Susan Rice is who we thought she was

[ivwshane]

Which post?

Ah! So you admit you have lied in multiple posts! Otherwise you'd know which post I was talking about, right?

 

[fskimospy]

Schiff reviewed the evidence in the WH last Friday and has been strangely quiet ever since...which is so unlike him.

So not only is someone's lack of public statement now somehow evidence that Trump was right, the evidence you're talking about was the same evidence that Nunes said absolutely did not support Trump's claim that he was wiretapped. lol. The denial is strong in someone here, haha.

You really are one of the world's easiest marks for right wing media. You buy literally anything they tell you without thinking once, much less twice.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Ah! So you admit you have lied in multiple posts! Otherwise you'd know which post I was talking about, right?

Uh, no, this isn't even remotely similar to this situation, and your attempts to make it so are embarrassing. If you have a specific post in question by all means quote it, otherwise stop polluting this thread.

 

[Chiropteran]

do you have any clue what unmasking is and how it works?

I think you don't. If the CIA or NSA or FBI are doing an investigation, they would be the ones to do the unmasking, NOT a whitehouse staffer who reports directly to Obama. The president is NOT an intelligence agency, and would never be conducting a criminal investigation. Which pretty much leaves political sabotage as the only explanation.

 

[ivwshane]

Uh, no, this isn't even remotely similar to this situation, and your attempts to make it so are embarrassing. If you have a specific post in question by all means quote it, otherwise stop polluting this thread.

No its exactly like this situation and your inability to see that shows how partisan you are or how stupid and easily duped you are.

You expected rice to know what nunes was referring to and when she said she didn't know you claimed she was lying because she later explained how the process works.

Its a distinction you don't seem to be able to grasp.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I think you don't. If the CIA or NSA or FBI are doing an investigation, they would be the ones to do the unmasking, NOT a whitehouse staffer who reports directly to Obama. The president is NOT an intelligence agency, and would never be conducting a criminal investigation. Which pretty much leaves political sabotage as the only explanation.

Based on generalized information surrounding this, 'unmasking' doesn't necessarily have to equate to a criminal investigation, and can be done with fair regularity by consumers of classified information within the DC circuit, such as Susan Rice for instance, that in and of itself isn't unusual (or at least doesn't seem to be).

 

[ivwshane]

I think you don't. If the CIA or NSA or FBI are doing an investigation, they would be the ones to do the unmasking, NOT a whitehouse staffer who reports directly to Obama. The president is NOT an intelligence agency, and would never be conducting a criminal investigation. Which pretty much leaves political sabotage as the only explanation.

Thanks for proving his point.

 

[OrByte]

The real threat is Russias influence/collusion of the Trump administration.

Susan Rice doing her job shouldn't be a threat to anyone, unless you have done something that you don't want her to see.

 

[woolfe9998]

ive watched it a few times. what specifically am i misrepresenting from that exchange between gowdy and comey? is it possible that you have misunderstood my quoted post?

You said:

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.

That is a misrepresentation of what was said at the hearing. There was no short list. There were a few people whose names were mentioned. No one said it was an exhaustive list. And in fact, Comey said any one agency in the IC can ask another to unmask intel. So if the NSA has a wiretap and the transcript is redacted to blot out an American name, the FBI can request that the NSA unmask the name. Meaning the "list" isn't merely people at the White House or high level positions. Potentially it is anyone at any agency tasked with investigating something that the information pertains to.

I would add here that it's highly likely that it was someone at the FBI, not in the White House, who leaked the Michael Flynn information. Why do I think that? Because for the past two months there have been repeated leaks of information by anonymous FBI sources to the press. They're often identified as exactly that, "anonymous FBI source." Clearly the FBI has a leak problem. So I'm going to assume that the most likely scenario is that someone at the FBI leaked the Flynn information to the press. Sure, it could have been Rice or someone at the White House, but there is no basis to make that assumption at all.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

No its exactly like this situation and your inability to see that shows how partisan you are or how stupid and easily duped you are.

You expected rice to know what nunes was referring to and when she said she didn't know you claimed she was lying because she later explained how the process works.

Its a distinction you don't seem to be able to grasp.

For one, I'm not partisan. If you had actually ever looked at my posting history, you'd probably find me to be not only fairly liberal, but fairly caustic toward both parties, because I think they're both full of primarily sociopaths and/or megalomaniacs.

For two, he asked a very specific question about her awareness of Trump and/or those around him being caught up in surveillance. Her statements later confirmed that she did indeed know about that. She stated in this interview that she didn't. I really do not understand how that can be construed as anything but a lie. It may not actually be an illegal act, and I'm in no way attempting to imply, infer, or otherwise state that this means that anything illegal or wrong was going on, simply that she lied when she stated that, that's all.

There's no way she could not have known what he was talking about because the question was VERY specific, and she had very specific knowledge about that. This wasn't 'you saw a cloud three years ago, what did it look like'. This is relevant, current information.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Schiff reviewed the evidence in the WH last Friday and has been strangely quiet ever since...which is so unlike him.

But what does that mean? I can only speak to how I would handle things, and if there was nothing I'd hang back, and if there was something I'd do the same for the purpose of bringing it up in the hearings? As Trump says and is right to a large degree, it makes no sense to tell you adversaries of your intent in advance.

Whatever "it" is, no amount of deflection and posturing will give any party a defense for wrongdoing.

So let's go back to Rogers and Comey. Both have stated that the scenario Trump describes could not have been carried out by any individual, including the President. What and where is the evidence Trump surely must have which proves them wrong?

It's not that bad things aren't done, but one cannot just say "He dunnit" and that's critical for Trump. If at the end of it all he cannot produce his original evidence then he is liable for what is perhaps the most massive suit from Obama and related parties. Trump's status as President protects him from proper actions while President, however will not here as baseless allegations are not part of Presidential duty. Potentially Trump could lose everything by his behaviors.

He needs to think long and hard before opening his mouth, but we know he won't.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I would add here that it's highly likely that it was someone at the FBI, not in the White House, who leaked the Michael Flynn information. Why do I think that? Because for the past two months there have been repeated leaks of information by anonymous FBI sources to the press. They're often identified as exactly that, "anonymous FBI source." Clearly the FBI has a leak problem. So I'm going to assume that the most likely scenario is that someone at the FBI leaked the Flynn information to the press. Sure, it could have been Rice or someone at the White House, but there is no basis to make that assumption at all.

Not that various parts of the govt aren't currently a sieve, but this is probably true, if only based on near-term past sources.

 

[alien42]

I think you don't. If the CIA or NSA or FBI are doing an investigation, they would be the ones to do the unmasking, NOT a whitehouse staffer who reports directly to Obama. The president is NOT an intelligence agency, and would never be conducting a criminal investigation. Which pretty much leaves political sabotage as the only explanation.

i know exactly how it works, and it is the National Security Advisor's job to request those unmaskings.

how is Susan Rice supposed to her job to keep this country safe without knowing who masked people are? every person in her position has done exactly the same thing, as they should.

your political sabotage conspiracy theory is bullshit.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So not only is someone's lack of public statement now somehow evidence that Trump was right, the evidence you're talking about was the same evidence that Nunes said absolutely did not support Trump's claim that he was wiretapped. lol. The denial is strong in someone here, haha.

You really are one of the world's easiest marks for right wing media. You buy literally anything they tell you without thinking once, much less twice.

Surveillance and "wires tapped" (notice the quotes used) are effectively equivalent terms and Nunes explicitly stated Trump was incidentally surveilled. If you believe Trump didn't use quotes to imply surveillance in general, what do you think was intended?

 

[alien42]

Surveillance and "wires tapped" (notice the quotes used) are effectively equivalent terms and Nunes explicitly stated Trump was incidentally surveilled. If you believe Trump didn't use quotes to imply surveillance, what do you think was intended?

keep spreading the bullshit Doc.

here are actual Trump tweets...

"I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!"

"How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"

there are no quotations for you to distort what he said.

Trump is a lying POS, and you know it.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Surveillance and "wires tapped" (notice the quotes used) are effectively equivalent terms and Nunes explicitly stated Trump was incidentally surveilled. If you believe Trump didn't use quotes to imply surveillance in general, what do you think was intended?

He probably implied surveillance, and likely was intentionally trying to draw the conclusion that 'my people surveilled' meant that they were targeted, rather than others targeted and them being on the 'other end of the phone' so to speak. No telling whether or not Trump knew who was the target of the surveillance, originally (aka maliciousness vs ignorance).

 

[emperus]

I think you don't. If the CIA or NSA or FBI are doing an investigation, they would be the ones to do the unmasking, NOT a whitehouse staffer who reports directly to Obama. The president is NOT an intelligence agency, and would never be conducting a criminal investigation. Which pretty much leaves political sabotage as the only explanation.

Lol.. You sir are an idiot. You made a post proving you don't know how unmasking works. You basically owned yourself. Read actual newspapers instead of watching Fox NEws. You'll actually be and sound informed

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Surveillance and "wires tapped" (notice the quotes used) are effectively equivalent terms and Nunes explicitly stated Trump was incidentally surveilled. If you believe Trump didn't use quotes to imply surveillance in general, what do you think was intended?

Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!

I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!

How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!

You can parse the definition of surveillance all you want. Trump was far more specific in his claims than just "I was surveilled" and even that isn't true.

 

[mect]

That's the transcript from the interview, pasted earlier in this thread by @Doc Savage Fan. She's clearly responding to specifically the question of 'were trump and those around him caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals, and were their identities potentially exposed'. She clearly knew *something* about it at that point, as she had (prior to this interview) requested the unmasking of said individuals, per the later leak/sourced information, and per her later explanation of 'well, yeah, but there was nothing wrong with that'.

After looking at the transcript and doing some more background research, it does appear that what she said wasn't technically true, and I would certainly support finding out more information about this. However, at the same time I also think this is primarily a major distraction from much more important national concerns. There are far bigger fish out there telling far bigger lies right now. I'm not excusing her, but I also don't want this to move the conversation away from where it should be.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Lol.. You sir are an idiot. You made a post proving you don't know how unmasking works. You basically owned yourself. Read actual newspapers instead of watching Fox NEws. You'll actually be and sound informed

Technically nothing in his post stated that he didn't understand how unmasking works, only the purpose for unmasking (criminal investigation being only one potential reason). The put-downs are eroding your potential credibility.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

After looking at the transcript and doing some more background research, it does appear that what she said wasn't technically true, and I would certainly support finding out more information about this. However, at the same time I also think this is primarily a major distraction from much more important national concerns. There are far bigger fish out there telling far bigger lies right now. I'm not excusing her, but I also don't want this to move the conversation away from where it should be.

Agreed on all counts.

 

[ivwshane]

For one, I'm not partisan. If you had actually ever looked at my posting history, you'd probably find me to be not only fairly liberal, but fairly caustic toward both parties, because I think they're both full of primarily sociopaths and/or megalomaniacs.

For two, he asked a very specific question about her awareness of Trump and/or those around him being caught up in surveillance. Her statements later confirmed that she did indeed know about that. She stated in this interview that she didn't. I really do not understand how that can be construed as anything but a lie. It may not actually be an illegal act, and I'm in no way attempting to imply, infer, or otherwise state that this means that anything illegal or wrong was going on, simply that she lied when she stated that, that's all.

There's no way she could not have known what he was talking about because the question was VERY specific, and she had very specific knowledge about that. This wasn't 'you saw a cloud three years ago, what did it look like'. This is relevant, current information.

There is no way she could have not known what nunes was talking about? Lol

So, despite all your posts being public and despite your name being clearly attached to posts you made, you have no idea what post of yours I'm referring to when I said your post was lying?

Yeah, your logic is that stupid.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

But what does that mean? I can only speak to how I would handle things, and if there was nothing I'd hang back, and if there was something I'd do the same for the purpose of bringing it up in the hearings? As Trump says and is right to a large degree, it makes no sense to tell you adversaries of your intent in advance.

Whatever "it" is, no amount of deflection and posturing will give any party a defense for wrongdoing.

So let's go back to Rogers and Comey. Both have stated that the scenario Trump describes could not have been carried out by any individual, including the President. What and where is the evidence Trump surely must have which proves them wrong?

It's not that bad things aren't done, but one cannot just say "He dunnit" and that's critical for Trump. If at the end of it all he cannot produce his original evidence then he is liable for what is perhaps the most massive suit from Obama and related parties. Trump's status as President protects him from proper actions while President, however will not here as baseless allegations are not part of Presidential duty. Potentially Trump could lose everything by his behaviors.

He needs to think long and hard before opening his mouth, but we know he won't.

Apparently there's information that supports Trump's assertion despite what Rogers and Comey have said previously. If Trump's evidence was indeed complete BS, Schiff would have said so. Instead he just complained that Nunes got to see it before him and the rest of the committee. There's something to this if that's all Schiff has to complain about imo.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You can parse the definition of surveillance all you want. Trump was far more specific in his claims than just "I was surveilled" and even that isn't true.

He technically could have been surveilled indirectly (if a foreign someone was being surveilled at the time of his talking to them). Being that this would all be classified I doubt we'd truly know about it unless it came out in an investigation, or a watergate-level scandal, which isn't outside the realm of possibility. His claim was, of course, an attempt to make Obama/his cabinet look like 'the bad guys'.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

There is no way she could have not known what nunes was talking about? Lol

So, despite all your posts being public and despite your name being clearly attached to posts you made, you have no idea what post of yours I'm referring to when I said your post was lying?

Yeah, your logic is that stupid.

No, your comparison is lacking a critical element, in the interview, Judy Woodruff asked her directly about a specific thing, and she said simply 'no, i don't know anything about that'. You said 'you made a post at some point on this forum which was a lie, do you admit to it'. If Judy Woodruff had stated 'so you said a thing at one point that was a lie, do you admit to it', that would have been an equivalent comparison. I really don't see how this is in any way comparable.