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