Susan Rice is who we thought she was

[Londo_Jowo]

Washington politics at it's finest

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Apparently there is 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.

Well where is Trump's evidence?

Again if I came into information where I thought I was "caught" (remember this is my politician empathic hat on now) I would do as you say and keep quiet.

On the other hand with the same hat on I found that evidence weighed against Trump et. al. I would also keep quiet about it. What advantage could there be in giving others time to organize a defense? No, best to bring it up at the last moment before the spin doctors can do their work.

Now if I take that approach how does my keeping silence prove my first scenario must be true and the second an impossibility?

Just a little basic grasp of the Art of War here.

 

[ivwshane]

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.

What was the specific question that was asked?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

What was the specific question that was asked?

Like the fourth damn time I've linked this, and that was a repost of @Doc Savage Fan.

 

[emperus]

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.

You don't define my credibility. I assume with people around me there is a certain level of intelligence needed to have a discussion. We are sitting here arguing over facts of how unmasking works. A quick google search would help anyone who is confused. Instead of sitting here spreading disinformation.

Here is what he said:
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.

Please tell me how his post or that statement or your explanation of that statement makes any sense giving that we are speaking about the unmasking that RIce supposedly did in her role as NSA. Not only does he not seem to know how unmasking works, He also seems not to know what an NSA is.

And honestly, you're worse than him. If you understand how unmasking works (which is doubtful) Instead of helping him understand what he doesn't, you chose to enable him in his idiocracy; why?

 

[emperus]

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.

Actually Shciff is trying to get the information and lo and behold, the White House is resisting.
Schiff: Trump promised documents, but WH staff is fighting release
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/politics/adam-schiff-white-house-documents/

 

[ivwshane]

Like the fourth damn time I've linked this, and that was a repost of @Doc Savage Fan.

Yes, so rice has no idea what nunes is talking about and yet, you, some how think she does.

So we are once again talking about a very specific post of yours where you lied and yet you claim you don't know what post I'm referring to. According to your logic you should know exactly what post I'm referring to.

Your logic is broken.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You don't define my credibility. I assume with people around me there is a certain level of intelligence needed to have a discussion. We are sitting here arguing over facts of how unmasking works. A quick google search would help anyone who is confused. Instead of sitting here spreading disinformation.

Here is what he said:
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.

Please tell me how his post or that statement or your explanation of that statement makes any sense giving that we are speaking about the unmasking that RIce supposedly did in her role as NSA. Not only does he not seem to know how unmasking works, He also seems not to know what an NSA is.

And honestly, you're worse than him. If you understand how unmasking works (which is doubtful) Instead of helping him understand what he doesn't, you chose to enable him in his idiocracy; why?

He was rightly stating that in the event of a criminal investigation, one of the big three would likely be the ones doing the unmasking, he was wrongfully stating (or inferring) that this is the only reason anyone would ever be unmasked. I wasn't enabling anything, just pointing out that you were specifically wrong when you stated that his response meant that he didn't understand it. I'd fully expect him to school himself up as well after being called out by you, hence me not bringing it up.

If you didn't mean that he didn't understand it, and that instead he was implying that was the only reason to do so (which would be wrong... an error in the 'why' not the 'how'), that should have been clarified.

 

[emperus]

Actually Shciff is trying to get the information and lo and behold, the White House is resisting. Why don't you think the White House doesn't want to give the comittee the documents that they already leaked to the FOx NEws et al
Schiff: Trump promised documents, but WH staff is fighting release
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/politics/adam-schiff-white-house-documents/

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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.

If anyone is distorting this, it's you. You're dishonest as hell by totally ignoring the previous tweets (with "wires tapped" and "wire tapping" quoted) made minutes before the one's you quoted. But IIRC intellectual honesty was never your forte.

EDIT: I found a couple showing the time stamps.

 

[fskimospy]

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?

They are not remotely equivalent terms. Nunes also explicitly stated there was no evidence that Trump Tower was wiretapped and that taken at face value Trump's tweets are falsehoods. Will you admit this?

Assuming you're now admitting Trump's tweets were facially false now on to your weaseling:

Attempting to conflate incidental collection with being wiretapped is insanely, comically dishonest. By that standard when the FBI wiretaps a mob boss and he calls a pizza place by Trump's definition the pizza place has been wiretapped, which is a ludicrous definition that is not used in any law enforcement context anywhere in the world.

As for what Trump intended if he meant something other than the definition of being wiretapped that is commonly used he is welcome to clarify himself but he has conveniently refused to do so. All he has to do is come out and say exactly what he thinks happened. Alternatively, since he runs the FBI/NSA/etc he could simply order them to tell him what they did and then release that information. Shockingly enough he has chosen not to do that either. He is relying on this ambiguity to have useful idiots try and find a way to convince themselves he isn't a liar.

 

[fskimospy]

If anyone is distorting this, it's you. You're dishonest as hell by totally ignoring the previous tweets (with "wires tapped" and "wire tapping" quoted) made minutes before the one's you quoted. But IIRC intellectual honesty was never your forte.

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, those tweets say Trump was being wiretapped before the election while all evidence of incidental collection, and the actions you are saying these tweets referred to, happened after the election.

So you accuse someone else of ignoring other tweets but then entirely ignore the fact that those tweets reference a time period that's totally different than the one you're arguing for. The sheer brazen lying here is absolutely amazing. You should be ashamed of yourself and apologize immediately.

 

[ivwshane]

If anyone is distorting this, it's you. You're dishonest as hell by totally ignoring the previous tweets (with "wires tapped" and "wire tapping" quoted) made minutes before the one's you quoted. But IIRC intellectual honesty was never your forte.

So trump was smart enough to put "wire tapping" in quotes for all but one of them? Lol ok

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Yes, so rice has no idea what nunes is talking about and yet, you, some how think she does.

So we are once again talking about a very specific post of yours where you lied and yet you claim you don't know what post I'm referring to. According to your logic you should know exactly what post I'm referring to.

Your logic is broken.

Huh? That post was the statement of her stating she didn't know what Judy was talking about (and thus didn't know what Nunes was referring to via his disclosure). This was on 22MAR2017. Eli Lake of Bloomberg reported on 03APR2017 that he received information from sources stating that she did indeed know about it, as she requested that the persons in questions be unmasked prior to the interview in question, back during/prior to the transition to the Trump presidency. So the timeline is:
Obama in the whitehouse -> trump gearing up for presidency -> Request for unmasking of communications of Trump and surrounding personnel by Susan Rice (assuming sources are to be believed)-> interview on 22MAR2017 where she stated she knew nothing about said unmasking, or potential disclosure of identities -> 03APR2017 information leaked/disclosed to Eli Lake regarding her unmask requests

Citation:
http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...aid-i-know-nothing-unmasking-trump-officials/

Edited for clarification/annotation of assumption.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Like the fourth damn time I've linked this, and that was a repost of @Doc Savage Fan.

Part of the problem with the answer is the premise on which Nunes and others were driving at, that something improper was done and Rice would have known all that going into the interview. I suggest as a basis the second part of the response Rice was referring to wrongdoing since it makes no sense for Nunes to make a big deal about proper procedures, unless he was setting a trap. I cannot know, but the circumstances which prompted the question to Rice creates automatic peril.

I'll have to go with "I have no idea what happened here" and move back to the relevant part of the investigation. If she did act to intentionally deceive then she'll have to bear the consequences. For now it's a tempest in a teapot.

 

[emperus]

He was rightly stating that in the event of a criminal investigation, one of the big three would likely be the ones doing the unmasking, he was wrongfully stating (or inferring) that this is the only reason anyone would ever be unmasked. I wasn't enabling anything, just pointing out that you were specifically wrong when you stated that his response meant that he didn't understand it. I'd fully expect him to school himself up as well after being called out by you, hence me not bringing it up.

If you didn't mean that he didn't understand it, and that instead he was implying that was the only reason to do so (which would be wrong... an error in the 'why' not the 'how'), that should have been clarified.

No he didn't understand it. Yet you continue to defend it. Again, here is what he said.
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.

Look at the bolded part
He claims that since the president is not an intelligence agency that [there would be no other way/reason to unmask these people], therefore political sabotage is the only explanation.

That is the logical force of the bolded text. He is therefore wrong in not understanding that the NSA can legally Unmask people and therefore doesn't understand unmasking. Is there anything else you would like to ad? Again you should spend your time in helping understand so we as citizens can be better educated in our politics and our leaders than keeping him uneducated and ripe for propaganda.

 

[ivwshane]

Huh? That post was the statement of her stating she didn't know what Judy was talking about (and thus didn't know what Nunes was referring to via his disclosure). This was on 22MAR2017. Eli Lake of Bloomberg reported on 03APR2017 that he received information from sources stating that she did indeed know about it, as she requested that the persons in questions be unmasked prior to the interview in question, back during/prior to the transition to the Trump presidency. So the timeline is:
Obama in the whitehouse -> trump gearing up for presidency -> Request for unmasking of communications of Trump and surrounding personnel by Susan Rice-> interview on 22MAR2017 where she stated she knew nothing about said unmasking, or potential disclosure of identities -> 03APR2017 information leaked/disclosed to Eli Lake regarding her unmask requests

Citation:
http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...aid-i-know-nothing-unmasking-trump-officials/

Lol.

So you know exactly what post I'm referring to about you lying because you are the one that wrote it. So why did you lie?

 

[emperus]

Part of the problem with the answer is the premise on which Nunes and others were driving at, that something improper was done and Rice would have known all that going into the interview. I suggest as a basis the second part of the response Rice was referring to wrongdoing since it makes no sense for Nunes to make a big deal about proper procedures, unless he was setting a trap. I cannot know, but the circumstances which prompted the question to Rice creates automatic peril.

I'll have to go with "I have no idea what happened here" and move back to the relevant part of the investigation. If she did act to intentionally deceive then she'll have to bear the consequences. For now it's a tempest in a teapot.

I agree. I think people are also forgetting when this interview was, the circumstances and what the reporting was at that time.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

You'll jump thru any hoop to get to where you want to be. The committee has yet to see Nunes alleged material-

http://www.newsweek.com/democrats-h...-donald-trump-russia-devin-nunes-trump-579236

Schiff can't call out material he hasn't seen. If he were Trump that would be different, obviously.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

No he didn't understand it. Yet you continue to defend it. Again, here is what he said.
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.

Look at the bolded part
He claims that since the president is not an intelligence agency that [there would be no other way/reason to unmask these people], therefore political sabotage is the only explanation.

That is the logical force of the bolded text. He is therefore wrong in not understanding that the NSA can legally Unmask people and therefore doesn't understand unmasking. Is there anything else you would like to ad? Again you should spend your time in helping understand so we as citizens can be better educated in our politics and our leaders than keeping him uneducated and ripe for propaganda.

Again, his statement implies nothing about his understanding of HOW the unmasking procedure works, but it does imply he doesn't understand WHY it's done (aka reasons outside of criminal investigations). It's very *probable* that he also misunderstands the how, but that isn't necessarily implied by his statement.

I fully support people understanding more, and gaining knowledge. Just the right knowledge.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Lol.

So you know exactly what post I'm referring to about you lying because you are the one that wrote it. So why did you lie?

I can only assume at this point that you're attempting to troll and/or bait me, since you've presented no information regarding any post I've made, and refuse to actually comment on anything I'm saying.

 

[emperus]

Again, his statement implies nothing about his understanding of HOW the unmasking procedure works, but it does imply he doesn't understand WHY it's done (aka reasons outside of criminal investigations). It's very *probable* that he also misunderstands the how, but that isn't necessarily implied by his statement.

I fully support people understanding more, and gaining knowledge. Just the right knowledge.

Dude, why don't you diagram that sentence that I bolded and tell me what logical conclusion you get. Talking about losing your credibility.

If he doesn't understand that it's done outside of criminal investigations, he doesn't understand how it works.

Am I being gas-lighted?

 

[alien42]

more lies and bullshit

there is no point in even attempting to interact or have a discussion with someone who constantly lies like you do.

 

[ivwshane]

I can only assume at this point that you're attempting to troll and/or bait me, since you've presented no information regarding any post I've made, and refuse to actually comment on anything I'm saying.

Interesting, so in this instance you are able to recognize trolling but when the right does the exact same thing you are not only unable to recognize it for what it is but you defend them and continue to propagate their message.

Do you like being used? Do you feel dirty for spreading their propaganda?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

They are not remotely equivalent terms. Nunes also explicitly stated there was no evidence that Trump Tower was wiretapped and that taken at face value Trump's tweets are falsehoods. Will you admit this?

Assuming you're now admitting Trump's tweets were facially false now on to your weaseling:

Attempting to conflate incidental collection with being wiretapped is insanely, comically dishonest. By that standard when the FBI wiretaps a mob boss and he calls a pizza place by Trump's definition the pizza place has been wiretapped, which is a ludicrous definition that is not used in any law enforcement context anywhere in the world.

As for what Trump intended if he meant something other than the definition of being wiretapped that is commonly used he is welcome to clarify himself but he has conveniently refused to do so. All he has to do is come out and say exactly what he thinks happened. Alternatively, since he runs the FBI/NSA/etc he could simply order them to tell him what they did and then release that information. Shockingly enough he has chosen not to do that either. He is relying on this ambiguity to have useful idiots try and find a way to convince themselves he isn't a liar.

I understand Mr. Pedantic. English is very hard and his intentional quotation of those words can be really confusing for "intelligent" people like you. And I get it that you must completely disregard the quotes and take the quoted words literally in order to have anything even remotely resembling a coherent argument here. Once a weasel, always a weasel.