Former Obama security adviser declines invite to testify

a reply to: Gothmog

WTF do you think these hearings are about?

Yeah me and the whole of Washington are still on the Russian shtick.

You're hilarious bud.

a reply to: Gothmog

Oh and I'm a woman.
Hi Karen here.
Guess I don't fight like a girl huh?

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Martin75

She is not stupid, invitation is no the same as subpoena, on invitation she is willing to talk, on subpoena she can claim the fifth

So she will wait until the subpoena comes.

Which shows how slimy this woman is. I will forever stand by my statement - worthless. And actually that is giving Rice too much credit. Because she is no woman, she is closer to a small wirey rat.

a reply to: RickinVa

a reply to: marg6043

What is her connection with Russian interfering with the election?
Tell me that then we can discuss it.
Until then my little Margie....

a reply to: Arnie123

You ALL got it wrong.
I'm not surprised.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: marg6043

What is her connection with Russian interfering with the election?
Tell me that then we can discuss it.
Until then my little Margie....

as the thread title states she is Obamas former security adviser, if she doesn't have information about russians hacking the elections then it didnt happen.

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: dfnj2015

If only it were so innoncently done, don't be so naive.

I present to you, a quote taken directly from your own mouth posted just two minutes after the above quoted text.

"How do you know that? Proof please!"

Or is the fact that the dumbest President in U.S. history and his hoard of delusional followers believing in it constitute proof enough for you?

Just remember, this is the same guy who believes........that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by China, that North Korea's Lil Kim is a smart operator, that Ted Cruz's father conspired with Oswald to kill JFK, that Mexico will pay for his wall, that Putin is a good strong leader, that Philippine President Rodigo Duterte is deserving of a presidential invite to the White House, that 3 to 5 million people voted illegally in the last election, etc., etc., etc..

And it's not just about the crazy sh#t he believes. If he hasn't already achieved the title of biggest liar in presidential history, he's well on his way to securing that distinction as well.

And you want to talk about being naive?

Susan Rice has more honesty and integrity in her little finger than Trump has in his entire administration.

a reply to: Flatfish

You forgot to boast about how transparent the Obama Administration was.

Oh... maybe you didn't forget.

If she was to "testify", the continuing "Russian" thing would require many lies and possible self-incrimination.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: marg6043

What is her connection with Russian interfering with the election?
Tell me that then we can discuss it.
Until then my little Margie....

Urr, she's accused of unmasking American citizens names who were found on the wiretaps investigating Russian collusion.

are you really that naive you believe she did nothing wrong?

The defeated dems scream day and night about the Russian fixing the election, they never admit that Hillary cheated Bernie out of a primary, that she lied to Congress and that she ignored a subpoena and deleted evidence and federal records... all they want to do is spread bs crap in the media and plead the 5th when ever they're asked to prove it.

So yes, I think you are extremely naive!

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Martin75

She is not stupid, invitation is no the same as subpoena, on invitation she is willing to talk, on subpoena she can claim the fifth

So she will wait until the subpoena comes.

I think you nailed it. If I remember correctly from the previous brouhaha with Brennan & Yates' testimony, both the Republicans and the Democrats on the committee have to sign off on any subpoenas issued. If one or the other refuses to sign off, then it's just an invitation which can be refused. I think they're playing semantics again to hide the fact that the Democrats do not want her to testify... and they sure don't want her pleading the 5th for the whole world to see... so they let the Republicans issue an "invitation" which is easily refused. I think Rice knows that if the Democrats "invite" her also, it will be a subpoena and not just an invitation. I could be wrong about this though, so take it with a grain of salt (and a shot of tequila if you're so inclined!).

a reply to: marg6043

Hmmm... a little more info here:

According to CNN, Ms. Rice’s initial acceptance of the invitation from Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, was based on the presupposition that it was a bipartisan request.

However, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, reportedly told Ms. Rice that he did not approve of Mr. Graham’s invitation. According to a letter from Ms. Rice’s lawyer obtained by CNN, that scuppered her willingness to testify.

“Senator Whitehouse has informed us by letter that he did not agree to Chairman Graham’s invitation to Ambassador Rice, a significant departure from the bipartisan invitations extended to other witnesses,” attorney Kathryn Ruemmler wrote. “Under these circumstances, Ambassador Rice respectfully declines Senator Graham’s invitation to testify.”

Citing “a source familiar with Rice’s discussions,” CNN reported that Mr. Whitehouse didn’t think Ms. Rice’s presence was relevant.

So it is the ranking Democrat on the committee who does not want Rice to testify... because her "presence" is not "relevant"... yeah, right.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Flatfish

You forgot to boast about how transparent the Obama Administration was.

Oh... maybe you didn't forget.

When transparency reveals that Trump's personally selected National Security Advisor is actually an undeclared agent of a foreign government, it's called "leaking" and according to Trump, should be punishable to the maximum extent allowable under the law.

If Obama would have been as transparent as you claim you would have liked him to be, he would have informed the American people about the Trump campaign's suspected Russian connection as it was being investigated and discovered in real time, the same way Comey kept us informed on the Hillary email investigation.

I don't think Conservatives really want as much transparency as they claim they do and I truly believe that if & when true & total transparency is ever achieved, it will be Republicans who suffer the most.

You know what they say....... Be careful what you ask for because you may just find it.

And......As I would hope Republicans are learning, alternative facts will not always continue to work as a viable response to what that transparency reveals.

Kinda like believing Trump's repeated assertion that he had the largest inaugural crowd in history while implying that aerial photography was just some kind of unreliable theory.

I'm confident that when the time comes, Susan Rice will disclose what she knows about the subject and that she will be no worse off for doing so, because she didn't do anything wrong or out of the ordinary.

On the other hand, Trump's specialty seems to be "being wrong and out of the ordinary" on almost every subject he addresses.

Go figure!

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa
She's under scrutiny by republicans you mean.
She's not under any kind of official scrutiny.

Not sure you really understand what "official scrutiny" means if you think "got asked to to talk to a Congressional committee" isn't it.

Partisanship aside (which is a rich accusation coming from you, incidentally), getting asked to talk to Congress is pretty much the definition of "official scrutiny."

a reply to: Boadicea

Ok, stop the presses, she came on national TV and lie, to the American people I mean she lie, incriminated herself with the whole wiretapping affair and now her testimony is irrelevant?

Really? I mean really? why would Democrats don't want her to testified.

Because she will stuff her foot on her mouth without FBI director to polish her on her testimony like he did during the Benghazi.

Or because they know that an invitation is not a subpoena where she can claim the fifth.

Rats they are all dirty corrupted rats.

a reply to: Sillyolme


And that is what we need to know, really Sillyolme, really?

Common you been here long enough to read what has been going on with that Rat.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: marg6043

What is her connection with Russian interfering with the election?
Tell me that then we can discuss it.
Until then my little Margie....

Urr, she's accused of unmasking American citizens names who were found on the wiretaps investigating Russian collusion.

are you really that naive you believe she did nothing wrong?

The defeated dems scream day and night about the Russian fixing the election, they never admit that Hillary cheated Bernie out of a primary, that she lied to Congress and that she ignored a subpoena and deleted evidence and federal records... all they want to do is spread bs crap in the media and plead the 5th when ever they're asked to prove it.

So yes, I think you are extremely naive!

It was her job as national security adviser to unmask names when intelligence reveals a possible threat to national security and I think a possible collusion between a presidential candidate's political campaign and a foreign government would indeed constitute such a threat to national security.

I'm a progressive/democrat who is no fan of Hillary's and who is well aware of how the DNC & the Clinton machine screwed us out of a Bernie Sanders nomination, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand and for you to imply otherwise is just you grasping at straws.

Susan Rice Might Be Dragged Into Senate By Subpoena After She Refuses To Testify!

Rice’s lawyer is refusing this because it isn’t a bipartisan request. Perhaps Democrats on the committee won’t request Rice’s appearance as it would be a political liability to their party.

As Obama’s adviser, Rice made dozens of requests to unmask Trump colleagues in intelligence reports. She likely would be asked about this if she was to appear. She also ordered detailed spreadsheets to track the Trump Team. This could prove damning to both her and Barack Obama if she were to actually tell the truth under oath.

Seems like there is more to this story than what Susan Rice wants to be revealed! The video below has more information on Rice refusing to testify.

The Obama rat will take the fifth and that is fine with me, she will never have any standing in Washington at all for the rest of her life.

www.tmn.today...

The woman is bad business for the Democrats

a reply to: Boadicea

She is a rat a dirty rats, people have short time memories when is convenient

The woman who has been blamed with some accuracy for more fiascos than most can count is still with us. She first publicly demonstrated her bad judgment as far back as 1996 when as the Clinton National Security Council’s senior director for African affairs, she successfully urged the Clinton White House to refuse a Sudanese offer to turn al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden over to the United States. Bin Laden had helped engineer the first World Trade Center bombing and, but for Ms. Rice, would have been taken down before he and his buddies finally brought the towers down eight years later.

No doubt gaining prestige for this sage advice, Ms. Rice steadily rose to become what passes for a foreign policy superstar in the Clinton and Obama world, finally ending up as President Obama’s national security adviser, where she worked internally to weaken this country’s support of Israel and was constantly available to heap praise on her boss and his accomplishments. She was selected by the White House communications team after the terrorist attack in Benghazi to falsely blame a hapless filmmaker for the debacle lest Mr. Obama’s re-election narrative that he had the terrorists on the run be jeopardized. It was then that Ms. Rice came into her own as a liar.

Her dirty trail of lies only get overshadow by that of Hillary Clinton herself

www.washingtontimes.com...