Skip to comments.Susan Rice implies that Trump and his aides were an imminent theat to the US
Posted on 04/05/2017 10:54:16 AM PDT by Starman417
Susan Rice is a liar. We need to establish that as the baseline. She apparently unmasks the names of Americans caught up in surveillance matters, especially if their names rhyme with "bump."
Next, Andrew McCarthy (who knows a few things about this)
The thing to bear in mind is that the White House does not do investigations. Not criminal investigations, not intelligence investigations. Remember that.And
In general, it is the FBI that conducts investigations that bear on American citizens suspected of committing crimes or of acting as agents of foreign powers. In the matter of alleged Russian meddling, the investigative camp also includes the CIA and the NSA. All three agencies conducted a probe and issued a joint report in January. That was after Obama, despite having previously acknowledged that the Russian activity was inconsequential, suddenly made a great show of ordering an inquiry and issuing sanctions.So why would Rice need to unmask Americans identities if the other agencies did not? Let's go to Rice:
Consequently, if unmasking was relevant to the Russia investigation, it would have been done by those three agencies. And if it had been critical to know the identities of Americans caught up in other foreign intelligence efforts, the agencies that collect the information and conduct investigations would have unmasked it. Because they are the agencies that collect and refine intelligence products for the rest of the intelligence community, they are responsible for any unmasking; and they do it under minimization standards that FBI Director James Comey, in recent congressional testimony, described as obsessive in their determination to protect the identities and privacy of Americans. 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.
Let me explain how this works. I was the National Security Advisor. My job is to protect the American people and the security of our country. That's the same as the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the CIA director. And every morning, to enable us to do that, we received from the intelligence community a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us on a daily basis to give us the best information as to what's going on around the world.She's a political appointee. A dishonest one at that. Someone needs to explain how her judgment is more finely honed than the NSA or the CIA. Neither agency found it necessary to unmask Trump, his family and his aides.
But she did. And it had nothing to do with Russia. So what was the justification? Apparently she thinks Trump is going to bomb America:
But let's say there was a conversation between two foreigners about a conversation they were having with an American, who was proposing to sell to them high-tech bomb making equipment. Now, if that came to me as National Security Advisor, it would matter enormously. Is this some kook sitting in his living room communicating via the internet, offering to sell something he doesn't have? Or is it a serious person or company or entity with the ability to provide that technology perhaps to an adversary? That would be an example of a case where knowing who the U.S. person was, was necessary to assess the information.She is implying that Trump wanted to bomb the US or sell bomb technology to a foreign entity.
So when that occurred, what I would do, or what any official would do, is to ask their briefer whether the intelligence committee would go through its process -- and there's a long-standing, established process -- to decide whether that information as to who the identity of the U.S. person was could be provided to me. So they'd take that question back, they'd put it through a process, and the intelligence community made the determination as to whether or not the identity of that American individual could be provided to me.
Heady stuff. Then she states:
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net ...
Well liberals consider ALL Conservatives and Republicans to be an imminent danger to the US..they prefer us all to be wiped off the planet so their Commie agenda can be implemented
Trump was an imminent threat to the progressives of the Uniparty.
Not all Republicans, some like McCain are their allies.
You mean, like when Clinton OK'd the transfer of dual-use technology for missile guidance from Loral to China when he needed money for his second term re-election campaign?
What color uniform will we wear in this civil war?
Wait up, Suze, you mean like you and WJC and Loral Aerospace and China-type selling stuff? That *would* be a problem.
They've set up an intellectual context in which those who believe in Capitalism and freedom are (a) the reason for all the ills of humanity, and (b) going to destroy civilization, and the Earth itself. Naturally, since the United States is situated on the surface of the earth, Trump is a threat to the United States.
This is literally true. All you have to do is listen to what they say.
Sure they were. It’s pretty clear why the Dems have invested themselves so thoroughly into this BS Russia narrative. Once Trump won, they needed a cover story to justify their illegal activities.
Calling John Brennan to the witness stand. Sir, was there legal justification (national security) to unmask Trump and his associates and if so, why did you not request that it be done?
Calling James Clapper to the witness stand. Sir, was there legal justification (national security) to unmask Trump and his associates and if so, why did you not request that it be done?
Calling Loretta Lynch to the witness stand. Madame, was there legal justification (national security) to unmask Trump and his associates and if so, why did you not request that it be done?
Red, white and blue!
Steely, you are 100% correct. She is a college educated modern American. She is like the humorless Nazi officials who believed they were the masters of the universe. There’s no point in investigating and questioning them. They are engaged in an imaginary great Civil War. All we can do as a people is bring them up on charges such as Treason or Sedition and imprison them. Either America today finds the will to call what they did Treason or we are done.
Will this be true after all the gnashing of teeth in DC:
“None dare call it treason...”?
That girl and people believing her Bs are batsht crazy
That or an extention of the recount charade.
Also called the Levianthan, a sea monster who takes the whole global fish bowl as a foot print and ruins it... In the name of climate change for the children...
If the information found in the ‘incidental’ involvement of any US Person was threatening to US Security, why did the ‘obsessive’ security agencies wait for Rice’s request to unmask and why did she initially deny responsibility for the unmasking? Why was this threat not unveiled at the time or since? After all, the ‘threat’ was about to be inaugurated as President of the U.S. Shouldn’t congress have been notified?
That the NSA didn’t unmask the information initially, plus investigations finding NO collusion between Russia and Trump have proven that whatever suspicions Rice may have had to justify the unmasking were absolutely wrong, or more likely non-existent.
Questions for Rice:
1. When did you request the unmasking, and from which agency? Who in that agency actually did the unmasking? Please provide the written requests you submitted.
2. Once the names were unmasked, did you still believe there was a threat to national security from the named US persons?
3. If so, with whom did you share the information, and what actions were taken to protect America?
4. If not, then you should not have shared the names with anyone else, so how did the names become known?
I want to see her locked up.
Not her call. There is an entire division of trained investigators who make these determinations. This is not in her area of expertise or responsibility. She is a political appointee, not a bureaucrat charged with responsibility for assessing issues of national security. Her actions are clearly in violation of federal law.
i don’t know about you but i will go for grey as my grandfather did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.