Reported: Susan Rice unmasked names caught up in surveillance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know it's elitist of me, but I find it so depressing that Trump's army of double digit IQ'ers is eating up this "unmasking" stuff. They just don't have the capacity to think critically.

At least they have a decency not to call people with opposite views the names.

Your English is shaky.

My thoughts exactly!

Isn't it like midnight in Russia? Go to bed!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know it's elitist of me, but I find it so depressing that Trump's army of double digit IQ'ers is eating up this "unmasking" stuff. They just don't have the capacity to think critically.

At least they have a decency not to call people with opposite views the names.

That and lumping them all as the same. All idiots, all dumb and so on.

Hillary made many mad doing that.

Deflect, deflect. Hillary! Obama! You sound just like Trump.

Oh you mean like your English correction....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know it's elitist of me, but I find it so depressing that Trump's army of double digit IQ'ers is eating up this "unmasking" stuff. They just don't have the capacity to think critically.

At least they have a decency not to call people with opposite views the names.

Your English is shaky.

My thoughts exactly!

Isn't it like midnight in Russia? Go to bed!

If you're going to get picky there's no word IQ'ers.

[Anonymous]

There's no proof Trump people were talking with Russian's about the election etc.

At least if there is, I haven't seen it. If it's not unusual for Rice to request "unmasking", give me examples showing she's done this before. If this wasn't routine it needs to be questioned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know it's elitist of me, but I find it so depressing that Trump's army of double digit IQ'ers is eating up this "unmasking" stuff. They just don't have the capacity to think critically.

At least they have a decency not to call people with opposite views the names.

Trollbot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's no proof Trump people were talking with Russian's about the election etc.

At least if there is, I haven't seen it. If it's not unusual for Rice to request "unmasking", give me examples showing she's done this before. If this wasn't routine it needs to be questioned.

We don't know what Trump's people were talking to the Russians about. We do know that at least several of them have lied about the communications, denying them and then later admitting them. This could be purely reflexive and not an admission of guilt -- but it looks bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no proof Trump people were talking with Russian's about the election etc.

At least if there is, I haven't seen it. If it's not unusual for Rice to request "unmasking", give me examples showing she's done this before. If this wasn't routine it needs to be questioned.

We don't know what Trump's people were talking to the Russians about. We do know that at least several of them have lied about the communications, denying them and then later admitting them. This could be purely reflexive and not an admission of guilt -- but it looks bad.

And, I will remind you that Nunes said the information that he was concerned about did not involve Russia.

One thing I keep thinking about....... people here (and on some networks) keep saying that had people in the Trump campaign not been talking with others in foreign countries, they would not have been monitored. OK. They go on to say that they must have been talking with “bad hombres” because those are the types of people we monitor. Well, that is not totally true, but let’s assume it is. Therefore, people in the Trump campaign MUST be guilty (of something).
My question - why would Nunes continue to pursue this if it even appears that people associated with Trump “are guilty (of something)?” Why bring more attention to it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's no proof Trump people were talking with Russian's about the election etc.

At least if there is, I haven't seen it. If it's not unusual for Rice to request "unmasking", give me examples showing she's done this before. If this wasn't routine it needs to be questioned.

HEY EVERYBODY, RANDOM DCUM HASN'T SEEN IT

Call off all the investigations! He has spoken! We're all clear!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's no proof Trump people were talking with Russian's about the election etc.

At least if there is, I haven't seen it. If it's not unusual for Rice to request "unmasking", give me examples showing she's done this before. If this wasn't routine it needs to be questioned.

They certainly do it from time to time. Here is an article from 2005 about Bolton asking for names to be unmasked.

http://www.newsweek.com/intel-bolton-standoff-121369

"etails of requests Bolton made for the names of Americans inadvertently monitored by the National Security Agency's worldwide electronic eavesdropping network. NSA normally blacks out American names when it forwards intel reports to other agencies. But the agency will unmask names if requesting officials certify in writing they need them to "understand the intelligence." Bolton sent NSA 10 such requests, and 19 U.S. names were disclosed to him, according to congressional correspondence."

So it is part of Susan Rice's job description, as long as she undertook it with security aims in mind. There is certainly no evidence to suspect there was anything untoward happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's no proof Trump people were talking with Russian's about the election etc.

At least if there is, I haven't seen it. If it's not unusual for Rice to request "unmasking", give me examples showing she's done this before. If this wasn't routine it needs to be questioned.

Her unmasking requests, as with the identities, remain CLASSIFIED INTEL. So what you're saying is you want someone to leak MORE classified intel to prove that THIS request was legitimate enough for your standards? She likely requested this many times; her requests are not going to be released, along with the identities of people who may have done nothing wrong, to lend credibility to the bizarre argument this was out of the bounds of her job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no proof Trump people were talking with Russian's about the election etc.

At least if there is, I haven't seen it. If it's not unusual for Rice to request "unmasking", give me examples showing she's done this before. If this wasn't routine it needs to be questioned.

We don't know what Trump's people were talking to the Russians about. We do know that at least several of them have lied about the communications, denying them and then later admitting them. This could be purely reflexive and not an admission of guilt -- but it looks bad.

And, I will remind you that Nunes said the information that he was concerned about did not involve Russia.

One thing I keep thinking about....... people here (and on some networks) keep saying that had people in the Trump campaign not been talking with others in foreign countries, they would not have been monitored. OK. They go on to say that they must have been talking with “bad hombres” because those are the types of people we monitor. Well, that is not totally true, but let’s assume it is. Therefore, people in the Trump campaign MUST be guilty (of something).
My question - why would Nunes continue to pursue this if it even appears that people associated with Trump “are guilty (of something)?” Why bring more attention to it?

Flynn was fired because he denied speaking to the Russian ambassador. Sessions lied about meeting with the Russian ambassador. Stone denied communicating with Guccifer then later admitted that he had several conversations with him, including over a dozen communications. There may be others that I've forgotten by now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no proof Trump people were talking with Russian's about the election etc.

At least if there is, I haven't seen it. If it's not unusual for Rice to request "unmasking", give me examples showing she's done this before. If this wasn't routine it needs to be questioned.

They certainly do it from time to time. Here is an article from 2005 about Bolton asking for names to be unmasked.

http://www.newsweek.com/intel-bolton-standoff-121369

"etails of requests Bolton made for the names of Americans inadvertently monitored by the National Security Agency's worldwide electronic eavesdropping network. NSA normally blacks out American names when it forwards intel reports to other agencies. But the agency will unmask names if requesting officials certify in writing they need them to "understand the intelligence." Bolton sent NSA 10 such requests, and 19 U.S. names were disclosed to him, according to congressional correspondence."

So it is part of Susan Rice's job description, as long as she undertook it with security aims in mind. There is certainly no evidence to suspect there was anything untoward happening.

Right. Nothing but the dreams and hopes of a proven pathological liar trying to cover his ass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no proof Trump people were talking with Russian's about the election etc.

At least if there is, I haven't seen it. If it's not unusual for Rice to request "unmasking", give me examples showing she's done this before. If this wasn't routine it needs to be questioned.

We don't know what Trump's people were talking to the Russians about. We do know that at least several of them have lied about the communications, denying them and then later admitting them. This could be purely reflexive and not an admission of guilt -- but it looks bad.

So far nothing has been found. Rice also lied when she said she didn't know anything. On MSNBC she backtracked. That looks bad too.

[Anonymous]

she only looks bad in your fevered imaginations. Let's see the transcripts and let the people decide, eh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no proof Trump people were talking with Russian's about the election etc.

At least if there is, I haven't seen it. If it's not unusual for Rice to request "unmasking", give me examples showing she's done this before. If this wasn't routine it needs to be questioned.

We don't know what Trump's people were talking to the Russians about. We do know that at least several of them have lied about the communications, denying them and then later admitting them. This could be purely reflexive and not an admission of guilt -- but it looks bad.

So far nothing has been found. Rice also lied when she said she didn't know anything. On MSNBC she backtracked. That looks bad too.

She was saying she didn't know anything about what Devin Nunes was talking about, because nobody knew what the hell Devin Nunes was talking about because he wouldn't say what the documents were or how he got them.