Reported: Susan Rice unmasked names caught up in surveillance

[Anonymous]

I find her very credible.

Trump admin is trying to muddy the waters to keep their base confused. They don't want the truth of what happened to be explained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, when an official asks for names to be unmasked, I assume that they need to give a reason for such a request. And, rationale for that reason.
Rice can clear all this up by testifying as to why such a request was made.
Will she testify? Or, will she take “the 5th" like Lois Lerner and others in this administration?

To be honest, Susan Rice has no credibility with me or millions of other Americans. Her lies regarding Benghazi and her words about Bergdahl have exposed her as untrustworthy.

Agree. I don't see any benefits from her testimony since she lost all her credibility.

She could explain a lot. I suspect the admin does not want her to. And she definitely has credibility with me.

The administration has chosen not to explain anything ever. Just deny, whether it makes sense or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That was her job. Stop embarrassing yourself, OP. Are you the same poster who thinks the VP passes laws?

What is her job? To conduct surveillance of the private AmCit? Based on what?

...on the fact that those American citizens were speaking with foreign spies and adversaries? Duh.

^ This is the far bigger problem and potential threat to national security. Whining about Rice is just shooting the messenger and missing the point.

As far as I know, American citizens are not prohibited in any way to interact with foreign nationals. So far, the administration produced no evidence that foreign nationals were spies. Just because you have relations (business or personal) with a foreign nationals, does not automatically mean that American government can spy on you.

If you work for DoD they want to know about all your associations with foreign nationals. Heck, we have to report when we go abroad and the intent for the travel. Failure to report can lead to investigation and termination.

We are talking about different things: yes, you have to report all your foreign contacts if you have a clearance. Rice unmasked the identities of private citizens.

Rice requested that the intelligence agencies unmask. She didn't know who the "US person 2" or whoever was, but the conversations were she willed under a valid warrant and if national security interest. There is no evidence that anything that happened was not above board. In fact, if she didn't collect all the relevant info, she wasn't doing her job right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find her very credible.

Trump admin is trying to muddy the waters to keep their base confused. They don't want the truth of what happened to be explained.

This doesn’t make sense. Why would they be pushing this issue if they just want it to go away?
If anything, more information will come out as a result of them pursuing this.

[Anonymous]

Let me state the obvious (although MANY other posters have stated this as well).

If the campaign officials weren't meeting with questionable people, there would be nothing to unmask. Why all the outrage that names were unmasked and no outrage or questions to the meeting with questionable people? It really seems lopsided. And by really seems lopsided, it is actually an attempt at deflection. If you are supporting the deflection on this, you are not really trying to get to the bottom of this, but just trying to continue down the path of obstruction. You have no interest in finding out the truth, you are just interested in whatever narrative that is being pushed.

It seems reasonable to me, that there could have been a National Security reason for finding out who was meeting with Russians and/or people who are trying to destabilize our government AND more than one person is involved in requesting AND approving unmasking.

If you are truly concerned, why not support a committee (similar to the 9/11 commission) that removes politics from the equation to investigate Russian Interference AND include the unmasking as part of the investigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find her very credible.

Trump admin is trying to muddy the waters to keep their base confused. They don't want the truth of what happened to be explained.

This doesn’t make sense. Why would they be pushing this issue if they just want it to go away?
If anything, more information will come out as a result of them pursuing this.

They want to change the subject from Russian contacts, but don't want the details of their alt story to be examined too closely. It works with their base, but exposes them to other risks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let me state the obvious (although MANY other posters have stated this as well).

If the campaign officials weren't meeting with questionable people, there would be nothing to unmask. Why all the outrage that names were unmasked and no outrage or questions to the meeting with questionable people? It really seems lopsided. And by really seems lopsided, it is actually an attempt at deflection. If you are supporting the deflection on this, you are not really trying to get to the bottom of this, but just trying to continue down the path of obstruction. You have no interest in finding out the truth, you are just interested in whatever narrative that is being pushed.

It seems reasonable to me, that there could have been a National Security reason for finding out who was meeting with Russians and/or people who are trying to destabilize our government AND more than one person is involved in requesting AND approving unmasking.

If you are truly concerned, why not support a committee (similar to the 9/11 commission) that removes politics from the equation to investigate Russian Interference AND include the unmasking as part of the investigation.

It has been reported, repeatedly, that this is not related to Russia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me state the obvious (although MANY other posters have stated this as well).

If the campaign officials weren't meeting with questionable people, there would be nothing to unmask. Why all the outrage that names were unmasked and no outrage or questions to the meeting with questionable people? It really seems lopsided. And by really seems lopsided, it is actually an attempt at deflection. If you are supporting the deflection on this, you are not really trying to get to the bottom of this, but just trying to continue down the path of obstruction. You have no interest in finding out the truth, you are just interested in whatever narrative that is being pushed.

It seems reasonable to me, that there could have been a National Security reason for finding out who was meeting with Russians and/or people who are trying to destabilize our government AND more than one person is involved in requesting AND approving unmasking.

If you are truly concerned, why not support a committee (similar to the 9/11 commission) that removes politics from the equation to investigate Russian Interference AND include the unmasking as part of the investigation.

It has been reported, repeatedly, that this is not related to Russia.

It may include Russian connections, we don't know. It's not exclusively Russia, no. But the bottom line is that members of Trump's inner circle were talking to people who were under surveillance and were picked up as a result. There's smoke here and there may be fire .... if only the GOP (Nunes) would stop obstructing transparency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let me state the obvious (although MANY other posters have stated this as well).

If the campaign officials weren't meeting with questionable people, there would be nothing to unmask. Why all the outrage that names were unmasked and no outrage or questions to the meeting with questionable people? It really seems lopsided. And by really seems lopsided, it is actually an attempt at deflection. If you are supporting the deflection on this, you are not really trying to get to the bottom of this, but just trying to continue down the path of obstruction. You have no interest in finding out the truth, you are just interested in whatever narrative that is being pushed.

It seems reasonable to me, that there could have been a National Security reason for finding out who was meeting with Russians and/or people who are trying to destabilize our government AND more than one person is involved in requesting AND approving unmasking.

If you are truly concerned, why not support a committee (similar to the 9/11 commission) that removes politics from the equation to investigate Russian Interference AND include the unmasking as part of the investigation.

This must be true because the intelligence community never does anything shady or not above board. I'm sure when it spied on MLK, he must have been meeting with questionable people. He had to be!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me state the obvious (although MANY other posters have stated this as well).

If the campaign officials weren't meeting with questionable people, there would be nothing to unmask. Why all the outrage that names were unmasked and no outrage or questions to the meeting with questionable people? It really seems lopsided. And by really seems lopsided, it is actually an attempt at deflection. If you are supporting the deflection on this, you are not really trying to get to the bottom of this, but just trying to continue down the path of obstruction. You have no interest in finding out the truth, you are just interested in whatever narrative that is being pushed.

It seems reasonable to me, that there could have been a National Security reason for finding out who was meeting with Russians and/or people who are trying to destabilize our government AND more than one person is involved in requesting AND approving unmasking.

If you are truly concerned, why not support a committee (similar to the 9/11 commission) that removes politics from the equation to investigate Russian Interference AND include the unmasking as part of the investigation.

It has been reported, repeatedly, that this is not related to Russia.

Which is why I added the AND/OR.

Bottom line, if the campaign was caught speaking with people who were the subject of a FISA warrant, they were likely some 'bad hombres'. FISA warrants aren't handed out like candy. So, rather than to deflect, lets focus on getting to the truth rather than lobbing insults and accusations at each other. At some point, it is my hope that we can all come together AND fight for our country - which means working together to get to the truth and determine if appropriate actions were taken or if there was obstruction. This is bigger than Dem versus GOP. This is our country. We need to work together. ALL of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me state the obvious (although MANY other posters have stated this as well).

If the campaign officials weren't meeting with questionable people, there would be nothing to unmask. Why all the outrage that names were unmasked and no outrage or questions to the meeting with questionable people? It really seems lopsided. And by really seems lopsided, it is actually an attempt at deflection. If you are supporting the deflection on this, you are not really trying to get to the bottom of this, but just trying to continue down the path of obstruction. You have no interest in finding out the truth, you are just interested in whatever narrative that is being pushed.

It seems reasonable to me, that there could have been a National Security reason for finding out who was meeting with Russians and/or people who are trying to destabilize our government AND more than one person is involved in requesting AND approving unmasking.

If you are truly concerned, why not support a committee (similar to the 9/11 commission) that removes politics from the equation to investigate Russian Interference AND include the unmasking as part of the investigation.

This must be true because the intelligence community never does anything shady or not above board. I'm sure when it spied on MLK, he must have been meeting with questionable people. He had to be!

I see what you are doing there! Nice try at deflection!

Back to the topic at hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find her very credible.

Trump admin is trying to muddy the waters to keep their base confused. They don't want the truth of what happened to be explained.

What is your definition of credible? A video caused a protest which resulted in the Ambassador's death? Seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find her very credible.

Trump admin is trying to muddy the waters to keep their base confused. They don't want the truth of what happened to be explained.

What is your definition of credible? A video caused a protest which resulted in the Ambassador's death? Seriously?

How much time and money was spent on Benghazi hearings only to discover that no one did anything wrong?

[Anonymous]

We know (Head of FBI confirmed under oath!) there's a counterintelligence investigation going on since July on the Trump transition/administration. How can they possibly investigate if conversations relevant to the case are not unmasked? I really don't get the outrage, OMG they gathered evidence?!

And to speculate that they weren't on Russia, what we've seen is that there are several proxy states involved in this mess including Turkey, UAE, Syria, Ukraine, and probably more!

Say what you want about Rice and Obama but his people were smart and knew how to toe the line and dot their i's (See: Hillary) on legality. I can assure you Rice took all appropriate actions to secure this information including judge approved warrants and FISA knowledge.

[Anonymous]

How much time and money was spent on Benghazi hearings only to discover that no one did anything wrong?

No one being charged and no one doing anything wrong are two different things.

Fact: Rice lied.