Devin Nunes to Step Aside From House Russia Investigation

[AUDub 11,149]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/devin-nunes-house-intelligence-committee-russia.html?_r=0

Good. He's a partisan charlatan

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

The critical thinking skills of the right are strikingly non existent. Someone needs to tell them that the next election cycle Russia might favor the Democrat candidate. Especially if we take down Assad, Russia's favored terrorist leader. 

Someone on the Trump transition team had no business on the HIC investigating this situation anyway. Good riddance.

[AURaptor 1,125]

7 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/devin-nunes-house-intelligence-committee-russia.html?_r=0

Good. He's a partisan charlatan

 Pure nonsense. He is among the most ethical and levelheaded of any in Congress. Absolutely lame on his part. We have Susan Rice, lying yet once again, and this honorable person has to step down? What a complete joke. 

 

ETA -  I just found that trey gowdy  is going to head up the investigation now. Oh my! It looks like Nunes baited the Democrats into throwing him into the briar patch.  

  Way to go, Dims! 

[AURaptor 1,125]

3 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

The critical thinking skills of the right are strikingly non existent. Someone needs to tell them that the next election cycle Russia might favor the Democrat candidate. Especially if we take down Assad, Russia's favored terrorist leader. 

Someone on the Trump transition team had no business on the HIC investigating this situation anyway. Good riddance.

  Russia had zero part and Hillary being defeated. You're going to have to accept the truth, that the American people knew  she was the worst of the two candidates. 

Learn it

Know it

Live it 

[SaltyTiger 7,812]

5 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/devin-nunes-house-intelligence-committee-russia.html?_r=0

Good. He's a partisan charlatan

Is good to recuse himself from that committee. Big waste of time to continue chasing that squirrel up and down a tree.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

It's foolish to keep responding to someone who has you on ignore.

[AUUSN 823]

Nunes was a good soldier. Now that the mission is complete:

White House staff scours IC databases, shows it to Nunes.

Nunes showboats to the White House.

Gets the Susan Rice narrative launched.

Mission complete....step aside.

[AURaptor 1,125]

1 minute ago, AUUSN said:

Gets the Susan Rice narrative launched.

I'm sorry, is that the " narrative " where Susan Rice blatantly LIED , saying first she had no clue, no idea, not 1 inkling what so ever Nunes was talking about, then only days later, admits to ...oh, THAT spying ! Right. We spied, of course. But it wasn't political. MMkay ? We good ? Thanks bunches. 

 

THAT narrative ? 

[AUUSN 823]

5 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

I'm sorry, is that the " narrative " where Susan Rice blatantly LIED , saying first she had no clue, no idea, not 1 inkling what so ever Nunes was talking about, then only days later, admits to ...oh, THAT spying ! Right. We spied, of course. But it wasn't political. MMkay ? We good ? Thanks bunches. 

 

THAT narrative ? 

Nope.

[AURaptor 1,125]

25 minutes ago, AUUSN said:

Nope.

Well, THAT'S a big relief. Because she certainly DID exactly that, so I'm glad we're talking about another Susan Rice narrative. 

 

 

[AUUSN 823]

[AURaptor 1,125]

Screw the US Constitution ! Do it for HER ! 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Now if Adam Schiff will recuse himself from the investigation, then maybe the investigation can be taken seriously and not be viewed as nothing but a partisan investigation. Schiff's defense of Susan Rice's double speak just shows he's as much a partisan as people say Nunes is but I'm sure resident liberals will argue he's not. It just shows the double standard's that the left love to employ. Jeff Sessions doesn't tell the whole truth, and the left howl that he should step down as AG. Susan Rice doesn't tell the truth on unmasking Trump officials, and yet the left defend her and attack Republicans for pointing out her not being truthful.

[homersapien 11,379]

19 hours ago, AURaptor said:

 Pure nonsense. He is among the most ethical and levelheaded of any in Congress. Absolutely lame on his part. We have Susan Rice, lying yet once again, and this honorable person has to step down? What a complete joke. 

 

ETA -  I just found that trey gowdy  is going to head up the investigation now. Oh my! It looks like Nunes baited the Democrats into throwing him into the briar patch.  

  Way to go, Dims! 

That's funny!!!   

[homersapien 11,379]

15 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Now if Adam Schiff will recuse himself from the investigation, then maybe the investigation can be taken seriously and not be viewed as nothing but a partisan investigation. Schiff's defense of Susan Rice's double speak just shows he's as much a partisan as people say Nunes is but I'm sure resident liberals will argue he's not. It just shows the double standard's that the left love to employ. Jeff Sessions doesn't tell the whole truth, and the left howl that he should step down as AG. Susan Rice doesn't tell the truth on unmasking Trump officials, and yet the left defend her and attack Republicans for pointing out her not being truthful.

BS.

Schiff is doing his job.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

BS.

Schiff is doing his job.

So Susan Rice didn't lie on March 22 in an interview on PBS saying she had no knowledge of the unmasking/surveillance of Trump transition officials?

 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

 

The fact that Adam Schiff is defending Susan Rice, should show everyone that Shiff is partisan on the Russian investigation.

[homersapien 11,379]

BS.

What did Rice do that's not part of her job?

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

BS.

What did Rice do that's not part of her job?

Why did she lie on March 22 on PBS and say she had no knowledge of the surveillance of Trump transition officials if it was part of her job?

[homersapien 11,379]

1 hour ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Why did she lie on March 22 on PBS and say she had no knowledge of the surveillance of Trump transition officials if it was part of her job?

Because it wasn't Trump transition officials that were the object of surveillance.

[homersapien 11,379]

Trump’s Russia Distractions Are Getting Desperate

Susan Rice’s alleged “unmasking” wasn’t illegal, or even unusual

by Fred Kaplan

President Trump and his aides have been doing all they can to divert attention from the mounds of evidence linking him or his campaign aides to Russian intelligence, but the latest distraction—the Susan Rice “unmasking”—ranks among the most desperate. Yet because the issues it raises are so obscure and confusing, it might also prove among the most effective. So let us wade into the muck.

Here are the facts, as we now know them. Sometime after the 2016 election, Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser, obtained transcripts of telephone conversations in which Russian officials were discussing members of Trump’s transition team. It is unclear, from the news accounts, whether the Russians were talking with these team members or simply talking about them. Either way, under strictly observed law, the National Security Agency, which intercepted those phone calls, is required to redact the names of all American citizens or residents who happen to take part, or be mentioned, in such conversations—and, instead, to identify them as “U.S. Person 1,” “U.S. Person 2,” and so forth. As a result, the names of Trump associates in the Russian phone calls were “masked” in the transcript.

The charge is that Rice asked the NSA to unmask the names. According to Eli Lake, in Bloomberg News, this is the big revelation that Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, learned during his secret visit to the White House on March 21 and described in vague terms to reporters the following day. Nunes and some other Republicans say this supports Trump’s claim that the Obama White House had Trump’s team under surveillance.

Further outrage comes from the editorial page of Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, which describes Rice’s request for the uncensored names as “highly unusual—and troubling” and says of Nunes’ allegation, “Now we know he is onto something.” In fact, however, Rice’s request was not at all unusual or troubling. Nor does the whole business lend the slightest support to the (thoroughly rejected) notion that the Obama White House was spying on Trump’s team.

I asked retired Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of the National Security Agency, whether it’s unlawful or even unusual for someone in Rice’s position to ask the NSA to unmask the names of Americans caught up in intercepts. He replied, in an email, “Absolutely lawful. Even somewhat routine.”

He added, “The request to unmask would not be automatically granted. NSA would adjudicate that, although I’m certain a request from the national security adviser would carry great weight.”

Hayden also said, “There are very plausible, legitimate reasons why she would request such information.” Though he didn’t elaborate on what those reasons might have been, the pertinent regulations specify that unmasking might be requested, and allowed, if the names in question are pertinent to foreign intelligence. When Rice made her request, there were ongoing investigations of Russia’s involvement in the election, of the role Trump advisers might have played in this involvement, and of efforts by some of these advisers to undermine U.S. foreign policy, specifically on sanctions toward Russia.

It’s worth noting that we don’t know—or at least no news story about the incident has reported—whether the NSA granted Rice’s request and gave her the unmasked names. Even if she did, Hayden emphasized in his email, “the identities would be unmasked only for her”—and not for any other official who received the transcript.

“To summarize,” Hayden wrote in his email, “on its face, not even close to a smoking gun.”

It’s hardly out of the ordinary for a White House official like Rice, with high security clearances, to request unmasking. In Tuesday’s Washington Post, Glenn Kessler quotes Michael Doran, a former NSC aide under President George W. Bush, as saying, “I did it a couple of times.”

Another former NSC official, who asked not to be named, told me, “There is a well-established, well-used process for requesting that such information be revealed. You have to have a reason beyond simple curiosity that is tied to some legitimate national-security or law-enforcement purpose.” The intelligence agencies, the ex-official added by email, “take this requirement VERY seriously.” Though this ex-official knows nothing about the situation with Rice, he said that, since she was doing transition work with Trump’s team at the time, it would have been “highly relevant to know whether these people were talking with the Russian government as well.”

For all the drama about these charges (“Susan Rice Unmasked,” blares the Journal editorial), no one has alleged she’s guilty of violating any rules. Lake’s article in Bloomberg News conceded, “Rice’s unmasking requests were likely within the law.” The Journal allowed, “The surveillance was legally authorized.”

Hayden allowed that “appropriate officials” might want to investigate precisely why Rice asked for the names or whether she shared the information she received (if she ever actually received it). But even these matters are irrelevant to the real question at hand: whether Team Trump colluded with senior Russian officials to tilt the election. The Rice story is not even relevant to what Trump has tried to depict as the real question: whether Obama was spying on Trump Tower.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2017/04/the_bogus_susan_rice_unmasking_story_shows_how_desperate_the_white_house.html

[homersapien 11,379]

2 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

So Susan Rice didn't lie on March 22 in an interview on PBS saying she had no knowledge of the unmasking/surveillance of Trump transition officials?

 

That tape segment has obviously been edited.

The exact question she is responding to is not even included.

 And you can see another "jump" at about 30 seconds.

 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That tape has apparently been edited to remove the question she was asked.

 It didn't remove context. The question was the same as presented by Judy Woodruff before it cuts to Susan Rice's answer. Just because they edited the video and removed Woodruff's one on one interview question didn't change anything. 

Here's a different video with Judy Woodruff asking the same question in the last video which you're complaining about because it edited out Woodruff's question:

 

[AURaptor 1,125]

c'mon '91, that was HIGHLY edited ! Just like the Planned Parenthood videos from Project Veritas !! 

 

 

[homersapien 11,379]

1 hour ago, AURaptor said:

c'mon '91, that was HIGHLY edited ! Just like the Planned Parenthood videos from Project Veritas !! 

 

 

That clip was edited Rapture.  The exact question Rice was asked is not included and there are obvious jumps. The PP videos were also edited.  That has been proven. 

Only weasels are so amused by the simple truth.