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.

 

WaPo Gives Susan Rice Four Pinnocios For Her Syria Gave Up Chemical Weapons Whopper

page: 3
27
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships

Now, on to the fact checking;
She went on to give us her spiel on the "unmasking" of Trump and associates.



I've never heard her mention Trumps unmasking..I've never heard her mention any names for that matter.
I have seen it stated that she said Trumps transition team, and it's pretty certain that at least one of them is already under investigation for several years by now.




posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   
You said Since when is it illegal to tell a lie?and i replied under oath a reply to: Krazysh0tsee how you miss stuff when going full retard

edit on 10-4-2017 by Denoli because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Denoli
You said Since when is it illegal to tell a lie?and i replied under oath a reply to: Krazysh0tsee how you miss stuff when going full retard

No. I only see how you can be confusing when you only respond with one line posts like the T&C says not to do.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Denoli
You said Since when is it illegal to tell a lie?and i replied under oath a reply to: Krazysh0tsee how you miss stuff when going full retard

No. I only see how you can be confusing when you only respond with one line posts like the T&C says not to do.
Phones broke so cant hit bottom line



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

If she takes the 5th congress will dig out all the people that were working under her and all the people she was associating with during that time.

Like everything in human nature, is always one that will spill the beans.


edit on 10-4-2017 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Denoli

Not my problem. You are trying to act smug because I didn't understand you but you have faulty equipment.
edit on 10-4-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Not really. Half of those things I don't think she was lying about.



So, which ones were lies then?


Hillary didn't even see jail time over Benghazi. If you think that Rice will see any for her even less involvement is just laughably partisan.


What is partisan about bragging about "escaped prosecution"?
Oh, wait! Don't look in the mirror there....



You have zero proof that Susan unmasked illegally. Saying otherwise is dishonest.


I may not have evidence, however who authorized her to unmask anyone?



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
What is partisan about bragging about "escaped prosecution"?
Oh, wait! Don't look in the mirror there....

Escaped prosecution? Comey LITERALLY said that there wasn't enough evidence to pursue a perjury indictment. She didn't escape prosecution. At the MOST she covered her bases enough to avoid further legal problems. OR, and I know this doesn't gel with your partisanship, she was truly innocent.

In any case, she didn't escape prosecution. That is your partisanship talking.


I may not have evidence, however who authorized her to unmask anyone?

Who cares? If it was legal then it doesn't matter who authorized it. You have no evidence of your claim and saying it was illegal is a lie.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Meh, is there really a point in arguing with someone who thinks lying is okay?


I mean how can you take anyone who takes that stance seriously from that point of statement going forward?


It shows the character or lack thereof of the individual......


edit on 10-4-2017 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

Great strawman you got there. I never once said that lying is ok. I just said that no one is going to go to jail over it.
edit on 10-4-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

I've never heard her mention Trumps unmasking..I've never heard her mention any names for that matter.
I have seen it stated that she said Trumps transition team, and it's pretty certain that at least one of them is already under investigation for several years by now.


Which one is "under investigation?

Susan Rice and her politically motivated unmasking



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   
But she and Obama were not lying when they assured us Iran will never try ro make nukes, right?



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Who cares? If it was legal then it doesn't matter who authorized it. You have no evidence of your claim and saying it was illegal is a lie.


Dodged that question in which you said only "half" of her statements
were lies? And the question still lies, "if". If it was legal.

It was not legal in this instance, unless she had permission, she alone
was not authorized to unmask names.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

Meh, is there really a point in arguing with someone who thinks lying is okay?


I mean how can you take anyone who takes that stance seriously from that point of statement going forward?


It shows the character or lack thereof of the individual......



It really does boil down to this, indeed.
I suppose I knew the attack was coming, but thought
maybe they might have rehearsed some talking points,
aside from "so what, she lies"?




posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: smurfy

I've never heard her mention Trumps unmasking..I've never heard her mention any names for that matter.
I have seen it stated that she said Trumps transition team, and it's pretty certain that at least one of them is already under investigation for several years by now.


Which one is "under investigation?

Susan Rice and her politically motivated unmasking


Simple answer is Manafort...why could you not say it..cat got your tongue?



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Denoli

Not my problem. You are trying to act smug because I didn't understand you but you have faulty equipment.
Read your post please and you will realise mate and I pre accept your apology



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

I don't think Rice unmasked anybody, did she? (not trying to debate, trying to glean information)

My understanding is that she requested it and somebody at the NSA had to authorize it and do it. The problem is that the policy for unmasking has a catch-all section where if the person requesting the unmasking can claim, and articulate, that they need to know names so they can understand the report better, then that person gets the names.

I think the better question in all of this is how could she possibly have needed to know names in order to understand the magnitude of what she was looking at? Either she was looking at garbage reports and was confused why anybody would think it was worth her time to read them, or she knew exactly what she was looking at and wanted to know who it was that was talking.

To me that's the real issue in all this: how in the hell was she able to claim, let alone convince somebody else, that she needed these names in order to understand what she was reading?



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

What position does he hold in Trumps cabinet?

Did Sean Hannity hold a position in Trumps cabinet?



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: smurfy

What position does he hold in Trumps cabinet?

Did Sean Hannity hold a position in Trumps cabinet?



Who mentioned cabinet, transition team and campaign team..which he left, but was still advising.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

My understanding is that she requested it and somebody at the NSA had to authorize it and do it. The problem is that the policy for unmasking has a catch-all section where if the person requesting the unmasking can claim, and articulate, that they need to know names so they can understand the report better, then that person gets the names.


Yes, fairly certain there is a paper trail, leading from Susan Rice
to the unmasker authority. All of which she denied, as she
said "I know nothing about this". Then later, she admitted she did
know, but stated it was not done for political spying.




I think the better question in all of this is how could she possibly have needed to know names in order to understand the magnitude of what she was looking at? Either she was looking at garbage reports and was confused why anybody would think it was worth her time to read them, or she knew exactly what she was looking at and wanted to know who it was that was talking.


Right, which fits in with a "spreadsheet" situation,
as has been reported.



To me that's the real issue in all this: how in the hell was she able to claim, let alone convince somebody else, that she needed these names in order to understand what she was reading?


That someone being in the IC community, with authority? Yep.
I think Susan Rice may not realize it yet, but perhaps someone
was tired of carrying her water.

Like the DNC leaks, there could be a viper in the midst.




top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join