Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Burden of proof on you that it was done for political reasons.
Susan Rice is a political appointee. Everything she does is political. Now we know why Barack is hiding outside the country. He does not want to be extradited to stand trial and prison when she rolls over to save her hide.
It's coming apart at the seams, Dems. Deny, deflect, screech "fake news" all that you want, this story was broken by the very same person that 60 Minutes tried to call "fake news", and stated that the NYSlimes was sitting on this story.
It's out there. ALL over. Rand Paul even made a comment about it.
It's coming apart at the seams, Dems. Deny, deflect, screech "fake news" all that you want, this story was broken by the very same person that 60 Minutes tried to call "fake news", and stated that the NYSlimes was sitting on this story.
It's out there. ALL over. Rand Paul even made a comment about it.
For those of you who keep saying it was not illegal please tell me the reason she would need to have names unmasked? They are masked because it was deemed by the agency that nothing was criminal on their part. Why exactly does a political appointee need to know who they are other than a political reason? It smacks of surveillance by a partisan political person.
Here is an excerpt from the Bloomberg article that you conveniently ignore:
The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations -- primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.
If it is nothing nefarious or political in nature why would she lie to PBS?
Rice herself has not spoken directly on the issue of unmasking. Last month when she was asked on the "PBS NewsHour" about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were swept up in incidental intelligence collection, Rice said: "I know nothing about this," adding, "I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today."
For those of you who keep saying it was not illegal please tell me the reason she would need to have names unmasked? They are masked because it was deemed by the agency that nothing was criminal on their part. Why exactly does a political appointee need to know who they are other than a political reason? It smacks of surveillance by a partisan political person.
Here is an excerpt from the Bloomberg article that you conveniently ignore:
The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations -- primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.
If it is nothing nefarious or political in nature why would she lie to PBS?
Rice herself has not spoken directly on the issue of unmasking. Last month when she was asked on the "PBS NewsHour" about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were swept up in incidental intelligence collection, Rice said: "I know nothing about this," adding, "I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today."
She was the national security adviser. Reviewing national security information. She felt a need to know more about the parties in the data collection. She was authorized to unmask those parties. All this is legal. The question is, after unmasking those parties, what information did she share, and with whom?
It's coming apart at the seams, Dems. Deny, deflect, screech "fake news" all that you want, this story was broken by the very same person that 60 Minutes tried to call "fake news", and stated that the NYSlimes was sitting on this story.
It's out there. ALL over. Rand Paul even made a comment about it.
The Dems WILL go down.
I can't wait.
Yup. It's pretty simple. The Obama administration DID spy on the Trump campaign. After all their denials and bs excuses the Obamagate coverup is falling apart. Democrats can try to claim it's legal til the cows come home, but it doesn't matter.
The Obama administration used our national intelligence services to spy on Donald Trump, and then they lied about it.
She was the national security adviser. Reviewing national security information. She felt a need to know more about the parties in the data collection. She was authorized to unmask those parties. All this is legal. The question is, after unmasking those parties, what information did she share, and with whom?
Authorized by a court or by the president?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
