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.

 

Former Obama security adviser declines invite to testify

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Just like Hillary will win lol.

Yes, they will.




posted on May, 4 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

You know Hillary is going to run again in 2020, I am sure she will, that power is just there, just there, if she stretches a bid more she think she may get it.




posted on May, 4 2017 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

She and Bill need more money, if Dems are that
obtuse, they deserve the fleecing.

She will never win





posted on May, 4 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: Flatfish

Well, despite your view of her good track record as a public servant, she is obviously hiding something and her refusal will only add fuel to the flames.

"...but she was not alone in her opinion and/or advice on the situation at the time"
Cool, she didn't work alone, got it.

"...far more complicated..."

Well, you don't know that. Logic says of course its complicated because its government, but thats everyday and thus, no excuse.


Well by your own logic, Donald Trump must also be "obviously hiding something" because of his refusal to make his tax returns public.

See how that works?

There is nothing for her to gain or clear up by giving testimony to the committee without being under oath.

It's like volunteering to take a lie detector test for the police. If you pass it, you're still not cleared of anything but if you fail it, you're instantly moved to the top of the suspect list. It's a lose/lose situation.

And yes, the Sudan offer during the Clinton years was thought to be highly suspect by many, if not most, foreign policy experts of the time. So no, she was not alone in her opinion.

Which by the way, for those of you who are overflowing with unfounded nefarious accusations, does NOT mean that she had assistance in any of your imaginary wrongdoings and/or illegal activities.

And when I say it's complicated, I'm implying that it's way to complicated for the simple minded folks who decided to hitch their wagon to the Trump train of ignorance to ever understand, government or not.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Flatfish

Susan Rice is all ready been know as a liar, her Benghazi link blunder is all its needed to keep her from having any position of power ever again.

And that is a fact that you can take to the bank and not is no coming from anybody rear end but Rice herself.



Only by the same nuts who are now trying to convince everyone that she is guilty of unlawfully making classified information public, based on nothing other than their wishful thinking.

Just in case you weren't aware, suspicion is the product of a guilty conscience. Just think about that for a while.


edit on 4-5-2017 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

I am sure she have a big enough of base that will keep funding her campaign, anything against Trump.

She lost a lot of money that is for sure, I wonder how much of that money was money from her laundering business, I mean her foundation.




posted on May, 4 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Oh, lord you need to distance yourself from CNN.




posted on May, 4 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

As much as I can't stand her, I hope she tries again.
It would ensure another victory against their crooks
and liars party.

Maybe we could find the missing 33,000 and Russia could
Release emails from the Crime Foundation.





posted on May, 4 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Flatfish

Oh, lord you need to distance yourself from CNN.



And switch to what?

Your previously cited "Tell Me Now" news source?

Or maybe "Tell Me Anything" news?

Or how about "Tell Me What I Want To Hear" news?

Give me a break!

Truth be told, I seldom ever watch CNN anyway. When it comes to cable news networks, I watch a little of them all
but I prefer MSNBC.
edit on 4-5-2017 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

She would have if Russia hadn't done what they did. Let's just be completely clear about that.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

She's not going to run again so that question will forever remain unanswered.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

No..we have evidence of that.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

And????
What?

Remember how the other investigation turned out? Or are you choosing to ignore that?

Too funny rickyboy. Your too funny.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

No. There's no connection. They are two entirely separate investigations.
She isn't involved in the Russian investigation.
Oh maybe you're confused. That's ok.

Rice is about the supposed wire tapping of trump tower.

Not the Russian hacking and interfering with the election.
It's kind of like the email issue. Her server and the DNC emails were often mixed up on these boards.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

In case you haven't heard both house and senate investigations have said they are looking into illegal leaks from spying activity.

Rand Paul has also gone public today to claim he had been told by several sources, who were able to relay specifics of conversations that he had in private, that he was also spied on by the Obama administration.

This goes way deeper than just spying on Trump. Obama and his cronies like Rice were spying on their political opponents. I suspect that is why Rice is refusing to go under oath and why the democrats are refusing to agree to call her in.

The can of worms it's opened though...
edit on 5/5/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Ok. I'm officially ignoring THIS post.

Lol.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Rice will have her day, but the dems don't want to distract from Yates' testimony, which will directly contradict the WH's narrative. Naturally, the republicans are anxious to put the focus on the leaks, so they want to grill her (Rice) about the incidental collection and the reasons for the unmasking (which she won't be able to talk about openly anyway). Isn't it funny how they're so upset about the fact that this information is surfacing, rather than the potential implications of the information itself?



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Agit8dChop

No. She requested unmasking in incidental collection of foreign actors in the normal course of her job. It had nothing to do with Russia. Totally separate investigations and actions.
You're mistaking this with the Flynn thing that Andrea Yates warned the Whitehouse about. That was illegal leaking but had nothing to do with Rice. And what this hearing was about.
There isn't going to be any hearings involving Rice.
She was dragged in by trumps ridiculous claim that Obama wiretapped him.
and THAT was a planned distraction of the Flynn investigation BTW. So I can understand the confusion.

edit on 552017 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Wrong.
Rice has already said that she requested unmasking from the summer of 2016 after the Russia story gained momentum.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

In the normal course of her job.
You realize that she wasn't a participant in this til Nunes combed through tons of documentation provided by the Whitehouse BTW and said EURICA got something to prove wiretapping and that had nothing to do with the Russian investigation. He was trying to justify trumps early March tweets claiming Obama had wiretapped trump tower. And trumps tweet was meant to be a distraction of the Russia investigation. Trumps tweet has been proven to be nonsense.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join