Reported: Susan Rice unmasked names caught up in surveillance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole thread really is about democrats twisting themselves in pretzels to prove 1+1 does not equal 2.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Want to answer my question from 9:23?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thread really is about democrats twisting themselves in pretzels to prove 1+1 does not equal 2.

Nope, this is about the GOP trying to claim, as Orwell wrote, that 2+2=5.

This is about Trump supporters trying desperately to make noise so people will "look over here!" and ignore the implosion of his administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So let's revisit this. If you are Susan Rice, and you see intel reports that disclose that the Russian Ambassador, in a legally monitored communication, is communicating to the Kremlin that US Person K or US Person F is asking for a Russian SCIF for back channel communications, would it, or would it not, be prudent for Susan Rice to request a legal and authorized unmasking of either Person K or Person F or both?

Agree - here we are a month and a half later and a lot more has come out, and all the more Susan Rice is vindicated and the deeper look into these communications is all the more appropriate and legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let's revisit this. If you are Susan Rice, and you see intel reports that disclose that the Russian Ambassador, in a legally monitored communication, is communicating to the Kremlin that US Person K or US Person F is asking for a Russian SCIF for back channel communications, would it, or would it not, be prudent for Susan Rice to request a legal and authorized unmasking of either Person K or Person F or both?

Agree - here we are a month and a half later and a lot more has come out, and all the more Susan Rice is vindicated and the deeper look into these communications is all the more appropriate and legal.

But, you don't know that is what happened..............

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let's revisit this. If you are Susan Rice, and you see intel reports that disclose that the Russian Ambassador, in a legally monitored communication, is communicating to the Kremlin that US Person K or US Person F is asking for a Russian SCIF for back channel communications, would it, or would it not, be prudent for Susan Rice to request a legal and authorized unmasking of either Person K or Person F or both?

Agree - here we are a month and a half later and a lot more has come out, and all the more Susan Rice is vindicated and the deeper look into these communications is all the more appropriate and legal.

But, you don't know that is what happened..............

Ok, so what happened?

[Anonymous]

Agree - here we are a month and a half later and a lot more has come out, and all the more Susan Rice is vindicated and the deeper look into these communications is all the more appropriate and legal.

Not vindicated. Why won't she testify?

[Anonymous]

Susan Rice is starting to look like one of the good guys. Bad news for the Trump Crime Family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let's revisit this. If you are Susan Rice, and you see intel reports that disclose that the Russian Ambassador, in a legally monitored communication, is communicating to the Kremlin that US Person K or US Person F is asking for a Russian SCIF for back channel communications, would it, or would it not, be prudent for Susan Rice to request a legal and authorized unmasking of either Person K or Person F or both?

Agree - here we are a month and a half later and a lot more has come out, and all the more Susan Rice is vindicated and the deeper look into these communications is all the more appropriate and legal.

But, you don't know that is what happened..............

Actually we know quite a bit.

Do you even read the news? Or do you just go by what FOX spoon feeds you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh and shut up about Benghazi. It was investigated and it's over. We've moved on to a brand new scandal that affects the whole institution of democracy.

That's for sure. Spying on your political foes reeks of Watergate. Except, that our last administration was using "legal" means to do it. Very scary.

The plot thickens....

“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”

The surveillance and spreadsheet operation were allegedly “ordered one year before the 2016 presidential election.” According to a Fox News report on Monday, former White House aide Ben Rhodes was also involved.

Oops, Mr. Ben Rhodes in the news this morning. Not good.

[Anonymous]

Who leaked this to Mr. drGenova? And how do we know it is accurate?

[Anonymous]

They are just desperately trying to smear anyone, now? Reeks of desperation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who leaked this to Mr. drGenova? And how do we know it is accurate?

"Unnamed sources"

And we know the Daily Caller is anything but reliable, accurate and trustworthy....

[Anonymous]

I believe those who leaked are the same people in the FBI that pushed Comey to open the investigation again a week before the election after finding new emails on Weiner's computer.

[Anonymous]

DiGenova is just another hack looking for a payday. Daily Csller News Foundation Investigative Group? Do they wear brownshirts?