quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
While CNN and Washington Post call the Rice story "fake news", why isn't any MSM interviewing Susan Rice right now?

.

She was on MSNBC at lunchtime.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I tell ya- it must a really rough time to be a lying commie news asshole. Soooo much work to try to obscure the truth, and in the end it will be for naught.

Payday's comin'

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
I heard on the radio this morning (sorry no link) that the spying started on Trump a year before the election. This was way before Trump was even considered a serious candidate. Which begs the question whether there was spying on all the Republican candidates.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
I heard on the radio this morning (sorry no link) that the spying started on Trump a year before the election. This was way before Trump was even considered a serious candidate. Which begs the question whether there was spying on all the Republican candidates.

At this point, I think it's a foregone conclusion that they spied on ALL the main candidates.

I mean, why WOULDN'T they? The law wouldn't have stopped them; nor would a sense of ethics or 'fair play.'. .

---

SIGforum: For all your needs!
Imagine our influence if every gun owner in America was an NRA member! Click the box>>>

quote:

Originally posted by rocket72:

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
While CNN and Washington Post call the Rice story "fake news", why isn't any MSM interviewing Susan Rice right now?

.

She was on MSNBC at lunchtime.

"I leaked nothing to nobody." Way to cover your ass there slick. Maybe the best we can hope for on this is that Stanford comes and takes back her degree.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
I heard on the radio this morning (sorry no link) that the spying started on Trump a year before the election. This was way before Trump was even considered a serious candidate. Which begs the question whether there was spying on all the Republican candidates.

At this point, I think it's a foregone conclusion that they spied on ALL the main candidates.

I mean, why WOULDN'T they? The law wouldn't have stopped them; nor would a sense of ethics or 'fair play.'. .

quote:

Originally posted by rocket72:

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
While CNN and Washington Post call the Rice story "fake news", why isn't any MSM interviewing Susan Rice right now?

.

She was on MSNBC at lunchtime.

"I leaked nothing to nobody." Way to cover your ass there slick. Maybe the best we can hope for on this is that Stanford comes and takes back her degree.

quote:

Originally posted by bcereuss:

quote:

Originally posted by rocket72:

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
While CNN and Washington Post call the Rice story "fake news", why isn't any MSM interviewing Susan Rice right now?

.

She was on MSNBC at lunchtime.

"I leaked nothing to nobody." Way to cover your ass there slick. Maybe the best we can hope for on this is that Stanford comes and takes back her degree.

Not to be a grammar nazi, but this is admitting she leaked.

Just saying...

quote:

Originally posted by rocket72:

quote:

Originally posted by bcereuss:

quote:

Originally posted by rocket72:

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
While CNN and Washington Post call the Rice story "fake news", why isn't any MSM interviewing Susan Rice right now?

.

She was on MSNBC at lunchtime.

"I leaked nothing to nobody." Way to cover your ass there slick. Maybe the best we can hope for on this is that Stanford comes and takes back her degree.

Not to be a grammar nazi, but this is admitting she leaked.

Just saying...

Yup. That's why I said 'way to cover your ass' so she can say she didn't perjure herself with that statement and why I said hopefully Stanford will take back her degree (for use of a double negative because apparently subject matter doesn't matter there but the grammar nazis, oh boy).

quote:

Originally posted by SIGnified:
She is parsing her words carefully - of course she didn't "leak" ... what she did is to unmask raw intelligence (and says that's legal - technically so, although it's pretty clear that it was politically motivated).

The leaking occurred likely in other hands, after her unmasking and facilitated by the Bamster order that allowed all 17 agencies to share what was previously "compartmentalized" information. Someone please explain to me how the Coast Guard Intelligence needed to know about Trump's team?

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
From what I have read thus far the only thing done illegally was the unmasking by Rice. The surveillance itself was not illegal.

The unmasking is a felony that carries a punishment of up to 10 years. Anyone want to guess what she actually gets?

In her position, the unmasking wasn't necessarily illegal.

The leaking certainly was.

Exactly. For all we know (at this point) there may have been a valid reason for the unmasking. There was no way the leaking to the press was legal.

flashguy

OK.

1st There would have needed to be a reason to look at communications between Trump/team and whoever was on the other side of phone/email. Very likely there is a good enough excuse to do that.

2nd There needed to be something contained in those communications that warranted unmasking of those names. What crimes/threats were contained in the communications? Any actionable intelegence? If no crime or threat those names should have then been redacted.

3rd If there was no evidence of crime/threat then it should never have been further spread to other agencies.

4th This info should never have been shared with the media or for that matter any one that did not have director level of clearance.

After the first point this stuff should have been masked/redacted to protect American citizens privacy, no matter if it was Trump or Joe the plumber. Our government shouldn't be spying on ANY us citizens without warrants or proof of crime/threat.

Wonder how the CNN reporters would like having their grocery lists reviewed by government agents? How about their porn viewing history? Maybe their messages to their mom's? How can they not see a problem with this?

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

Originally posted by SIGnified:
She is parsing her words carefully - of course she didn't "leak" ... what she did is to unmask raw intelligence (and says that's legal - technically so, although it's pretty clear that it was politically motivated).

The leaking occurred likely in other hands, after her unmasking and facilitated by the Bamster order that allowed all 17 agencies to share what was previously "compartmentalized" information. Someone please explain to me how the Coast Guard Intelligence needed to know about Trump's team?

Why is it legal to unmask their identities? Was there evidence of Trump or his team committing or planning crimes against the United States? I can't accept that.

If there was some vital national security risk and a clear link to him or his team, then yes. How could it be so vital as to violate his privacy without a warrant, but not so vital that it could be disseminated so broadly that it was eventually leaked to the media?