Flynn Leaks: Susan Rice is Married to Ian Cameron, Former Executive Producer at ABC

a reply to: Vasa Croe

My main reason for believing she isn't be completely honest is because of the fact she is just now coming to light in the investigation.

What does her honesty have to do with any of this?

How many weeks into this are we now? And suddenly Rice pops in? Now surely, if there was something going on and they brought it to her attention before we even heard about it and she had the names unmasked, she should have already been in the mix.

She appears to have been "in the mix", but her actions may have been justified. Not sure what that has to do with how this story is being released through the media.

Rice coming into the equation at this point is a sign of the corruption we are witnessing. I mean, we are supposed to hold our government officials to a bit higher standard right? So why, after however many weeks and tax dollars have been spent, is this now coming out?

What signs of corruption have we witnessed? This may be coming-out because the media has been updated with new info regarding the investigation. I have yet to see proof of any corruption.

Why didn't she say something at the beginning? Why do we have to have a massive investigation dragging on just to slowly uncover who did what? Shouldn't she be held to a higher standard and people be pissed she didn't come forward in the beginning?

If she did say something earlier, she could possibly be in violation of her clearance and jeopardize the ongoing investigation.

Correct?

But no...this didn't happen. This tells me the Intel we are getting is likely true and is making its way up the chain, because while the Republicans are making their way up the chain, the Democrats are making their way down to people either not with Trump anymore or low enough on the pole they aren't even named in the accusations.

Not sure what that means.

Oh...and she could ask for an unmasking of names anytime she wants. She had the one of the highest clearance levels in the administration.

She can ask, but not order it. That means the IC did unmask the names and may have been justified in doing so.

Apparently, that fact is not being considered.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vasa Croe

My main reason for believing she isn't be completely honest is because of the fact she is just now coming to light in the investigation.

What does her honesty have to do with any of this?

How many weeks into this are we now? And suddenly Rice pops in? Now surely, if there was something going on and they brought it to her attention before we even heard about it and she had the names unmasked, she should have already been in the mix.

She appears to have been "in the mix", but her actions may have been justified. Not sure what that has to do with how this story is being released through the media.

Rice coming into the equation at this point is a sign of the corruption we are witnessing. I mean, we are supposed to hold our government officials to a bit higher standard right? So why, after however many weeks and tax dollars have been spent, is this now coming out?

What signs of corruption have we witnessed? This may be coming-out because the media has been updated with new info regarding the investigation. I have yet to see proof of any corruption.

Why didn't she say something at the beginning? Why do we have to have a massive investigation dragging on just to slowly uncover who did what? Shouldn't she be held to a higher standard and people be pissed she didn't come forward in the beginning?

If she did say something earlier, she could possibly be in violation of her clearance and jeopardize the ongoing investigation.

Correct?

But no...this didn't happen. This tells me the Intel we are getting is likely true and is making its way up the chain, because while the Republicans are making their way up the chain, the Democrats are making their way down to people either not with Trump anymore or low enough on the pole they aren't even named in the accusations.

Not sure what that means.

Oh...and she could ask for an unmasking of names anytime she wants. She had the one of the highest clearance levels in the administration.

She can ask, but not order it. That means the IC did unmask the names and may have been justified in doing so.

Apparently, that fact is not being considered.

I guess her honesty has about as much to do with it as Flynn's?

As far as her being able to ask...sure she can. Order, not that I know of. I really don't know who has the authority to unmask a civilian.

Signs of corruption? Rice is now front and center after weeks of investigating....meaning people had to dig to find her connection. It isn't like this is hidden from anyone. She knew there was a connection here and just waited until it was found. We are talking about the National Security Advisor to Obama for a few years. Unless the narrative is that she was stupid too, then corruption is evident.

The cover is obvious at this point. She's had a few weeks to rehearse it too.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Comey is going to make a statement soon saying that they were just being "extremely careless."

No reasonable prosecutor would bring criminal charges against these people.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Unmasking is illegal. Obama's EO didn't make unmasking legal.

Not necessarily. There are about 20 people within Obama's administration with the authority to unmask. Susan Rice is one of them.

originally posted by: Templeton
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Maybe I owe you an apology. When you say Trumps team was not under surveillance you actually mean it? I'm not talking about semantics, who ordered it, or if it was incidental or not. Do you think the leaked transcript of Flynn talking to the Russians was a complete fabrication by the press?

I really don't count incidental surveillance as vindication of Trump's claim of either being wire tapped or even his goal post relocation of being under surveillance. No, but I guess technically at one point member's of Trump's team were under surveillance by accident. It wasn't ordered to happen.

ETA: Also the doom and gloom stuff was in regard to your comment about the republican party working on behalf of Trump and not America. This insinuates that Trump is not for America. The president of America not being "for America" is pretty dystopic. To that, you still haven't answered the question of what America would look like if Trump was left unchecked.

I just speak to how I perceive reality. Trump is clearly out for himself. I can't help it if that reality sucks. I didn't vote for the man. I've regretted America's decision everyday since November 11. But I've known what kind of person Trump was since the 90's.

As for how America would look unchecked, I'd rather not picture it. It didn't happen and anything I suggest could easily be misconstrued as a slippery slope fallacy. I'd rather worry about my reality currently rather than what could have been.

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The unmasking may not have been but the VERY WIDE dissemination is beyond illegal, you had news outlets receiving the classified information, a news organization to which Susan Rice's husband works for is the outlet which broke the story. Susan Rice is already on record totally denying any knowledge of any of this which we now know is a lie. I wonder if she will now lie to congress or take the fifth.

You don't know it is a lie. You don't have any evidence she specifically leaked this info.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The unmasking may not have been but the VERY WIDE dissemination is beyond illegal, you had news outlets receiving the classified information, a news organization to which Susan Rice's husband works for is the outlet which broke the story. Susan Rice is already on record totally denying any knowledge of any of this which we now know is a lie. I wonder if she will now lie to congress or take the fifth.

You don't know it is a lie. You don't have any evidence she specifically leaked this info.

Correct.
There are a lot of unanswered questions remaining.
But we do know that Rice was asked about the surveillance and unmasking by one news group, and she replied that she knew nothing about it and was surpised to learn of it.
Then she admitted that she unmasked people after the story got out.
She is involved and she hasn't been honest with her answers.... that is what we do know.

a reply to: butcherguy

Sure. Go ahead and put her on the stand. I'm sure that after she testifies and no new damning information comes out against either her and ESPECIALLY not against Obama you'll be telling us how the testimony was rigged or something.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy

Sure. Go ahead and put her on the stand. I'm sure that after she testifies and no new damning information comes out against either her and ESPECIALLY not against Obama you'll be telling us how the testimony was rigged or something.

I am just commenting on what we do know at this point.
I have to wonder why a woman that has dedicated her life to public service felt a need to lie to a news organization when asked about it. She was lying to the public.
Will she lie under oath?
She does have a history of lying to the public in her job as a government offucial.
What good did it do anyone for her to push the false narrative that a viseo caused the terrorust attack at Benghazi? She knew the truth and we have Wikileaks to thank for that information.

a reply to: butcherguy

I see you have already setup your narrative ahead of time to discount her testimony. Looks like you are all set to continue to believe whatever you want.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy

I see you have already setup your narrative ahead of time to discount her testimony. Looks like you are all set to continue to believe whatever you want.

No, I am being realistic.
I have no idea of what she knows, and I am eager for the truth to come out.

I have made observations on her history regarding two different matters, and she lied in both of those matters .
Does that mean we should trust what she says, when she has shown a history of lying about important matters?
I have shown reason to disbelieve what she says.
Can you show reason to believe her?
Or will you just continue to say that I am all set to believe what I think?

What reason can you give for her to lie about Benghazi?
What reason can you give for her lying about the surveillance?

I am trying to use reason here.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Dfairlite

Scapegoat for what? There is no evidence that the unmasking was even illegal.

What about the leaking/disseminating? Rice herself seems to think it was heinous.

“I leaked nothing, to nobody, and never have and never would,” Rice said

She drew a strong distinction between those who had been leaking details from the reports to newspapers -- leaks that largely benefited the outgoing Obama administration or wounded the incoming Trump administration -- and her actions.

"There's no equivalence between so-called 'unmasking' and leaking," Rice said.

www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: introvert

What does her honesty have to do with any of this? 

There was a time when honesty meant something.
Reading these comments over the past day makes me sad for what our society has become.

originally posted by: butcherguy
No, I am being realistic.
I have no idea of what she knows, and I am eager for the truth to come out.

Yet you are making some definitive statements about her lying in the past.

I am trying to use reason here.

Sure. Sure. Whatever you say.

In any case, I'll continue to wait for actual evidence and more importantly proof of illegal activity by any liberal as well as how that links to Obama. I really don't care about hidden meanings behind people's words. I only care about what can be proven in court.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What about it? Rice apparently didn't leak the info according to her. Got any proof that says otherwise?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

SOMEONE did. Which means there WAS wrongdoing. Rice herself drew a huge distinction between the two and claimed she would never leak. It was a heinous act designed to hurt Trump. Obama's people have already admitted they wanted to disseminate as much about Trump as possible.

Even if we go so far as to say Obama never ordered it ... it was happening, on his watch, by his people, and he did nothing to stop it. That means by default he did it by allowing it.

ETA: I want to be clear, if there was an actual crime Trump committed and that crime was revealed, I would not care in the slightest about the leak.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy
No, I am being realistic.
I have no idea of what she knows, and I am eager for the truth to come out.

Yet you are making some definitive statements about her lying in the past.

I am trying to use reason here.

Sure. Sure. Whatever you say.

In any case, I'll continue to wait for actual evidence and more importantly proof of illegal activity by any liberal as well as how that links to Obama. I really don't care about hidden meanings behind people's words. I only care about what can be proven in court.

I can't help but think that you are being disingenuous here.
If you are aware that a person is a known liar, you will trust what they say to be the truth?

And as far as 'hidden meanings' ... if you want to call her lies by that name, have fun with that.
I began this exchange by saying that there are a lot if unanswered questions here and I want to see the truth.... tje best appriximation of the truth will come from a court of law.

originally posted by: butcherguy
I can't help but think that you are being disingenuous here.
If you are aware that a person is a known liar, you will trust what they say to be the truth?

I don't need to trust them. I just have to know that her testimony isn't going to advance any proof of what you are claiming. She will continue to say she didn't leak anything and you will continue to not have proof that contradicts her.

And as far as 'hidden meanings' ... if you want to call her lies by that name, have fun with that.
I began this exchange by saying that there are a lot if unanswered questions here and I want to see the truth.... tje best appriximation of the truth will come from a court of law.

Truth in your world sounds like it has already been predetermined. But this is why I said I'm still waiting for actual evidence. While you wax on about Rice's trustworthiness, you fail to back anything you say up with actual hard evidence that she is lying. So sure, wreck her credibility with your partisan interpretation of the past. I don't care. All you are doing is wasting your time not proving anything.

a reply to: Golantrevize

There is no series, it is pulling straight from those three!

Life is stranger than fiction, exciting times we live in.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No hard evidence that she has lied?

It is self evident in the cases of the surveillance (where she contradicted her own previous statements) and the Benghazi video narrative that she pushed on the Sunday news shows.