Reported: Susan Rice unmasked names caught up in surveillance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No she says in the part you quoted that she does not know to what Chairman Nunes was referring.

BTW, just to remind you, there was not surveillance of American citizens. There was routine monitoring of foreigners, with incidential collection of American citizens. Apparently all lawful and proper.

Let us recall what the original accusation was "Obama had my wires tapped" "Mccarthyism" "New Low" "Prior to an election" "This is Nixon/watergate"

All lies, I am sorry to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Can you explain how do you consider her credible if exactly two weeks ago she stated that "she knew “nothing about” surveillance allegations". Now we are finding out that she not only knew about the surveillance, but took some pro-active steps in it. How is it credible?

Why would she comment on things that are possibly classified?

[Anonymous]

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

Because she is a distinguished professional and a patriot. Because she has more honesty and integrity in her little finger than the originator of this distraction has had in years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Because she is a distinguished professional and a patriot. Because she has more honesty and integrity in her little finger than the originator of this distraction has had in years.

And, how do you know this? How about some proof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Because she is a distinguished professional and a patriot. Because she has more honesty and integrity in her little finger than the originator of this distraction has had in years.

And, how do you know this? How about some proof.

Dude. People want to know things about what she knows. I suggested the best thing is to let her testify. Some people seem afraid of that. The burden is not on me to show why she is credible enough that she should testify. Thats absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes. Everyone who disagrees with you is in fact a Soviet bot. Good call.

[Anonymous]

Two questions:

1. If the conversations between Trump's people and the wiretapped foreigners were completely benign, why were the transcripts brought to Rice's attention?

2. What was in the transcripts that made her want to know who the Americans were?

None of this is good for Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1. If the conversations between Trump's people and the wiretapped foreigners were completely benign, why were the transcripts brought to Rice's attention?

2. What was in the transcripts that made her want to know who the Americans were?

None of this is good for Trump.

Wow. You exude common sense. Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes. Everyone who disagrees with you is in fact a Soviet bot. Good call.

You are--unwitting or not, Sergei.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1. If the conversations between Trump's people and the wiretapped foreigners were completely benign, why were the transcripts brought to Rice's attention?

2. What was in the transcripts that made her want to know who the Americans were?

None of this is good for Trump.

Wow. You exude common sense. Thank you!

I know, right? The more that the Trumpsters focus on the "unmasking," the more attention they are bringing to the actual content of the transcripts!

[Anonymous]

She did it for political reasons.

That much should be obvious to all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She did it for political reasons.

That much should be obvious to all.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She did it for political reasons.

That much should be obvious to all.

I beg to differ. It isn't obvious. She was doing her job.
But as the PP pointed out, the larger questions are:

1. If the conversations between Trump's people and the wiretapped foreigners were completely benign, why were the transcripts brought to Rice's attention?

2. What was in the transcripts that made her want to know who the Americans were?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She did it for political reasons.

That much should be obvious to all.

For US political reasons or for Russian political reasons? Nowadays, it seems you need to specify.

[Anonymous]

Rand Paul now backing Trump on surveillance claims and considering introducing legislation on unmasking. That must've been quite the golf outing...