Susan Rice is who we thought she was

[[DHT]Osiris]

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

Fair enough, hence my 'assume' statement before. I'm not inclined to burn someone at the stake before learning the facts.

Hypothetical tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory: This is being done intentionally to provide the avenue by which a true Trump administration -> Russia connection can be established without said administration being able to block it, aka a confession under oath, drawn out by an obvious lie/obfuscation attempt.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

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.

The normal line to dismiss a question concerning classified information is 'I'm not at liberty to talk about that' or 'I can neither confirm nor deny that'. Stating that she didn't know about it left her exposed when it turns out that she DID know about it.

It can even be stated that 'all inquiries concerning unmasking procedures within the government inevitably lead to classified information, so I can't even begin to speak on that' if something more 'detailed' was necessary.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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.

This is not a binary choice...the Trump/Russia investigation isn't being sidetracked and it continues unabated. However, it now appears that bipartisan congressional investigations of Rice are likely. Surely you want to know whether or not our government has been abusing it's power...no?

 

[fskimospy]

This is not a binary choice...the Trump/Russia investigation isn't being sidetracked and it continues unabated.

Of course it's being sidetracked, or at least this is an attempt to sidetrack it. I don't believe you're that stupid for a second as to think that isn't the point of this.

However, it now appears that bipartisan congressional investigations of Rice are likely.

Link? (right wing source incoming!)

Surely you want to know whether or not our government has been abusing it's power...no?

Always! There just has to be literally any evidence of that having occurred, which is not the case here. You see unlike some people I don't support criminal investigations solely because they are a convenient distraction. On a similar note I assume you believe that a bipartisan investigation should be launched into the actions of Jeff Sessions considering the fact that he lied under oath to Congress, is that correct?

 

[fskimospy]

The normal line to dismiss a question concerning classified information is 'I'm not at liberty to talk about that' or 'I can neither confirm nor deny that'. Stating that she didn't know about it left her exposed when it turns out that she DID know about it.

It can even be stated that 'all inquiries concerning unmasking procedures within the government inevitably lead to classified information, so I can't even begin to speak on that' if something more 'detailed' was necessary.

It really didn't leave her exposed at all, saying 'I don't know anything about that' is a perfectly normal response when people bring up classified information. It has happened routinely in the past.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

It really didn't leave her exposed at all, saying 'I don't know anything about that' is a perfectly normal response when people bring up classified information. It has happened routinely in the past.

But it does make her a liar if it comes up later that she did know, which can cause all sorts of fun legal problems for the govt. Saying you aren't at liberty to speak, or you cannot confirm nor deny, doesn't do that. Citation: what I was taught in regards to handling questions regarding classified information in the military.

 

[alien42]

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.

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

when a person is unmasked, the person requesting the unmasking doesn't even know who that person is until after they are unmasked.

do you now see the problem with your BS?

 

[fskimospy]

But it does make her a liar if it comes up later that she did know, which can cause all sorts of fun legal problems for the govt. Saying you aren't at liberty to speak, or you cannot confirm nor deny, doesn't do that. Citation: what I was taught in regards to handling questions regarding classified information in the military.

This would cause zero legal problems for the government as they are under no obligation to tell the press the truth. Citation: what I was taught in regards to handling questions regarding classified information in the military.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

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

when a person is unmasked, the person requesting the unmasking doesn't even know who that person is until after they are unmasked.

do you now see the problem with your BS?

Well, yes, I'm aware of that. However if the rumor mill is that the incoming administration is 'in talks with' Russian officials, and you have a sneaking suspicion as to which ones it is, you can, in theory, unmask a handful of citizen_1's until you find some dirt you're looking for.

Of course this is all hypothetical (hence the investigation), but everything in my mind is hanging on the fact that she knowingly lied about it. THAT is the part that has my antennae up, not the inner workings of handling classified information.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

This would cause zero legal problems for the government as they are under no obligation to tell the press the truth. Citation: what I was taught in regards to handling questions regarding classified information in the military.

It does if they end up having to get called into a courtroom to explain what they were lying about and why. It can be clarified at that point (and true enough, the government doesn't HAVE to tell the truth to the press) but it's still unnecessary heat compared to alternative ways of phrasing something when the question is originally asked.

 

[alien42]

Well, yes, I'm aware of that. However if the rumor mill is that the incoming administration is 'in talks with' Russian officials, and you have a sneaking suspicion as to which ones it is, you can, in theory, unmask a handful of citizen_1's until you find some dirt you're looking for.

Of course this is all hypothetical (hence the investigation), but everything in my mind is hanging on the fact that she knowingly lied about it. THAT is the part that has my antennae up, not the inner workings of handling classified information.

OK comrade, keep spewing the baseless bullshit.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

OK comrade, keep spewing the baseless bullshit.

Ease down Ripley, just because we're viewing things differently doesn't mean you have to label me a 'communist'.

Do you agree in principal that an official lying about something, then adjusting to say there wasn't anything wrong with that something after being found out, is fishy?

 

[alien42]

Do you agree in principal that an official lying about something, then adjusting to say there wasn't anything wrong with that something after being found out, is fishy?

this thread isn't about Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, Paul Manafort, or any of the other Trump associates who have had connections or communications with the Kremlin and lied about that fact.

Trump literally lies on a daily basis.

 

[fskimospy]

It does if they end up having to get called into a courtroom to explain what they were lying about and why. It can be clarified at that point (and true enough, the government doesn't HAVE to tell the truth to the press) but it's still unnecessary heat compared to alternative ways of phrasing something when the question is originally asked.

It's really hard for me to see this being adjudicated in any court and even harder for me to see this causing them any legal problems at all.

I mean how would they end up in court? As of right now there is exactly zero evidence of any improper action whatsoever. For this to make it into a court that means there would have to be significant evidence of wrongdoing uncovered, which even if it did exist would probably be next to impossible considering the scope of her duties and the incredibly obvious justification of wanting to know what future US officials Russian spies were talking to. If such information were uncovered though, what she said in a TV interview would be nothing.

This is just yet another silly diversion because Trump can't admit he lied about Obama wiretapping him. EDIT: It's frankly weird how much Obama seems to have gotten in Trump's head. He can't stop raging about him and inventing bizarre conspiracies about him.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

this thread isn't about Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, Paul Manafort, or any of the other Trump associates who have direct connections to the Kremlin and lied about that fact.

You didn't answer the question. Every person you rattled off (as well as a thousand others, in all likelyhood) should also be taken to task. This thread is about one person.

 

[mect]

I still have yet to see a source demonstrating that Rice lied. I have seen many posters in this thread lie about links claiming they demonstrate that she lied, but upon actually reading said links, none of them have actually contained what was claimed.

 

[alien42]

You didn't answer the question. Every person you rattled off (as well as a thousand others, in all likelyhood) should also be taken to task. This thread is about one person.

and there is a huge difference between lying under oath like Jeff Sessions, and not discussing classified material in a tv interview.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

It's really hard for me to see this being adjudicated in any court and even harder for me to see this causing them any legal problems at all.

I mean how would they end up in court? As of right now there is exactly zero evidence of any improper action whatsoever. For this to make it into a court that means there would have to be significant evidence of wrongdoing uncovered, which even if it did exist would probably be next to impossible considering the scope of her duties and the incredibly obvious justification of wanting to know what future US officials Russian spies were talking to. If such information were uncovered though, what she said in a TV interview would be nothing.

This is just yet another silly diversion because Trump can't admit he lied about Obama wiretapping him. EDIT: It's frankly weird how much Obama seems to have gotten in Trump's head. He can't stop raging about him and inventing bizarre conspiracies about him.

I guess, in a rational time, the notion of an official doing something likely illegal would have at least warranted an investigation, with results published to the public (no matter what they were). In our current governmental climate it probably barely registers however. I agree that it's likely a distraction attempt, but that still doesn't mean it can't be prodded at. Not like DC is lacking in lawyers and courts.

 

[alien42]

I still have yet to see a source demonstrating that Rice lied. I have seen many posters in this thread lie about links claiming they demonstrate that she lied, but upon actually reading said links, none of them have actually contained what was claimed.

of course she didn't, this whole conspiracy is only occurring to distract from the very real Trump Russia connections.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

and there is a huge difference between lying under oath like Jeff Sessions, and not discussing classified material in a tv interview.

Still not answering the question, as to whether or not in principal it sounds fishy. In fact, it's borderline condoning lying to the public.

Remember that this government is by the people, for the people.

 

[mect]

I guess, in a rational time, the notion of an official doing something likely illegal would have at least warranted an investigation, with results published to the public (no matter what they were). In our current governmental climate it probably barely registers however. I agree that it's likely a distraction attempt, but that still doesn't mean it can't be prodded at. Not like DC is lacking in lawyers and courts.

I'm fine with investigating Rice if actual evidence is found of wrong doing. Are you okay if we get this Trump investigation started first, considering there is far more evidence of wrong doing and he's in a slightly more important office right now.

 

[UNCjigga]

Well Trump just dismissed Bannon from the National Security Council... Hey Trumpers, let me borrow that Susan Rice jump-to-conclusions mat and connect the dots for you.

Bannon was the one using intelligence reports for political gain.

He's behind the "ZOMG! Obama wiretapped my tower" tweets and ensuing national embarrassment.

Bannon and his aides even brought Nunes into this shit show, which undermined the credibility of the entire committee and their investigation.

In a last ditch effort to fling shit at the wall, Bannon and his aides shouted "Susan Rice!" and got all the Benghazi truthers in a tizzy. At some point McMaster, Kushner or someone with half a brain clued Trump in that this shit won't stick. He then punished Bannon by removing him from the NSC and (hopefully?) dialling down his clearance.

Thanks for letting me borrow your jump to conclusions mat fellas, let's see what sticks now!

 

[fskimospy]

I guess, in a rational time, the notion of an official doing something likely illegal would have at least warranted an investigation, with results published to the public (no matter what they were). In our current governmental climate it probably barely registers however. I agree that it's likely a distraction attempt, but that still doesn't mean it can't be prodded at. Not like DC is lacking in lawyers and courts.

That's the thing though, there's literally no evidence whatsoever that she did anything illegal and every national security expert that has been in a similar situation said her actions were totally routine. Washington might have a lot of lawyers but they 1) don't have enough to investigate routine actions with no evidence of wrongdoing and 2) investigating people without such evidence would damage the ability of government to function.

Again, what she did was find out what American citizens a Russian spymaster was talking to. Doesn't that sound like something the National Security Adviser should know?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I still have yet to see a source demonstrating that Rice lied. I have seen many posters in this thread lie about links claiming they demonstrate that she lied, but upon actually reading said links, none of them have actually contained what was claimed.

http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...aid-i-know-nothing-unmasking-trump-officials/
Video in question from 22MAR concerning her stating she knew nothing, as well as information regarding Eli Lake of Bloomberg obtaining information from 'sources' with contradictory statements. May/may not be valid, depending on quality/truthiness of said sources.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Of course it's being sidetracked, or at least this is an attempt to sidetrack it. I don't believe you're that stupid for a second as to think that isn't the point of this.

Democrats (and MSM) became unglued with outrage, calling him a liar and demanding proof when Trump tweeted that Trump Tower was surveilled by the Obama administration. We're now starting to see evidence that this may have indeed happened. What changed? Where is your outrage now? Why don't you want this investigated? The only thing being side-tracked here is your team's relentlessly vitriolic and highly partisan narrative....so sad...I'm drowning in crocodile tears.