Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course she does. You are 100% wrong. It can be denied but even in trump's fevered imagination it's not that she "has no authority to ask" ffs.

You are not correct. She does not:

Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies. The national-security adviser is not an investigator. She is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic-party interests.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446415/susan-rice-unmasking-trump-campaign-members-obama-administration-fbi-cia-nsa

Odd take. Looking at the intercepts is within her purview, but asking for context of the intercepts is improper investigation? They're trying too hard.

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.

Clearly you Russians don't know who can request unmasking since she did have the authority to make the request. The NSA does not entertain such requests from unauthorized persons

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course she does. You are 100% wrong. It can be denied but even in trump's fevered imagination it's not that she "has no authority to ask" ffs.

You are not correct. She does not:

Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies. The national-security adviser is not an investigator. She is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic-party interests.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446415/susan-rice-unmasking-trump-campaign-members-obama-administration-fbi-cia-nsa

That is an editorial. Every single professional concedes that the "consumers" of intelligence routinely request unmasking of us persons and that the appropriate agency makes the call. You are entirely wrong. And in case you think you are not, any bets as to how many us persons Cheney etc all requested to have unmasked? Is your contention that it was 0?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course she does. You are 100% wrong. It can be denied but even in trump's fevered imagination it's not that she "has no authority to ask" ffs.

You are not correct. She does not:

Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies. The national-security adviser is not an investigator. She is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic-party interests.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446415/susan-rice-unmasking-trump-campaign-members-obama-administration-fbi-cia-nsa

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.

OMFG. Yes, she does. She was the National Security Adviser. They, no matter who is in office, who is holding this position, DO have that authority. The NSC has the authority to deny or grant the unmasking request. The NSA has the authority to request it.

JFC. You are useless.

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.

Of course she does. You are 100% wrong. It can be denied but even in trump's fevered imagination it's not that she "has no authority to ask" ffs.

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.

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.

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?

This thread completely illustrates how a Trump could be elected.

We really do have two countries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a good explainer that maybe the Trumpkins will understand

https://www.wired.com/2017/04/sorry-susan-rice-not-smoking-gun/

This article doesn't explain anything. if you are familiar with the intelligence regulations, there are very limited and specifically listed instances when the names of the US citizen subject to the collateral gathering of information can be unmasked. Yes, it is can be done, but only in a specific cases. The whole issue is whether Rice had the reason to unmask these names or was it done to gain some political advantage. The article keep repeating that she didn't do anything wrong, but at the same time does not provide the reason why in this particular case the names of the US cit were revealed. Which raises the questions other journalists are asking. So far, Rise was not able to provide any legitimate answer, other than her double negative blob.

It most likely CAN'T be revealed because it's evidence in the FBI investigation. I mean damn, pick a lane. You either hate classified intel being leaked or you want it leaked in this instance so you can see why she had it unmasked. It is NOT that rare to have American identities unmasked, particularly if the top of conversation relates to national security. Imagine you're Susan Rice reading intelligence reports of persons surveilled for being foreign enemies and seeing "US Person 1" discussing open cooperation and collusion in sidestepping US government policy or engaging in a crime against the country. Do you REALLY say to yourself as National Security Adviser, "Better not look into this, might look political."

IT IS HER JOB.

It is tough titties for Trump et al. if their names were the ones that "US Person 1" was masking and the topic of their discussion warranted unmasking. 20 people at NSA, including Director Rogers, can unmask. If Rice requested, one or more of those 20 deemed her request valid and credible and allowed the unmasking. Whoops, it's Flynn, whoever. Sucks for them.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She didn't have to leak it. O set it up where it wasn't needed. Go listen to Morning Joe interview with Farkas in early March. The WH greased the tracks.

IOW, a nothingburger. Right.

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.

She didn't have to leak it. O set it up where it wasn't needed. Go listen to Morning Joe interview with Farkas in early March. The WH greased the tracks.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a good explainer that maybe the Trumpkins will understand

https://www.wired.com/2017/04/sorry-susan-rice-not-smoking-gun/

This article doesn't explain anything. if you are familiar with the intelligence regulations, there are very limited and specifically listed instances when the names of the US citizen subject to the collateral gathering of information can be unmasked. Yes, it is can be done, but only in a specific cases. The whole issue is whether Rice had the reason to unmask these names or was it done to gain some political advantage. The article keep repeating that she didn't do anything wrong, but at the same time does not provide the reason why in this particular case the names of the US cit were revealed. Which raises the questions other journalists are asking. So far, Rise was not able to provide any legitimate answer, other than her double negative blob.

Have you considered that there were national security and legitimate reasons why the sitting NSA would need to unmask intel to brief her boss, the President? If you only get your news from Breitbart, then I can see the issue. But understand, for those of us who understand national security and understand what likely happened here, the NSA was doing its job and Trump campaign, transition and white house officials were surveilled because they were talking to internationals who are regularly monitored. If you only assume that Rice was up to no good, then I suspect you will be asking for her birth certificate shortly as well.

But to the rest of us, this is a complete deflection from the story, and bringing Rice under oath will only illustrate exactly who was surveilled and the circumstances of those conversations. If that is what the GOP wants, then I say bring it on. Let's have an open disclosure that members of the Trump circle including Kushner, Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Prince, Nunes and Trump himself were ensnarled talking to Russians or Russians, Syrans, Chinese and Turks colluding on policy before January 20th. Sure, let's have that hearing.