Which Susan Rice do you believe?

[WVPATX]

The one today on NBC or the one two weeks ago on PBS?


BREAKING: Susan Rice Denies She Unmasked Trump Intel For ‘Political Purposes’ Contradicting What She Said 2 Weeks Ago (VIDEO)

Cristina Laila Apr 4th, 2017 1:05 pm 9 Comments

Former National Security Advisor, Susan Rice appeared on MSNBC to respond to allegations that she unmasked Trump and private associates.

Rice told Andrea Mitchell that she didn’t unmask Trump and his associates for political purposes, ‘I didn’t leak nothing to nobody’.

Andrea Mitchell: “This is a firestorm with all of these accusations against you. How do you reply? How do you respond?”

Susan Rice: “Andrea, this is nothing political that has been alleged. The allegation is that somehow the Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes. That’s absolutely false. Let me explain how this works.

I was the National Security Advisor. My job is to protect the American and the security of our country. Every morning we receive a compilation of intelligence reports….selected for us to give us the best information…I received those reports as did other officials.

There were occasions when I would receive a report in which a U.S. person was referred to. Name not provided, just U.S. person and sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance of the report and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out or request the information as to who that U.S. official was.”

When Andrea Mitchell asked Susan Rice if she leaked the Flynn content, Rice answered, “I didn’t leak nothing to nobody’.


This is a direct contradiction from what she said just two weeks ago on PBS…. When she denied Trump’s ‘wiretap’ allegations.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...litical-purposes-leaked-nothing-nobody-video/

 

[WVUCOOPER]

The one today on NBC or the one two weeks ago on PBS?


BREAKING: Susan Rice Denies She Unmasked Trump Intel For ‘Political Purposes’ Contradicting What She Said 2 Weeks Ago (VIDEO)

Cristina Laila Apr 4th, 2017 1:05 pm 9 Comments

Former National Security Advisor, Susan Rice appeared on MSNBC to respond to allegations that she unmasked Trump and private associates.

Rice told Andrea Mitchell that she didn’t unmask Trump and his associates for political purposes, ‘I didn’t leak nothing to nobody’.

Andrea Mitchell: “This is a firestorm with all of these accusations against you. How do you reply? How do you respond?”

Susan Rice: “Andrea, this is nothing political that has been alleged. The allegation is that somehow the Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes. That’s absolutely false. Let me explain how this works.

I was the National Security Advisor. My job is to protect the American and the security of our country. Every morning we receive a compilation of intelligence reports….selected for us to give us the best information…I received those reports as did other officials.

There were occasions when I would receive a report in which a U.S. person was referred to. Name not provided, just U.S. person and sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance of the report and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out or request the information as to who that U.S. official was.”

When Andrea Mitchell asked Susan Rice if she leaked the Flynn content, Rice answered, “I didn’t leak nothing to nobody’.


This is a direct contradiction from what she said just two weeks ago on PBS…. When she denied Trump’s ‘wiretap’ allegations.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...litical-purposes-leaked-nothing-nobody-video/

I realize arguing with the gateway pundit is like arguing with a bag of rocks, but how does what she said today contradict her denying Trump's "wire tapp" allegation?

 

[WVPATX]

I realize arguing with the gateway pundit is like arguing with a bag of rocks, but how does what she said today contradict her denying Trump's "wire tapp" allegation?

She said this:

“I know nothing about this,” Rice said at the time. “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today … So today, I really don’t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring. But he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.”

She knew exactly what Nunes was talking about. She was directly involved.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

She said this:

“I know nothing about this,” Rice said at the time. “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today … So today, I really don’t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring. But he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.”

She knew exactly what Nunes was talking about. She was directly involved.

Ahhh. OK. That was not in your first post, I was only going off that last line in your post

"This is a direct contradiction from what she said just two weeks ago on PBS…. When she denied Trump’s ‘wiretap’ allegations."

 

[atlkvb]

She'd look good in an Orange jump suit, nice color contrast with her skin tone.

 

[WVPATX]

Ahhh. OK. That was not in your first post, I was only going off that last line in your post

"This is a direct contradiction from what she said just two weeks ago on PBS…. When she denied Trump’s ‘wiretap’ allegations."

Fair point. I should have been more specific.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

Fair point. I should have been more specific.

Meh. Just blame the pundit.

 

[atlkvb]

Know what happens when you lie? You have to tell more lies to cover up the lies you just told. This process continues until you either end up contradicting yourself, or you tell so many lies you can't keep them all straight.

She's already contradicted herself, now she's rapidly approaching the point where she's telling so many lies she can't keep them straight. She goes onto MSNBC, a sympathetic venue that won't challenge her with chronological facts to make her support her actions.

She won't get such favorable treatment before either a Grand Jury or Congressional investigators. Only thing about lying to those folks, is you can be put in jail for perjury.

 

[WVPATX]

Know what happens when you lie? You have to tell more lies to cover up the lies you just told. This process continues until you either end up contradicting yourself, or you tell so many lies you can't keep them all straight.

She's already contradicted herself, now she's rapidly approaching the point where she's telling so many lies she can't keep them straight. She goes onto MSNBC, a sympathetic venue that won't challenge her with chronological facts to make her support her actions.

She won't get such favorable treatment before either a Grand Jury or Congressional investigators. Only thing about lying to those folks, is you can be put in jail for perjury.

I would defer to the FBI and a Grand Jury over a Congressional investigation. We seem to learn very little from Congress. Impanel a Grand Jury, put the FBI on the investigation. Issue subpoenas, get testimony under oath. Issue indictments, if warranted. Subject Clapper, Brennan and the Administration lackey, Ben Rhodes to examination under oath.

Remamber, Susan Rice was a consumer of intelligence, not a generator. It is extraordinarily unusual for a consumer of intelligence to unmask an individual U.S. citizen. Normally, the NSA, CIA or FBI request the unmasking as part of a national security investigation. She had no business doing any unmasking. It is not her job. This was all political.

 

[atlkvb]

She had no business doing any unmasking. It is not her job.

Well, she may claim she was under orders to do so. If that's the case, she's not the one who should be testifying under oath.

 

[WVPATX]

Well, she may claim she was under orders to do so. If that's the case, she's not the one who should be testifying under oath.

Exactly. And I believe the Grand Jury is best capable at getting at that kind of information. I suspect this is the first time Rice has ever unmasked anyone. Again, it is not her job. Find out why she did it. Who ordered it. What did Obama know and when did he know it? Find out why it increased dramatically after TRump's win in November. Why?