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.

 

Susan Rice Admits To Unmasking ‘US Persons’ In Intelligence Reports

page: 2
37
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: xuenchen

So, the only thing she denies is leaking!

With her track record on Benghazi, she needs to be sworn in.


These people don't tell the truth, their word means nothing




posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
wow...talk about triggered....the democrats must be getting close to the truth about the connection between Russia and trump administration....lol.....right-wingers be goin' all crazy


How do you figure?
Or is this your generic response to the threads that leave YOU no room for debate.

Sure, there are some here with the ability to debate and defend this, but YOU aren't one of them.

Hence your cookie-cutter, tired @$$ response.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
The problem for Susan Rice is that she is a known liar and has admitted it. She had no problem lying to Americans about Benghazi, she will have no problem lying to save her pimp Barry.


I hope she testifies in public and tells all about how the Russians funneled money into the trump election, and unmasks all the right-wingers involved



Yeah sure....that is the Leftist's wet dream but you guys are always going limp when it comes to the money shot.
Nothing there with the Russians....never was, never will be.
But you got this lying sack of dog sh*t Susan Rice lying to everyone's face again.
Soon you guys will have yourselves deflected in to a corner with no way out.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777

They were terrified about the very idea of Trump.

They thought they were going to win.

"I will be personally disappointed if you don't turn out".

They weaponized the IRS to win reelection.

All they had to do is use the media to lie about Trump.

No problem...



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: kosmicjack

The very first mention of Flynn's calls to Kislyak came from a Washington Post story:

First sign of enhanced U.S.-Russia relations under Trump: An invite to Syria talks (Dec 29)


The invitation, extended to Trump’s designated national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, came in a Dec. 28 phone call to Flynn by Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador in Washington, according to a transition official.

The official said that “no decision was made” during the call and that “I don’t have anything additional on U.S. attendance at this time.” The official spoke on the condition of anonymity based on ground rules set by the transition team.


Then it was David Ignatius in a column in the Washington Post who revealed more about the calls. Notice, it's "calls" as Spicer claimed that it had been a single call at Christmas. He also brought up the Logan Act question:

Why did Obama dawdle on Russia’s hacking? (Jan 16)


According to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking. What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions? The Logan Act (though never enforced) bars U.S. citizens from correspondence intending to influence a foreign government about “disputes” with the United States. Was its spirit violated? The Trump campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

If the Trump team’s contacts helped discourage the Russians from a counter-retaliation, maybe that’s a good thing. But we ought to know the facts.


Then it was the Washington Post again (in another climate, this would be Pulitzer stuff, instead Usay Trump is calling for a Pulitzer for #GamerGate sleaze and alt-right Twitter troll, Mike Cernovich) who revealed that Flynn and the administration weren't just lying about the amount of contact but the nature of the calls:

National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say (2/9)


Neither of those assertions is consistent with the fuller account of Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak provided by officials who had access to reports from U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies that routinely monitor the communications of Russian diplomats. Nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

All of those officials said ­Flynn’s references to the election-related sanctions were explicit. Two of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by President Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president.

edit on 2017-4-4 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
We need to send a laxative to Susan so she can purge the brain fart she got on her head.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777

Are you arguing that Donald Trump and the people in his administration are honest? That they don't lie? Because I've got about 100 examples of lies I can blitz you with and you can go on ignoring if that's the case.

And it's not just little things they lie about, they lie about everything. Do you think that means Donald Trump's word means nothing or does he get a pass because you want to believe him?

Just curious.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
@ 13:50 she was struck by a question that she couldn't answer, lets wait for Rand and Tray questioning her, im sure that she will be eaten Raw



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

One helluva lot more honest than the " do you like your plan? you can keep your plan" red line drawing, "moderate rebel arming" ass that just left office.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777

Yes, so true.

Well since leaking is a felony, lets hope these people
like being caught up in their own game.

Surveillance may be necessary.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian


The invitation, extended to Trump’s designated national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, came in a Dec. 28 phone call to Flynn by Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador in Washington, according to a transition official.




So the "phone call" was FROM the Russian TO Flynn.

Sounds like a clever set up.

I'm sure Kislyak KNEW he was being "monitored".

Russia was afraid of Flynn.




posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Dr UAE

She was coach by the CIA director Brennan back during the Benghazi inquiries, I am sure that he will coach again on this one, after all she needed a facilitator and she didn't acted alone.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Exactly!
Of course theres no concern that Alinsky..I mean Obama and Clinton sold uranium to Russia...golly thats meaningless.
Flynn potentially broke some archaic rule via a set up....THE OUTRAGE.

quick lib mouthpiece get in here and copy and paste volumes of stupid wapo nyt op eds to make your point in opposition

edit on 4-4-2017 by BlueJacket because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: essentialtremors

I think you're connecting dots that aren't connected and that's the whole point of the constellation of disjointed pieces being pushed as a counternarrative.

No "unmasked" names have been leaked to the press. That is, if Nunes is to believed at least. The "unmasking" he referred to was in reports dealing with "incidental collction."

The ONLY details that have been made public about the content of these reports came from Nunes who said that it appeared to be legally obtained intelligence and that it wasn't related to any investigation into potential coordination with Russia and also that it didn't substantiate Trump's tweets on March 4.

This is being deliberately conflated with the leaks to Washington Post (WaPo claims 9 sources) about Flynn's calls to Kislyak. There's no evidence that what Nunes was speaking about and the Flynn leaks to the press had anything to do with one another and in fact, Nunes's own statements, I think you'll agree, seem to preclude that.

Next up we have this Susan Rice is the "unmasker" claim and finally, you've got a meme going around that because Susan Rice is married to an ex-producer of a show on ABC, he must have been "the Flynn leaker" even though he hasn't been with ABC for nearly a decade and ABC didn't break any of the major Flynn stories.

It's a mess.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Seriously, its obvious. Poor Susan Rice, poor good intentioned, democracy destroying Obama and his corrupt minions



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

No, that was the original line that came from a "transition official." That quickly turned into a phone call and some text according to Spicer. Then it came out that there were actually 5 phone calls in that one day. From what I remember of the most recent developments, the calls were actually initiated by Flynn.

But even if they weren't, did Kislyak also make him discuss sanctions, urge the Russians not to respond to Obama's new sanctions/tossing out diplomats and then repeatedly lie about it?

Did Kislyak make Michael Flynn a liar?



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: theantediluvian

Seriously, its obvious. Poor Susan Rice, poor good intentioned, democracy destroying Obama and his corrupt minions


What's obvious? Please. Connect the dots.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualarchitect

theantediluvian has already addressed that.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueJacket

Alinsky? Really? You do realize that Rules for Radicals is a favorite of Dick Armey? Mr. Tea Party? That he used to give people copies of it? You do know who Dick Armey is right?

Could you please explain how Clinton and Obama sold uranium to Russia? Because I will happily disabuse you of your ignorance. I suspect that you don't actually know enough to speak at length on the topic so I won't be holding my breath.

Surprise me.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join