Susan Rice is who we thought she was

[fskimospy]

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?

National security experts have said on the record that this type of unmasking is normal and expected. That means it was part of her normal job duties. So no, it does not go both ways. One person has expertise on their side and the other (you) does not.

 

[cytg111]

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.

Why on gods green earth do you believe that those data were leaked by someone in the IC? Going that distance, why on gods green earth do you believe it was Rice?
Are you willing pass out judgment based on those beliefs? Those feels? Total absent evidence mind you. What punishment shall we give her? Burn the witch?

Now that we are in the business of passing judgement without trial Id like to present this pussygrabber to the crowd..

 

[snarfbot]

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.

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?

 

[fskimospy]

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

Instead of being snarky and defensive maybe you should just admit that what you said there was wrong. You said you were open to changing your mind, so here's your chance to prove it.

As to how unmasking works, does this even really need to be explained? Rice is a consumer of intelligence, she is not someone who generates it. That's the NSA's job. When a consumer of intelligence gets a report it will reference 'US Person 1' or whatever. Rice can then direct the NSA to unmask that individual at which point they will replace 'US Person 1' with their actual name. I mean what, did you think she had some safe somewhere with everyone's name in it?

 

[cytg111]

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

With Drumpf as chief how can you possibly claim that moral high ground?

 

[snarfbot]

Instead of being snarky and defensive maybe you should just admit that what you said there was wrong. You said you were open to changing your mind, so here's your chance to prove it.

As to how unmasking works, does this even really need to be explained? Rice is a consumer of intelligence, she is not someone who generates it. That's the NSA's job. When a consumer of intelligence gets a report it will reference 'US Person 1' or whatever. Rice can then direct the NSA to unmask that individual at which point they will replace 'US Person 1' with their actual name. I mean what, did you think she had some safe somewhere with everyone's name in it?

are you an expert in fisa rules and procedure or can you cite an actual source?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

On what factual basis do you claim that her actions were done for political expediency?

I never claimed that her actions were done for political expediency...I suggested that this may have been the case...bottom line, we don't know and it warrants investigation.

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".

Why are you fabricating a false narrative here? This had nothing to do with Russia...this has been clearly stated on several occasions by separate sources.

And lastly, you have no factual basis to determine whether or not her actions were not politically motivated. You merely cited a possibility which may or may not be true.

 

[fskimospy]

I never claimed that her actions were done for political expediency...I suggested that this may have been the case...bottom line, we don't know and it warrants investigation.

Why are you fabricating a false narrative here? This had nothing to do with Russia...this has been clearly stated on several occasions by separate sources.

And lastly, you have no factual basis to determine whether or not her actions were not politically motivated. You merely cited a possibility which may or may not be true.

There is literally zero evidence that her actions were politically motivated and every independent IC expert I have seen has said that not only were her actions proper, she would have been remiss in her duties not to do so. Other than political expediency can you tell me a single solitary reason why this merits an investigation? As far as I can see we have wild, desperate accusations and nothing else. That's not enough.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

With Drumpf as chief how can you possibly claim that moral high ground?

Why do you even bother to post? To show the world how fucking stupid you are by regurgitating this kind of brain-dead garbage. Sorry to other posters, but my patience for these abject morons is running a little thin today.

 

[fskimospy]

are you an expert in fisa rules and procedure or can you cite an actual source?

First, this isn't about FISA. FISA authorizes collection on the targeted individual, that's it. As for the specific procedures those aren't publicly available but you don't need the specific procedures as this is just common sense. Rice is a CONSUMER of intelligence, not a CREATOR of intelligence. She gets reports from the intelligence community. The only way she would possess the names of those individuals swept up in incidental collection is if the agency doing the collection told her who they were.

To say that she was the sole person in possession of this information is logistically impossible unless she is running her own wiretapping operation out of her office. So... what you said was obviously false. I hope you are willing to stop being so defensive and admit you didn't know what you were talking about. Once we get you to admit that part we can move on to dismantling the rest of your baseless accusations.

 

[Thebobo]

so susan rice used her authority to unmask the identities of us citizens caught up in incidental spying and leaked it to the press breaking the law, and then lied about it. to which your response is: "Diversion!"

your counterargument is profoundly weak then, and the only explanation would be that you're trolling or wearing very thick partisan blinders, either way the conversation is over.

di·ver·sion
dəˈvərZHən,dīˈvərZHən/
noun

1. 1.
   an instance of turning something aside from its course.
   "a diversion of resources from taking care of the environment to raping the environment"
   synonyms: rerouting, redirection, deflection, deviation, divergence
   "the diversion of 19 rivers"
2. 2.
   an activity that diverts the mind from tedious or serious concerns such as Russian campaign influences; a recreation or pastime. "our chief diversion was diversion"
   synonyms: entertainment, amusement, pastime, delight, divertissement; More

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

There is literally zero evidence that her actions were politically motivated and every independent IC expert I have seen has said that not only were her actions proper, she would have been remiss in her duties not to do so. Other than political expediency can you tell me a single solitary reason why this merits an investigation? As far as I can see we have wild, desperate accusations and nothing else. That's not enough.

There is literally zero evidence of Trump collusion with Russia and every IC expert I have seen has said so. Other than political expediency can you tell me a single solitary reason why this merits an investigation? As far as I can see we have wild, desperate accusations and nothing else. That's not enough.

lol

 

[snarfbot]

di·ver·sion
dəˈvərZHən,dīˈvərZHən/
noun

1. 1.
   an instance of turning something aside from its course.
   "a diversion of resources from taking care of the environment to raping the environment"
   synonyms: rerouting, redirection, deflection, deviation, divergence
   "the diversion of 19 rivers"
2. 2.
   an activity that diverts the mind from tedious or serious concerns such as Russian campaign influences; a recreation or pastime. "our chief diversion was diversion"
   synonyms: entertainment, amusement, pastime, delight, divertissement; More

you're still here? your posts make cytg111's look inspired. seriously all i can assume right now is that you are trying to derail the conversation. im not going to respond to you anymore.

 

[fskimospy]

There is literally zero evidence of Trump collusion with Russia and every IC expert I have seen has said so. Other than political expediency can you tell me a single solitary reason why this merits an investigation? As far as I can see we have wild, desperate accusations and nothing else. That's not enough.

lol

lol, you did not think this through. The FBI (an IC expert!) believes there is probable cause to suspect collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. That's why they are investigating this.

I assume you will be admitting that you were wrong here any second now. lol, just kidding. We both know that won't happen. Sigh, morons spreading brain-dead garbage like this try my patience sometimes. I'm sure you sympathize.

 

[brycejones]

you're still here? your posts make cytg111's look inspired. seriously all i can assume right now is that you are trying to derail the conversation. im not going to respond to you anymore.

baby troll is triggered........

 

[snarfbot]

First, this isn't about FISA. FISA authorizes collection on the targeted individual, that's it. As for the specific procedures those aren't publicly available but you don't need the specific procedures as this is just common sense. Rice is a CONSUMER of intelligence, not a CREATOR of intelligence. She gets reports from the intelligence community. The only way she would possess the names of those individuals swept up in incidental collection is if the agency doing the collection told her who they were.

To say that she was the sole person in possession of this information is logistically impossible unless she is running her own wiretapping operation out of her office. So... what you said was obviously false. I hope you are willing to stop being so defensive and admit you didn't know what you were talking about. Once we get you to admit that part we can move on to dismantling the rest of your baseless accusations.

that isnt common sense at all. the fisa rules dictate what is legal and not legal. the procedure you propose where susan rice asks the nsa for unredacted intel would mean that any joe blow employee there would have access to the original violating fisa law.

i dont pretend to know exactly how it works either, but i can tell you that if she requests an unmasking that if anyone else sees it its either a judge or one of the other people that were named in the exchange between comey and gowdy in the hearing.

if im going to speculate id say it gets signed off by a fisa judge and unredacted electronically.

 

[fskimospy]

that isnt common sense at all. the fisa rules dictate what is legal and not legal. the procedure you propose where susan rice asks the nsa for unredacted intel would mean that any joe blow employee there would have access to the original violating fisa law.

FISA rules dictate what is legal when it comes to intercepting communications. The communications that were intercepted here were already legal and authorized by the FISA court. As for any 'joe blow' working at the NSA having access to that, that's ridiculous. I've worked with classified material in the past, have you? Intelligence like this is governed both by security clearances and in this case, more importantly, a need to know. There are people and programs that are required to collect this intelligence and process it so that it can be made into a product for intelligence consumers like Rice. Everyone would not have access to that information, only the people who needed it in order to produce the desired products.

As for 'violating FISA law'. What part of the FISA statute do you think is being violated here?

so i dont pretend to know exactly how it works either, but i can tell you that she requests an unmasking and if anyone else sees it its either a judge or one of the other people that were named in the exchange between comey and gowdy in the hearing.

if im going to speculate id say it gets signed off by a fisa judge and unredacted electronically.

There's no need to speculate as this was already covered by from the head of the NSA. Guess what? It's not a FISA judge.

ROONEY: Who normally in the NSA would make the decision to unmask?

ROGERS: There are 20 individuals including myself who I have delegated this authority to approve unmask requests.

So again, you're just wrong. Please live up to your claims that you're willing to change your mind and admit that what you said before was false.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

lol, you did not think this through. The FBI (an IC expert!) believes there is probable cause to suspect collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. That's why they are investigating this.

I assume you will be admitting that you were wrong here any second now. lol, just kidding. We both know that won't happen. Sigh, morons spreading brain-dead garbage like this try my patience sometimes. I'm sure you sympathize.

The FBI has presented no evidence of collusion and several other intelligence sources have indicated that no evidence of collusion has been found. Zero evidence. My statement stands. But nice attempt to twist my words into something I never said. Once a weasel, always a weasel I guess.

 

[hal2kilo]

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.

Nice story bro.

 

[kage69]

This latest attempt to distract the country from the Russian collusion issue is pretty funny. I guess Dump's tweets were ineffective, time to get Fox to help out? Who is only too happy to talk about anything other than the culture of sexual harassment there, naturally.

Just more pathetic noise from the ethically bankrupt, so lame.

Keep flailing away trumptards, it's what you do.

 

[snarfbot]

FISA rules dictate what is legal when it comes to intercepting communications. The communications that were intercepted here were already legal and authorized by the FISA court. As for any 'joe blow' working at the NSA having access to that, that's ridiculous. I've worked with classified material in the past, have you? Intelligence like this is governed both by security clearances and in this case, more importantly, a need to know. There are people and programs that are required to collect this intelligence and process it so that it can be made into a product for intelligence consumers like Rice. Everyone would not have access to that information, only the people who needed it in order to produce the desired products.

As for 'violating FISA law'. What part of the FISA statute do you think is being violated here?



There's no need to speculate as this was already covered by from the head of the NSA. Guess what? It's not a FISA judge.



So again, you're just wrong. Please live up to your claims that you're willing to change your mind and admit that what you said before was false.

ok so then it should be an easy process of finding the one who received her request then and provided the information, how does that absolve her of responsibility of disseminating that information from that point onward?

 

[fskimospy]

The FBI has presented no evidence of collusion and several other intelligence sources have indicated that no evidence of collusion has been found. Zero evidence. My statement stands. But nice attempt to twist my words into something I never said. Once a weasel, always a weasel I guess.

So you're saying the FBI is investigating the Trump administration/campaign based on no evidence? This is a very serious accusation. So either the FBI has evidence of collusion sufficient to provide probable cause for an investigation or they are attempting to subvert the democratically elected government of the United States. There is no third option. Which one is it?

Stop trying to weasel out of what you said, it was stupid. I really am getting tired of morons on here who are too proud to admit they are wrong. I know it's me, and I know you HATE admitting you're wrong to me. You should do it for yourself though, as you're really just sacrificing your dignity by clinging to stupid shit like this.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So you're saying the FBI is investigating the Trump administration/campaign based on no evidence? This is a very serious accusation. So either the FBI has evidence of collusion sufficient to provide probable cause for an investigation or they are attempting to subvert the democratically elected government of the United States. There is no third option. Which one is it?

Stop trying to weasel out of what you said, it was stupid. I really am getting tired of morons on here who are too proud to admit they are wrong. I know it's me, and I know you HATE admitting you're wrong to me. You should do it for yourself though, as you're really just sacrificing your dignity by clinging to stupid shit like this.

Provide the evidence please or admit that you don't have any. I really am getting tired of morons on here who are too proud to admit they are wrong.

 

[hal2kilo]

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.

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

 

[emperus]

Jesus. If anyone wonders why Republicans can win the seats they do look at fevered pitch this story has created. Just google Susan Rice and see what networks and papers have most of the stories about her. And look at the titles of the stories. Susan Rice Lied, should be in jail... etc. etc. What is all that based on? Look at how flimsy the initial reporting is. The same reporter who broke Pizzagate breaks this story. Nobody claimed anything illegal happened. But the Right Wing Media is eating it as Fact and have already tried and convicted her. It's clear the white house leaked this story (wait, what was all that about Leakers being arrested?). The cognitive dissonance is amazing. If anyone can still claim with a straight face that the Media is mainly liberal, they are delusional. Take this case with that of Sessions. There is actual evidence that sessions lied under oath. Yet the MSM tried there best not to call it lying. While with Rice, just look at the headlines. Btw, here is a fuller transcript of the PBS interview of which the lying claims come. Anyone who claims she lied either can't read or is willfully lying.

Fox News, their ilk and the idiots who parrot their talking points are a danger to out country.