Reported: Susan Rice unmasked names caught up in surveillance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Leave it to the Trump camp to use a black woman as the boogeyman.

That is a racist comment on your part. It is also a deflection.

Rice did not have to "leak" the information--because she "unmasked" the name(s), the change in Obama's rules allowed the information to be disseminated widely --in other words, she was able to get the information to lots of people without "leaking"......

As for making her the boogeyman, she has done that to herself. She has proven herself a liar at least three times that I can count:

1. The Benghazi "video"--she lied on five Sunday talk shows.
2. Berghdahl served with "honor and distinction"--if that is not a lie, then she is stupid.
3. On PBS last month when she knew nothing about the surveillance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And not once. And she is lying again.

On March 22, 2017 Rice said:

“I know nothing about this,” Rice said at the time. “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today … So today, I really don’t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring. But he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.”

How anyone can find her credible after this?

She said she did not know what Nunes was talking about. Which given the ambiguity and contradictions in what he said, seems fair to me. I am also not certain what Nunes was talking about.

Anyway, if it is important to clarify that, the best way is to have her testify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leave it to the Trump camp to use a black woman as the boogeyman.

That is a racist comment on your part. It is also a deflection.

Rice did not have to "leak" the information--because she "unmasked" the name(s), the change in Obama's rules allowed the information to be disseminated widely --in other words, she was able to get the information to lots of people without "leaking"......

As for making her the boogeyman, she has done that to herself. She has proven herself a liar at least three times that I can count:

1. The Benghazi "video"--she lied on five Sunday talk shows.
2. Berghdahl served with "honor and distinction"--if that is not a lie, then she is stupid.
3. On PBS last month when she knew nothing about the surveillance.

We asked several experts whether, given military law and tradition, they thought it was proper for a senior government official to say that Bergdahl had "served the United States with honor and distinction."

The experts said it’s a tricky question to apply to someone whose background is as murky as Bergdahl’s is, but they added that Rice’s accolade shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand, at least on technical grounds.

"The word ‘honor,’ when used in the context of ‘honorable service’ or an ‘honorable discharge’ generally means honest and faithful service according to the standards of conduct, courage, and duty required by law and customs of the service of a member of the grade to whom the standard is applied," said Richard D. Rosen, a retired Army colonel who now directs the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech University. The word "distinction," meanwhile, "indicates that the soldier did something above what is expected of a soldier of the same grade and rank," Rosen said.

The lack of an official judgment against Bergdahl, combined with his five years in captivity, could be justification for saying he served with "honor and distinction." From what we know of his official records, "Bergdahl served honorably, competently, and with recognized potential for service at the higher ranks," Rosen said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leave it to the Trump camp to use a black woman as the boogeyman.

That is a racist comment on your part. It is also a deflection.

Rice did not have to "leak" the information--because she "unmasked" the name(s), the change in Obama's rules allowed the information to be disseminated widely --in other words, she was able to get the information to lots of people without "leaking".......

As is proper for info with possible national security implications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Leave it to the Trump camp to use a black woman as the boogeyman.

For some liberals, literally everything comes down to identity politics.

[Anonymous]

The deep irony of this is that Nunes lied (his source was not a typical leaker, but someone inside the WH) and the folks criticizing Susan Rice for a statement made with limited info in the heat of the aftermath of a tragedy, do not seem concerned about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And not once. And she is lying again.

On March 22, 2017 Rice said:

“I know nothing about this,” Rice said at the time. “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today … So today, I really don’t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring. But he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.”

How anyone can find her credible after this?

Remind me again, what is she supposedly lying about?

From Fox News (where I am assuming you got your information)
Rice told PBS on March 22 that she “was not aware of any orders given to disseminate that information.” She did skirt the issues of whether she herself unmasked or disseminated information outright. Rice also limited her remarks to Trump’s debunked early March tweet claiming a wiretap of Trump Tower and vague remarks made by House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes.
“I know nothing about this,” Rice said at the time. “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today … So today, I really don’t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring. But he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.”

She was referring to lawful surveillance. Why aren't you concerned about the larger picture of INAPPROPRIATE contact with PEOPLE under surveillance (FISA warrants)?

No, she said she knows nothing about surveillance. Do we have any evidence that the contacts were inappropriate? I have not seen any so far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, what is your understanding of what "unmasked" means in this instance? Did she publicly state who the American citizens were? Does the president's National Security Advisor not have the legal right to ask for the identification of people who are on transcripts talking to foreign agents under surveillance? Please clarify.

My understanding is that “unmasked” means requesting the names of American citizens become named. Not to the public, but to those with the clearance to see such information (and, my understanding is also that Obama made it possible for more people to see those names than previously permitted). My understanding, from several people who are knowledgeable on this subject, is that unmasking is not very common. Yes, Rice would have that ability (per Comey’s testimony last month).

My questions have been, and still are, what were her reasons for requesting the names to be unmasked? What was her rationale? And, how many names did she make such a request for? And, what did she do with that information?

And, finally, who exactly leaked Flynn’s name? While you may think it is great that he was named, I don’t. I do believe the information that was discovered about Flynn should have been reported to the Trump administration, I don’t believe his name should have been leaked to the press. This is a serious crime and sets a very serious precedent.

I think she better come up with some legitimate reason. For everyone who thinks what she did is legal: it is legal only if there were some specific reasons (like national security) for unmasking. So far, there is no evidence of that.

Are we talking about classified intelligence reports? How can she make public what the specific reasons she had and what she did with that information? From what I've read it is not at all unusual for the NSA to ask for the "unmasking" of a name in intelligence reports in order to better understand whatever threats implicit in the reports are.

[Anonymous]

We asked several experts whether, given military law and tradition, they thought it was proper for a senior government official to say that Bergdahl had "served the United States with honor and distinction."

The experts said it’s a tricky question to apply to someone whose background is as murky as Bergdahl’s is, but they added that Rice’s accolade shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand, at least on technical grounds.

"The word ‘honor,’ when used in the context of ‘honorable service’ or an ‘honorable discharge’ generally means honest and faithful service according to the standards of conduct, courage, and duty required by law and customs of the service of a member of the grade to whom the standard is applied," said Richard D. Rosen, a retired Army colonel who now directs the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech University. The word "distinction," meanwhile, "indicates that the soldier did something above what is expected of a soldier of the same grade and rank," Rosen said.

The lack of an official judgment against Bergdahl, combined with his five years in captivity, could be justification for saying he served with "honor and distinction." From what we know of his official records, "Bergdahl served honorably, competently, and with recognized potential for service at the higher ranks," Rosen said

Who is this "we" who asked?

How about the "experts" who served with him? I think they are in a better position to judge. Their judgment: he deserted.

[Anonymous]

Why would you believe anything that she says?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would you believe anything that she says?

Why is this thread 14 pages long?

Who knows?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would you believe anything that she says?

Why is this thread 14 pages long?

Who knows?

Because a bunch of Soviet bots and trolls keep grasping at the most tenuous of nothingburgers.

[Anonymous]

I see that someone managed to bring up BENGHAZI!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So we've gone from Trump lied about being under surveillance to its no big deal in less than two weeks.

Out in flyover country, I don't think there is much daylight between 'wiretapped' and 'unmasked and widely disseminated incidental collection'. That's a DC distinction that no one else cares about or sees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see that someone managed to bring up BENGHAZI!!!!

Dang, my Troll Bingo Card had "But her emails!" on page 6.