This is a complete lie as the letter explicitly states that it is for her work product, not "any other classified information that she has had previous access to." It is documentation that she either created herself or diretly signed and reviewed.
Geez. I should have said "accessed", instead saying, "having access to".
Meanwhile, what you said in your first post, where you only mentioned her "own work product", is a lie by omission. It's more than that as you know admit.
It's interesting that you throw around the false charge of lying, while you were the first one to post false information. Your misdirection is transparent.
And my point still stands. As I said, "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. 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."
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.