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 ...
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.
Dimocrats NEVER take responsibility for ANYTHING.
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.
“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?
she dindu nuffin that Barack Obama didn’t tell her to do anyways.
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.
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
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.
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.
Dindu nuffin !!
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.
“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
It all depends on what your definition of “leak” is. Might be she’s equating it with some bathroom operation.
“I leaked nothing to nobody.”
The double-negative means she leaked everything to everybody.
Well then. How does she explain the Flynn leaks?
Da black, dey don’t be understandin’ dat double negative, do dey?
Yes originally she knew nothing about it until she heard about it from Nunes committee investigation.
“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.
Napolitano thinks it is espionage to unmask people unjustly
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5384680187001/?#sp=show-clips
Farkas said at the end of her interview, ‘that’s why we have the leaking.’
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.