http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/education/317719-after-protests-and-riots-free-speech-is-mia-on-college-campuses

I won't defend anyone guilty of sexual harassment. But there are a lot of people willing to invent a story, either to discredit, or to make a buck.

No kidding. O'Reilly's own daughter told a court-appointed forensic examiner, during her parents custody battle, that said she saw him dragging her mother down a staircase by her neck.

That IS disgusting. I once saw a license plate SLAPR1

Perhaps he is a caveman. They usually drag them by the hair though...I dunno.

He IS Irish. Known for their tempers...

I wonder if it happened before or after she asked for a divorce. Supposedly she was seeing another man. Or woman. I can't recall.

Ailes settled out of court with host Gretchen Carlson after she went public over sexual harassment. There is no place for it. No reason for it either.

There was a lot more to the Ailes scandal than Gretchen Carlson.

Why then is it a felony?

Rice acknowledged in the interview with Mitchell that she requested that names be unmasked, but she insists she did not do it for political purposes. It is an important distinction.

Under the U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive(section 18), Rice was authorized to unmask the names of U.S. citizens, as long as it was essential to national security. Sure enough, Rice claims that national security was her reason.

Here is the rub. It would be difficult for a prosecutor to prove otherwise. Likely, only Rice knows her true intent, and it is doubtful she authored a smoking-gun memo that reads, “let’s unmask these names so we can use their identities for political gain.”

But if such an email exists or if someone were to come forward to allege that Rice verbally confided her motivation was for political reasons, then she would be looking at a serious felony punishable by up to 5 years behind bars.

Rice could face an additional problem. If she requested that a name be unmasked in a document that had nothing whatsoever to do with foreign surveillance involving national security, an argument could be made that she created a false statement in her unmasking request, which is a crime under 18 USC 1001.

Here's the New Yorker link again, Doc, and an excerpt:

On March 20th, the same day that these first two claims were definitively rejected by Nunes, Comey, and Rogers, the White House and some Republicans started to coördinate a third attempt to justify Trump’s tweet: Trump was monitored through the use of so-called incidental collection and unmasking.

The coördination was obvious. White House officials started to raise the issue of incidental collection with reporters, including me. Almost every Republican at the March 20th Intelligence Committee hearing asked Comey and Rogers about it. Spicer began emphasizing the issue at White House briefings. And speaking with reporters after the Intelligence Committee hearing, Nunes hinted at the coming public-relations campaign. “The White House believes other surveillance activities were used,” he said. “We don’t have evidence of that yet, but we can’t rule it out.”

Two days later, Nunes was brought to the White House to see intelligence reports that allegedly included the names of Trump associates. After an outcry, Schiff received the same briefing. Nunes said he was alarmed at the presence of the names, but he also said that there was nothing in the reports related to Russia and that there was nothing illegal that occurred.

The scandal now is supposed to be that the names of Trump associates made it into these reports at all. The N.S.A., whose main job is signals intelligence—tapping phones and intercepting e-mail and other kinds of electronic communications—has wide latitude to legally spy on foreigners. But oftentimes foreigners are talking to or about Americans, who are not legal targets of N.S.A. surveillance. The agency has safeguards to protect the privacy of those Americans who are incidentally swept up in the legal surveillance of foreigners.

As Rogers explained in his March 20th testimony, the first step is to determine whether the intercepted communication has “intelligence value.” He said, “We’ll ask ourselves, is there criminal activity involved, is there a threat, potential threat or harm to U.S. individuals being discussed in a conversation.” If the N.S.A. determines that the information doesn’t have value, it purges the data. If it determines that it does, it masks the identity of the Americans before circulating the intelligence. If a policymaker wants to unmask the identity of a redacted name that she comes across in a report, so she can better understand the intelligence, she can make that request to the N.S.A.

Yesterday, several right-leaning outlets reported that some of the materials shared with Nunes and Schiff showed that Susan Rice made unmasking requests that revealed the identities of Trump associates. This news is being treated as a full-blown intelligence scandal on conservative talk radio and Fox News. Naturally, Trump tweeted about it and Spicer emphasized the news during his briefing.

There are valid reasons to be concerned about unmasking. Civil libertarians have long feared that spy agencies could use the legal targeting of foreigners as a back door to spy on Americans with whom they are communicating. That’s why there is an audit trail and a legal process in place for making unmasking requests.

Rogers said that the N.S.A. uses a two-part test to evaluate unmasking requests: “Is there a valid need to know in the course of the execution of their official duties?” and “Is the identification necessary to truly understand the context of the intelligence value that the report is designed to generate?”

The answer to these questions is often yes. “Masking and unmasking happens every single day, dozens of times, or hundreds of times. I don’t even know the numbers,” Jim Himes, a Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told me. “There needs to be a process followed. It’s a fairly rigorous process, involving lots of review by counsels and that sort of thing.”

If Susan Rice was abusing this process, she did a terrible job of covering it up. All Trump’s aides had to do to discover her alleged abuse was to review logs on a White House computer that tracked her requests.

And while Republicans are targeting Rice, recklessly asserting that she spied on Trump’s campaign, their attacks also implicate the N.S.A., which would have had to determine that the intercepts had “intelligence value,” and then to approve any unmasking based on its two criteria: that Rice had “a valid need to know” the identities of masked names and that unmasking was necessary to understand the report.

Without knowing more about the actual intelligence reports and the motivations behind the unmasking requests, all that has been shown is that the N.S.A. followed normal procedures for reporting intelligence and responding to unmasking requests by the most important national-security policymaker in the White House.

James Rosen and several AP reporters were surveilled by Obama's intelligence folks. It went over the line. Their track record seems as though they have abused their power in this area.

Yeah, from what I know the Rosen thing was over the line. One difference between Rosen and Trump, though, is that Rosen could show that what he accused the Obama admin of actually happened. Trump's in an even better position than Rosen to provide proof, but so far there's been nothing but ridiculous tweets.

It won't help his cause if Intel won't give him the info. Comey is said to be less than helpful. My gut tells me Brennan had a big hand in this. And he is no fan of Trump.

My beef is that the Intel community should be impartial. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

I bet none of those women that accused O'Reilly looked remotely like James Brown............ Or Oprah or Condoleeza Rice, or Susan Rice neither.
Way to much resemblance..............