It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CNN Goes on Rampage Against Susan Rice Bombshell, Instructs Viewers to Ignore Story

page: 11
115
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I don't think anyone did anything illegal.

It's just slimy as hell.

Sure, Rice did the unmasking. It is part of her job.

They will easily blame it on surveillance on Russian activity because there is always surveillance of Russian activity so it's an easy thing to say and difficult to dispel.

This way they can surveil anyone they want at any time they want and if they get caught, just say. . "Oops, we were watching Russians", because the Russians are always watching us and we are always watching them.


Rice is the one being outed.
They will give us a path to follow to show us how the illegal part (releasing the identies of masked individuals and classified info to the press) happened and who did it. She is a link.... maybe the scapegoat.




posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So because she clearly said that she never requested unmasking for political purposes, you think that means she requested unmasking for political purposes???


See, you really do know how this works,
you should admit and stop playing coy.


CIte the timestamp that proves your contentions.

If you can't, you're lying.

How's that for not being coy?


You seem to be taking the fact you are wrong rather badly.
Even to the point of denying what is front of people's eyes.
You are embarrassing yourself - even I feel bad for you.
edit on 4/4/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Oh hey somebody else who isn't angrily mashing their keyboard with every post. Nice to see you.

My take on it is the question during the interview was worded a specific way and the answer was worded a specific way, and it was entirely intentional.

I have a hard time believing that this report about Russian interference in the election was put on Rice's desk and she needed to know names of Americans to gauge for herself whether it was important or not. That excuse just stinks to high hell for me.

Is it possible that she simply wanted to be sure before she took it to the President? I suppose, but I can't imagine she didn't want those names simply for the sake of having them, if nothing else. It's just extraordinary to me that a report like that got to her desk and she had to question how important it really was.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes.
She clearly lied.
She is a liar.
No blink counts even needed.


So now that your "science" has been debunked ... you're a psychic?

LOLOL ... you really can't make this up.

No.
She stated in an interview that she knew nothing.
Clearly a lie.
No psychic powers needed..... for most of us, anyway.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

... and now you have nothing but to talk about me.

Another obsessed fanboy.

CIte the timestamp on the two videos.

/shrug



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Tempter


1) Rice denies knowing anything at all regarding the unmasking.
2) Story breaks implicating her as the actual requestor to unmask.
3) Rice, "Yeah, so what?"
4) Gryphon66 continues to defend. That about sum it up?


How about this one?

1) Russia hacks DNC & John Podesta's Gmail account, gives mails to Wikileaks to benefit Trump.
2) Trump supporters deny.
3) Multiple stories break about Trump staffers communicating with Russian officials.
4) Team Trump denies, Trump supporters believe Trump.
5) Russia admits to sustained contact with Trump "entourage."
6) Team Trump denies, Trump supporters believe Trump.
7) Mike Flynn is questioned and lies about his talks with Kislyak.
8) Team Trump promotes Flynn lies, Trump supporters believe lies.
9) VP Pence gives false information to American people.
10) Leaks confirm Flynn lied.
11) Team Trump starts off trying to deny it, realizes that's a fail, attacks leaks instead. Trump supporters play along.
12) Mike Flynn "resigns" for lying. Team Trump: "That's not important! Leaks are the problem!"
13) Trump supporters applaud Donald Trump for firing Flynn after his hand was forced.
14) Donald Trump says HE was personally surveilled at Trump Tower on the orders of Obama.
15) Trump supporters believe him without question.
16) Flynn files new paperwork declaring that he was in fact lobbying for Turkey after all.
17) House Intel Comm starts investigation with Trump transition team member at helm.
18) After one day of testimony that goes badly for Trump's claims, Nunes is called to WH
19) Following day, Nunes goes straight to press to reveal "incidental collection" narrative he was fed by WH.
20) Nunes goest back to WH and spends less than an hour pretending to brief WH
21) Nunes goes on Hannity says he did it because Trump was taking a lot of heat from media.
22) Nunes comes under fire for his obvious distraction ploy.
23) Trump supporters happily hype "incidental collection" narrative.
24) Two days later, Nunes cancels scheduled open hearing testimony of Clapper, Brennan and Yates.
26) Nunes further says that no more hearings until closed door testimony of Comey/Rogers.
27) Trump supporters stay in La La Land yammering about "incidental collection"
28) It's revealed that Nunes went to WH and his trip was facilitated by admin staffers.
29) Trump supporters ignore.
30) Russian investigation effectively stalled.
31) Trump supporters pleased.
32) Flynn asks for immunity.
33) Trump supporters redouble efforts to promote "incidental collection"
34) Unsubstantiated claims about Susan Rice and politically motivated "unmasking" published.
35) Trump supporters claim vindication, develop amnesia about everything Russia-related.

Does that catch us up to present?



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes.
She clearly lied.
She is a liar.
No blink counts even needed.


So now that your "science" has been debunked ... you're a psychic?

LOLOL ... you really can't make this up.

No.
She stated in an interview that she knew nothing.
Clearly a lie.
No psychic powers needed..... for most of us, anyway.


The video is above that you're referencing.

She stated that she had no idea what Sideshow Nunes was referring to.

She didn't deny unmasking that's a known part of their jobs.

You're awfully quiet on your debunked claim to special powers ... why is that?



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Releasing the names is illegal.

Unmasking (Rice) spread the info through all agencies (Obama) and let a staffer take the fall for the actual leak.

The top people are untouchable because they did everything "according to the law".

Actually it's pretty smart of Obama. His bases are covered because he didn't do anything "illegal".



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
The videos are here.

All any of you have to do is watch them for youselves and prove your point.

Do it. It's that easy.
edit on 4-4-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes.
She clearly lied.
She is a liar.
No blink counts even needed.


So now that your "science" has been debunked ... you're a psychic?

LOLOL ... you really can't make this up.

No.
She stated in an interview that she knew nothing.
Clearly a lie.
No psychic powers needed..... for most of us, anyway.


The video is above that you're referencing.

She stated that she had no idea what Sideshow Nunes was referring to.

She didn't deny unmasking that's a known part of their jobs.

You're awfully quiet on your debunked claim to special powers ... why is that?

Not talking about unmasking.
Maybe you should go take a break. Deep breaths and and maybe a glass of cognac.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Perhaps you could recommend a good vodka instead?



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: DBCowboy

Oh hey somebody else who isn't angrily mashing their keyboard with every post. Nice to see you.

My take on it is the question during the interview was worded a specific way and the answer was worded a specific way, and it was entirely intentional.

I have a hard time believing that this report about Russian interference in the election was put on Rice's desk and she needed to know names of Americans to gauge for herself whether it was important or not. That excuse just stinks to high hell for me.

Is it possible that she simply wanted to be sure before she took it to the President? I suppose, but I can't imagine she didn't want those names simply for the sake of having them, if nothing else. It's just extraordinary to me that a report like that got to her desk and she had to question how important it really was.


It's the Potomac Tango. Of course the questions and answers are staged to give the impression that nothing was done for political reasons.

That's why friendlies give the questions. Probably well rehearsed beforehand.

But regardless, Rice and Obama covered their tracks so no one can say that they did anything "illegal".



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

LOL .. good recommendation.

Good work on Team Disinfo today Butch!



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's the Potomac two-step, sir.

But I wholeheartedly agree. This was about on par with Augustus' interview thread. The only thing missing was the interviewer admitting that not only was it time to play softball, but that the interviewer was also carrying Rice's water.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Again, she only denies the leaking.

She did not deny accessing the raw intelligence.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 01:04 PM
link   
At some point you all will realize that our govt is CORRUPT and there are NO clean hands. Since we are talking current events and VERY recent history.. the amount of corruption on the left is staggering. Since they were just recently in power for 8 years.. the Left has outted themselves at every turn. To deny it is being willfully blind because youre team or gods have fallen. IMO the Right is no less corrupt. If breaking a few eggs on either side ( right now the left and their BS) means we expose some "business as usual" DC BS... so be it. Rice is going down. So many more to break...



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Gryphon66

Again, she only denies the leaking.

She did not deny accessing the raw intelligence.



She denied leaking.

She denied that any person was surveilled unlawfully.

She didn't answer a single question that referred to classified information.

You know what ... here's the funny part.

Believe what you want. I don't care.

There's no proof that Rice admitted that she or anyone else requested illegal unmasking or any unmasking of Trump or associates.

That's the takeaway.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Media has always been Biased-Propaganda-Outlets for both parties, this is not a new phenomenon, but, the media is now afraid that this could be the first time a political regime refuses "Free Press" and stifles the Media-Propaganda power structure



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Just out of curiosity. A few questions:

1. Do you find it suspicious that Flynn lied about his communications with Kislyak?

2. Do you find it suspicious that multiple Trump spokespeople and Trump himself blatantly lied about communications between Russian officials and the Trump campaign?

3. Do you think that Nunes should have recused himself considering his position as a member of the Trump transition team?

4. Do you find it suspicious that the day after the first day of the investigations into the possibly coordination between members of the Trump campaign and Russian officials, Nunes is called to the WH to view reports?

5. Do you find it suspicious that after being called to view reports, Nunes foregoes protocol the next day and calls a press conference, seemingly out-of-the-blue, to announce "incidental collection" from reports and the very serious new issue of "unamsking?"

I know you're not an idiot and I'm somewhat sure you're not insane. So clearly, on some level, you have to realize that the repeated lying by the Team Trump about communications with Russian officials smells funny. I further assume that you have to admit that the Nunes shenanigans and this new "unmasking" narrative reek of distraction.

6. Have you asked yourself why all the lying from Team Trump and why the need for a distraction to stall the House Intel Comm's investigation?



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I'll condemn Trump and anyone else if the proof shows anything towards collusion.

I've already stated that Flynn was a big mistake on Trump's part.

I'll wait for proof.

I'm sure you don't want Trump drawn and quartered based on suspicion and innuendo, do you?




top topics



 
115
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join