Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Susan Rice: ‘I Leaked Nothing to Nobody’ — ‘No Equivalence’ Between Unmasking and Leaking
Breitbart ^ | 04/04/2017 | Pam Key

Posted on 04/04/2017 10:06:51 AM PDT by ForYourChildren

Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice addressed reports she was responsible for the unmasking of names of Trump associates after the election during the transition period.

Rice said unmaking names in intelligence reports she received is standard procedure insisting, “I leaked nothing to nobody,” adding there is “no equivalence” between unmasking and leaking.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: andreamitchell; denial; equivalence; leaking; liar; rice; susanrice; susanriceinterview; susanriceunmasker; trumpwiretaps; unmasking
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-149 next last
To: ForYourChildren

She is sounding suspiciously like Prissy in GWTW

Mz Scarlett, I don’t know nothin’ ‘bout birthin’ babies

Proving she’s either brilliant, pretending to be completely incompetent so as not to help those who condem her; or incredibly stupid.


41 posted on 04/04/2017 10:24:30 AM PDT by V K Lee (Amateurs built the ark; Professionals - the Titanic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Dimocrats NEVER take responsibility for ANYTHING.


42 posted on 04/04/2017 10:24:41 AM PDT by MagnoliaB (You can't always get what you want but if you try sometime you might find, you get what you need.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20

Exactly. Watch her responses while thinking of the phrase “it was a video that prompted the attack” in mind and you can see she is lying through her teeth. Get her in front of Congress. Swear her in. Make her sweat.


43 posted on 04/04/2017 10:25:21 AM PDT by Zarro (Oh, we don't call them the "MSM" any longer; they are now the "Basket of Detestables")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tennmountainman

“Why is an educated woman reverting back to her ancestor style language?”

I noticed that too. Stress getting to her because she got caught with her hand in the cookie jar and is about to go out to the woodshed?


44 posted on 04/04/2017 10:25:51 AM PDT by ForYourChildren (Christian Education [ RomanRoadsMedia.com - Classical Christian Approach to Homeschool ])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

she dindu nuffin that Barack Obama didn’t tell her to do anyways.


45 posted on 04/04/2017 10:25:52 AM PDT by RC one (The 2nd Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Please. The lawless Susan Rices of his administration ARE Obama’s proudest elements of his legacy and sadly almost half of America wants as much lawlessness as possible against America.


46 posted on 04/04/2017 10:26:13 AM PDT by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Just to be sure, ‘I Leaked Nothing to Nobody’, is a double negative, is it not?

If that was the point in the first place, it went way over my head haha


47 posted on 04/04/2017 10:29:03 AM PDT by Ulmius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
-- Doesn't it depend on whether unmasking is pursuant to a national security investigation? --

Not that I know of. The "minimization" protocol does anticipate that the identity of US persons might be "unmasked" before the report is "disseminated" (another loaded word that I haven't found a good legal definition for), and it spells out the standards to be applied to justify this "unmasking before dissemination," but I see no penalty for unmasking willy-nilly.

For what it's worth, the object of all this FISA stuff is "Foreign Intelligence," not "national security." The law is called "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act", not "National Security Surveillance Act."

The distinction matters when evidence is brought to bear against a person charged with a crime, because the government is allowed to seek foreign intelligence without a warrant. But because the public would revolt if it knew how much is was surveilled, the Congresses and Court created this FISA protocol to reduce the chance of some judge throwing out evidence, while simultaneously making the people believe the surveillance has reasonable limits protecting the public from being snooped willy nilly.

I know from following the cases that the civil penalty part of the FISA law is toothless. The government just asserts "state secret" and the civil claim goes away.

Leakers can get in real trouble though.

48 posted on 04/04/2017 10:29:14 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

I thought she said she wasn’t involved in this at all and had no knowledge of it. So now the story changes.

They probably had numerous people involved in this - each doing one individual small thing - so as to try to hide what was really going on and they could try to have plausible deniability for each individual element of it that occurred. Clever, but apparently not clever enough.


49 posted on 04/04/2017 10:29:18 AM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Dindu nuffin !!


50 posted on 04/04/2017 10:31:11 AM PDT by litehaus (A memory toooo long.............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
-- No idea about the legal aspects, but it has certainly derailed the narrative and put the Rats on defense. --

Indeed it has. If they want to resort to "legal," remind them that McCarthyism was legal.

And while we're at it, put Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, and the rest of the big-mouth rats under the same (legal) microscope.

51 posted on 04/04/2017 10:31:17 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ulmius

“Just to be sure, ‘I Leaked Nothing to Nobody’, is a double negative, is it not?”

It is a double negative, but it is common language.

I would not make anything out of it.

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-double-negatives.html


52 posted on 04/04/2017 10:32:13 AM PDT by ForYourChildren (Christian Education [ RomanRoadsMedia.com - Classical Christian Approach to Homeschool ])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

It all depends on what your definition of “leak” is. Might be she’s equating it with some bathroom operation.


53 posted on 04/04/2017 10:32:59 AM PDT by RAldrich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

“I leaked nothing to nobody.”

The double-negative means she leaked everything to everybody.


54 posted on 04/04/2017 10:33:38 AM PDT by Lazamataz (The "news" networks and papers are bitter, dangerous enemies of the American people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Well then. How does she explain the Flynn leaks?


55 posted on 04/04/2017 10:34:31 AM PDT by Organic Panic (Flinging poo is not a valid argument)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Da black, dey don’t be understandin’ dat double negative, do dey?


56 posted on 04/04/2017 10:35:27 AM PDT by chris37 (Donald J. Trump, Tom Brady, The Patriots... American Destiny!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat

Yes originally she knew nothing about it until she heard about it from Nunes committee investigation.


57 posted on 04/04/2017 10:39:49 AM PDT by Col Frank Slade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

“And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance of the report, and assess it’s significance, it was necessary to find out, or request the information as to who the U.S. official was.”

Not the biggest question here, but of interest I think. The law may make some separation between U.S. officials and non-officials. Rice refers to communications with U.S. officials. Whether they were officials after the election I don’t know - they would certainly have not been prior to the election.


58 posted on 04/04/2017 10:41:02 AM PDT by hoyaloya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Napolitano thinks it is espionage to unmask people unjustly

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5384680187001/?#sp=show-clips


59 posted on 04/04/2017 10:44:19 AM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: GilGil

Farkas said at the end of her interview, ‘that’s why we have the leaking.’


60 posted on 04/04/2017 10:44:57 AM PDT by TexasCruzin (Trump is the man. #TrumpPence16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-149 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson