Susan Rice is who we thought she was

[HomerJS]

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.

Exactly. Adjudicate Trump first and we can get to Rice later.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

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.

Of course. Frankly I personally feel there's enough evidence to call into question the legitimacy of the administration in its current form, but that's just my opinion. There's probably more than a few bad actors all over the place, though.

 

[HomerJS]

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 relentless and highly partisan narrative....so sad...I'm drowning in crocodile tears.

So based on Trump's history people don't have the right to demand proof from this guy? Have you been in a coma for the last year???

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

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?

I'm likely focusing too much on the trees for the forest in this case. It drives me up the wall that any given official can do something rather blatant and just sorta drift off to nothingness, because it's in the middle of a shitstorm so large that nobody can be bothered to look into it.

 

[cytg111]

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.

But I am serious.. You are clearly able to hold Rice to a high level of logical scrutiny.. I just dont understand why it doesnt apply 180 degrees around? I am all for 360, lets hold all to a high level of moral standard.. Would be epic, sure...

 

[mect]

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.

I already watched that video. She clarifies in that same video, that she doesn't know what Nunes is referring to. The opening statement (I know nothing about this) provides zero context about what "this" is referring to, you don't even here the question she's responding to. That's why her later statement is much more valuable, where she states more clearly that she really doesn't know to what Chairman Nunes is referring. I find no lie in that statement. My understanding is that Nunes was claiming that Obama ordered Trumps phone to be tapped. She explains that that isn't even possible. If something isn't even possible, it makes sense to state that you don't know what a person is referring to.

 

[bshole]

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.

It will be largely successful. Congress is held by the Republicans. They need this to be a scandal and they need it rather urgently. Get ready for years of Susan Rice because that is what you are about to get. Whether or not she did anything wrong or is convicted is completely immaterial. As long as it talked about incessantly and investigated ad nauseum, it will suffice for Republican purposes. This is all about managing the optics of the situation for the voters and Democrats have lost already. The Republicans have created an equivalence and whether or not it is false really won't matter in the end.

 

[Thebobo]

yea okay, i must be a rnc paid disinfo guy right, a shame all the leaks were for the dnc so theyre the only ones who are proven to use paid protesters and disinfo posters on forums and social media manipulating public discourse.

No you are just a Diversion.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So based on Trump's history people don't have the right to demand proof from this guy? Have you been in a coma for the last year???

Looks like they're getting their proof. Have you been in a coma for the last 2 weeks?

But cannot the exact same thing be said for Susan Rice? She lied about Benghazi to propagate a false political narrative. And it wouldn't surprise me one bit it's found that she used her power for political purposes.

 

[Amused]

PJ Media? Seriously?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pajamas_Media

Wow... just wow.

Further proof of just how cultish the right wing has become.

The cult of ideological confirmation bias. The home of "alternative fact."

Where mindless conspiracy theories are "fact" and real facts are "liberal bias."

Stop, just stop. You've been duped by fascists claiming to be conservative.

I'm seriously amazed that starting in the late 80s leading up to today, we've been doing Nazi Germany 2.0 here in the US.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I already watched that video. She clarifies in that same video, that she doesn't know what Nunes is referring to. The opening statement (I know nothing about this) provides zero context about what "this" is referring to, you don't even here the question she's responding to. That's why her later statement is much more valuable, where she states more clearly that she really doesn't know to what Chairman Nunes is referring. I find no lie in that statement. My understanding is that Nunes was claiming that Obama ordered Trumps phone to be tapped. She explains that that isn't even possible. If something isn't even possible, it makes sense to state that you don't know what a person is referring to.

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'.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Of course. Frankly I personally feel there's enough evidence to call into question the legitimacy of the administration in its current form, but that's just my opinion. There's probably more than a few bad actors all over the place, though.

It all depends on the weight of evidence showing possible wrongdoing. You might claim to the police that I was involved in a fight, but if there's nothing to back that up then nothing is going to happen. On the other hand me and the other guy are beat to piss then yeah, that's real smoke.

If Trump people have something more than talk then let's have at it. Manufacturing "proof" by accusation doesn't work for me.

 

[Thebobo]

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'.

Bigly diversion

 

[fskimospy]

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.

We have seen literally no evidence that happened. I'm not sure how anyone could believe that blatant falsehood as literally every piece of evidence that has come out has further reinforced the idea that Trump lied. Someone here is becoming unglued but I'm going to go with the guy who apparently is desperately attempting to believe the opposite of reality.

It is frankly hilarious that you're calling the Democrats' agenda vitriolic and highly partisan considering that Trump has been baselessly accusing Obama of basically criminal activity and then ranting about how mean the Democrats are for months now. Do you have no sense of irony?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

But I am serious.. You are clearly able to hold Rice to a high level of logical scrutiny.. I just dont understand why it doesnt apply 180 degrees around? I am all for 360, lets hold all to a high level of moral standard.. Would be epic, sure...

I'm glad to see your concern for such things....it does indeed apply 180 degrees around.

 

[alien42]

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.

she didn't lie, nothing fishy about it.

she can't talk about a lot of the work that was her job, because of classified information.

 

[emperus]

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.

I see a lot of generalities in your post. Sounds like the talking posts emanating from Fox news. You also seemed not to answer any of my questions. So let's try again. Unmasking people is part of her job duty. There are procedures for that, that previous NSA have described and say is common. Please quote me where Rice said she didn't know anything about unmasking anyone who worked for Trump (Remember unmasking anyone is classified). Please quote her words saying that or a question posing just that that she answered directly.

Now, let me ask you. Why was this name in an intel report that landed on her desk? Given that the IC are the one's who compiles the information. What do you think that the IC found worrisome that they sent it to her. Also given that there is a process for unmasking individuals, why did whomever unmasked it accept her request and rationalization for the unmasking?

It's amazing that you've jumped on this report without any information, yet you fail to believe anything about Trump and Russia even given that there is an FBI investigation into it.

Here, let me help you.
Here again is a piece from the WSJ
A Republican official familiar with deliberations by GOP lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee said that the names of two U.S. citizens who were part of Mr. Trump’s transition team have been unmasked in intelligence reports.
One is Mr. Flynn and the other hasn’t been identified, said the official. The report involving Mr. Flynn documented phone conversations he had in late December with the Russian ambassador to the U.S.
The official said Ms. Rice had requested the unmasking of at least one transition official—not Mr. Flynn—who was part of multiple foreign conversations that weren't related to Russia.
Mr. Flynn was forced to resign after misleading White House officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, about the nature of his conversations with the ambassador, which current and former officials said concerned the possible easing of Obama-era sanctions on Russia.
The Republican official and others said Ms. Rice wasn't the administration official who instigated Mr. Flynn’s unmasking.
WSJ

You sir are a partisan hack.

I agree that Susan Rice should testify under oath. But I guarantee that it's something the white house doesn't want else they would have just declassified the info instead of leaking them to Fox News et al.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

It all depends on the weight of evidence showing possible wrongdoing. You might claim to the police that I was involved in a fight, but if there's nothing to back that up then nothing is going to happen. On the other hand me and the other guy are beat to piss then yeah, that's real smoke.

If Trump people have something more than talk then let's have at it. Manufacturing "proof" by accusation doesn't work for me.

Agreed, I'd like to see proof as well. I'd also like it if things didn't slide past when proof might be there if someone gets their fingernail under something, but I accept some minnows might slip by while focusing on the bigger fish.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

she didn't lie, nothing fishy about it.

she can't talk about a lot of the work that was her job, because of classified information.

She did lie if she knew something about x, but claimed she didn't. That's the definition of a lie. I accept that she was likely not authorized to talk about it, but *state that*, do not state something that is clearly and blatantly a lie instead, when established protocol exists to handle that situation.

 

[fskimospy]

It all depends on the weight of evidence showing possible wrongdoing. You might claim to the police that I was involved in a fight, but if there's nothing to back that up then nothing is going to happen. On the other hand me and the other guy are beat to piss then yeah, that's real smoke.

If Trump people have something more than talk then let's have at it. Manufacturing "proof" by accusation doesn't work for me.

It's hard to see how a rational conversation can even be had about this anymore. I mean DSF has apparently convinced himself that evidence is coming out that Obama had Trump Tower surveilled despite all evidence available indicating that's a lie.

It's amazing to see the effects of partisanship on people where even plain reality gets bent because they want to believe so badly. It's a sickness.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Please quote me where Rice said she didn't know anything about unmasking anyone who worked for Trump (Remember unmasking anyone is classified). Please quote her words saying that or a question posing just that that she answered directly.

Them being unmasked per her request means she knew the identities at this point in the conversation, which means she knew about the unmasking of people working for Trump, or Trump himself. Whichever happens to be the part in question that she corrected later, we don't know yet due to the classified nature.

EDIT: For the record, I'm disregarding everything in her statement after the words 'I know nothing about this' because it appears to be attempting to either twist his question into being about the specific surveillance regarding the election stuff (which wasn't his question) or a specific attempt to redirect the Q&A.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sorry Doc but Comey put the Trump Tower thing to bed. Obama did not have the ability nor any other individual to perform such a feat. Trump made a declarative statement, that Obama, not some agency, was responsible for wiretapping him. Even if we allow for other communication channels there would have to be a FISA record. So the question is this- If Trump *knew* Obama was spying on him, then why would there be a need for hearings. Trump merely presents the proof of the allegation and damns Obama. Then there are criminal proceedings and Obama is ruined at the very least.

If you say someone murdered you family in your living room and all the proof is right there, then later saying "well that's not what I said" isn't great for credibility when you can't show that you have no evidence at all.

If Obama did wrong where is Trump's evidence? Fishing expeditions aren't that at all.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

We have seen literally no evidence that happened. I'm not sure how anyone could believe that blatant falsehood as literally every piece of evidence that has come out has further reinforced the idea that Trump lied. Someone here is becoming unglued but I'm going to go with the guy who apparently is desperately attempting to believe the opposite of reality.

You might want to ask Adam Schiff...but he's been damn quiet since leaving the WH last Friday. The denial is strong with you. lol

It is frankly hilarious that you're calling the Democrats' agenda vitriolic and highly partisan considering that Trump has been baselessly accusing Obama of basically criminal activity and then ranting about how mean the Democrats are for months now. Do you have no sense of irony?

What I said is true. Sorry that it upsets you so much.

 

[ivwshane]

She did lie if she knew something about x, but claimed she didn't. That's the definition of a lie. I accept that she was likely not authorized to talk about it, but *state that*, do not state something that is clearly and blatantly a lie instead, when established protocol exists to handle that situation.

I have a post of yours that proves you are lying, do you admit that you were lying in that post?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Sorry Doc but Comey put the Trump Tower thing to bed. Obama did not have the ability nor any other individual to perform such a feat. Trump made a declarative statement, that Obama, not some agency, was responsible for wiretapping him. Even if we allow for other communication channels there would have to be a FISA record. So the question is this- If Trump *knew* Obama was spying on him, then why would there be a need for hearings. Trump merely presents the proof of the allegation and damns Obama. Then there are criminal proceedings and Obama is ruined at the very least.

If you say someone murdered you family in your living room and all the proof is right there, then later saying "well that's not what I said" isn't great for credibility when you can't show that you have no evidence at all.

If Obama did wrong where is Trump's evidence? Fishing expeditions aren't that at all.

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

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I have a post of yours that proves you are lying, do you admit that you were lying in that post?

Which post?