Susan Rice is who we thought she was

HTFOff

Golden Member
Oct 3, 2013
1,292
56
91
(R.I.P. Dennis Green)

Forget G. Gordon Liddy and the White House plumbers of Watergate days. If you're looking for a my-president-right-or-wrong apparatchik in the grand tradition of the Soviet Union, willing to do anything for her leader, look no further than former national security adviser Susan Elizabeth Rice.

Rice, who evidently exploited the world's most technically advanced intelligence agency, the NSA, for similar purposes (spying on the opposition), has made Liddy et al seem like primitives. Apparently, the former Obama adviser was the one who "requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in surveillance." The final unmaskings took place in January, days before Trump's inauguration. (Eli Lake at Bloomberg, Adam Housley and John Roberts at Fox, and Sara Carter and John Solomon at Circa have reported this story in only slightly varying ways.)

Failing some extraordinary explanation (so far Rice isn't talking), the onetime national security adviser exhibited an arrogance that once again proves Lord Acton's famous apothegm: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Rice undoubtedly believed she was undertaking her sub rosa, possibly felonious, activities for a greater good, but in reality she has been undermining the very basis of our democratic republic in a manner calling forth another quote from the 19th century British lord: “End justifies the means. This is still the most widespread of all the opinions inimical to liberty.” That Rice was able to prevaricate so casually during a recent PBS interview, claiming she "knew nothing" about the unmaskings of Trump officials when she had instigated them, proves Acton right yet again and exposes the "ends justify the means" mentality as Rice's default position.
https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/201...-hatchet-woman-proves-lord-acton-right-again/

Here's her lie

And for the sake of balance (shamelessly absent on this board) her explanation
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,820
136
PJ is a highly partisan conservative site with an axe to grind and a tenuous grasp on reality. You've been suckered, HTFOff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
What's the big deal about identifying the people involved in innocent conversations with Russian intelligence officials, anyway? If they're as innocent as the Trump Admin claims they could make them public & settle the whole thing, obviously. If it was me, I'd want to clear my name, not go on with accusation & innuendo about who leaked what when.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,672
54,665
136
Yes how dare the national security adviser want to know who was talking to the Russian ambassador and major spy recruiter.

You guys are seriously deranged. I hope every national security adviser would want to know that.
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,147
1,329
126
Yeah this is the latest conspiracy the Trump regime is pushing on alt-right shithole websites to the gullible. A pile of people associated with him and his campaign were under surveillance, because the FBI is investigating his campaign for ties to Russia, and this is supposed to be a story.

These websites are the highway rest stops of the internet. Fools pull up and crack their skulls to have them defecated into.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

HTFOff

Golden Member
Oct 3, 2013
1,292
56
91
What's the big deal about identifying the people involved in innocent conversations with Russian intelligence officials, anyway? If they're as innocent as the Trump Admin claims they could make them public & settle the whole thing, obviously. If it was me, I'd want to clear my name, not go on with accusation & innuendo about who leaked what when.

If it's not a big deal why lie about it?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
If it's not a big deal why lie about it?

What lie? Just because Rice asked that the names be unmasked for national security purposes doesn't mean she leaked them. What the Hell good is a wiretap on Russian officials if even the National Security Adviser can't know who they talked with?
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,820
136

Big cornerstone of critical thinking: consider the objectivity and historical accuracy of a source before trusting what it says, even if it provides snippets that at first appear to support its case. Evidence can be taken out of context, distorted or exaggerated.

And in this case, there is no objectivity and dubious past accuracy.
 

HTFOff

Golden Member
Oct 3, 2013
1,292
56
91
What lie?

If I recall correctly, you're the tax return truther, inadvertently branding nbc/maddow as conspiracy theorists. You're partisanship is on a completely different level, so your coyness is a given.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zstream

HTFOff

Golden Member
Oct 3, 2013
1,292
56
91
This one should be nominated for self ownage thread.

Your voice matters!

C4vQwufUkAArpr-.jpg
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,758
2,086
136
What did Obama know and when did he know it? Time for the House and the Senate to summon Obama/Rice and ask some tough questions.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,820
136
What did Obama know and when did he know it? Time for the House and the Senate to summon Obama/Rice and ask some tough questions.

He didn't, because the mechanisms don't let him authorize direct surveillance of US citizens like that. This is the result of incidental collection of data while surveilling the Russians. And it's still amusing how you think lawful surveillance is a greater worry than the reasons why Trump campaign members were caught up in that surveillance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie