Anonymous wrote:Remember this: Susan Rice will not be called to testify before Congress on the unmasking, at least not publicly. The reason is that GOP leadership knows full well that Rice did nothing illegal and that this whole episode raises more problems for Trump than for Rice. (Questions such as - why was Team Trump talking to foreign officials under surveillance?) The GOP will blame someone - anyone - for why they don't call Rice in to testify. They will make excuses like "Rice would just plead the 5th" or "Democrats are objecting to the hearing." But as the party in control of Congress they most certainly have the power to call her in. They won't. And you should take that as more evidence that the whole Rice accusation was subterfuge to begin with - a deliberate ploy to fool voters into thinking that Trump is a victim of illicit surveillance by intelligence agencies, and that the conclusions of those agencies regarding election interference cannot be trusted. The question is whether you're going to see the situation for what it is.

This. It's just one big red herring and intended to distract from the load of sh*t that Trump is treading water in.

Remember this: Susan Rice will not be called to testify before Congress on the unmasking, at least not publicly. The reason is that GOP leadership knows full well that Rice did nothing illegal and that this whole episode raises more problems for Trump than for Rice. (Questions such as - why was Team Trump talking to foreign officials under surveillance?) The GOP will blame someone - anyone - for why they don't call Rice in to testify. They will make excuses like "Rice would just plead the 5th" or "Democrats are objecting to the hearing." But as the party in control of Congress they most certainly have the power to call her in. They won't. And you should take that as more evidence that the whole Rice accusation was subterfuge to begin with - a deliberate ploy to fool voters into thinking that Trump is a victim of illicit surveillance by intelligence agencies, and that the conclusions of those agencies regarding election interference cannot be trusted. The question is whether you're going to see the situation for what it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Trump may have been elected, but he was not President. That means it is the duty of the President in charge to look at the intelligence related to the national security problem. That's what Rice did - her job. She examined the intelligence and shared it in a classified setting with other parts of the government so they are aware of the situation - no charges were brought, no attempt to roll back the election results, just situational awareness.

And, there must have been no evidence of collusion--because, had there been, you can be sure the Obama White House would have assured that we know it.

This was a political decision on her part--just look at the evidence of her lies in the past. Do you really think she believed it was a spontaneous demonstration over a video? That was a lie for political sake. There are other examples at the midterm election that she withheld information for political purposes. And, just look at the elimination of chemical weapons in Syria.

I don't like at all that the Russians hacked or released private information--but what was released was partly a result of the arrogance of the DNC and Podesta that they did not realize that NOTHING is private.

OMG, you fool. If the Obama White House had unmasked Trump and started waving classified intelligence around saying that Trump colluded with the Russians, then that would be a political play. But they didn't. Instead, the Obama White House did what they should - they turned the matter over to the FBI for investigation. It's the FBI's job (not the White House) to run such investigations. That investigation is ongoing because - surprise - sensitive and complex political investigations take time. If the FBI finds no collusion, they will say so, and they are much more trustworthy than the White House.

Rice didn't leak anything - the Trump White House leaked classified information to Nunes, and Nunes leaked to the press to cover for the President's wild accusations. So who's being political?

Do you have a link for that bolded statement?
And, you are correct - the FBI should be doing the investigation. So, why did an Obama appointee, Susan Rice, conduct her own little private investigation? Why was it SHE who unmasked these folks?

If she is the National Security Adviser and she received transcripts of conversations of unknown people having conversations discussing removing sanctions or other discussions of an inappropriate nature, it is acceptable to unmask that person. What you seem to miss, is that the conversations are STILL considered classified, even after the unmasking and the people reading the reports all have the appropriate clearances to do so. Please check your indignation at the door. This is not the issue. The conversation is the issue. Where is your disdain for the people who had the conversation????

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Trump may have been elected, but he was not President. That means it is the duty of the President in charge to look at the intelligence related to the national security problem. That's what Rice did - her job. She examined the intelligence and shared it in a classified setting with other parts of the government so they are aware of the situation - no charges were brought, no attempt to roll back the election results, just situational awareness.

And, there must have been no evidence of collusion--because, had there been, you can be sure the Obama White House would have assured that we know it.

This was a political decision on her part--just look at the evidence of her lies in the past. Do you really think she believed it was a spontaneous demonstration over a video? That was a lie for political sake. There are other examples at the midterm election that she withheld information for political purposes. And, just look at the elimination of chemical weapons in Syria.

I don't like at all that the Russians hacked or released private information--but what was released was partly a result of the arrogance of the DNC and Podesta that they did not realize that NOTHING is private.

OMG, you fool. If the Obama White House had unmasked Trump and started waving classified intelligence around saying that Trump colluded with the Russians, then that would be a political play. But they didn't. Instead, the Obama White House did what they should - they turned the matter over to the FBI for investigation. It's the FBI's job (not the White House) to run such investigations. That investigation is ongoing because - surprise - sensitive and complex political investigations take time. If the FBI finds no collusion, they will say so, and they are much more trustworthy than the White House.

Rice didn't leak anything - the Trump White House leaked classified information to Nunes, and Nunes leaked to the press to cover for the President's wild accusations. So who's being political?

Do you have a link for that bolded statement?
And, you are correct - the FBI should be doing the investigation. So, why did an Obama appointee, Susan Rice, conduct her own little private investigation? Why was it SHE who unmasked these folks?

For someone with a lot of opinions, you sure aren't paying attention. There are loads of articles answering your questions.

Here's a link on Nunes: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/politics/devin-nunes-intelligence-reports.html

Here's a link on the legal procedure for unmasking: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/homeland-security/327202-rice-was-within-legal-rights-to-unmask-trump-associates

I feel like you'll need to read each article three times to break through your ideological programming. It might help your objectivity if you replace the words "Obama" with "Trump," "Rice" with "McMaster," "Trump" with "Clinton," and "Nunes" with "Schiff." Just imagine how you'd react if the parties were reversed.

Yeah, I’ve read this NY Times story. But, it is not correct. The story changed the next day. Did the NY Times print an updated story? Of course not.

Nunes has known about the unmasking controversy since January, when two sources in the intelligence community approached him. The sources told Nunes who was responsible and at least one of the Trump team names that was unmasked. They also gave him serial numbers of reports that documented the activity.

This was long before Trump sent out his now-infamous March 4 tweets claiming then-President Barack Obama “wiretapped” Trump Tower during the 2016 election.

Nunes had asked intelligence agencies to see the reports in question, but was stonewalled.

He eventually was able to view them, but there was only one safe place to see the documents without compromising the sources’ identities -- the old executive office building on White House grounds, which has a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) required to view classified or top secret reports. The White House did not tell Nunes about the existence of the intelligence reports, but did help him gain access to the documents at his request, the source said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/31/intelligence-official-who-unmasked-trump-associates-is-very-high-up-source-says.html

White House officials gave him access to the documents. They did not “leak” anything. Nunes has a clearance.
Sources in the IC initially told him about the surveillance.

Reading comprehension fail. Nunes claimed two IC officials notified him, and it turned out those two "IC officials" were White House NSC staffers. (And did you catch their names? One staffer was Nunes' former counsel on HPSCI, and the other staffer had his job saved by Bannon when McMaster wanted to fire him.)

And yes, if Rice was acting unethically by unmasking, then why is it ethical for staffers of the WH under investigation to provide the same information to Nunes - who is supposed to be investigating the WH? Nunes went on to brief the press directly about this information - how is that not a leak? Also note: Nunes briefed the press on the info he was given and said he was going to go brief the POTUS, then held a second press conference on the WH lawn to announce he had briefed POTUS. With this show, Nunes deliberately tried to mislead the public - people like you - into believing that the WH was not his source for the information. Nunes even told Paul Ryan his sources were "whistleblower types," which was not true. HOW IS ANY OF THIS ETHICAL?

That story hasn't changed at all, NOT AT ALL, only the spin. Please, please, give it a sincere and honest effort to cut through the storm of desperate BS the GOP is whipping up around this issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Trump may have been elected, but he was not President. That means it is the duty of the President in charge to look at the intelligence related to the national security problem. That's what Rice did - her job. She examined the intelligence and shared it in a classified setting with other parts of the government so they are aware of the situation - no charges were brought, no attempt to roll back the election results, just situational awareness.

And, there must have been no evidence of collusion--because, had there been, you can be sure the Obama White House would have assured that we know it.

This was a political decision on her part--just look at the evidence of her lies in the past. Do you really think she believed it was a spontaneous demonstration over a video? That was a lie for political sake. There are other examples at the midterm election that she withheld information for political purposes. And, just look at the elimination of chemical weapons in Syria.

I don't like at all that the Russians hacked or released private information--but what was released was partly a result of the arrogance of the DNC and Podesta that they did not realize that NOTHING is private.

OMG, you fool. If the Obama White House had unmasked Trump and started waving classified intelligence around saying that Trump colluded with the Russians, then that would be a political play. But they didn't. Instead, the Obama White House did what they should - they turned the matter over to the FBI for investigation. It's the FBI's job (not the White House) to run such investigations. That investigation is ongoing because - surprise - sensitive and complex political investigations take time. If the FBI finds no collusion, they will say so, and they are much more trustworthy than the White House.

Rice didn't leak anything - the Trump White House leaked classified information to Nunes, and Nunes leaked to the press to cover for the President's wild accusations. So who's being political?

Do you have a link for that bolded statement?
And, you are correct - the FBI should be doing the investigation. So, why did an Obama appointee, Susan Rice, conduct her own little private investigation? Why was it SHE who unmasked these folks?

For someone with a lot of opinions, you sure aren't paying attention. There are loads of articles answering your questions.

Here's a link on Nunes: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/politics/devin-nunes-intelligence-reports.html

Here's a link on the legal procedure for unmasking: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/homeland-security/327202-rice-was-within-legal-rights-to-unmask-trump-associates

I feel like you'll need to read each article three times to break through your ideological programming. It might help your objectivity if you replace the words "Obama" with "Trump," "Rice" with "McMaster," "Trump" with "Clinton," and "Nunes" with "Schiff." Just imagine how you'd react if the parties were reversed.

Yeah, I’ve read this NY Times story. But, it is not correct. The story changed the next day. Did the NY Times print an updated story? Of course not.

Nunes has known about the unmasking controversy since January, when two sources in the intelligence community approached him. The sources told Nunes who was responsible and at least one of the Trump team names that was unmasked. They also gave him serial numbers of reports that documented the activity.

This was long before Trump sent out his now-infamous March 4 tweets claiming then-President Barack Obama “wiretapped” Trump Tower during the 2016 election.

Nunes had asked intelligence agencies to see the reports in question, but was stonewalled.

He eventually was able to view them, but there was only one safe place to see the documents without compromising the sources’ identities -- the old executive office building on White House grounds, which has a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) required to view classified or top secret reports. The White House did not tell Nunes about the existence of the intelligence reports, but did help him gain access to the documents at his request, the source said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/31/intelligence-official-who-unmasked-trump-associates-is-very-high-up-source-says.html

White House officials gave him access to the documents. They did not “leak” anything. Nunes has a clearance.
Sources in the IC initially told him about the surveillance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Trump may have been elected, but he was not President. That means it is the duty of the President in charge to look at the intelligence related to the national security problem. That's what Rice did - her job. She examined the intelligence and shared it in a classified setting with other parts of the government so they are aware of the situation - no charges were brought, no attempt to roll back the election results, just situational awareness.

And, there must have been no evidence of collusion--because, had there been, you can be sure the Obama White House would have assured that we know it.

This was a political decision on her part--just look at the evidence of her lies in the past. Do you really think she believed it was a spontaneous demonstration over a video? That was a lie for political sake. There are other examples at the midterm election that she withheld information for political purposes. And, just look at the elimination of chemical weapons in Syria.

I don't like at all that the Russians hacked or released private information--but what was released was partly a result of the arrogance of the DNC and Podesta that they did not realize that NOTHING is private.

OMG, you fool. If the Obama White House had unmasked Trump and started waving classified intelligence around saying that Trump colluded with the Russians, then that would be a political play. But they didn't. Instead, the Obama White House did what they should - they turned the matter over to the FBI for investigation. It's the FBI's job (not the White House) to run such investigations. That investigation is ongoing because - surprise - sensitive and complex political investigations take time. If the FBI finds no collusion, they will say so, and they are much more trustworthy than the White House.

Rice didn't leak anything - the Trump White House leaked classified information to Nunes, and Nunes leaked to the press to cover for the President's wild accusations. So who's being political?

Do you have a link for that bolded statement?
And, you are correct - the FBI should be doing the investigation. So, why did an Obama appointee, Susan Rice, conduct her own little private investigation? Why was it SHE who unmasked these folks?

For someone with a lot of opinions, you sure aren't paying attention. There are loads of articles answering your questions.

Here's a link on Nunes: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/politics/devin-nunes-intelligence-reports.html

Here's a link on the legal procedure for unmasking: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/homeland-security/327202-rice-was-within-legal-rights-to-unmask-trump-associates

I feel like you'll need to read each article three times to break through your ideological programming. It might help your objectivity if you replace the words "Obama" with "Trump," "Rice" with "McMaster," "Trump" with "Clinton," and "Nunes" with "Schiff." Just imagine how you'd react if the parties were reversed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Trump may have been elected, but he was not President. That means it is the duty of the President in charge to look at the intelligence related to the national security problem. That's what Rice did - her job. She examined the intelligence and shared it in a classified setting with other parts of the government so they are aware of the situation - no charges were brought, no attempt to roll back the election results, just situational awareness.

And, there must have been no evidence of collusion--because, had there been, you can be sure the Obama White House would have assured that we know it.

This was a political decision on her part--just look at the evidence of her lies in the past. Do you really think she believed it was a spontaneous demonstration over a video? That was a lie for political sake. There are other examples at the midterm election that she withheld information for political purposes. And, just look at the elimination of chemical weapons in Syria.

I don't like at all that the Russians hacked or released private information--but what was released was partly a result of the arrogance of the DNC and Podesta that they did not realize that NOTHING is private.

OMG, you fool. If the Obama White House had unmasked Trump and started waving classified intelligence around saying that Trump colluded with the Russians, then that would be a political play. But they didn't. Instead, the Obama White House did what they should - they turned the matter over to the FBI for investigation. It's the FBI's job (not the White House) to run such investigations. That investigation is ongoing because - surprise - sensitive and complex political investigations take time. If the FBI finds no collusion, they will say so, and they are much more trustworthy than the White House.

Rice didn't leak anything - the Trump White House leaked classified information to Nunes, and Nunes leaked to the press to cover for the President's wild accusations. So who's being political?

Do you have a link for that bolded statement?
And, you are correct - the FBI should be doing the investigation. So, why did an Obama appointee, Susan Rice, conduct her own little private investigation? Why was it SHE who unmasked these folks?

Anonymous wrote:

Trump may have been elected, but he was not President. That means it is the duty of the President in charge to look at the intelligence related to the national security problem. That's what Rice did - her job. She examined the intelligence and shared it in a classified setting with other parts of the government so they are aware of the situation - no charges were brought, no attempt to roll back the election results, just situational awareness.

And, there must have been no evidence of collusion--because, had there been, you can be sure the Obama White House would have assured that we know it.

This was a political decision on her part--just look at the evidence of her lies in the past. Do you really think she believed it was a spontaneous demonstration over a video? That was a lie for political sake. There are other examples at the midterm election that she withheld information for political purposes. And, just look at the elimination of chemical weapons in Syria.

I don't like at all that the Russians hacked or released private information--but what was released was partly a result of the arrogance of the DNC and Podesta that they did not realize that NOTHING is private.

OMG, you fool. If the Obama White House had unmasked Trump and started waving classified intelligence around saying that Trump colluded with the Russians, then that would be a political play. But they didn't. Instead, the Obama White House did what they should - they turned the matter over to the FBI for investigation. It's the FBI's job (not the White House) to run such investigations. That investigation is ongoing because - surprise - sensitive and complex political investigations take time. If the FBI finds no collusion, they will say so, and they are much more trustworthy than the White House.

Rice didn't leak anything - the Trump White House leaked classified information to Nunes, and Nunes leaked to the press to cover for the President's wild accusations. So who's being political?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rice can absolutely testify as to why she requested the name(s) be unmasked, but you realize, in doing so, she will be disclosing that key members of the Trump team, or perhaps even Trump himself, was colluding with Russians with respect to election campaign activities, right?

So many people don't get this. Trump wasn't wiretapped. Trump's people were talking to foreign officials who were being wiretapped. And so, Trump's people were picked up on the tap. The big question is, why were Trump's people talking to foreign officials under surveillance?

Rice was National Security Advisor. If foreign officials are talking about US presidential candidates after US political institutions were hacked, it's Rice's job to see what those officials are saying and about whom.

I'm not surprised that the GOP & conservative media are so shameless and hypocritical that they're persisting with these bogus claims to distract from a legitimate investigation into election interference. What surprises me is how many American voters are so dumb and malleable that they actually believe this bullshit and can't see what's going on around them.

Problem: This was during the transition. Trump was already elected. There is nothing wrong with speaking to foreign officials. In fact, it is customary.

Problem is - if these were routine calls, they would not have been flagged. Intelligence agencies flag these conversations when they are questionable - and then it rises up the chain of command. They would not have been flagged and included in reports unless there were concerns.

Trump may have been elected, but he was not President. That means it is the duty of the President in charge to look at the intelligence related to the national security problem. That's what Rice did - her job. She examined the intelligence and shared it in a classified setting with other parts of the government so they are aware of the situation - no charges were brought, no attempt to roll back the election results, just situational awareness.

And, there must have been no evidence of collusion--because, had there been, you can be sure the Obama White House would have assured that we know it.

This was a political decision on her part--just look at the evidence of her lies in the past. Do you really think she believed it was a spontaneous demonstration over a video? That was a lie for political sake. There are other examples at the midterm election that she withheld information for political purposes. And, just look at the elimination of chemical weapons in Syria.

I don't like at all that the Russians hacked or released private information--but what was released was partly a result of the arrogance of the DNC and Podesta that they did not realize that NOTHING is private.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rice can absolutely testify as to why she requested the name(s) be unmasked, but you realize, in doing so, she will be disclosing that key members of the Trump team, or perhaps even Trump himself, was colluding with Russians with respect to election campaign activities, right?

So many people don't get this. Trump wasn't wiretapped. Trump's people were talking to foreign officials who were being wiretapped. And so, Trump's people were picked up on the tap. The big question is, why were Trump's people talking to foreign officials under surveillance?

Rice was National Security Advisor. If foreign officials are talking about US presidential candidates after US political institutions were hacked, it's Rice's job to see what those officials are saying and about whom.

I'm not surprised that the GOP & conservative media are so shameless and hypocritical that they're persisting with these bogus claims to distract from a legitimate investigation into election interference. What surprises me is how many American voters are so dumb and malleable that they actually believe this bullshit and can't see what's going on around them.

They don't care about all these pesky facts. They just like being able to spew so much hatred upon a woman or black person.

Yes, you got us... Exactly this. You are a victim of your race and gender. We are pausing in a moment of silence to feel sorry for you and Susan Rice.

How about a moment of silence for the death of your capacity to reason objectively?

Or to show an ounce of integrity and honesty?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rice can absolutely testify as to why she requested the name(s) be unmasked, but you realize, in doing so, she will be disclosing that key members of the Trump team, or perhaps even Trump himself, was colluding with Russians with respect to election campaign activities, right?

So many people don't get this. Trump wasn't wiretapped. Trump's people were talking to foreign officials who were being wiretapped. And so, Trump's people were picked up on the tap. The big question is, why were Trump's people talking to foreign officials under surveillance?

Rice was National Security Advisor. If foreign officials are talking about US presidential candidates after US political institutions were hacked, it's Rice's job to see what those officials are saying and about whom.

I'm not surprised that the GOP & conservative media are so shameless and hypocritical that they're persisting with these bogus claims to distract from a legitimate investigation into election interference. What surprises me is how many American voters are so dumb and malleable that they actually believe this bullshit and can't see what's going on around them.

They don't care about all these pesky facts. They just like being able to spew so much hatred upon a woman or black person.

Yes, you got us... Exactly this. You are a victim of your race and gender. We are pausing in a moment of silence to feel sorry for you and Susan Rice.

How about a moment of silence for the death of your capacity to reason objectively?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rice can absolutely testify as to why she requested the name(s) be unmasked, but you realize, in doing so, she will be disclosing that key members of the Trump team, or perhaps even Trump himself, was colluding with Russians with respect to election campaign activities, right?

So many people don't get this. Trump wasn't wiretapped. Trump's people were talking to foreign officials who were being wiretapped. And so, Trump's people were picked up on the tap. The big question is, why were Trump's people talking to foreign officials under surveillance?

Rice was National Security Advisor. If foreign officials are talking about US presidential candidates after US political institutions were hacked, it's Rice's job to see what those officials are saying and about whom.

I'm not surprised that the GOP & conservative media are so shameless and hypocritical that they're persisting with these bogus claims to distract from a legitimate investigation into election interference. What surprises me is how many American voters are so dumb and malleable that they actually believe this bullshit and can't see what's going on around them.

They don't care about all these pesky facts. They just like being able to spew so much hatred upon a woman or black person.

Yes, you got us... Exactly this. You are a victim of your race and gender. We are pausing in a moment of silence to feel sorry for you and Susan Rice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rice can absolutely testify as to why she requested the name(s) be unmasked, but you realize, in doing so, she will be disclosing that key members of the Trump team, or perhaps even Trump himself, was colluding with Russians with respect to election campaign activities, right?

So many people don't get this. Trump wasn't wiretapped. Trump's people were talking to foreign officials who were being wiretapped. And so, Trump's people were picked up on the tap. The big question is, why were Trump's people talking to foreign officials under surveillance?

Rice was National Security Advisor. If foreign officials are talking about US presidential candidates after US political institutions were hacked, it's Rice's job to see what those officials are saying and about whom.

I'm not surprised that the GOP & conservative media are so shameless and hypocritical that they're persisting with these bogus claims to distract from a legitimate investigation into election interference. What surprises me is how many American voters are so dumb and malleable that they actually believe this bullshit and can't see what's going on around them.

They don't care about all these pesky facts. They just like being able to spew so much hatred upon a woman or black person.

I actually don't think it's because their target is a woman or black person. I think the GOP truly doesn't care about facts or principles or intellectual honesty. They do whatever works in the moment to maintain power and harm the other side. The Left is guilty of this too, but the GOP really takes it to another level. And Mitch McConnell is the worst of them all (followed by Sean Hannity) - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitch-mcconnell-the-man-who-broke-america/2017/04/07/8e12f1d8-1bbd-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html?utm_term=.5c4e9a5613a1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rice can absolutely testify as to why she requested the name(s) be unmasked, but you realize, in doing so, she will be disclosing that key members of the Trump team, or perhaps even Trump himself, was colluding with Russians with respect to election campaign activities, right?

So many people don't get this. Trump wasn't wiretapped. Trump's people were talking to foreign officials who were being wiretapped. And so, Trump's people were picked up on the tap. The big question is, why were Trump's people talking to foreign officials under surveillance?

Rice was National Security Advisor. If foreign officials are talking about US presidential candidates after US political institutions were hacked, it's Rice's job to see what those officials are saying and about whom.

I'm not surprised that the GOP & conservative media are so shameless and hypocritical that they're persisting with these bogus claims to distract from a legitimate investigation into election interference. What surprises me is how many American voters are so dumb and malleable that they actually believe this bullshit and can't see what's going on around them.

Problem: This was during the transition. Trump was already elected. There is nothing wrong with speaking to foreign officials. In fact, it is customary.

Sorry, but it's not customary for a foreign entity to hack US election institutions, selectively leak the stolen data and direct a propaganda campaign to boost one candidate over another, and then communicate with their chosen candidate. No matter which party you belong to, this is a national security problem and a threat to our democracy.

Trump may have been elected, but he was not President. That means it is the duty of the President in charge to look at the intelligence related to the national security problem. That's what Rice did - her job. She examined the intelligence and shared it in a classified setting with other parts of the government so they are aware of the situation - no charges were brought, no attempt to roll back the election results, just situational awareness.

You can be damn sure McMaster would do the same thing in that position, and Trump and the GOP establishment would defend him. And the conservative base of sheep will do whatever talk radio or conspiracy websites or Cernovich tell them to do.