Nothing to Nobody...

[JohnStOnge]

I think Rice will be fine except she''ll have to go through some Congressional hearings that won't really go anywhere. I withheld judgment for a couple of days but the more I listen to people who talk about this and read about the more I think that all she did was ask that some Americans who were mentioned in intelligence reports be identified. My understanding is that it was totally appropriate and within her authority for her to make the requests.

Your transformation is complete. Congratulations!

I have not transformed. If you gave me McCain vs. Obama or Romney vs. Obama in a Presidential election I would still vote for McCain or Romney. If you'd have given me any of the candidates in the Republican Primary other than Trump vs. Clinton I'd have voted for that Republican candidate.

I am a conservative. But what's been going on recently with the conservative movement is embarrassing and a lot of it has to do with trying to defend the indefensible with respect to Trump.

In this case it appears as though that effort extends to trying to act like Rice doing what was within her authority to do somehow validates what Trump tweeted out of his ass about Obama surveilling him. And it doesn't.

[CID1990]

Your transformation is complete. Congratulations!

I have not transformed. If you gave me McCain vs. Obama or Romney vs. Obama in a Presidential election I would still vote for McCain or Romney. If you'd have given me any of the candidates in the Republican Primary other than Trump vs. Clinton I'd have voted for that Republican candidate.

I am a conservative. But what's been going on recently with the conservative movement is embarrassing and a lot of it has to do with trying to defend the indefensible with respect to Trump.

In this case it appears as though that effort extends to trying to act like Rice doing what was within her authority to do somehow validates what Trump tweeted out of his ass about Obama surveilling him. And it doesn't.

She stepped outside of her legal authority - that is the allegation.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

She stepped outside of her legal authority - that is the allegation.

I actually haven't seen anybody allege that it's been shown that she did anything illegal. What I've seen is more like "it needs to be investigated" and "SEE, Trump was right." If someone has alleged that she's been reported to have done something illegal in the "unmasking" area we'll see.

I do know that the author of the original article that's been the subject of much discussion (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... s-in-intel) wrote:

The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.

Another thing is that, to my understanding, her requesting that an identity be provided was just that: A request. Here's a quote from USA Today on her description of how that worked:

"There were occasions when I would receive a report in which a U.S. person was referred to. Name not provided, just a U.S. person," she said. "And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance of the report, and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out, or request the information, as to who the U.S. official was.

"So when that occurred, what I would do, or what any official would do, is to ask their briefer whether the intelligence community 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."

And that's consistent with what I've heard from other sources. She just requested identities. Intelligence agencies were, to my understanding, free to deny the requests if they thought they were improper.

[SDHornet]

...means "something to somebody".

Subpoena time for boiled Rice.

Says the lady that tried to spin a YouTube video as the cause of Benghazi.

[UNI88]

I am a conservative. But what's been going on recently with the conservative movement is embarrassing and a lot of it has to do with trying to defend the indefensible with respect to Trump.

You occasionally mention THE conservative movement. What is this singular conservative movement of which you speak?

I have a feeling that you define the TRUE conservative movement as one that is nearly perfectly aligned with your personal ideology. You fail to understand that there isn't one conservative movement. There are a variety of types of conservatives. There are fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. Shoot there are 2 types of foreign policy conservatives that are almost diametrically opposed to each other (the let's focus on America and avoid foreign entanglements and obligations conservatives compared to the neocons like Cheney, Rumsfield and Hillary who love to go adventuring overseas with other peoples lives).

[CID1990]

She stepped outside of her legal authority - that is the allegation.

I actually haven't seen anybody allege that it's been shown that she did anything illegal. What I've seen is more like "it needs to be investigated" and "SEE, Trump was right." If someone has alleged that she's been reported to have done something illegal in the "unmasking" area we'll see.

I do know that the author of the original article that's been the subject of much discussion (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... s-in-intel) wrote:

The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.

Another thing is that, to my understanding, her requesting that an identity be provided was just that: A request. Here's a quote from USA Today on her description of how that worked:

"There were occasions when I would receive a report in which a U.S. person was referred to. Name not provided, just a U.S. person," she said. "And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance of the report, and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out, or request the information, as to who the U.S. official was.

"So when that occurred, what I would do, or what any official would do, is to ask their briefer whether the intelligence community 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."

And that's consistent with what I've heard from other sources. She just requested identities. Intelligence agencies were, to my understanding, free to deny the requests if they thought they were improper.

You've largely missed part of the point, and willfully ignored the rest.

Susan Rice did nothing out of the ordinary for the Obama administration .... they have a long track record of using the IC for political purposes

It doesn't matter- because the central focus of all of this- the reason it is a "thing" - is whether the Trump admin coordinated with Russia on leaks and cyberattacks

There's going to be lots of disappointment to around

[JohnStOnge]

I really, really doubt that it's going to be shown that Susan Rice did anything improper. But we'll see. If she is shown to have done something improper that's the way it will be.

But right now I think this is just more of the Trump universe trying to divert attention.

[houndawg]

I actually haven't seen anybody allege that it's been shown that she did anything illegal. What I've seen is more like "it needs to be investigated" and "SEE, Trump was right." If someone has alleged that she's been reported to have done something illegal in the "unmasking" area we'll see.

I do know that the author of the original article that's been the subject of much discussion (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... s-in-intel) wrote:



Another thing is that, to my understanding, her requesting that an identity be provided was just that: A request. Here's a quote from USA Today on her description of how that worked:



And that's consistent with what I've heard from other sources. She just requested identities. Intelligence agencies were, to my understanding, free to deny the requests if they thought they were improper.

You've largely missed part of the point, and willfully ignored the rest.

Susan Rice did nothing out of the ordinary for the Obama administration .... they have a long track record of using the IC for political purposes

It doesn't matter- because the central focus of all of this- the reason it is a "thing" - is whether the Trump admin coordinated with Russia on leaks and cyberattacks

There's going to be lots of disappointment to around

Nonstory, everybody interferes in everybody else's election, it's SOP. Our fault for getting punched so badly. Shit, hardly a year goes by the we don't overthrow somebody's government

The real story is his financial ties to the Russian mob.

[CID1990]

I really, really doubt that it's going to be shown that Susan Rice did anything improper. But we'll see. If she is shown to have done something improper that's the way it will be.

But right now I think this is just more of the Trump universe trying to divert attention.

Divert attention from what?

If the campaign didnt coordinate with Russia over the election meddling, then what is there to distract from?

If Trump does things counter to Russian interests, and they don't expose dirt they have on him, then what exactly are we supposed to be distracted from?

Susan Rice has some serious questions to answer. She has already demonstrably lied (it comes so naturally to so many people in this government)- and I suspect she is going to be compelled to go under oath

As with the IRS, surveillance of USCs, targeting journalists, and even potential coordination with a foreign power to affect an election, and now this- ALL of these things should be equally outrageous to everyone. They have NO right- and harsh examples should be made of them in each case (I still think Lois Lerner should be in an orange jumper)

I dont see why any of these things should be ignored in favor of the other


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk