been claiming, falsely, for a good month now that President Obama “tapped his wires.” As that claim imploded — even Mitch McConnell says there’s no evidence — Trump, in coordination with the GOP Congress (led by Devin Nunes) and the white supremacist Alt Right movement, latched on to a new fake conspiracy theory: former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice unmasked him!

Now, a bit more background as to what Trump is alleging, and why it’s bogus. The “unmasking” claim is mixed up with the “incidental collection” claim that Trump has been using to argue that Obama tapped his wires. Incidental collection is when the US legally eavesdrops on foreigners who then either speak with an American (like Michael Flynn did with the Russian ambassador) or who mention an American. So even two foreigners under surveillance mentioning someone’s name in a conversation is considered incidental collection on that person.

Generally speaking, when an American citizen’s name, or voice, is incidentally collected, their name is hidden in the intelligence documents where the collection is reported. Back to Juliette Kayyem. Kayyem explained that the intelligence document that Susan Rice was looking at would have mentioned “Person A” or “American Citizen A” either speaking with the Russian ambassador or being mentioned by the Russian ambassador. Rice would have no idea who that American was, whether they were Trump or his campaign staff or just the postman. There is no way to know who was caught up in the incidental collection unless and until you “unmask” it.

Unmasking is the process by which Rice, for example, would have to ask the NSA to reveal the name of the American to her, and to her only. And Rice can’t just ask for it, she has to have a good argument as to why she needs the name in order to better understand the intelligence. And even then, if the NSA isn’t satisfied with her argument, they won’t release the name.

So, there is no way that Susan Rice’s unmasking of this intelligence could have been political because Rice would have had no way of knowing that “American Citizen A” was anyone associated with Donald Trump. She wouldn’t know who they were until AFTER she asked that the information was unmasked, and after the NSA agreed to the unmasking. So there is simply no way she could have done the unmasking in order to politically hurt Donald Trump.

The entire unmasking argument is a red herring.

Kayyem makes one final point. The people who are doing the unmasking here are Trump and his associates, who are busy colluding with the Russians. They’re unmasking themselves by having conversations with Russian spies and other foreigners who the US deems it necessary to spy on. If Team Trump didn’t have so many creepy, surreptitious connections to the Russians, we wouldn’t be discussing any of this.

Here’s a clip of Kayyem discussing this on CNN:

red-donateWith the election of Donald Trump, AMERICAblog’s independent journalism and activism is more needed than ever.

Please support our work with a generous donation. (If you prefer PayPal, use this link.) We don’t make much on advertising, we need your support to continue our work. Thanks.

And buy a t-shirt and support our work:

All the proceeds go to supporting our independent journalism at AMERICAblog.

Follow me on Twitter & Facebook:






Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in New York City, and is the cofounder of TimeToResign.com. Bio, .

Share This Post

  • ann

    4/27/17. Please reconcile this grand theory of Trumpian/Putin conspiracy with the fact pattern and timeline. Im confused.

  • NotConvinced

    Are you talking to me peckersnot?

  • Joekeener

    Does lying to yourself help you face the fact that you are a loser in life?

  • Joekeener

    Weak, very weak.

  • NotConvinced

    So you aren’t you going to include Fox too? They aren’t exactly followers, they are leaders leading Trump. They are the only ones saying Trump is NOT in cahoots with Pootie Poot.

  • NotConvinced

    Well she is a woman and black so… well you know. Wink wink nudge nudge say no more.

  • Demosthenes

    The more Trump and his followers point at Rice, the more she can say Russia was being watched, and Trump’s advisors must be in cahoots with Russia if they show up on surveillance.

  • Demosthenes

    Don the Con and his GOP cadre attack Ms. Rice because they need a distraction from the FBI investigation of their potential treason (if proven) in working with Russia to hack the 2016 election. That is all this is, and in the long run this will obvious tactic will fail.

  • Badgerite

    Shorter still. The US intel services were surveilling Russian intelligence people and trump people kept showing to meet with these Russians. During the campaign. And during the transition.
    And then they lied about it. A lot. Add a dash of illegal hacking of political opponents and internet smear campaign by Russian troll farms. A long history of Russian dark money priming the pump.
    This is classic espionage. And by the by, Vladimir Putin is not some kind of progressive who wants to share the wealth, loves the environment and craves world peace. Or hadn’t anyone noticed.

  • Badgerite

    Simply put, the US intelligence services were spying on Russians known to be part of the Russian intelligence apparatus and incidental to that valid spying happened to give the lie to the trumped up story that trump people had no contact with the Russian government or Russian intelligence during the election. The investigation of the Russians was valid. The actions of trump campaign people were not.
    And they lied about it quite a lot. I still remember Jeff Sessions, who himself met with Kislyak, making a big point of claiming under oath that he had not met with any Russians. Let alone a high level one.
    I believe it was McCain who stated that he couldn’t think of any legitimate reasons for such contacts.
    No. But you can sure think of some illegitimate ones that violate US laws.

  • Kenster999

    Excellent point!

© 2017 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS