[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

It's interesting that you throw around the false charge of lying,

You claim she had access to anything she had previous access to. Considering she had actual security clearance in the past, this would mean she would have access to more than just her work product.

You're trying to find a convoluted way to justify reporting that basically claimed that Susan Rice is the current source of leaks in the white house, that she has access to all this classified information, etc etc etc.

This is simply objectively false on every level, no matter how hard you try to spin otherwise.

Your misdirection is transparent.

And your attempt at misdirection by using the word "misdirection," without really saying anything of importance in your post, is transparently pathetic.

[FreeReign]

You're trying to find a convoluted way to justify reporting that basically claimed that Susan Rice is the current source of leaks in the white house, that she has access to all this classified information, etc etc etc. This is simply objectively false on every level, no matter how hard you try to spin otherwise.

Dude, you're either being delusional or you're setting up a very dishonest straw man fallacy. I have no idea if Susan Rice is "the current source of leaks".

Reiterating what I did say for now the third time,

"Eliminating the Need to Know for Rice, gives Rice the power to determine if and when she wishes to see those classified items. She will not need to demonstrate a need to know to anybody up the security chain (and she can gain access at any point in time). If McMaster wants to leave her clearance in place, it would be better to leave in the Need to Know requirement, that is required by almost everybody else with a security clearance."

But all of that is "pathetically" unimportant to you.