Susan Rice is who we thought she was

[MomentsofSanity]

yes she clearly did, the information went from her sole possession to the media so that is a foregone conclusion.

She clearly did? Based on what? Again. Your feelings on the subject? You're assuming facts to argue your point. There is exactly zero evidence that is the case. Nor was she the only one who had access to the information.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

yes she clearly did, the information went from her sole possession to the media so that is a foregone conclusion.

You don't know that she leaked it personally.

 

[snarfbot]

We don't know that she leaked it to the press. But it wouldn't surprise me if she personally chose to broadly disseminate the information within the IC to effectively guarantee that it would be leaked.

In the hearings they went over who specifically was privy to the information, it was a very short list. its not like it was part of her work flow to identify people and then share it on the intelligence community facebook group. so if someone requested the information then that would also be recorded in a chain of custody fashion.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Yes, let's deal with the facts here. Did Rice change her story or not?

What does that have to do with providing evidence or statements that she leaked the information publicly?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

you guys are focusing on the unmasking, trying to legitimize it with the following responses or similar variants:


yes she has the authority to identify participants in incidental spying, but she has to do it for reasons of national security and not in an an effort to influence an election, and most certainly not provide the information including logs to the press.

im sure you remember the donald trump is a russian puppet saga, bandied about on these forums still probably even now. who do you think the anonymous source in the intelligence community was? its looking pretty likely that it was susan rice, she probably printed the shit out and gave it to her husband who is an executive producer at abc and it got spread out from there. a big conspiracy to create fake news, real nice lady right?

and here you are defending her, why? its crazy.

National security does not protect political figures. If there is information which is counter to US interests intercepted then identifying the respective parties is normal protocol. In addition there doesn't have to be communication on the part of a person or persons discovered. If there is a monitored communication channel such as between Russian agents, the mention of another party meets the standard all on its own.

Given the facts of the process, that "unmasking" is a legally recognized part of Rice's authority and duty there is no rational argument against her actions. That's how it worked and continues to now. Do you think Trump has blocked listening in on foreign elements and we no longer identify involved parties discussed?

I dare say not.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What does that have to do with providing evidence or statements that she leaked the information publicly?

I see...you don't give a shit if she's lying. It figures. Party on Garth.

 

[snarfbot]

National security does not protect political figures. If there is information which is counter to US interests intercepted then identifying the respective parties is normal protocol. In addition there doesn't have to be communication on the part of a person or persons discovered. If there is a monitored communication channel such as between Russian agents, the mention of another party meets the standard all on its own.

Given the facts of the process, that "unmasking" is a legally recognized part of Rice's authority and duty there is no rational argument against her actions. That's how it worked and continues to now. Do you think Trump has blocked listening in on foreign elements and we no longer identify involved parties discussed?

I dare say not.

how can you quote me and then ignore the core message in my post? the mind reels.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I see...you don't give a shit if she's lying. It figures. Party on Garth.

Honestly I haven't looked at that aspect of it to closely to have an opinion. But I really don't care what politicians say. I care what they do and what can be shown that they did. Do you care that Trump lies habitually?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

National security does not protect political figures. If there is information which is counter to US interests intercepted then identifying the respective parties is normal protocol. In addition there doesn't have to be communication on the part of a person or persons discovered. If there is a monitored communication channel such as between Russian agents, the mention of another party meets the standard all on its own.

Given the facts of the process, that "unmasking" is a legally recognized part of Rice's authority and duty there is no rational argument against her actions. That's how it worked and continues to now. Do you think Trump has blocked listening in on foreign elements and we no longer identify involved parties discussed?

I dare say not.

That's not the point. Of course Rice had the legal authority to unmask when there is a legitimate concern. Nobody is arguing otherwise. However, it's absolutely illegal for her to unmask names for political purposes. Which begs the question, why was this info unmasked, why was it broadly shared within the IC, who made that decision, and why did they make it? And also why did Rice lie about it? This smells rotten as hell and we need to look into it imo.

 

[snarfbot]

She clearly did? Based on what? Again. Your feelings on the subject? You're assuming facts to argue your point. There is exactly zero evidence that is the case. Nor was she the only one who had access to the information.

she was actually the only one who had access to the information, unless it was requested from her by another party who was also privy to that information, of whom there were very few. maybe down the line they will make a statement affirming that to be true, but whats the point of speculating, as it stands she performed the unmasking and then that info somehow became available to the press.

if she wasnt the only one who had access to the information, why? its pretty sensitive high level stuff, if she wanted to exonerate herself she could without revealing that persons identity as well, but she hasn't shes lied instead.

that speaks very poorly to her in my view. your thoughts?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Honestly I haven't looked at that aspect of it to closely to have an opinion. But I really don't care what politicians say. I care what they do and what can be shown that they did. Do you care that Trump lies habitually?

Do you care that Rice lies habitually? Derp. Read the OP ffs.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

how can you quote me and then ignore the core message in my post? the mind reels.

Your core message it seems is that you align yourself with those who have determined that Rice in fact has done wrong without a factual basis but much innuendo. I chose to address the facts of what is permissible and how such actions on the part of Rice can be triggered. I don't feel like arguing about the specious right now

 

[snarfbot]

Your core message it seems is that you align yourself with those who have determined that Rice in fact has done wrong without a factual basis but much innuendo. I chose to address the facts of what is permissible and how such actions on the part of Rice can be triggered. I don't feel like arguing about the specious right now

okay bye!

 

[Meghan54]

Really? The only one? So who did she request to unmask the names in the first place....herself? Blather on, but she was not the only one who had access or knew the info...obviously others had the info before she saw it.

she was actually the only one who had access to the information, unless it was requested from her by another party who was also privy to that information, of whom there were very few. maybe down the line they will make a statement affirming that to be true, but whats the point of speculating, as it stands she performed the unmasking and then that info somehow became available to the press.

if she wasnt the only one who had access to the information, why? its pretty sensitive high level stuff, if she wanted to exonerate herself she could without revealing that persons identity as well, but she hasn't shes lied instead.

that speaks very poorly to her in my view. your thoughts?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

she was actually the only one who had access to the information, unless it was requested from her by another party who was also privy to that information, of whom there were very few. maybe down the line they will make a statement affirming that to be true, but whats the point of speculating, as it stands she performed the unmasking and then that info somehow became available to the press.

if she wasnt the only one who had access to the information, why? its pretty sensitive high level stuff, if she wanted to exonerate herself she could without revealing that persons identity as well, but she hasn't shes lied instead.

that speaks very poorly to her in my view. your thoughts?

My thoughts are already out there. You're assuming facts to draw your conclusion. You have created a very narrow view that allows no wiggle room in order to make your claim. There's really no point discussing it further with someone who relies on assumptions to draw their conclusion and calls it fact.

 

[snarfbot]

Really? The only one? So who did she request to unmask the names in the first place....herself? Blather on, but she was not the only one who had access or knew the info...obviously others had the info before she saw it.

i dont have intimate first hand experience with the fisa process and materials, but its a pretty highly regulated and designed to ensure exactly that. its not like she called up a filing clerk who looked in a cabinet at an un redacted version for her okay? but if you want to present some information contrary to that id be willing to change my position.

 

[fskimospy]

you guys are focusing on the unmasking, trying to legitimize it with the following responses or similar variants:

yes she has the authority to identify participants in incidental spying, but she has to do it for reasons of national security and not in an an effort to influence an election, and most certainly not provide the information including logs to the press.

There is literally zero evidence she did any of those things. Furthermore this unmasking being discussed happened after the election so attempting to influence an election would have been impossible.

So you apparently think people are crazy because they don't accept things with no evidence that are temporally impossible. Someone is crazy, all right.

im sure you remember the donald trump is a russian puppet saga, bandied about on these forums still probably even now. who do you think the anonymous source in the intelligence community was? its looking pretty likely that it was susan rice, she probably printed the shit out and gave it to her husband who is an executive producer at abc and it got spread out from there. a big conspiracy to create fake news, real nice lady right?

and here you are defending her, why? its crazy.

Speaking of crazy, what you just said is a totally unfounded conspiracy theory. Calm down and think about this rationally.

Actual nonpartisan national security experts think unmasking these individuals was not only normal, but would have been negligent for her not to do. Can you explain the reasons why you think your reasoning or knowledge is superior to theirs? Be as specific as possible.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's not the point. Of course Rice has the legal authority to unmask when there is a legitimate concern. Nobody is arguing otherwise. However, it's absolutely illegal for her to unmask names for political purposes. Which begs the question, why was this info unmasked, why was it broadly shared within the IC, who made that decision, and why did they make it? This smells rotten and we need to look into it imo.

On what factual basis do you claim that her actions were done for political expediency? At the heart of the issue is that there was information gathered which involved Russian interference, and Comey said as much. If the result found that persons were mentioned then it is reasonable to learn more and that would include names. If it were to be learned that Trumps people involved in an election were mentioned then it's naturally a huge red flag of possible illegal activity. That is NOT a decision of guilt or that something ever happened involving whatever parties name however it does merit sharing of information to better determine the facts. That's not a political act, it's a potential matter of an extreme act against us in manipulating an election. Whoever is named is named if they were involved even peripherally. One cannot say "oh that involves politics, let's ignore it".

 

[fskimospy]

yes she clearly did, the information went from her sole possession to the media so that is a foregone conclusion.

This is obviously false. This information was never in her sole possession, unmasking means she directed the NSA to reveal who they knew it was on the other end.

You are not thinking logically about this and are instead assuming something and working backwards to try and justify it.

 

[fskimospy]

On what factual basis do you claim that her actions were done for political expediency? At the heart of the issue is that there was information gathered which involved Russian interference, and Comey said as much. If the result found that persons were mentioned then it is reasonable to learn more and that would include names. If it were to be learned that Trumps people involved in an election were mentioned then it's naturally a huge red flag of possible illegal activity. That is NOT a decision of guilt or that something ever happened involving whatever parties name however it does merit sharing of information to better determine the facts. That's not a political act, it's a potential matter of an extreme act against us in manipulating an election. Whoever is named is named if they were involved even peripherally. One cannot say "oh that involves politics, let's ignore it".

Seriously, the Russians are currently under investigation for manipulating the results of our election to favor the president-elect at that time, you learn members of his transition team and possible future cabinet members are talking to Russian targets of FISA warrants (meaning likely spies) and you DON'T ask who those people are???

Anyone who didn't want to know who was on the other end of that call should be fired immediately for incompetence.

This is pure desperation on the part of Republicans to muddy the waters about Trump's Russia problem.

 

[snarfbot]

My thoughts are already out there. You're assuming facts to draw your conclusion. You have created a very narrow view that allows no wiggle room in order to make your claim. There's really no point discussing it further with someone who relies on assumptions to draw their conclusion and calls it fact.

the same argument could be applied to all your posts though, you assume that she was performing the unmasking as a matter of her job duties and thats that. as far as i can tell from your posts.

you say your thoughts are already out there, but what are they? based on this thread you have have only defended susan rice, and called trump a habitual liar....

it doesnt exactly make your case that you are unbiased and willing to change your position if a reasonable argument would force you to make that conclusion.

but im narrow?

 

[mu11et]

They spied on Trump.
They didn't think Trump would win.
Trump wins. They freak!
They now have to come up with a narrative to cover their asses on why they spied on Trump.
Rice says we will use the Russians, that way we can say they Trump was just caught in the net.

Yeah yeah that will work, just like "it was the video".

 

[woolfe9998]

In the hearings they went over who specifically was privy to the information, it was a very short list. its not like it was part of her work flow to identify people and then share it on the intelligence community facebook group. so if someone requested the information then that would also be recorded in a chain of custody fashion.

Bullshit. You're misrepresenting what was said in the hearing. Here is the hearing transcript:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ence-in-2016-election/?utm_term=.c759e395683d

The relevant portion is Gowdy's questioning that starts about 1/4 of the way down. This is where Rice's name is mentioned, by Gowdy. Gowdy asks about 5 particular people and Comey gives answers for each question, but nowhere does either Gowdy or Comey suggest that these are the only people who can unmask. In fact, Comey strongly suggests otherwise. He says agencies within the IC can ask other agencies to unmask. Read the entire passage.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

the same argument could be applied to all your posts though, you assume that she was performing the unmasking as a matter of her job duties and thats that. as far as i can tell from your posts.

you say your thoughts are already out there, but what are they based on this thread you have have only defended susan rice, and called trump a habitual liar....

it doesnt exactly make your case that you are unbiased and willing to change your position if a reasonable argument would force you to make that conclusion.

but im narrow?

I'm not assuming anything. I'm stating there is no evidence of what you claim. There is evidence that unmasking is a common practice of a NSA in the daily course of their duty. That in itself is not controversial in any way, shape or form.

I have assumed nothing. My statements have been solely based on what is factually known.

 

[snarfbot]

This is obviously false. This information was never in her sole possession, unmasking means she directed the NSA to reveal who they knew it was on the other end.

You are not thinking logically about this and are instead assuming something and working backwards to try and justify it.

thank goodness fskimospy is here to define unmasking for me, can you provide any evidence that this is indeed how the process works?