Reported: Susan Rice unmasked names caught up in surveillance

[Anonymous]

GOWDY: Would National Security Adviser Susan Rice have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?

COMEY: I think any — yes, in general, and any other national security adviser would, I think, as a matter of their ordinary course of their business

That's from Comey's testimony two weeks ago in front of the House Intelligence Committee.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/james-comey-mike-rogers-transcript-excerpts.html?_r=0

GOWDY: Would former Attorney General Loretta Lynch have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?

COMEY: In general, yes, as would any attorney general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GOWDY: Would National Security Adviser Susan Rice have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?

COMEY: I think any — yes, in general, and any other national security adviser would, I think, as a matter of their ordinary course of their business

That's from Comey's testimony two weeks ago in front of the House Intelligence Committee.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/james-comey-mike-rogers-transcript-excerpts.html?_r=0

GOWDY: Would former Attorney General Loretta Lynch have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?

COMEY: In general, yes, as would any attorney general.

*ANY* NSA, *ANY* Attorney General.
She was 100% within the boundary of her job, which was NSA, to request the NSC to unmask that information, or to possess it if someone else had and the NSC had granted the request.

THIS ISN'T HARD to understand.

[Anonymous]

*ANY* NSA, *ANY* Attorney General.
She was 100% within the boundary of her job, which was NSA, to request the NSC to unmask that information, or to possess it if someone else had and the NSC had granted the request.

THIS ISN'T HARD to understand.

Yup. She was 100% in the boundary of her job. However, it still does not explain why she did it. As Rand Paul said, (paraphrase) if it wasn't for politics--then why wasn't FBI involved?
WH does not do investigations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

*ANY* NSA, *ANY* Attorney General.
She was 100% within the boundary of her job, which was NSA, to request the NSC to unmask that information, or to possess it if someone else had and the NSC had granted the request.

THIS ISN'T HARD to understand.

Yup. She was 100% in the boundary of her job. However, it still does not explain why she did it. As Rand Paul said, (paraphrase) if it wasn't for politics--then why wasn't FBI involved?
WH does not do investigations.

How do you know the FBI wasn't involved? The FBI doesn't go around proclaiming what they're investigating and why and what evidence they have. If she had reason to do it that was granted by the NSC, there was reasonable evidence in the conversations that it needed to be known. We don't know that because we as the American people don't know 2% of what anyone at these levels knows at any given time. If she or Comey or Rogers are asked to testify as to WHY it was unmasked, then it might come out. Or it might come out when we get indictments. My guess is the Trump team does not want it revealed why the identities were unmasked because it's incredibly damning and will break a lot of this wide open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

*ANY* NSA, *ANY* Attorney General.
She was 100% within the boundary of her job, which was NSA, to request the NSC to unmask that information, or to possess it if someone else had and the NSC had granted the request.

THIS ISN'T HARD to understand.

Yup. She was 100% in the boundary of her job. However, it still does not explain why she did it. As Rand Paul said, (paraphrase) if it wasn't for politics--then why wasn't FBI involved?
WH does not do investigations.

Uh, the FBI has been involved. Trump has been laundering Russian money for 30 years, it has been a very long time investigation. The FBI has been investigating the 2016 Russia-Campaign since last spring. Why did she ask? Well, she would have to disclose classified information to answer it, but I will guess that SIGINT picked up conversations between Russian and Americans and she wanted to see what Americans in case she was dealing directly with them during the transition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

*ANY* NSA, *ANY* Attorney General.
She was 100% within the boundary of her job, which was NSA, to request the NSC to unmask that information, or to possess it if someone else had and the NSC had granted the request.

THIS ISN'T HARD to understand.

Yup. She was 100% in the boundary of her job. However, it still does not explain why she did it. As Rand Paul said, (paraphrase) if it wasn't for politics--then why wasn't FBI involved?
WH does not do investigations.

Uh, the FBI has been involved. Trump has been laundering Russian money for 30 years, it has been a very long time investigation. The FBI has been investigating the 2016 Russia-Campaign since last spring. Why did she ask? Well, she would have to disclose classified information to answer it, but I will guess that SIGINT picked up conversations between Russian and Americans and she wanted to see what Americans in case she was dealing directly with them during the transition.

I do want to say it doesn't necessarily have had to have been Russia in this instance. If Flynn was the one involved as it looks like he was, it could have been Turkey, since it's since been revealed he was getting paid by them too.

It could have Russian implications, but if this is all about the Nunes stuff, he said not Russia. So my guess is Turkey.

[Anonymous]

"FBI not involved." LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

*ANY* NSA, *ANY* Attorney General.
She was 100% within the boundary of her job, which was NSA, to request the NSC to unmask that information, or to possess it if someone else had and the NSC had granted the request.

THIS ISN'T HARD to understand.

Yup. She was 100% in the boundary of her job. However, it still does not explain why she did it. As Rand Paul said, (paraphrase) if it wasn't for politics--then why wasn't FBI involved?
WH does not do investigations.

How do you know the FBI wasn't involved? The FBI doesn't go around proclaiming what they're investigating and why and what evidence they have. If she had reason to do it that was granted by the NSC, there was reasonable evidence in the conversations that it needed to be known. We don't know that because we as the American people don't know 2% of what anyone at these levels knows at any given time. If she or Comey or Rogers are asked to testify as to WHY it was unmasked, then it might come out. Or it might come out when we get indictments. My guess is the Trump team does not want it revealed why the identities were unmasked because it's incredibly damning and will break a lot of this wide open.

I agree, but it begs the question, why is the Trump camp pushing this?

I think this is all a race. How quickly can our constitutional institutions get to this mess before the mess completely undoes our Constitution. Hopefully team Trump doesn't win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"FBI not involved." LOL.

FBI on Monday: "We've already been investigating the Erik Prince meeting in Seychelles."

The FBI does not reveal to US people what they are investigating and why. They have been on this for quite awhile. Rest assured if us plebes here at DCUM know it, they know it and the 200 deeper levels it goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a dumb question, I know-but if they were masked then how how can she be blamed for targeting specific people in unmasking for political purposes? Weren't they, you know, masked?

It's not a dumb question. It's common sense. She could not have known who the masked persons were. That's why she needed it UNmasked. It is ridiculous to assert she went through the unmasking request knowing beforehand it was XYZ person on Trump team. It also STILL negates the fact that the XYZ person WAS ON THE TRUMP TEAM.

I mean, imagine the Rush Limbaugh outrage in the inverse. Susan Rice sees intel. Suspects US PERSON 1 is up to bad, bad shit with a foreign enemy. But then says "oh no but what if it's somehow Hillary/Podesta/Huma!? I will sit on this, we don't need to know who it was." And then later we find out Susan Rice saw troubling shit, and did not unmask the names on partisan grounds. THE SHIT WOULD HIT THE FAN, because her job is to *protect nationals security.*

That's all she was doing, that's all she did. It is simply too bad for whoever was unmasked that they were the ones engaging in criminal activity and got caught. She didn't do a damn thing wrong. Argue the leaking classified info all you want but that is a separate issue entirely from unmasking, and that argument also falls apart when you want to bitch about it and then demand to see Rice's evidence for unmasking, which would be classified info.

She has no authority to ask for these people to be unmasked.

She has EVERY authority to make the request for a masked name to be unmasked. She was the National Security Advisor, not a 30 year old white house crony like Stephen Miller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

*ANY* NSA, *ANY* Attorney General.
She was 100% within the boundary of her job, which was NSA, to request the NSC to unmask that information, or to possess it if someone else had and the NSC had granted the request.

THIS ISN'T HARD to understand.

Yup. She was 100% in the boundary of her job. However, it still does not explain why she did it. As Rand Paul said, (paraphrase) if it wasn't for politics--then why wasn't FBI involved?
WH does not do investigations.

How do you know the FBI wasn't involved? The FBI doesn't go around proclaiming what they're investigating and why and what evidence they have. If she had reason to do it that was granted by the NSC, there was reasonable evidence in the conversations that it needed to be known. We don't know that because we as the American people don't know 2% of what anyone at these levels knows at any given time. If she or Comey or Rogers are asked to testify as to WHY it was unmasked, then it might come out. Or it might come out when we get indictments. My guess is the Trump team does not want it revealed why the identities were unmasked because it's incredibly damning and will break a lot of this wide open.

I agree, but it begs the question, why is the Trump camp pushing this?

I think this is all a race. How quickly can our constitutional institutions get to this mess before the mess completely undoes our Constitution. Hopefully team Trump doesn't win.

They're pushing it because they know Susan Rice has the goods, and they're trying to discredit her NOW before she is even ever asked to testify. They want whatever she's going to eventually testify to be tainted by their claims now that she was acting illegally in the first place or with political motivation. Simple as that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did Rice just said "I leaked nothing to nobody"?

Is she really THAT stupid?

She graduated from Stanford, so she must know double negative means she did leak it.

Proof positive that affirmative action is not a good thing.

Ouch!

I think she knows she goes down the hill.

I looked her up - she was valedictorian of her school. She's not stupid.

She is, however, a liar - and that was established long before this particular episode. She's going to be called before Congress to testify, and she'll either tell the truth (taking Obama down with her) or plead the 5th. My money's on the latter.

You forgot the third, more likely, option: she's going to tell the truth which is that one or more members of the Trump team were caught talking to Russia about cooperation and that conversation CAUSED their names to be unmasked so the US could know who it was, and they'll be dead to rights. People. This is what happened. It is ridiculous and ignorant to pretend otherwise.

If this is what actually happened, Obama's administration would reveal it during Trump's campaign. This would take Trump out of the election. Can you name me one reason why they didn't do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I never said she is stupid. She is smart. But in this situation, she has a lot of to cover. Instead of coming up with a simple explanation: yes, these American citizens were umasked because the conversation was related to the national security threats (or any other reason to justify unmasking). However, she didn't do that. I think she was worry not to say something damaging, and blurbed that "I leaked nothing to nobody".

What is there to cover? It is more likely that someone on team Trump leaked the Flynn name to get him out of the White House. She says she didn't leak, and unless or until someone produces proof that she did leak, the law is on her side. In the meantime, you need to learn the difference between "unmasking" and "leaking" which are two different things.

I perfectly understand the differences and never used the two terms interchangeably.

[Anonymous]

Wow, Trump and the Republicans are so desperate to deflect, and predictably their base is eating it up! I continue to be amazed by how gullible a large portion of our country is, although I don't know why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did Rice just said "I leaked nothing to nobody"?

Is she really THAT stupid?

She graduated from Stanford, so she must know double negative means she did leak it.

Proof positive that affirmative action is not a good thing.

Ouch!

I think she knows she goes down the hill.

I looked her up - she was valedictorian of her school. She's not stupid.

She is, however, a liar - and that was established long before this particular episode. She's going to be called before Congress to testify, and she'll either tell the truth (taking Obama down with her) or plead the 5th. My money's on the latter.

You forgot the third, more likely, option: she's going to tell the truth which is that one or more members of the Trump team were caught talking to Russia about cooperation and that conversation CAUSED their names to be unmasked so the US could know who it was, and they'll be dead to rights. People. This is what happened. It is ridiculous and ignorant to pretend otherwise.

If this is what actually happened, Obama's administration would reveal it during Trump's campaign. This would take Trump out of the election. Can you name me one reason why they didn't do that?

DP. Because the investigation was still in progress? Because evidence was being compiled? Because for it to be taken seriously by Trump supporters and not simply look like a political partisan act by a Hillary-supporting WH, they needed to make an airtight case? There could be 100 possible, legitimate reasons.