You have fallen so far with all the leftist propaganda. Please don't fall for it
Susan Rice Ordered the Unmasking of the Trump Team
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
Sure, maybe. But then...I'd like to know for sure. The number of connections are alarming, and so are the repeated denials of them.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
How do we know Susan Rice is telling a lie?
Her lips are moving:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6K0Wl1MT6U
Her lips are moving:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6K0Wl1MT6U
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
patrick, don't you see Trump's admin is more concerned about whether the conversation participants were "unmasked" (legally) than they are that the conversations were happening in the first place?
What does that tell you?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
How do we know that Susan Rice is telling a lie about knowing anything about the "unmasking?
Her lips are moving:
http://canadafreepress.com/article/...denied-any-knowledge-of-unmasking-trump-intel
Her lips are moving:
http://canadafreepress.com/article/...denied-any-knowledge-of-unmasking-trump-intel
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
-DELETE-
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Where is you proof that anything said in the conversations was illegal?
Or do you want to pass a law which curbs such conversations and at the same time denies that right which belongs to all Americans?
The liberals are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. They claim to be the champion of civil rights and then they turn their blind eyes to all of the civil rights violations perpetrated against the Republicans by the Obama Administration.
People give off certain, recurrent, unavoidable "tells" when talking about one thing or another.
Tells given off when remembering a fact, differ from tells given off when fabricating.
Context and stress also play a role.
As does the context one person is placing things in and or viewing things from - from both parties respective perspective.
And there is also the issue of a person who fears they might not be believed.
Their fear they might not, will not, are not being believed, ends up a self-fulfilling prophecy - they end up giving off the tells of some who is lying, lol
And there is the issue of what one is looking for, with its' impact on what ends up being missed.
As when a person has a blood test taken for one thing, that ends up missing some other "tell" or "symptom" because that had not been the subject of the testing.
Likewise with "testing for" or watching for "tells" during a person's account of one thing or another.
All the above requires constant, rigorous training, and continued refinement in the detection of.
For, as in all things in life...
There are things that differ.
And there are things that only appear to.
And there are things that are the same.
And there are things that only appear to be, or to look, the same.
One could write an ongoing book on such things.
One interesting thing about one of Rice's tells is that it is much like one of Trump's, when he is lying.
And it'd be interesting to compare Susan's tells with Condoleezza's.
Both are rather ever nervous women.
Both ever give off THEIR sense that they are not taken seriously, with the impact of that on a person's every movement.
And that kind of thing influences the kinds of tells a person gives off - both when stating a fact, and when fabricating a thing.
As when a woman who has NOT cheated on her physiopsychologically abusive jerk of a boyfriend, husband, or whatever, is actually telling the jerk the truth in her denial, but is so fearful he will not believe/is not, believing her, that she begins to manifest the very tells she wishes to avoid - the tells of one who is lying.
In contrast, Trump is nervous only in the very split second of his endless lying.
At which point, because he simply hasn't a moral compass of right and wrong - his self-worship is all that matters to him - he instantly returns to his sense of "how wonderful I am; world."
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I have heard that excuse before. Since those on the other side do it then that makes it right for us to do it.
But the Obama adminstration did it to many, many people in the IRS scandal. And to the reporters of the Associated Press. And to James Rosen. And now to the Trump team and maybe even Trump himself. Thank goodness the long nightmare is over.
Now it is time to pay the piper!
I am not using that as an excuse.
I was merely stating that is the case.
As for the long nightmare being over; just be glad you no longer live in the U.S.
The decades of what has essentially been a continuance of the devastating impact of Reaganomics on the Middle Class, is about to get even worse.
This, while other highly developed countries have been able to deal with the impact of both advances in technology and the impact of globalization, at the same time that their Middle Class has been able to continue to live out each their country's version of the American Dream.
Look into what Starbucks like Corporations have been forced to pay their Working Class in other highly developed countries, while getting away with pillaging their North American Employees.
Look at the failure of various Wal-Mart's screw their employees model, when attempted in other highly developed countries where the Working Class are protected from what Washington has been allowing ever since Reagan took office and with him, every protection our once astounding Middle Class, the envy of the world, has continually been screwed out of.
Privacy?
Your golden boy with the fake comb over just recently made it possible for internet service providers to sell off your info to whomever they please.
The Swamp Thing himself (life-long financial and political corruption for self-gain) is now the head of The Swamp.
No, thanks, you can keep your version of all this, bro.
Me?
I'll profit anyway.
Just a matter of being in position to capitalize when the Swamp unleashes its' foul waters on the wilfully unsuspecting.
ClimateSanity
New member
patrick, don't you see Trump's admin is more concerned about whether the conversation participants were "unmasked" (legally) than they are that the conversations were happening in the first place?...anna
Legally????? Perhaps in the most narrowest sense of the word. More like riding on the edge of the law and violating the spirit of the law in a robust fashion.
Legally????? Perhaps in the most narrowest sense of the word. More like riding on the edge of the law and violating the spirit of the law in a robust fashion.
ClimateSanity
New member
Do the same thing over and over with an obvious political motivation and you have a clear case for conviction.
Based on the multiple connections and Trump's inference with the investigations (example, Nunez), I am without doubt that Trump, along with his merry band of rejects that he put in the White House, is 100% guilty of colluding with the Russians to influence the election. Innocent people don't keep making up lies to distract from the investigation.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
What Motive Did Susan Rice Have to Ask For An Unmasking?
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...aign-members-obama-administration-fbi-cia-nsa
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.
The FBI, CIA, and NSA generate or collect the intelligence in, essentially, three ways: conducting surveillance on suspected agents of foreign powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and carrying out more-sweeping collections under two other authorities — a different provision of FISA, and a Reagan-era executive order that has been amended several times over the ensuing decades, EO 12,333.
As Director Comey explained, in answering questions posed by Representative Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), those three agencies do collection, investigation, and analysis. In general, they handle any necessary unmasking — which, due to the aforementioned privacy obsessiveness, is extremely rare. Unlike Democratic-party operatives whose obsession is vanquishing Republicans, the three agencies have to be concerned about the privacy rights of Americans. If they’re not, their legal authority to collect the intelligence — a vital national-security power — could be severely curtailed when it periodically comes up for review by Congress, as it will later this year.
Those three collecting agencies — FBI, CIA, and NSA — must be distinguished from other components of the government, such as the White House. Those other components, Comey elaborated, “are consumers of our products.” That is, they do not collect raw intelligence and refine it into useful reports — i.e., reports that balance informational value and required privacy protections. They read those reports and make policy recommendations based on them. White House staffers are not supposed to be in the business of controlling the content of the reports; they merely act on the reports.
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.
The FBI, CIA, and NSA generate or collect the intelligence in, essentially, three ways: conducting surveillance on suspected agents of foreign powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and carrying out more-sweeping collections under two other authorities — a different provision of FISA, and a Reagan-era executive order that has been amended several times over the ensuing decades, EO 12,333.
As Director Comey explained, in answering questions posed by Representative Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), those three agencies do collection, investigation, and analysis. In general, they handle any necessary unmasking — which, due to the aforementioned privacy obsessiveness, is extremely rare. Unlike Democratic-party operatives whose obsession is vanquishing Republicans, the three agencies have to be concerned about the privacy rights of Americans. If they’re not, their legal authority to collect the intelligence — a vital national-security power — could be severely curtailed when it periodically comes up for review by Congress, as it will later this year.
Those three collecting agencies — FBI, CIA, and NSA — must be distinguished from other components of the government, such as the White House. Those other components, Comey elaborated, “are consumers of our products.” That is, they do not collect raw intelligence and refine it into useful reports — i.e., reports that balance informational value and required privacy protections. They read those reports and make policy recommendations based on them. White House staffers are not supposed to be in the business of controlling the content of the reports; they merely act on the reports.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...aign-members-obama-administration-fbi-cia-nsa
Last edited:
I think you're right about that. On the other hand, what they did with Nunes barely makes any sense in any context.
Something you didn't quote that kinda blows the article's whole logic, I think, is this:
| Why is that so important in the context of explosive revelations that Susan Rice, President Obama’s national-security adviser, confidant, and chief dissembler, called for the “unmasking” of Trump campaign and transition officials whose identities and communications were captured in the collection of U.S. intelligence on foreign targets? Because we’ve been told for weeks that any unmasking of people in Trump’s circle that may have occurred had two innocent explanations: (1) the FBI’s investigation of Russian meddling in the election and (2) the need to know, for purposes of understanding the communications of foreign intelligence targets, the identities of Americans incidentally intercepted or mentioned. The unmasking, Obama apologists insist, had nothing to do with targeting Trump or his people. |
Clearly, Rice didn't target Trump campaign officials, unless she had some other source besides the report in front of her. We know this, because the names were initially masked. She knew that an American was talking to the Russians. She didn't know without the unmasking that they were Trump campaign officials. So it would have been impossible for her to target the Trump campaign. So the explanation that the author gives, that Rice's actions were motivated by partisanship, simply can't be, unless there is more to the story.
If she did have some other source of information apart from the report in front of her, that would answer the article's implied question of why the original source didn't figure out the need to unmask the names at the outset. But I think it's more likely that she was just trying to understand the report. Really, every set of eyes that see something like that will have a different perspective on the relevance of the masked identities, and it will be partially determined by their responsibilities. Rice being responsible for advising the President on matters of national security broadly, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to believe she might want more than the agencies initially decided was relevant.
What is startling is how many right-wingers seem willing to ignore the fire to gaze aghast at the smoke-screen. In any case, this isn't what should matter. What should matter is Russian intervention in our election, potentially at the behest of one of our candidates.
That ignores what seem like a couple of pretty obvious questions to me.
1. Assume you were advising the President on national security, and that you have information on communications between some Russians in Vladimir Putin's inner circle, and some individual Americans. How could you possibly understand the information without seeing who the American was? That seems incredibly important to me, and it might be more relevant to a person with an overall responsibility for the safety of the country than a person running a particular investigation.
2. If these three-letter agencies followed their procedures, who cares that she had the name unmasked? The author of this piece seems to think it's illegitimate and unnecessary for the NSC advisor. If that's the case, then why have a procedure for unmasking in the first place? From the sounds of it, the White House under Obama did take action on this information, including sending an index of documents to the National Security Committees in Congress, which is an action you would expect the White House to undertake if anyone, because while the White House doesn't conduct investigations, they do react to threats to national security. In my mind, the system worked, in at least that much.
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
It is entirely possible and even likely that the American would say something which would make it plain that he was representing Trump!
Again, it is entirely possible and even likely that the report in front of her would provide evidence that according to the American's own words he was representing Trump.
Wouldn't that kinda justify the unmasking all by itself if true? Also, it's completely speculative.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Only if what she found was in regard to something which threatened the national security and many of the intel agents testified that no such evidence exists.