Nothing to see here, keep moving.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-behind-unmasking-trump-associates/100022408/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-behind-unmasking-trump-associates/100022408/
Susan Rice: No political motivation behind 'unmasking' of Trump associates
- Thread starter moe
- Start date
that's certainly the media's spin, and likely Rice's Defense. However Congressional investigators likely won't be satisfied with that explanation, especially considering how many others obviously had access to that classified information and did plenty more to make sure others saw it too.
She'd better have a good reason for letting that intel get beyond her eyes only, otherwise she better get used to a 10X12 living space with security bars and no windows.
The FBI needs a Grand Jury or did you not know that? They need to subpoena both witnesses and documents, they need under oath testimony, all of which the Grand Jury provides. The FBI very, very frequently used Grand Juries in their investigations.
To help enlighten you:
In an ordinary case, that would not be a point worth making. The FBI routinely conducts major investigations in collaboration with Justice Department prosecutors — usually from the U.S. attorney’s office in the district where potential crimes occurred. That is because the FBI needs the assistance of a grand jury. The FBI does not have authority even to issue subpoenas, let alone to charge someone with a crime. Only federal prosecutors may issue subpoenas, on the lawful authority of the grand jury. Only prosecutors are empowered to present evidence or propose charges to the grand jury. And the Constitution vests only the grand jury with authority to indict — the formal accusation of a crime. In our system, the FBI can do none of these things.
No Justice Department, no grand jury. No grand jury, no case — period. As a technical matter, no matter how extensively the FBI pokes around on its own, no one can be a subject of a real investigation — i.e., one that can lead to criminal charges — unless and until there is a grand jury. That does not happen until the Justice Department hops on board.
We'll see how well her powers of recall are when they start asking her who gave her orders to request those names, and who she shared that information with?
Evelyn Farkas certainly knew what they had and why...Susan worked for her? That intel was shared with 16 other agencies, and Farkas says they wanted to "make sure" it made its way into as many different hands as possible.
Wonder why?
Explain this to us Miss Rice?
Did you believe her Benghazi story also? Why the unmasking in July? Why did it increase after the election? Why the detailed spreadsheets? Why send the information to Clapper, Brennan and political toady, Rhodes? Remember, none of this was about Russia. Therefore, what was the national security reason for her unmasking?
Rice did not work with Farkas. Farkas worked for DOD. But Farkas wanted Trump information to be disseminated to all intel agencies aiding in the leaking process. Rice did her bidding.
Settle down patx. When all of the investigations are done you'll surely have most of the answers you seek. In the meantime you should get a hobby or something. Push back from the keyboard, go for a walk.
Caught you again in not knowing what you are talking about. Nice try at recovering, deflection is your only option at this point.
As I said, the FBI works hand in glove with Grand Juries. They can handle it.
Trump is a bigger liar than any of them so if you're ok with him then you shouldn't have a problem with anything Ms. Rice has to say.
Of course I know this Pax.
I was posting with my toungue firmly planted in cheek. Rice will be guilty of either perjury, obstruction of justice, or violation of her National Security clearance and Oath of office, but unless she takes someone else down with her through some sort of a plea deal, she is toast.
Not sure where you said that last part, but I admittedly read very little of your posts, so that's on me. My bad - but hey! We agree!! Let the FBI sort it out.
No, she's a truth teller and I'm sure that she speaks the truth on these matters but what I think doesn't matter. Let the investigators interview her if they wish and let them be the judge of her truthiness.
- The Dem operatives knew all along that Trump was being surveilled. Thats why the Russian collusion mantra drumbeat was given to their media friends.
- Susan Rice is a certified liar.
- Trump was/is correct about the surveillance.
- Trump found out about the surveillance when he took office...After he gained access to tons of info.
- The Dems are coming off as complete idiots.....Were they so stupid that they though the truth would not come out.
Last edited:
lmao. Complete ********. You can go read his tweets and spin as much as you want, but he was wrong and has looked foolish ever since.
Wrong. Partially wrong. The FBI can obtain warrants and subpoenas from federal judges, which in fact, is far more common than the use of Grand Juries.
He was correct. He may have been incorrect to say Obama did it but he had info that he and his people were being watched. I think you are smart enough to figure it all out.
Is the statement below wrong? No. The FBI, on almost all major investigations, works directly with DOJ and uses Grand Juries. Grand Juries indict, the FBI does not. By the way, the following was written by a DOJ attorney from NYC.
In an ordinary case, that would not be a point worth making. The FBI routinely conducts major investigations in collaboration with Justice Department prosecutors — usually from the U.S. attorney’s office in the district where potential crimes occurred. That is because the FBI needs the assistance of a grand jury. The FBI does not have authority even to issue subpoenas, let alone to charge someone with a crime. Only federal prosecutors may issue subpoenas, on the lawful authority of the grand jury. Only prosecutors are empowered to present evidence or propose charges to the grand jury. And the Constitution vests only the grand jury with authority to indict — the formal accusation of a crime. In our system, the FBI can do none of these things.
No Justice Department, no grand jury. No grand jury, no case — period. As a technical matter, no matter how extensively the FBI pokes around on its own, no one can be a subject of a real investigation — i.e., one that can lead to criminal charges — unless and until there is a grand jury. That does not happen until the Justice Department hops on board.
Investigative Group
Former US Attorney: Susan Rice Ordered Spy Agencies To Produce ‘Detailed Spreadsheets’ Involving Trump
Richard Pollock
Reporter
- Update: In response to a question Tuesday from NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell, former Obama White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice denied that she “prepared” spreadsheets of telephone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides. The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group, however, reported that Rice “ordered” the spreadsheets to be produced.
In addition, former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova, one of TheDCNF’s sources, said Tuesday in response to Rice that “would come as quite a surprise to the government officials who have reviewed dozens of those spreadsheets.”
Former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova.
“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/s...d-spreadsheets-involving-trump/#ixzz4dIyTDdHk
We weren't surveilling Trump or his people..... we just happened to be surveilling Russians that his people just happened to be talking to... and we just happened to "unmask" some of those people that happened to be on his transition team..... honestly.....
Definition of liar -> Link
Perhaps it fits, but doesn't mean what you intend. Sorry, can't let that one go.
Last edited:
I love how you try to not act Partisan but in reality you are more partisan than most on here . Me objective lmao