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 ...
Except that when you listen to her normal speech, you see that the sophistication level easily surpasses what you describe.
I’m not sure who started the whole Russian collusion scam but it was on purpose, solely done to cover up for the unmasking. Clearly, there is no evidence of Trump and his team colluding with Russia as the unmasking even confirmed.
The media jumped on board to set up the cover regarding Russia for the unmasking. Then Obama changed the unmasking rules in order to share the information across 16 agencies all for further cover.
Regarding Flynn and others, the unmasking allowed them to gather all of this information, which they were sitting on just waiting to leak it to contradict anybody related to Trump and his administration hoping to take them out just like they did to Flynn. They leaked on Flynn the minute VP Pence went out and spoke about Flynn’s contact with Russia. The question is who leaked the info on Flynn as they may be sitting on additional information.
So nobody got. Nothing...
And she leaked something to somebody...
Yes?
What is the penalty for breaking that part of the law?
I can hear the train a comin’
Hear it comin’ down the track
And I ain’t seen the sunshine in
I don’t know when...
I’m so confused. ;-)
“I Leaked Nothing To Nobody.”
That’s not her normal speech pattern.
She’s educated and speaks that way - more precisely, carefully choosing her words.
That statement is more like street talk.
So why would she resort to speaking like that
Clintonion Parsing?
She’s smart enough to know that a double negative equals a positive.
That would mean she leaked something to somebody.
Double negative is a positive. So, what she's really saying: "I leaked something to somebody!"
funny how she conveniently breaks out the ebonicesque “negro dialect” when convenient.
I unmasked the identities so that designated others could leak
Off with her head!!
She must go to the grave for the offense
Even if Susan Rice did not provide the leaks directly herself (a big “if”), that doesn’t mean squat. Once the unmasking is done and the results circulated, any number of Obamanators could do the leaking. Ben Rhodes, her deputy, is an obvious candidate.
Susan Rice is just providing more propaganda distraction for her allies in the MSM.
I leaked nothing to nobody = I leaked something to everybody.
If there is nobody to whom she leaked nothing, then she must have leaked at least something to everybody.
This is the literal meaning of her statement.
So if she leaks something to the New York Times that winds up being known to all, her statement that she leaked nothing to nobody is truthful.
Do not fall into that trap.
This is exactly what they want you to do.
It makes you sound petty and racist, and it lets Susan Rice skate.
That's a Lose/Lose for us.
Obviously, Susan Rice is a very well educated person who uses highly sophisticated and precise language. She has demonstrated this over and over again.
Given the infamous Clintonian “is” is, there’s no doubt in my mind that they’d use a double negative to try and skate if new evidence to the contrary were to come to light.
Just reminding the new DOJ that they will be slammed with the R word (and S word) if they go after her.
Rice was not alone: https://www.wsj.com/articles/susan-rice-says-obama-administration-didnt-use-intel-against-trump-associates-for-political-reasons-1491331871
I don’t think so. The statute says one commits a crime if one:
“discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by this chapter, chapter 119, 121, or 206 of title 18, or any express statutory authorization that is an additional exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance under section 1812 of this title.”
She is saying she did not disclose it. But she did use it. And she may have disclosed it by unmasking. The question is whether the surveillance was authorized. I don’t think we know the answer to that.
That is better
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.