PDA

View Full Version : Thought/Questions Concerning Susan Rice's Unmasking



hanger4
04-06-2017, 06:56 AM
We know Rice's unmasking of the names would be part of her job. That also means she would have read the conversations between person A and Ivan (made up name) and determined some sort of criminality or national security reasons to unmask the name/s. Assuming there is why didn't she say so ?? If there wasn't why request the unmasking ?? Has Rice even been asked why the unmasking ??

Plus if there is criminality or national security reasons wouldn't the NSA already know this and wouldn't they have informed the FBI ??

Nunes claims, Schiff has read the same, and both say no evidence of collusion (yet for the nay-sayers) which leads back to the question why Rice requested the unmasking.

Thoughts ??

FindersKeepers
04-06-2017, 07:27 AM
This gets more interesting by the day. Rice had the opportunity, and the permission, to unmask the name of anyone she felt might pose need for additional investigation. But, as you say, why not just come out and say that from the get-go instead of lying?

The only reason she would need to lie, in my opinion, is if she did not follow protocol, i.e., if she unmasked the person(s) based on political reasons or just curiosity.

The more interesting thing is what happened next -- the leaking of the name "Flynn." From what I've read so far, that could be a felony, since it was classified information. If Rice didn't leak the name, someone who had access, and clearance, in her office, did. Still a felony for that person.

Meanwhile, as you say, Schiff, who was looking for some evidence of collusion between Trump's team and Russia, admitted there is no connection -- yet.

Even if there WAS a connection, it would not be illegal. Russia is not an enemy and folks can discuss potential future policy if they so choose. The only thing that could be a crime would be if someone on Trump's team was actually involved with the hacking of the DNC, but no one is even suggesting that.

The democrats have, once again, shown that they are their own worst enemies. They set a snare to trap someone on Trump's team, and they may have caught someone on their own team.

Karmic universal justice.

Peter1469
04-06-2017, 07:33 AM
The White House doesn't have an investigative function. They have other agencies for that.

This was pure politics.

Crepitus
04-06-2017, 07:51 AM
My guess would be that the first instinct when asked about classified documents is to say "no".

There is so far no evidence of a crime or political motivation. There is also no evidence she "leaked" anything.

This is 100% smokescreen to distract from the real issue of the Trump/Russia investigation.

hanger4
04-06-2017, 08:30 AM
My guess would be that the first instinct when asked about classified documents is to say "no".

There is so far no evidence of a crime or political motivation. There is also no evidence she "leaked" anything.

This is 100% smokescreen to distract from the real issue of the Trump/Russia investigation.

You are correct in that there is no evidence she "leaked" anything. She did request the unmasking, she knew the names to leak. Were their others that requested the unmasking ?? Why did she even request the unmasking ?? That's a question that needs answering.

Ravens Fan
04-06-2017, 08:50 AM
My guess would be that the first instinct when asked about classified documents is to say "no".

There is so far no evidence of a crime or political motivation. There is also no evidence she "leaked" anything.

This is 100% smokescreen to distract from the real issue of the Trump/Russia investigation.

Does that same logic apply to the Russian goose chase too? There is so far no evidence of a crime or collision from Trump or his team. That makes it 100% smokescreen to distract from the DNC and Hillary failing so badly?

Or does that only work for those on the left?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MisterVeritis
04-06-2017, 11:54 AM
You are correct in that there is no evidence she "leaked" anything. She did request the unmasking, she knew the names to leak. Were their others that requested the unmasking ?? Why did she even request the unmasking ?? That's a question that needs answering.
Here is an example of correct punctuation:

"Were their others that requested the unmasking? Why did she even request the unmasking?"

This is simple. Why not punctuate your sentences correctly?

jimmyz
04-06-2017, 12:22 PM
My guess would be that the first instinct when asked about classified documents is to say "no".

There is so far no evidence of a crime or political motivation. There is also no evidence she "leaked" anything.

This is 100% smokescreen to distract from the real issue of the Trump/Russia investigation.

Someone "leaked" Flynn right out of the Administration.

MisterVeritis
04-06-2017, 12:29 PM
We know Rice's unmasking of the names would be part of her job.
It is not part of her job.

She could ask for the name under narrow conditions. I believe she abused it. I believe that she worked on behalf of Barack Hussein O. Rice knew the names to ask for. They were all political opponent names. Or do we have a list of the Clinton operatives who were talking with foreigners?

This goes to the top. The coup plotters, Obama, and his inner circle need to be brought to justice.

MisterVeritis
04-06-2017, 12:42 PM
I bet chief justice John Roberts was surveilled. If Fox news is correct the surveilled individuals were completely surveilled including things they did in their daily lives. Imagine the Obama regime knowing the Chief Justice's porn habits or his drinking habits. The Obama regime could have intimated blackmail for the wrong decision on Obamacare.

hanger4
04-06-2017, 01:41 PM
It is not part of her job.

She could ask for the name under narrow conditions. I believe she abused it. I believe that she worked on behalf of Barack Hussein O. Rice knew the names to ask for. They were all political opponent names. Or do we have a list of the Clinton operatives who were talking with foreigners?

This goes to the top. The coup plotters, Obama, and his inner circle need to be brought to justice.

It would be part of her job. In my opening there is a qualifier, if she read of some "criminality or national security reasons to unmask the name". If there is none then it'll extremely difficult for her claim it wasn't for political purposes.

Common
04-06-2017, 01:46 PM
My guess would be that the first instinct when asked about classified documents is to say "no".

There is so far no evidence of a crime or political motivation. There is also no evidence she "leaked" anything.

This is 100% smokescreen to distract from the real issue of the Trump/Russia investigation.

There being no evidence of a russian/trump connection to rig the election never stopped you from raging that there was. Sometimes things come back to smack you in the ass

MisterVeritis
04-06-2017, 02:12 PM
It would be part of her job. In my opening there is a qualifier, if she read of some "criminality or national security reasons to unmask the name". If there is none then it'll extremely difficult for her claim it wasn't for political purposes.
It is absolutely NOT part of the national security advisor's job to unmask American citizens spied upon by our government. The national security advisor may ask for the name. But it is not part of her job. The national security advisor's job is to advise the President on national security matters.

Crepitus
04-06-2017, 03:44 PM
You are correct in that there is no evidence she "leaked" anything. She did request the unmasking, she knew the names to leak. Were their others that requested the unmasking ?? Why did she even request the unmasking ?? That's a question that needs answering.

Ask nunes, he saw the logbooks.

hanger4
04-06-2017, 03:50 PM
Ask nunes, he saw the logbooks.

Schiff saw what Nunes has seen, why not ask Schiff ?? After seeing the same Schiff also said he's seen no evidence of collusion.

Crepitus
04-06-2017, 03:57 PM
Does that same logic apply to the Russian goose chase too? There is so far no evidence of a crime or collision from Trump or his team. That makes it 100% smokescreen to distract from the DNC and Hillary failing so badly?

Or does that only work for those on the left?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. Plenty of evidence that crimes were committed by trumpkins.

Ravens Fan
04-06-2017, 04:06 PM
No. Plenty of evidence that crimes were committed by trumpkins.

Where?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

hanger4
04-06-2017, 04:17 PM
No. Plenty of evidence that crimes were committed by trumpkins.

Apparently you have the security clearances to access the FISA surveillance transcripts and know what the conversations were about.

Please fill us in so we too can know what crimes have been committed.

MisterVeritis
04-06-2017, 04:18 PM
No. Plenty of evidence that crimes were committed by trumpkins.
If any Leftist buffoon had evidence of any crime committed by any "Trumpkin" by now wouldn't we see indictments?

Crepitus
04-06-2017, 06:47 PM
There being no evidence of a russian/trump connection to rig the election never stopped you from raging that there was. Sometimes things come back to smack you in the ass

Lotsa evidence. Mostly circumstantial at the moment but more coming to light every day.

Crepitus
04-06-2017, 06:47 PM
There being no evidence of a russian/trump connection to rig the election never stopped you from raging that there was. Sometimes things come back to smack you in the ass

Lotsa evidence. Mostly circumstantial at the moment but more coming to light every day.

Crepitus
04-06-2017, 06:57 PM
Schiff saw what Nunes has seen, why not ask Schiff ?? After seeing the same Schiff also said he's seen no evidence of collusion.

What do the logbooks have to do with that?

MisterVeritis
04-06-2017, 07:19 PM
Lotsa evidence. Mostly circumstantial at the moment but more coming to light every day.
Mostly circumstantial? Would you tell us the concrete, non-circumstantial evidence? Do you believe taking legal actions is evidence of guilt?

hanger4
04-06-2017, 07:45 PM
What do the logbooks have to do with that?

All part of what Schiff and Nunes have seen.

"The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said Friday he viewed materials at the White House that are "precisely the same" as those given to the Republican committee chairman last week in an episode that drew intense criticism."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/adam-schiff-views-intel-docs-shown-devin-nunes-last-week-n741451

"House Intelligence Committee ranking Democrat Adam Schiff admitted Sunday on CNN that they’ve still yet to find any “definitive” proof of Trump’s campaign colluding with Russians."

https://www.infowars.com/adam-schiff-admits-he-has-no-definitive-proof-of-trump-russia-collusion/

Ya know for someone claiming evidence of collusion you sure are behind on current events.

Crepitus
04-06-2017, 08:13 PM
Apparently you have the security clearances to access the FISA surveillance transcripts and know what the conversations were about.

Please fill us in so we too can know what crimes have been committed.

I do not. People in the FBI do though and they think there's enough for an investigation. People in the house and Senate do and they think there's enough for an investigation

Crepitus
04-06-2017, 08:15 PM
If any Leftist buffoon had evidence of any crime committed by any "Trumpkin" by now wouldn't we see indictments?

These things take time.

Crepitus
04-06-2017, 08:37 PM
Mostly circumstantial? Would you tell us the concrete, non-circumstantial evidence? Do you believe taking legal actions is evidence of guilt?

I'm not the one doing the investigating. Why would you think I have access to their information? You are making an unreasonable demand.

Crepitus
04-06-2017, 08:39 PM
All part of what Schiff and Nunes have seen.

"The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said Friday he viewed materials at the White House that are "precisely the same" as those given to the Republican committee chairman last week in an episode that drew intense criticism."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/adam-schiff-views-intel-docs-shown-devin-nunes-last-week-n741451

"House Intelligence Committee ranking Democrat Adam Schiff admitted Sunday on CNN that they’ve still yet to find any “definitive” proof of Trump’s campaign colluding with Russians."

https://www.infowars.com/adam-schiff-admits-he-has-no-definitive-proof-of-trump-russia-collusion/

Ya know for someone claiming evidence of collusion you sure are behind on current events.

Lol, you are either confused or being deliberately obtuse. That episode was about trying to pin something on Rice for a distraction.

MisterVeritis
04-06-2017, 08:53 PM
These things take time.
Eight months?

MisterVeritis
04-06-2017, 08:54 PM
I'm not the one doing the investigating. Why would you think I have access to their information? You are making an unreasonable demand.
You are claiming the evidence is mostly circumstantial. That means some is concrete. What concrete facts that a crime occurred and someone in Trump's administration committed it?

There is no evidence of a crime.

hanger4
04-06-2017, 09:35 PM
Lol, you are either confused or being deliberately obtuse. That episode was about trying to pin something on Rice for a distraction.

You brought up the log books, saying Nunes saw them. Schiff saw the same as Nunes, why not ask him.

Do try and keep up, at least with your own posts.

del
04-06-2017, 09:43 PM
Eight months?
benghazi's at 5 years and counting

look at all the indictments that produced

Crepitus
04-06-2017, 10:24 PM
Ok kiddies, you're just running in circles now, and we've already covered all of this a couple of times. I'm gonna let this thread lie unless someone comes up with something new.

See ya.

HoneyBadger
04-07-2017, 12:30 AM
We know Rice's unmasking of the names would be part of her job. That also means she would have read the conversations between person A and Ivan (made up name) and determined some sort of criminality or national security reasons to unmask the name/s.

The entire purpose of foreign surveillance is to determine the intentions of foreign actors. Susie abused her power to go after her political rivals, American citizens. She's an unethical, lying bitch.