Susan Rice is who we thought she was

[trenchfoot]

Meanwhile back at the ranch, the Dems are dogging the trail leading from Trump to Putin like hounds to the fox.

There's no diversion or deflection from the GOP Ministry of Propaganda like this idiotic Susan Rice shtick trick that can sway the Dems off this scent trail seeing as if the trail is fresh, a few foxes have already been bagged, the motivation is strong and the reputation and integrity of our Intel agencies are on the line.

It seems the Dems have learned a thing or two from the slick two-faced soft shoe schemes the Bush/Cheney cabal employed during their disastrous tenure. Good on them.

The Repubs are on unfamiliar turf defending the likes of Trump and although they are pleasing their corporate puppet masters with every EO that Trump signs and with every piece of corporate friendly legislation that gets passed by them, their days of glory are numbered by the days that the Trump admin. is able to deflect, divert and stifle their way into remaining in office.

Susan Rice and the Obama admin. being used as a decoy isn't going to work for long, nor are any other ploys the Repubs cook up to divert away from the facts of the matter.

When Trump loudly signaled his displeasure at the Intel Community, he threw down a gauntlet that is now coming back to haunt his every hour where he's miserably trying to pretend that he's the leader of the Free World and not the heinously self-interested corporate hoarder that he really is.

Want proof of his intentions? Look at the EO's he's been very busily signing and then look at what the Repubs in Congress have been up to. Besides giving the Corporatists every single thing they've been lusting after, there's not a shred of cheese being served up there that exclusively benefits the blue collar working stiffs the Trump and the Repubs PROMISED they would help the moment they took office.

This thin veneer of a cover-up and deflect/distract campaign the Repubs have deployed isn't going to work the way they want it to. There's way too much solid evidnece being built up and weighed in against them.

 

[brycejones]

ill make sure to check back when everything is resolved, and remind you all of how wrong you were. thanks for playing folks.

Bravely run away......

 

[emperus]

Here is a good article on all of this from the COnservative Wall Street Journal.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/susan-...tes-for-political-reasons-1491331871?mod=e2tw

And from the end of the article:

Foreigners who are the targets of U.S. surveillance often speak to U.S. citizens, or may mention U.S. citizens when talking to one another. When an intelligence agency produces a report describing those conversations, it removes the name of the U.S. citizen to protect his or her privacy and replaces the name with a generic designation such as “U.S. Official 1.”
Ms. Rice said a range of top national security officials have the authority to submit a request to the agency that produced the report to learn the name of the U.S. citizen mentioned if they feel it is necessary. The agency then has a process to approve or deny the request, and usually relay the name without broadly disseminating it throughout the national-security community, she said.
Intelligence experts said it is common for a president’s national security aides—among many other top security officials in the government—to seek to unmask the names of Americans mentioned in intelligence reports along with foreign officials, or those mentioned in conversations between foreigners.

The real questions is who/what were these people talking to or about that there names landed in a report that the IC prepared for the NSA and other agencies.

 

[Chiropteran]

PJ is a highly partisan conservative site with an axe to grind and a tenuous grasp on reality. You've been suckered, HTFOff.

LOL. "The video was photo shopped!"

 

[Fanatical Meat]

very good, youre adding alot to this discussion.

I agree

 

[Commodus]

LOL. "The video was photo shopped!"

Like I said earlier, just having 'evidence' doesn't mean that the story attached to it is accurate. Highly partisan sites like the one in question can and will take videos out of context, distort their significance or, as others have pointed out in this thread, fail to understand what's actually going on.

Next time, please actually read the thread and digest what has gone on so far before replying like this. You're ironically supporting my case by showing that you're only interested in the superficial outrage, not digging deeper to understand the full story.

 

[theeedude]

Get her under oath and find out which Russians Trump was talking to and about what.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Holy shit you are dense. fskimospy provided you the link of the interview. You apparently are seeing what you want to see, not what she actually said.

Eskimospy NEVER provided me a link of the interview...and he didn't provided any link to anyone in this thread; however, he did quote someone else (not me) who linked the PBS interview. I repeat for the record...fskimospy did NOT provide me a link of the interview...that's all you making up shit that never happened. Your alternate reality and careless stupidity aside, please note in the PBS interview she explicitly stated that she had no knowledge of the unmasking. I've provided a copy of the Q&A transcript below...she was specifically asked about the people around Trump being caught up in surveillance and their identities being exposed and she said "I have no knowledge of this."....which now turns out to be a big fat lie. How can you with a straight face twist these words and make them somehow truthful knowing what we know now?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Eskimospy NEVER provided me a link of the interview...he didn't provided a link to anyone in this thread, however, he did quote someone else (not me) who linked the PBS interview. I repeat...fskimospy did NOT provide me a link of the interview...that's all you making up shit that never happened. Your careless stupidity aside, please note in the PBS interview she explicitly stated that she had no knowledge of the unmasking. I've provided a copy of the Q&A transcript below...she was specifically asked about the people around Trump being caught up in surveillance and their identities being exposed and she said "I have no knowledge of this."....which now turns out to be a big fat lie. How can you with a straight face twist these words and somehow make them truthful knowing what we know now?

It's interesting that she diverts/corrects/focuses on the notion of surveillance against the incoming Trump administration specifically, instead of the point that Judy was asking regarding them being caught up in surveillance (initiated against a legal, foreign target). This is either an intentional misdirection or a severe misunderstanding of the question (or jumping the gun in a defensive posture). I suspect she'll claim the latter in a court, when the former is closer to the truth. That last part is just me being jaded, though.

 

[thraashman]

I continue to be amazed at how much conservatives hate America and support espionage and treason against this nation.

 

[Grooveriding]

Get her under oath and find out which Russians Trump was talking to and about what.

This is the irony of the latest conspiracy Trump is pushing to attempt to divert from the ongoing FBI investigation into his campaign. The twist from the alt-right on this is more red meat for partisans and Trump fanatics, but it also again affirms that their has been an ongoing investigation into his campaign and their involvement with Russia's tampering in the election. Why not have her testify and name names of all the individuals of the Trump campaign under investigation

I still question how effective and useful this sort of propaganda is. The Trump fanatics and hyper-partisans already don't care that Russia interfered in the election to help Trump win, they don't care that they hacked the DNC and released emails on wikileaks - because they enjoyed the fruits of that interference. They also don't care that the Russians pushed fake news stories and conspiracies on alt-right websites and social media, because they also enjoyed consuming and being victims of that propaganda.

So they'll grab onto anything, including this current bullshit, to ignore that the POTUS was helped into his seat by Russia. They already didn't care about any of Russia's involvement, so how effective is this bullshit on people who do care ? Not very I'd wager. I guess the Trump regime's strategy is just continue to make a lot of crazy noise and hope the noise of it dilutes the Russia investigation.

Even the alt-right conspiracy shithole websites like Breitbart and Infowars that push this sort of disinformation are under FBI investigation, and they have an audience that just doesn't care about anything but being fed pro Trump propganda, with or without more obfuscation and propaganda thrown out.

 

[theeedude]

If Trump himself was coordinating with the Russians, directly or indirectly, to rig the US election, that is going to make Watergate look like a walk in the park. Now we know that the Susan Rice knows who on Trump team was talking to which Russian about what, so she has to be put under oath and fully debriefed.

 

[emperus]

Eskimospy NEVER provided me a link of the interview...and he didn't provided any link to anyone in this thread; however, he did quote someone else (not me) who linked the PBS interview. I repeat for the record...fskimospy did NOT provide me a link of the interview...that's all you making up shit that never happened. Your alternate reality and careless stupidity aside, please note in the PBS interview she explicitly stated that she had no knowledge of the unmasking. I've provided a copy of the Q&A transcript below...she was specifically asked about the people around Trump being caught up in surveillance and their identities being exposed and she said "I have no knowledge of this."....which now turns out to be a big fat lie. How can you with a straight face twist these words and make them somehow truthful knowing what we know now?

What do we know now? Please explain it to the forum like you are talking to a 5th grader. Include in your explanation answers to these questions.
1.) Who did she unmask?
2.) Who did she unmask whose identity was exposed.
3.) Show us evidence that she was was the one who exposed said identity,
4.) Was anything she did illegal?
5.) What is the process of unmasking a name?
6.) Why did these conversation land on her desk for her to have the ability to unmask anyone.
7.) Did previous NSA unamsk individuals as well.

You seem not to understand that unmasking does not equal exposing.

 

[Jhhnn]

Begin from the premise that Nunes is lying, about all of it. I mean, it's obvious he's lying about part of it. What if he never saw any super sekrit intelligence reports at all?

How do you trust a guy who makes his own investigation not about what he's supposed to be investigating?

 

[fskimospy]

The attempts to divert attention away from the Trump administration by endlessly and baselessly accusing Obama administration officials of wrongdoing is downright pathetic.

Remember when conservatives kept saying 'but Bush!' to say Obama should stop focusing on his predecessor? Guess they gave that up as soon as it was no longer convenient.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What do we know now? Please explain it to the forum like you are talking to a 5th grader. Include in your explanation answers to these questions.
1.) Who did she unmask?
2.) Who did she unmask whose identity was exposed.
3.) Show us evidence that she was was the one who exposed said identity,
4.) Was anything she did illegal?
5.) What is the process of unmasking a name?
6.) Why did these conversation land on her desk for her to have the ability to unmask anyone.
7.) Did previous NSA unamsk individuals as well.

You seem not to understand that unmasking does not equal exposing.

Rice previously denied knowing anything about any incidental Trump campaign and transition team surveillance or the unmasking of those individuals. We now have reports from multiple sources indicating that Rice was the one who personally unmasked these individuals. Rice has now tacitly admitted her lie by denying that her actions were politically motivated. She obviously has the authority to unmask and may have indeed had legitimate reasoning for doing so. However, she has apparently bald-face lied about her not having any knowledge or prior involvement. Why would she do that? In my opinion, we should put her under oath...and when she pleads the fifth it will remove all doubt of her complete lack of integrity and credibility on this issue.

Lots of questions and few answers at this point...let's see just how far this rabbit hole goes.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Rice previously denied knowing anything about any incidental Trump campaign and transition team surveillance or the unmasking of those individuals. We now have reports from multiple sources indicating that Rice was the one who personally unmasked these individuals. Rice has now tacitly admitted her lie by denying that her actions were politically motivated.

Unless she can give an exceptionally good explanation for these actions, the only course a reasonable person should have is to assume that she was lying, and unmasked these individuals specifically for politically motivated reasons.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The attempts to divert attention away from the Trump administration by endlessly and baselessly accusing Obama administration officials of wrongdoing is downright pathetic.

Remember when conservatives kept saying 'but Bush!' to say Obama should stop focusing on his predecessor? Guess they gave that up as soon as it was no longer convenient.

If we're going to investigate...investigate. Don't be a baby and cry foul when your team happens to get caught up in it as well. Let's get to the root of this.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Unless she can give an exceptionally good explanation for these actions, the only course a reasonable person should have is to assume that she was lying, and unmasked these individuals specifically for politically motivated reasons.

That's a stretch assumption at this point...but definitely worth looking into.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Unless she can give an exceptionally good explanation for these actions, the only course a reasonable person should have is to assume that she was lying, and unmasked these individuals specifically for politically motivated reasons.

So experts say unmasking is a routine thing done all the time for investigatory reasons but the reasonable assumption is it was malicious in it's nature purely for political reasons?

OK then.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

That's a stretch assumption at this point...but definitely worth looking into.

I'm having trouble coming up with an alternative explanation for lying about x, then switching to saying 'x wasn't for the reasons you think they were' upon being found out.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

So experts say unmasking is a routine thing done all the time for investigatory reasons but the reasonable assumption is it was malicious in it's nature purely for political reasons?

OK then.

That's not the part I'm concerned with. I'm concerned with her saying 'I never did that', then saying 'Okay, so I did that, but it wasn't for political reasons' once found out. I'm sure there's a billion things that are perfectly legal done by various people within government that are totally normal. When one lies about it, then tells me something to reassure me that 'no, it really was legal!', red flags and flashing lights start going off all over the place.

 

[fskimospy]

If we're going to investigate...investigate. Don't be a baby and cry foul when your team happens to get caught up in it as well. Let's get to the root of this.

Yes let's get to the root of Trump's connection to Russia. An important part of doing that is to not allow the investigation to be sidetracked by desperate flailing from the White House that is backed by no evidence.

'My team' hasn't been caught up in this as every nonpartisan expert agrees there's no evidence she did anything improper. That's in marked contrast to the Trump Administration, which we all must agree as a point of fact that the FBI decided there is probable cause to believe a Trump campaign/admin official colluded with Russian intelligence.

If the FBI or some other law enforcement agency thinks she's worthy of investigation then I'm totally down with investigating her. Until then, dont expect rational people to be as easily duped by desperate partisan distractions as you are.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm having trouble coming up with an alternative explanation for lying about x, then switching to saying 'x wasn't for the reasons you think they were' upon being found out.

I struggle with her lie as well...but we need facts before jumping to conclusions.

 

[fskimospy]

Unless she can give an exceptionally good explanation for these actions, the only course a reasonable person should have is to assume that she was lying, and unmasked these individuals specifically for politically motivated reasons.

The information she was asked about was classified and Nunes refused to disclose any specifics about his accusation. Saying 'I don't know about that' is the only reasonable response. What was she supposed to say, 'I don't know what Nunes was talking about but let me tell you about the classified information I do know about!'?

This nonsense reminds me of the precious conservative conspiracy theory involving an interview and Benghazi.