Breaking News....Susan "Rat Face" Rice Had Better "Lawyer Up"

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

You didn't really answer anything.


Jim

That's WDF's modus operandi.

He'll make a stupid assertion, fail to back it up and then blame you for misunderstanding his poorly thought out and grammatically incorrect statement. He'll reclarify his statement three or four times until he's finally "correct." WDF keeps his own scorecard.

Another one of his tiny toolbox tricks is telling you what you are thinking and then disproving it. He's a straw man builder extraordinaire. I hope the Mexicans who construct his houses do a better job than WDF does with his arguments.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

WDF keeps his own scorecard.
.

We all do you silly fucker....unless you are giving yours for others to keep. God Damn, you the dumbest things.

You act as if there is some Ref around here keeping score...this is a whore board, not an election booth.


.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You wouldn't know it if he did, y'fucking idjit

It's a typical liberal thing. None of you really know how to express yourselves in a cognitive manner. By the way you have the same affliction, the main feature is immaturity.


Jim

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Stick to talking about reviews.

That way you only sound weird, not stupid.

+1

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by WTF

We all do you silly fucker....unless you are giving yours for others to keep. God Damn, you the dumbest things.

You act as if there is some Ref around here keeping score...this is a whore board, not an election booth.


.

Another proof read master piece.

No, some of us do have intelligent conversations instead of just calling other people gay and racist.

And we have an election booth in this forum. It's called the Dipshit of the Year and you are frequently nominated and receive votes.

Again, you typed before you thought. Proudly too I bet.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

The former republican administration lawyer was not talking about ISIS sleeper cells either, you bozo.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...z&OCID=DELLDHP

I read the link, you fucking clown. You do know that MSN is 100% biased, right? There are scores of experts out there who are appalled at Susan Rice's actions, but your MSN link won't quote any of them.

Tell you what - let's have Susan Rice tell us under oath how many times she requested unmasking. Let's ask her to justify each of her requests, ok? If you're so sure there was no politics involved, then let's hear it from the rat's mouth!

[lustylad]

Susan Rice Unmasked

Obama’s security adviser sought the name of at least one Trump official in intelligence reports.

April 3, 2017 7:27 p.m. ET

Well, what do you know. On the matter of who “unmasked” the names of Trump transition officials in U.S. intelligence reports, we now have one answer: Susan Rice, Barack Obama’s national security adviser.

A U.S. intelligence official confirms to us the bombshell news, first reported Monday by Bloomberg, that Ms. Rice requested the name of at least one Trump transition official listed in an intelligence report in the months between Election Day and Donald Trump’s inauguration.

Ms. Rice received summaries of U.S. eavesdropping either when foreign officials were discussing the Trump team, or when foreign officials were conversing with a Trump transition member. The surveillance was legally authorized, but the identities of U.S. citizens are typically masked so they cannot be known outside intelligence circles. Ms. Rice asked for and learned the identity of the Trump official, whose name hasn’t been publicly disclosed and our source declined to share.

Our source did confirm that Ms. Rice also examined dozens of other intelligence summaries that technically masked Trump official identities but were written in such a way as to make obvious who those officials were. This means that the masking was essentially meaningless. All this is highly unusual — and troubling. Unmasking does occur, but it is typically done by intelligence or law-enforcement officials engaged in antiterror or espionage investigations. Ms. Rice would have had no obvious need to unmask Trump campaign officials other than political curiosity.

We’re told by a source who has seen the unmasked documents that they included political information about the Trump transition team’s meetings and policy intentions. We are also told that none of these documents had anything to do with Russia or the FBI investigation into ties between Russia and the Trump campaign. While we don't know if Ms. Rice requested these dozens of reports, we are told that they were only distributed to a select group of recipients — conveniently including Ms. Rice.

All of this helps to explain the actions in the last week of House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, the one official in Washington who seems interested in pursuing the evidence of politicized surveillance. Mr. Nunes was roundly criticized by Democrats and the media last week for publicly revealing at least one instance of Obama White House unmasking, albeit without disclosing any names.

Now we know he is onto something. And we know that Mr. Nunes had to go to the White House to verify his information because the records containing Ms. Rice’s unmasking request are held at the National Security Council.

Where are the civil libertarians when you really need them? These columns support broad surveillance powers for national security, but executive officials need to be accountable if those powers are abused. If congressional oversight of U.S. intelligence operations is going to be worth the name, then it should include the unmasking of a political opponent by a senior official in the White House.

Democrats certainly raised a fuss during the Bush years and after Edward Snowden kicked off the debate about “metadata,” which are merely telephone numbers without names. Oregon Senator Ron Wyden went so far as to introduce a bill in 2013 to strengthen the ban on “reverse targeting” — in which intelligence agencies surveil foreigners but with the goal of capturing U.S. citizen communications.

Yet now that there’s evidence that the Obama Administration may have unmasked Trump officials, Democrats couldn’t care less. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on House Intelligence, has spent the past week denouncing Mr. Nunes for revealing that a name was unmasked and for having sources at the White House. But he hasn’t raised a peep about the unmasking itself or who was behind it.

The news about Ms. Rice’s unmasking role raises a host of questions for the Senate and House intelligence committees to pursue. What specific surveillance information did Ms. Rice seek and why? Was this information related to President Obama’s decision in January to make it possible for raw intelligence to be widely disbursed throughout the government? Was this surveillance of Trump officials “incidental” collection gathered while listening to a foreigner, or were some Trump officials directly targeted, or “reverse targeted”?

We were unable to locate Ms. Rice Monday to ask for comment, and she hasn’t addressed the unmasking as far as we know. But asked last month on the “PBS NewsHour” that Trump officials might have been surveilled, she said, “I know nothing about this” and “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today.” She certainly deserves her turn under oath on Capitol Hill.

None of this should deter investigators from looking into the Trump-Russia connection. By all means follow that evidence where it leads. But the media have been running like wildebeest after that story while ignoring how the Obama Administration might have abused domestic surveillance for its political purposes. Americans deserve to know the truth about both.

Appeared in the Apr. 04, 2017, print edition.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/susan-r...ked-1491262064

[dilbert firestorm]

not according to former officials. what susan rice did wasn't business as usual.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...usual-n2309323

Townhall.com APRIL 7, 2017
Former Officials: Actually, Susan Rice's Alleged Unmasking Requests Were Not Business As Usual

Guy Benson
4/5/2017 3:25:00 PM - Guy Benson

We've been following this story since it broke -- and as I argued on Special Report, the new developments make it harder for Democrats and their media enablers to continue arguing that Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election is the only story that merits attention and investigation. Not that they aren't giving it the old college try, of course. Since her name again exploded into the headlines, former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice has dramatically changed her story. When asked about alleged unmasking of Trump transition officials a few weeks ago on PBS, she said that she knew "nothing" about it. But once it was publicly reported that she had personally requested such unmasking on "dozens" of occasions, Rice has shifted to arguing that she did nothing improper and did not leak any classified material.

Why the initial denial, then the attempted revisionism of the nature of that denial? And if the wiretapped communications in which Trump-tied figures were incidentally monitored were unrelated to Russia, as Devin Nunes and other officials who've seen the documents allege, what was the pressing national security interest in requesting the unmasking? Those are just two of the questions that Ms. Rice ought to answer, preferably under oath, as soon as possible. Another argument that Rice's defenders have advanced -- setting aside obsequious hosannas from fellow ethically-compromised and truth-challenged Obama alumni -- is that she was simply doing her job. This stuff is routine. Nothing to see here. Shut up, you psychotic liars (content warning):

Follow
Jon Favreau ✔ @jonfavs
It was her fucking job to know this information! This is utter bullshit. https://twitter.com/mckaycoppins/sta...35127775490048 …
8:49 AM - 4 Apr 2017
3,590 3,590 Retweets 9,731 9,731 likes

But as convincing as profane Twitter ranting from former Obama speechwriters may be (profanity really shows that you're down for the struggle these days, it seems), that fundamental justification of her alleged actions is not necessarily true, according to former officials:

"“From my direct experience dealing at this level, that is never done,” retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer told Fox News. Shaffer has experience in intelligence operations focused on foreign actors in which U.S. citizens’ involvement could surface. “The national security adviser person is a manager position, not an analyst position,” he said. “You have analysts in the intelligence community whose job is to sort through who is doing what with what. Susan Rice is a senior manager looking over the entire intelligence community. She should not have time to be unmasking individuals having conversations. It’s insane. It’s never done.” Ex-CIA analyst Fred Fleitz agreed in a Fox News op-ed. “Rice’s denials don’t add up,” Fleitz wrote. “It is hard to fathom how the demasking of multiple Trump campaign and transition officials was not politically motivated.”

Former Ambassador to the United Nations and Fox News contributor John Bolton told “America’s Newsroom” that Rice’s requests may have been improper depending on what reason she gave for wanting the information. “Now I’m not naïve, a national security adviser’s gonna get her request approved. But she still has to give some reason,” said Bolton, who served under former President George W. Bush. “If she doesn’t even have to give a reason than NSA is really quite negligent. Susan Rice is obviously not gonna say, ‘I want these names unmasked so I can surveil my political opponents.’ And if she said she wanted the names unmasked for national security reasons, that’s a fraud on the intelligence system.” Shaffer said a U.S. citizen’s interaction with a foreign target is not typically reason enough to unmask an American."

So what was the reason? Americans and Congressional investigators deserve to know. One of the most thorough analyses I've seen on this issue comes from former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who knows a thing a two about how national security investigations are conducted. His entire column is worth your time, but one key point he makes is that the National Security Adviser is a consumer or intelligence, not a gatherer of it. Rice's "job" was to advise the president on policy, not to conduct investigations:

"The thing to bear in mind is that the White House does not do investigations. Not criminal investigations, not intelligence investigations. Remember that...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...

At a high level, officials like Susan Rice had names unmasked that would not ordinarily be unmasked. That information was then being pushed widely throughout the intelligence community in unmasked form . . . particularly after Obama, toward the end of his presidency, suddenly — and seemingly apropos of nothing — changed the rules so that all of the intelligence agencies (not just the collecting agencies) could have access to raw intelligence information. As we know, the community of intelligence agencies leaks like a sieve, and the more access there is to juicy information, the more leaks there are. Meanwhile, former Obama officials and Clinton-campaign advisers, like [Evelyn] Farkas, were pushing to get the information transferred from the intelligence community to members of Congress, geometrically increasing the likelihood of intelligence leaks."

Read the whole thing.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...on-fbi-cia-nsa

It appears as though the pro-Rice spin doesn't hold water on several levels -- and at the very least, her current incomplete and changing explanations demand additional serious follow-ups. And as ever, nobody should simply take people like Susan Rice or Ben Rhodes at their word. They've forfeited the benefit of the doubt through their own actions. While some in the media (including reporters and anchors whose partisan impartiality is deeply suspect) immediately sought to dismiss the Rice/unmasking angle of this still-unfolding drama as a phony scandal and a non-story, others resorted to more traditional left-wing demonizing and motive-impugning to deflect any serious conversation:


Follow
DailyCaller Politics ✔ @TheDCPolitics
MSNBC Panel: GOP Criticizing Rice ‘Maybe Because She’s A Black Woman’ [VIDEO] http://dlvr.it/NpTfNq
9:51 PM - 4 Apr 2017
13 13 Retweets 17 17 likes

I cannot imagine a better retort to that mindless, inflammatory rubbish than this:

4 Apr
DailyCaller Politics ✔ @TheDCPolitics
MSNBC Panel: GOP Criticizing Rice ‘Maybe Because She’s A Black Woman’ [VIDEO] http://dlvr.it/NpTfNq pic.twitter.com/lDRSjZfatU
Follow
Jay Hafemeister @jayhafe
@TheDCPolitics @instapundit Sure thing. Because we know how the GOP hates black, female, National Security Advisors named Rice. pic.twitter.com/b24TvAnuVn
10:01 PM - 4 Apr 2017
164 164 Retweets 290 290 likes

There are genuinely important and unanswered questions that remain about the Kremlin's efforts to undermine faith in the American system, as well as potential abuses of power by outgoing Obama officials -- in addition to the illegal and politically-motivated and targeted national security leaks. Cursing and deploying 'end of discussion' tactics like plunking down the race card won't assist in getting to the bottom of any of them.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Another proof read master piece.

No, some of us do have intelligent conversations instead of just calling other people gay and racist.

And we have an election booth in this forum. It's called the Dipshit of the Year and you are frequently nominated and receive votes.

Again, you typed before you thought. Proudly too I bet.

Oh goodness our election is the dipshit award.

It is like the convicts voting on the meanest Warden!

Nobody gives a fuck who you delinquents vote for...

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by lustylad

I read the link, You do know that MSN is 100% biased, right?

Like Briebart and Fox? The difference here clown boy is that they quoted a lawyer who worked for a REPUBLICAN administration. Aren't you a republican clown boy? You would have a point if he had worked for a democrat administration.

You wrote that you read the link. Did you skip over the word legal? In case you did, here it is again.

A former lawyer for the National Security Council in a Republican administration backed up Rice's claim, telling U.S. News, "it is right, appropriate and legal to ask for U.S. identities in order to understand intelligence in the abstract."

In his experience, which also involved legal work for the State Department, such "unmasking" or "de-minimized" requests from top national security officials happened routinely, almost every couple days.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Susan Rice Unmasked

Obama’s security adviser sought the name of at least one Trump official in intelligence reports.

April 3, 2017 7:27 p.m. ET

Well, what do you know. On the matter of who “unmasked” the names of Trump transition officials in U.S. intelligence reports, we now have one answer: Susan Rice, Barack Obama’s national security adviser.

A U.S. intelligence official confirms to us the bombshell news, first reported Monday by Bloomberg, that Ms. Rice requested the name of at least one Trump transition official listed in an intelligence report in the months between Election Day and Donald Trump’s inauguration.

Ms. Rice received summaries of U.S. eavesdropping either when foreign officials were discussing the Trump team, or when foreign officials were conversing with a Trump transition member. The surveillance was legally authorized, but the identities of U.S. citizens are typically masked so they cannot be known outside intelligence circles. Ms. Rice asked for and learned the identity of the Trump official, whose name hasn’t been publicly disclosed and our source declined to share.

Our source did confirm that Ms. Rice also examined dozens of other intelligence summaries that technically masked Trump official identities but were written in such a way as to make obvious who those officials were. This means that the masking was essentially meaningless. All this is highly unusual — and troubling. Unmasking does occur, but it is typically done by intelligence or law-enforcement officials engaged in antiterror or espionage investigations. Ms. Rice would have had no obvious need to unmask Trump campaign officials other than political curiosity.

Was this surveillance of Trump officials “incidental” collection gathered while listening to a foreigner, or were some Trump officials directly targeted, or “reverse targeted”?

According to your post clown boy the surveillance was legally authorized. All that talk about Rice getting arrested. I don't see that happening. The one person that was "unmasked" was not made public. You have nothing bozo.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

According to your post clown boy the surveillance was legally authorized... You have nothing bozo.

Stop lying, asshole. Nothing in the WSJ editorial suggested what Susan Rice did was right, legal or appropriate. Did you actually read my post? If you're so certain she acted properly, why are you ducking my question? Here it is again:

Originally Posted by lustylad

Tell you what - let's have Susan Rice tell us under oath how many times she requested unmasking. Let's ask her to justify each of her requests, ok? If you're so sure there was no politics involved, then let's hear it from the rat's mouth!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Stop lying, asshole. Nothing in the WSJ editorial suggested what Susan Rice did was right, legal or appropriate. Did you actually read my post? If you're so certain she acted properly, why are you ducking my question? Here it is again:

How much money you wanna bet she not only does not get convicted, she will not be indicted.?



.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by WTF

You need to steal some new material. ...I know you are not capable of making any up on your own.

No need for new material if YOU are STILL a swishy-walker that sucks cocks and likes being made air tight 2 or more times a day !

[nevergaveitathought]

the story that the Russian govt wanted trump and not hellary as president never made a lot of sense to me

although it was repeated by comey during his ill-fated and illogical testimony before congress

comey , who, during his recent congressional testimony, said he couldn't talk about one investigation but he went on to talk about another. he couldn't contain himself when, with relish, he dismissed out of hand trump's tweet concerning obama's surveillance of his campaign and ridiculed it with his inflections and mannerisms, yet.......

......trump's is the only assertion that has any proof and evidence behind it, proof which is only getting bolstered with each passing day

there's not one shred of evidence revealed thus far by anyone concerning either the Russian government "hack" of the election or that trump or anyone in his campaign colluded with the russians to "hack" the election


jullian assange and an associate of his both say that a whistleblower dnc staffer passed on the dnc email file - not a Russian hack

so now why would the Russians prefer trump over hellary, when,

1. the russians only export of note is energy, oil and gas, and trump wanted to free up America's production of both, while hellary wanted to continue Obama's policies. trump's policies of drill and frac would keep prices lower than hellary's for certain, to the detriment of Russia.

2. hellary and bill have both already proved they could be bought by russia, what with the 20% uranium deal and bill's $500,000 speech and every other buy off of the Clinton's that has occurred.

3. hellary's obsequiousness and naivety, in fact most all liberal's obsequiousness and naivety, when it comes to foreign bullies and liars would play right into putin's hands. witness the red reset button.

4. why would russia think any sanction would be lifted by trump?

5. throughout the primaries and during the general election campaign the dimocrats relished the idea of running against trump. they constantly, through all their media enablers, were given by expert analysis of poll after poll a 98% certainty of hellary winning. the russians are wasting time and effort on trump?

6. hellary was a known and sure commodity, trump was not

so now comes susan rice, who used surveillance by our intelligence agencies to spy on trump for political purposes, during the campaign and after the election, for her boss.

and what better way to disguise her misdeeds than to have the dimocrats raise a false story of a collusion between trump and russia?