Susan Rice Did Her Job—and Boy Are Republicans Pissed

nhboy

Ubi bene ibi patria
" It’s been a day since Bloomberg’s Eli Lake reported allegations that former National Security Advisor Susan Rice asked to “unmask” the identities of certain Trump transition officials captured in intelligence reports, and the right is calling for her head. This is the story that was leaked by White House officials to House Intelligence Committee chair Devin Nunes, you’ll recall. The unmasked Trump people weren’t intelligence targets themselves, but were talking to foreign officials who were. In Lake’s telling, it was Rice who allegedly asked intelligence agency leaders to reveal the names of Trump officials, which are normally “masked” to protect US citizens caught in foreign intelligence gathering. Senator Rand Paul claimed Lake had identified the “smoking gun” that validated Donald Trump’s claims that the Obama administration was “spying on” him.

Of course, it was no such thing; even Lake reported that what Rice was alleged to do was neither a crime nor evidence of Trump’s ludicrous claim. Security officials went further: former CIA director John McLaughlin told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that Rice was just “doing her job.”

But this isn’t the first time Paul has gone after Rice. She was the designated fall gal in Part One of the GOP’s Benghazi freakout, after she went on the Sunday shows shortly following the 2012 attack and, using a series of talking points developed by the CIA in collaboration with the State Department, shared information that later turned out to be untrue, particularly that the attack was “spontaneous.” Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham led the attack on Rice, and the controversy ultimately blocked her from succeeding Clinton as Secretary of State. But in 2013, when Obama made her his National Security Advisor—a job that did not require Senate approval—Rand Paul tweeted: “I really question the President’s judgment in promoting someone who was complicit in misleading the American public on the Benghazi attacks.”

So Republicans now have their favorite scapegoat back in the stocks. On Tuesday, Senator Lindsay Graham accused her of previously leaking classified information: “She’s done it in the past, and whether or not she’s done it this time I don’t know, but it’s certainly something Congress should look into.” Senator Tom Cotton called Rice the “Typhoid Mary of the Obama administration,” a revoltingly sexist slur that also referred back to her role in the Benghazi investigation.

Almost unbelievably (but not quite), Donald Trump Jr. gave credit for the scoop not to Eli Lake, but to the right-wing hitman Mike Cernovich, white supremacist, rape denier and Pizzagate conspirator who first reported on Rice’s alleged involvement. "

Read more here: https://www.thenation.com/article/susan-rice-did-her-job-and-boy-are-republicans-pissed/
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
so in 3 other threads you commented 'fake news'



now Rice was only 'doing her job'



as you admit Rice Requested the unmasking
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
If Rice was just doing her job, who ordered her to unmask those people? There's only one person that would make that order.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
even Lake reported that what Rice was alleged to do was neither a crime nor evidence of Trump’s ludicrous claim.
Ok, so what Rice did wasn't a crime, and what Trump and/or his people were doing wasn't a crime.....so what the hell is all of this about then? Where's the crime that causes the investigation?
 

philibusters

Active Member
If Rice was just doing her job, who ordered her to unmask those people? There's only one person that would make that order.
I think the argument is that Rice was the one who ordered the unmasking. They are arguing she was just doing her job because she was the national security advisor and it would be proper for her to order an unmasking if she believed the question touched on national security. For example in the Michael Flynn case, if Flynn was telling Russia not to worry about the sanctions, it would be relevant to unmask the U.S. citizen because that person is attempting to undermine the U.S. foreign policy. By contrast, if the person was just talking to another person about the campaign in general or policy in general (talking about energy policy for example), then it would be improper to order the unmasking.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I think the argument is that Rice was the one who ordered the unmasking. They are arguing she was just doing her job because she was the national security advisor and it would be proper for her to order an unmasking if she believed the question touched on national security. For example in the Michael Flynn case, if Flynn was telling Russia not to worry about the sanctions, it would be relevant to unmask the U.S. citizen because that person is attempting to undermine the U.S. foreign policy. By contrast, if the person was just talking to another person about the campaign in general or policy in general (talking about energy policy for example), then it would be improper to order the unmasking.
If Flynn was speaking to the Russians about the sanctions-=---Let's see the gotdam transcripts.
This whole thing was brought up to harass Trump.
It's all Bullsh1t and someone should pay for it.

Of course the real someone is out of the country on a pleasure island.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
I think the argument is that Rice was the one who ordered the unmasking. They are arguing she was just doing her job because she was the national security advisor and it would be proper for her to order an unmasking if she believed the question touched on national security. For example in the Michael Flynn case, if Flynn was telling Russia not to worry about the sanctions, it would be relevant to unmask the U.S. citizen because that person is attempting to undermine the U.S. foreign policy. By contrast, if the person was just talking to another person about the campaign in general or policy in general (talking about energy policy for example), then it would be improper to order the unmasking.
Given nothing has turned up on collusion or any other national security-related factor, those names should have been re-masked. They weren't. The fact that the names were leaked to the press indicates 1) they remained unmasked, and 2) there was an effort to sabotage Trump's campaign by people inside the Obama admin. As I understand it, Rice was doing this for over a year against Trump folks. This reeks of campaign spying. While the MSM is trying to distract us with the 'collusion' BS, this whole thing emerges and is exploding in Rice's face, and potentially Obama's.

The corruption from Obama just keeps mounting, and I can't figure out why there is so much effort by the left and the media to cover this up. I can only explain this with: they want the corruption, because it's the only way they can deceive the American people to push their socialist agenda.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
This story keeps growing stronger legs..and that slimy Rhodes character keeps popping up.

he Washington Beacon has reported, citing multiple sources, that Ben Rhodes was part of “a small task force of Obama loyalists who deluged media outlets with stories aimed at eroding Flynn's credibility.” Rhodes and his buddies apparently resorted to his echo chamber tactics in order to discredit Flynn, an opponent of the Iran nuclear deal that Rhodes so strongly believed in.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266325/susan-rices-unraveling-web-lies-joseph-klein
 

Christy

b*tch rocket
I think the argument is that Rice was the one who ordered the unmasking. They are arguing she was just doing her job because she was the national security advisor and it would be proper for her to order an unmasking if she believed the question touched on national security. For example in the Michael Flynn case, if Flynn was telling Russia not to worry about the sanctions, it would be relevant to unmask the U.S. citizen because that person is attempting to undermine the U.S. foreign policy. By contrast, if the person was just talking to another person about the campaign in general or policy in general (talking about energy policy for example), then it would be improper to order the unmasking.
I still don't see why it would be relevant. I don't care if Trump or Flynn told Russia not to worry about sanctions. They were the incoming administration so they should be able to tell them whatever they want. How does that in any way, shape, or form, impact National Security? It doesn't. If Flynn were telling Putin and crew how many spies we have over in Russia, or providing them with our intelligence methods and sources, THAT would be a National Security issue. Not some bull#### that we all already knew was likely to happen once Trump got into office.
 

philibusters

Active Member
I still don't see why it would be relevant. I don't care if Trump or Flynn told Russia not to worry about sanctions. They were the incoming administration so they should be able to tell them whatever they want. How does that in any way, shape, or form, impact National Security? It doesn't. If Flynn were telling Putin and crew how many spies we have over in Russia, or providing them with our intelligence methods and sources, THAT would be a National Security issue. Not some bull#### that we all already knew was likely to happen once Trump got into office.
Because they are undermining the foreign policy. Even if they will have the right to change it in the future, if at the time a person was talking to Russia, the sanctions were in place, talking to Russia about ignoring the sanctions would be undermining the current administration. Its the exact same complaint that Trump has now, saying Obama people are undermining his administration through leaks.

In terms of Flynn, I think McMaster was a nice upgrade over Flynn. Flynn got fired by the Obama administration for being a pain in the ass (his subordinates complained about him, he had a reputation for like publicity). He was able to turn that into a positive with the Trump people by creating the narrative he was relieved of his position one year early because he was a dissenter. However, in like a month, he created three problems for Trump, which kind of indicated he was going to be a pain in the butt for Trump. He talked to Russia about the sanctions, he didn't disclose income he received from Russia on his financial disclosures (which because he would have been a huge story with the media, except when that came out he had already designed) and his excessive use of twitter by him and his son was troublesome including his son, who he took as a chief advisor with him, tweeted about pizzagate. So to replace Flynn with McMaster who even most Democrats admit is a good choice was a huge upgrade. Sometimes it takes two tries to get something right.
 
Last edited:

PsyOps

Pixelated
Please cite which law(s) she broke.
I do believe a person is innocent until proven guilty, but I don't need to believe an actual law has been broken to know when someone has done something wrong. At a minimum, what Rice did was highly unethical. She did violate their internal rules of not unmasking someone who was incidentally surveilled. And she reportedly didn't just do this as a one-time thing; it was a year-long surveillance. This is NOT incidental and THAT is what is likely illegal. And the leaking of the names to the press; which hasn't been determined to be Rice.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
I'm still waiting to hear what crime was suspected or conducted to allow the surveillance.
So, you're not buying that it was surveillance of Russian communications (which is legal), and the collection of Americans within the Trump camp were incidental?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
So, you're not buying that it was surveillance of Russian communications (which is legal), and the collection of Americans within the Trump camp were incidental?
Sure it's legal....let's say it IS incidental.....so, if a legal thing was going on with American Male #1, why did the NSA need to unmask American Male #1? Even if everything is EXACTLY as everyone reports, there is no reason to unmask, because there was nothing to worry about happening.

So, why unmask the masked individual? Was the actual discussion suggesting illegal activity? If not, it seems there's no reason to unmask.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I still don't see why it would be relevant. I don't care if Trump or Flynn told Russia not to worry about sanctions. They were the incoming administration so they should be able to tell them whatever they want. How does that in any way, shape, or form, impact National Security? It doesn't. If Flynn were telling Putin and crew how many spies we have over in Russia, or providing them with our intelligence methods and sources, THAT would be a National Security issue. Not some bull#### that we all already knew was likely to happen once Trump got into office.
Well you are right. Why shouldn't Flynn or anyone else tell the Russians not to worry about the Sanction Obama placed on them with no evidence of their wrong doing.
Those sanctions were just more of Obama trying to make Trump look bad. He had no reason to place them on Russia to start with except to make it harder for Trump to deal with the Russians.
 
Top