Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
+1.
Anonymous wrote: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 wrote:The FBI, CIA, NSA are the ones that do the unmasking. They are the ones that collect the info. and investigate it. James Comey has said in the past they are obsessive about protecting American privacy and identities. The national security advisor is not a 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 asking to unmask American's it was for political interests.
Then we have Obama at the end of his term changing the rules of intelligence info. Again political motives, and of course what Farkas said about the leaks. A former president spying on a new one is as bad as it gets.
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.
Liberals have to ignore this to make their talking points work
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
And not for political reasons. Innocent people don't lie, and she tried to fan the flames by running to MSNBC of all places. She only proved what Trump tweeted. It is very serious.
When was the last time Trump utters truth?
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.
Liberals have to ignore this to make their talking points work
Anonymous wrote:The FBI, CIA, NSA are the ones that do the unmasking. They are the ones that collect the info. and investigate it. James Comey has said in the past they are obsessive about protecting American privacy and identities. The national security advisor is not a 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 asking to unmask American's it was for political interests.
Then we have Obama at the end of his term changing the rules of intelligence info. Again political motives, and of course what Farkas said about the leaks. A former president spying on a new one is as bad as it gets.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Interesting that this subject is already 23 pages long. If there were absolutely nothing there, I don't think people would be asking questions.
Anonymous wrote:
And not for political reasons. Innocent people don't lie, and she tried to fan the flames by running to MSNBC of all places. She only proved what Trump tweeted. It is very serious.
Anonymous wrote:
And not for political reasons. Innocent people don't lie, and she tried to fan the flames by running to MSNBC of all places. She only proved what Trump tweeted. It is very serious.
Anonymous wrote:You seriously think there wasn't collusion?
Yes. No collusion.
Again, the Russian's purpose is to sow dissent. They succeeded. They did not expect Trump to win--they were trying to marginalize HRC. Read the Intelligence Report that was released in January. It makes perfect sense.
As far as talking to the Russians, that goes on all the time. Press made a big deal about Sessions speaking to the ambassador--but he spoke to something like 25 ambassadors last year. Nothing burger.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Obama spied on trump plain and simple. Just like Nixon spying on the DNC.
It's obvious Rice was caught lying. It seems Trump was right after all. Considering how he abused his power with the DOJ this is no surprise. Sounds like it's going to get worse for Obama. I'm sure he's not happy with Rice at this point.
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