Susan Rice MASK Comes Off

[rushmc 18]

Quote

as part of an apparent effort to establish

like I said

no proof.

you have lots of innuendo but nothing more.

You are all waiting to cream yourselves.

I think you will explode long before that happens

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Channman 2]

rushmc

Quote

as part of an apparent effort to establish

like I said

no proof.

you have lots of innuendo but nothing more.

You are all waiting to cream yourselves.

I think you will explode long before that happens

Back out of Exile

This just in...more in more is coming out and Susan Rice story, "I know nothing, I see nothing" is falling apart.

http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2017/04/04/dear-cnn-why-former-obama-appointee-reporting-susan-rice-revelation/

[billvon 2,463]

>like I said
>no proof.

Plenty of proof and more to come.

>you have lots of innuendo but nothing more.
>You are all waiting to cream yourselves.
>I think you will explode long before that happens

I think your copy-and-paste of metaphors has finally caught up with you.

[tkhayes 145]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/31/politics/russia-trump-explained/

clear concise links that are proven and documented already, not actually disputed facts here. That and those are called 'evidence'. Is there proof that Russia threw the election? hard to do

Is there plenty of evidence that Russia was actively attempting to influence an election through fake news, bots and well planned internet poopy stuff? You bet. overwhelming evidence.

Is there evidence that at least some of the Trump campaign people were colluding with the Russians on some of these efforts? Is sure as fuck looks like it, given the proven links above.

Hence why the investigation is ongoing and will be ongoing for some time. Will there ever be proof? We do not need proof. We need reasonable evidence to pursue a prosecution through the laws we have in place. And if people get tried for this and/or administrations are impeached, that will not be based on proof, it will be based on evidence. It's called due process.

There is no proof that Bill Clinton lied about sex, but sure was a shit ton of evidence.

[tkhayes 145]

patently false. There are processes and procedures in place and well as legal means to do so when requesting the identities of people involved, and that is still not called 'wiretapping the white house' or whatever other conspiracy theory you might come up with.

You apparently have a fairly narrow view of how intelligence works and who has access to information and how they get it.

But I expect there are plenty of avenues for all sorts of agencies and people to get access to information that somehow you think is 'protected' or 'illegal'.

I do not doubt for a second that Susan Rice requested all kinds of things. I am sure she was advised by staff and attorneys on how to do it.

Just like GWB was advised on how to legally torture people and never go to jail for that either.

[rushmc 18]

No, you got it wrong.
The following article puts what she did into context.

Quote

The thing to bear in mind is that the White House does not do investigations. Not criminal investigations, not intelligence investigations.

Quote

Why is that so important in the context of explosive revelations that Susan Rice, President Obama’s national-security adviser, confidant, and chief dissembler, called for the “unmasking” of Trump campaign and transition officials whose identities and communications were captured in the collection of U.S. intelligence on foreign targets? Because we’ve been told for weeks that any unmasking of people in Trump’s circle that may have occurred had two innocent explanations: (1) the FBI’s investigation of Russian meddling in the election and (2) the need to know, for purposes of understanding the communications of foreign intelligence targets, the identities of Americans incidentally intercepted or mentioned. The unmasking, Obama apologists insist, had nothing to do with targeting Trump or his people.

That won’t wash.


In general, it is the FBI that conducts investigations that bear on American citizens suspected of committing crimes or of acting as agents of foreign powers. In the matter of alleged Russian meddling, the investigative camp also includes the CIA and the NSA. All three agencies conducted a probe and issued a joint report in January. That was after Obama, despite having previously acknowledged that the Russian activity was inconsequential, suddenly made a great show of ordering an inquiry and issuing sanctions.

Quote

Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies. The national-security adviser is not an investigator. She is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic-party interests.

She was part of the political weaponizing of national intelligence. (Much like the Obama admin did with the IRS and more is coming on that soon) And had there been ANY Russia connections that would have hurt Trump in the election, that info would have been leaked a long time ago.







http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446415/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

TriGirl

(according to the report you provided and others on network news):

She didn't order that all intel reporting from there on out reveal the names of the US citizens referenced in the reports.

She read some reporting that concerned her, where questionable conversations were reported between a known foreign intel operator and U.S. citizens. As the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, she wanted to know whether the conversations meant a real threat to our systems, or were with some poser who couldn't give the operator anything (I'm guessing at what was in the reports based on what has been released). The way to do that was to get the identities of the US persons involved in the conversation. She had absolutely every right to ask for their identities in this context and in her position.

If she exposed their identities to others outside the special group that had need-to-know, then we can talk about "charges" or other penalties. And I'm fine with that being investigated. However, let's just contrast this situation to Valerie Plame's unmasking. See any difference here?

First off Valerie Plame was not outed! But I am not surprise many on the left still think she was.

Second, no one was punished for outing Plame even though on the second day of the investigation it was known who did put her name out there. (but that investigation went on for 3 years after that and got Libbey on a technicality)

Third, Plame could not be outed because at the time she no longer held the job that was in question.

I wish you people would catch up and get your stories straight.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Channman 2]

tkhayes

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/31/politics/russia-trump-explained/

clear concise links that are proven and documented already, not actually disputed facts here. That and those are called 'evidence'. Is there proof that Russia threw the election? hard to do

Is there plenty of evidence that Russia was actively attempting to influence an election through fake news, bots and well planned internet poopy stuff? You bet. overwhelming evidence.

Is there evidence that at least some of the Trump campaign people were colluding with the Russians on some of these efforts? Is sure as fuck looks like it, given the proven links above.

Hence why the investigation is ongoing and will be ongoing for some time. Will there ever be proof? We do not need proof. We need reasonable evidence to pursue a prosecution through the laws we have in place. And if people get tried for this and/or administrations are impeached, that will not be based on proof, it will be based on evidence. It's called due process.

There is no proof that Bill Clinton lied about sex, but sure was a shit ton of evidence.

We will see in the next year where this goes, which in my opinion will not go where the DNC would like it to go. If they had a bomb shell it would have exploded for all to see. If the DNC going to be pissed at anybody they should be pissed at Evelyn Farkas for spilling the beans and providing insight to the DNC plans to use the Russian interference in our elections as a method to show collusion between Trump aides and the Russians.

Evelyn Farkas knew they were going to push the Russian involvement plan, she believes that they're going to get away with it and that they're going to be able to accuse the Trump team of collusion and she know all this in October 2016.

October is when the New York Times first published its claim that there was longtime contacts, collusion, between Trump aides and the Russians. Hillary & Harry Reid come out with statements of evidence of collusion thus closing the circle that Evelyn Farkas was very much in the know as she was working for Hillary. Evelyn Farkas made the statement that "he'd be impeached pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government". How does she know this, because well laid plans developed over the months with a complicit Liberal media on standby where going to spring their trap.

But as in any WAR...the other side has a say in the battle and Trump is not a weak knee pansy ass Republican that would have thrown up their hands and say I quit.

Susan Rice and Evelyn Farkas will be brought before Congress to testify and Evelyn Farkas has already provided so much detail of the Intel gathering that she will need to have her attorney present when she pleads the 5th. If she opens her mouth she will put her freedom in jeopardy.

Susan Rice is a known liar, and she's not very good at it. Her testimony should be interesting if she doesn't herself plead the 5th. All in All, this is shaping up to be extremely interesting and potentially extremely damaging to one side or the other.

[Phil1111 931]

tkhayes

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/31/politics/russia-trump-explained/

clear concise links that are proven and documented already, not actually disputed facts here. That and those are called 'evidence'. Is there proof that Russia threw the election? hard to do

Is there plenty of evidence that Russia was actively attempting to influence an election through fake news, bots and well planned internet poopy stuff? You bet. overwhelming evidence.

Is there evidence that at least some of the Trump campaign people were colluding with the Russians on some of these efforts? Is sure as fuck looks like it, given the proven links above.

Hence why the investigation is ongoing and will be ongoing for some time. Will there ever be proof? We do not need proof. We need reasonable evidence to pursue a prosecution through the laws we have in place. And if people get tried for this and/or administrations are impeached, that will not be based on proof, it will be based on evidence. It's called due process.

There is no proof that Bill Clinton lied about sex, but sure was a shit ton of evidence.

Bill Clinton lied and is to blame for the current state of acceptance of lying by US politicians in general. The rest I agree with.

[normiss 635]

Lying by politicians goes back a bit deeper than Clinton.
Nixon is a fine example.

[tkhayes 145]

Quote

The thing to bear in mind is that the White House does not do investigations. Not criminal investigations, not intelligence investigations.

But they are still involved in the intelligence, the decisions that come out of it, the details within it. What you are saying is that the Police Commissioner is never aware, nor involved in the investigation by the staff of the police department. That is patently false.

Cherry picking the roles and compartmentalizing for your convenience without any basis in fact for your assumption

Quote

She was part of the political weaponizing of national intelligence.

In your opinion.

Show us the statutes she has violated please and the basis for it.

People are free to be armchair critics of how they think the internal govt works. I expect when the daily intelligence briefings happen at many levels of many departments within various branches of the governments, that the identities of those involved are routinely discussed.

Why? Because it might be pertinent to the investigation, that's why.

[tkhayes 145]

Quote

Bill Clinton lied and is to blame for the current state of acceptance of lying by US politicians in general. The rest I agree with.

No, there is no proof that Bill Clinton lied. But there is plenty of evidence that he did.

You do not understand the difference apparently.

There is in fact no proof that you are sitting at a computer reading this...there is only evidence that you are doing that.

[tkhayes 145]

Susan Rice has not asked for immunity from prosecution. Michael Flynn has.

That should tell you something. But probably not if your belief structure is that you can dismiss tons of evidence of wrong doing with the Trump campaign but make a blanket claim that Susan Rice is a known liar using similar levels of evidence.....

[rushmc 18]

tkhayes

Susan Rice has not asked for immunity from prosecution. Michael Flynn has.

That should tell you something. But probably not if your belief structure is that you can dismiss tons of evidence of wrong doing with the Trump campaign but make a blanket claim that Susan Rice is a known liar using similar levels of evidence.....

Remember Libbey?

He does I bet.

I would ask for immunity too. That would just be smart.

BTW, other than lying to his boss he has not been shown to have done anything illegal.

And you deny Bill Clinton was proven liar? Really?

Why did he lose his law license then?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tkhayes 145]

Quote

And you deny Bill Clinton was proven liar? Really?

That is not what I am saying. There is no absolute proof that he lied about anything. there is plenty of evidence to support that he did and he was impeached.

You are denying that the Trump campaign was involved with Russia because you are demanding absolute irrefutable proof otherwise you biased belief structure will not allow you to comprehend the evidence that supports the likelihood that it happened.

There is no proof of gravity either, but there is overwhelming evidence that it exists.

But you are absolutely certain (I expect) about your claims about Rice. A more accurate statement might be 'I believe', instead of 'that's a fact'.

[Phil1111 931]

tkhayes

Quote

Bill Clinton lied and is to blame for the current state of acceptance of lying by US politicians in general. The rest I agree with.

No, there is no proof that Bill Clinton lied. But there is plenty of evidence that he did.

You do not understand the difference apparently.

There is in fact no proof that you are sitting at a computer reading this...there is only evidence that you are doing that.

A court judgement is not the sole validator of what is true, false, or a lie. Bill Clinton made a statement on national TV whereby he clearly stated "... well everyone knows what transpired beyond that.

Any subsequent lawyer talk of what the definition of "is..Is", is just that. If it walks like a duck, quacks like...

Politicians lie, always have. They also like to spin the facts. trump is a known habitual liar. I don't need a court to rule on that issue. I wasn't born yesterday. I'm not inclined to buy ocean front property on the arctic ocean and expect palm trees to be waving above my hammock.

The current state of partisanship in US politics is unmatched in other western democracies. Its dysfunction led in part to trump's victory. The difference between Nixon and Clinton IMO is that Nixon was canned. Clinton should have been. Yet Clinton is still a very popular President.

All of the detestable virtues of Bill Clinton were part and parcel of Hillary. Whitewater, lying, etc.

Sooner or later straight talk from leaders has to become the norm. With a lessor degree of lying, rather than larger.

[normiss 635]

I'll take a politician that would lie about a sexual tryst over a president that lies about everything any day.

[Channman 2]

tkhayes

Susan Rice has not asked for immunity from prosecution. Michael Flynn has.

That should tell you something. But probably not if your belief structure is that you can dismiss tons of evidence of wrong doing with the Trump campaign but make a blanket claim that Susan Rice is a known liar using similar levels of evidence.....

She hasn't asked for it yet, nor has she been requested to appear and give testimony. Time will tell if she testifies, takes the 5th, or request inmunity.

[gowlerk 1,952]

Channman

***Susan Rice has not asked for immunity from prosecution. Michael Flynn has.

That should tell you something. But probably not if your belief structure is that you can dismiss tons of evidence of wrong doing with the Trump campaign but make a blanket claim that Susan Rice is a known liar using similar levels of evidence.....

She hasn't asked for it yet, nor has she been requested to appear and give testimony. Time will tell if she testifies, takes the 5th, or request inmunity.

None of those things will happen. It's just a partisan wet dream you and yours are having. Wank on.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[TriGirl 278]

Oh, I didn't realize you also work in Intelligence.

Though it doesn't seem you do, or have, as you have no idea what you're talking about. I gave you (unclassified) information that, wait, ended up being explained publicly by other intelligence professionals the very next day. Seems I might have some credibility here.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[Channman 2]

gowlerk

******Susan Rice has not asked for immunity from prosecution. Michael Flynn has.

That should tell you something. But probably not if your belief structure is that you can dismiss tons of evidence of wrong doing with the Trump campaign but make a blanket claim that Susan Rice is a known liar using similar levels of evidence.....

She hasn't asked for it yet, nor has she been requested to appear and give testimony. Time will tell if she testifies, takes the 5th, or request inmunity.

None of those things will happen. It's just a partisan wet dream you and yours are having. Wank on.

Your panties are all twisted up much like your suspension lines. The story line / talking points are heading in a new direction with actual / verifiable documents, sign in logs that point to the previous administration. They will have the opportunity to give their statements and we will see where each individual goes...Home or a Cell.

[rushmc 18]

tkhayes

Quote

And you deny Bill Clinton was proven liar? Really?

That is not what I am saying. There is no absolute proof that he lied about anything. there is plenty of evidence to support that he did and he was impeached.

You are denying that the Trump campaign was involved with Russia because you are demanding absolute irrefutable proof otherwise you biased belief structure will not allow you to comprehend the evidence that supports the likelihood that it happened.

There is no proof of gravity either, but there is overwhelming evidence that it exists.

But you are absolutely certain (I expect) about your claims about Rice. A more accurate statement might be 'I believe', instead of 'that's a fact'.

He purgered himself and lost his law license and that is not proof?

Holly shit dude, that explains many of your posts.

And there is nothing but innuendo when it comes to the Trump Russia bs. NOTHING PERIOD!

And every official who has been interviewed has stated as much.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

TriGirl

Seems I might have some credibility here.

Not if you still think Plame was outed....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 635]

Keep those gaslights burning

His public speaking today was more confusing than usual, but it looks like he's really stuck on whether to nuke Syria or North Korea first. Wonder which one the Chinese President will support.

[Channman 2]

rushmc

No, you got it wrong.
The following article puts what she did into context.

Quote

The thing to bear in mind is that the White House does not do investigations. Not criminal investigations, not intelligence investigations.

***Why is that so important in the context of explosive revelations that Susan Rice, President Obama’s national-security adviser, confidant, and chief dissembler, called for the “unmasking” of Trump campaign and transition officials whose identities and communications were captured in the collection of U.S. intelligence on foreign targets? Because we’ve been told for weeks that any unmasking of people in Trump’s circle that may have occurred had two innocent explanations: (1) the FBI’s investigation of Russian meddling in the election and (2) the need to know, for purposes of understanding the communications of foreign intelligence targets, the identities of Americans incidentally intercepted or mentioned. The unmasking, Obama apologists insist, had nothing to do with targeting Trump or his people.

That won’t wash.


In general, it is the FBI that conducts investigations that bear on American citizens suspected of committing crimes or of acting as agents of foreign powers. In the matter of alleged Russian meddling, the investigative camp also includes the CIA and the NSA. All three agencies conducted a probe and issued a joint report in January. That was after Obama, despite having previously acknowledged that the Russian activity was inconsequential, suddenly made a great show of ordering an inquiry and issuing sanctions.

Quote

Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies. The national-security adviser is not an investigator. She is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic-party interests.

She was part of the political weaponizing of national intelligence. (Much like the Obama admin did with the IRS and more is coming on that soon) And had there been ANY Russia connections that would have hurt Trump in the election, that info would have been leaked a long time ago.


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446415/

And a bit more on political weaponizing of Intel.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/327413-how-the-intel-community-was-turned-into-a-political