Devin Nunes to Step Aside From House Russia Investigation

[homersapien 11,461]

2 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

 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:

 

Thanks for providing an unaltered tape.

I agree with you.  

She either lied or she misunderstood the question.  She obviously had to know about it since she is the one who asked for the names to be unmasked.

From what she goes on to say, it sounded like she may have misunderstood the question.  She essentially confirms what actually happened and I don't think there is any dispute of that. And why lie about something if the facts are already known?  (Only Trump does that.)

Having said that, what bearing does this have on the charge that the Trump administration was being wiretapped?

[AURaptor 1,128]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

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. 

 

ALL videos are edited, when posted on t.v. D.A.  Every single one of them. But unlike w/ NBC, which twisted and changed the context AND content of the police call from George Zimmerman " he looks black ", none of the context was remotely changed here or w/ the Veritas videos. 

 

I know you're too dim to understand though. And I don't have time to explain it to your child like mind. 

[homersapien 11,461]

Another interpretation:

Woodruff: "We’ve been following a disclosure by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee,  Devin Nunes, that in essence, during the final days of the Obama administration, during the transition, after President Trump had been elected, that he and the people around him may have been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals in that their identities may have been disclosed. Do you know anything about this?"

Rice: I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.

Let’s back up and recall where we have been. The president of the United States accused his predecessor, President Obama, of wiretapping Trump tower during the campaign. Nothing of the sort occurred, and we’ve heard that confirmed by the director of the FBI, who also pointed out that no president, no White House, can order the surveillance of another American citizen. That can only come from the Justice Department with approval of a FISA court.....

It’s possible, given the question asked, Rice was trying to say that she didn’t know what Nunes was specifically talking about, as opposed to not knowing anything about incidental surveillance pickups of Trump’s associates generally — an explanation Rice herself gave on Twitter April 4.

"I said I did not know what reports Nunes was referring to when he spoke to the press. I still do not. But the full (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence) needs to know," she tweeted.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/apr/07/context-did-susan-rice-lie-about-unmasking-trump-a/

 

[homersapien 11,461]

4 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

 

ALL videos are edited, when posted on t.v. D.A.  Every single one of them. But unlike w/ NBC, which twisted and changed the context AND content of the police call from George Zimmerman " he looks black ", none of the context was remotely changed here or w/ the Veritas videos. 

 

I know you're too dim to understand though. And I don't have time to explain it to your child like mind. 

As 91 just demonstrated, it is possible and routine to present a video segment without editing, so your statement is false.

And your childish personal insults really, really hurt!  

 

[AURaptor 1,128]

30 minutes ago, homersapien said:

As 91 just demonstrated, it is possible and routine to present a video segment without editing, so your statement is false.

And your childish personal insults really, really hurt!  

 

There was never an issue of whether it was possible or not. Of course the full videos exist. But most of the time they're edited when put on t.v., for time purposes. The whole interviews, the entire videos, are STILL there, Gomer. Just like Veritas will post hours of their raw footage on their website, but only show a few minutes, to get the message across. 

You're too simple for me to waste time explaining how a full video can be edited to show either the full context ,or remove the context, and it still be the same damn video. 

 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Thanks for providing an unaltered tape.

I agree with you.  

She either lied or she misunderstood the question.  She obviously had to know about it since she is the one who asked for the names to be unmasked.

From what she goes on to say, it sounded like she may have misunderstood the question.  She essentially confirms what actually happened and I don't think there is any dispute of that. And why lie about something if the facts are already known?  (Only Trump does that.)

Having said that, what bearing does this have on the charge that the Trump administration was being wiretapped?

 

She was misleading because she was trying not to implicate herself to the Trump surveillance issue. The problem is that she had to have known about what was going on because it was part of her job to unmask and find out who a U.S. person was in a report so she could better weigh the significance of the report. That's what she admitted to on MSNBC on April 4. 

 

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

It’s possible, given the question asked, Rice was trying to say that she didn’t know what Nunes was specifically talking about, as opposed to not knowing anything about incidental surveillance pickups of Trump’s associates generally — an explanation Rice herself gave on Twitter April 4.

"I said I did not know what reports Nunes was referring to when he spoke to the press. I still do not. But the full (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence) needs to know," she tweeted.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/apr/07/context-did-susan-rice-lie-about-unmasking-trump-a/

 

 

Her tweet on April 4 was hours after she had already done the interview on MSNBC.

[homersapien 11,461]

2 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

 

She was misleading because she was trying not to implicate herself to the Trump surveillance issue. The problem is that she had to have known about what was going on because it was part of her job to unmask and find out who a U.S. person was in a report so she could better weigh the significance of the report. That's what she admitted to on MSNBC on April 4. 

 

 

Her tweet on April i4 was hours after she had already done the interview on MSNBC.

You have a link to the MSNBC Apr. 4 report?  I haven't seen it.  

And like I said, if you assume she understood the question, she lied.  I don't necessarily think that for the reasons I mentioned, but for the sake of argument I will concede she lied.

I think Trump threw the "Obama tapped me" accusation out as a diversion to distract media attention the 'Russian connection with his campaign" question. While he may be a narcissistic psychopath, he is undeniably a master at manipulating the media.  This is a classic example.

But, it's been debunked. There is no way Obama could have wiretapped Trump outside of the protocols of doing so and there has been no evidence of an illegal wiretapping.  Nothing Rice said changes that, lie or not. 

In other words, attaching far-fetch motivations to her is hardly evidence that anyone wiretapped Trump directly.

More more importantly, they are separate issues.

Trump introduced it to compete for attention with the Russian question. Whatever Susan Rice might say is totally irrelevant to the question of whether a Russian collaboration existed.  

On the other hand, the fact that Trump staff were unmasked as parties in communication with the Russians support the premise his campaign was collaborating with them.

[AURaptor 1,128]

33 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I think Trump threw the "Obama tapped me" accusation out as a diversion to distract media attention the 'Russian connection with his campaign" question. While he may be a narcissistic psychopath, he is undeniably a master at manipulating the media.  This is a classic example.

But, it's been debunked. There is no way Obama could have wiretapped Trump outside of the protocols of doing so and there has been no evidence of an illegal wiretapping.  Nothing Rice said changes that, lie or not. 

1. There IS no ' Russia connection ' , Gomer. None. You want there to be one, to some how explain Hillary's loss. 

2. It hasn't been debunked. Quite to the contrary, Susan Rice has come out and flatly admitted Trump was monitored. 

3. Collaborating " how ", exactly ? In what manner ? To what end ? Surely, if the govt had all this surveillance going on, and KNEW who was talking to who, why didn't Obama move on the intel ? I mean, if there was anything illegal going on, why risk jeopardizing the election and see Hillary ( along w/ his own legacy ) lose to such a corrupt, illegal doings of the Trump campaign ? 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/04/04/susan_rice_i_leaked_nothing_to_nobody.html

 

Quote

RICE: Well, Andrea, this is not anything political that has been alleged. The allegation is that somehow Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes. That's absolutely false.

Let me explain how this works. I was the National Security Advisor. My job is to protect the American people and the security of our country. That's the same as the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the CIA director. And every morning, to enable us to do that, we received from the intelligence community a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us on a daily basis to give us the best information as to what's going on around the world. 

I received those reports, as did each of those other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which a U.S. person was referred to. Name not provided, just a U.S. person. And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance of the report, and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out, or request the information, as to who the U.S. official was.

Let me give you just a hypothetical example. This is completely made up. But let's say there was a conversation between two foreigners about a conversation they were having with an American, who was proposing to sell to them high-tech bomb making equipment. Now, if that came to me as National Security Advisor, it would matter enormously. Is this some kook sitting in his living room communicating via the internet, offering to sell something he doesn't have? Or is it a serious person or company or entity with the ability to provide that technology perhaps to an adversary? That would be an example of a case where knowing who the U.S. person was, was necessary to assess the information. 

So when that occurred, what I would do, or what any official would do, is to ask their briefer whether the intelligence committee would go through its process -- and there's a long-standing, established process -- to decide whether that information as to who the identity of the U.S. person was could be provided to me. So they'd take that question back, they'd put it through a process, and the intelligence community made the determination as to whether or not the identity of that American individual could be provided to me. 

That is what I and the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, CIA director, DNI, would do when we received that information. We'd only do it to protect the American people, to do our jobs in the national security realm. That's the only reason.

MITCHELL: Within that process, and within the context of the Trump campaign, the Trump transition, did you seek the names of people involved in -- to unmask the names of people involved in the Trump transition, the Trump campaign, people surrounding the president-elect --

RICE: Let me begin --

MITCHELL: -- in order to spy on them, in order to expose them. 

RICE: Absolutely not for any political purposes, to spy, expose, anything. But let me -- 

MITCHELL: Did you leak the name of Mike Flynn? 

RICE: I leaked nothing to nobody and never have and never would. 

But let me explain this. First of all, Andrea, to talk about the contents of a classified report, to talk about the individuals on the foreign side, who were the targets of the report itself, or any Americans that may have collected upon incidentally, is to disclose classified information. I'm not going to do that. And those people who are putting these stories out are doing just that. 

I can't describe any particular report I saw, and by the way I have no idea what reports are allegedly are being described by those who are putting out this story. I don't know what time frame they were from, I don't know the subject matter, and I don't know who they think was collected upon. 

MITCHELL: The allegation is that, in one case, they are alleging in "The Daily Caller", that there was a spreadsheet that you put out of all of these names.

RICE: Absolutely false.

MITCHELL: And circulated.

RICE: No spreadsheet, no nothing of the sort. 

Let me also elaborate and say that when the intelligence community would respond to a request from the senior national security official for the identify an American, that would come back only to the person requested it. And it would be brought back to them directly. 

MITCHELL: To you directly.

RICE: To me, or to whoever might have requested it, on occasion, and this is important. It was not then typically broadly disseminated throughout the national security community or the government. So the notion that -- which some people are trying to suggest, that by asking for the identity of an American person, that is the same as leaking it, is completely false. There's no equivalence between so-called unmasking and leaking.

The effort to ask for the identify of the American citizen is necessary to understand the importance of an intelligence report in some instances.

Rice admitted to unmaskiing Trump transition/campaign officials but denies leaking them or spying on them for political purposes.

This tap dance about not understanding the allegations that Trump's transition officials were under surveillance  and playing semantics about unmasking Trump campaign persons is ridiculous on Rice's part. 

[homersapien 11,461]

9 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/04/04/susan_rice_i_leaked_nothing_to_nobody.html

 

Rice admitted to unmaskiing Trump transition/campaign officials but denies leaking them or spying on them for political purposes.

This tap dance about not understanding the allegations that Trump's transition officials were under surveillance  and playing semantics about unmasking Trump campaign persons is ridiculous on Rice's part. 

As I understood Rice's explanation regarding the PBS interview, she was saying that she knew nothing about exactly what Nunce revealed to the White House.  

This interview confirms that - she doesn't know exactly what Nunce revealed to the White House nor what report is the subject of the controversy.  She also says she has leaked no information to anyone.  Those statements are not incompatible.

Again, as far as Trump officials "being under surveillance", the premise is they were not the objects of surveillance, the Russians were, but the Russians were talking to them.  Nothing that Rice has said suggests otherwise.

But again, for the sake of argument, even if she had leaked the names that were unmasked,  how would that materially affect the possibility that Trump officials were working with Russia regarding their wiretapping of Democrats?

How does any of this support the charge that Trump or his staff were the objects of surveillance? 

This "tap dance" is about Trump trying to obfuscate the issue.  

 

 

[homersapien 11,461]

10 hours ago, AURaptor said:

1. There IS no ' Russia connection ' , Gomer. None. You want there to be one, to some how explain Hillary's loss. 

2. It hasn't been debunked. Quite to the contrary, Susan Rice has come out and flatly admitted Trump was monitored. 

3. Collaborating " how ", exactly ? In what manner ? To what end ? Surely, if the govt had all this surveillance going on, and KNEW who was talking to who, why didn't Obama move on the intel ? I mean, if there was anything illegal going on, why risk jeopardizing the election and see Hillary ( along w/ his own legacy ) lose to such a corrupt, illegal doings of the Trump campaign ? 

1. Rapture the Omnipotent rides again!    

2. Not true.  If it were, you could show us where she said that.

3. We don't know exactly, but knowing what is about to be leaked on Clinton would be a big advantage in terms of campaign emphasis.  Regardless, communication between the Trump organization and Russia regarding the campaign is significant enough without knowing exactly how they acted on it.  The leaks did affect the campaign.

And seriously, based on the information he had, what could Obama have done?  How would his interjecting himself into the campaign with such limited information be received?  (How would you have reacted had Obama announced this?)  

But let's find out.  Appoint a special prosecutor and he can supoena Obama for his testimony.

[AURaptor 1,128]

27 minutes ago, homersapien said:

1. Rapture the Omnipotent rides again!    

2. Not true.  If it were, you could show us where she said that.

3. We don't know exactly, but knowing what is about to be leaked on Clinton would be a big advantage in terms of campaign emphasis.  Regardless, communication between the Trump organization and Russia regarding the campaign is significant enough without knowing exactly how they acted on it.  The leaks did affect the campaign.

And seriously, based on the information he had, what could Obama have done?  How would his interjecting himself into the campaign with such limited information be received?  (How would you have reacted had Obama announced this?)  

But let's find out.  Appoint a special prosecutor and he can supoena Obama for his testimony.

There's been no evidence shown. Nothing, what so ever. How long are you ( and the Left ) going to keep claiming there MUST be , somewhere ? 

It's very true, and has already been shown. She first denied having any knowledge, and then came around and admitted she did it. DO keep up w/ the news, Gomer.

Knowing the truth about the Democrats, their attempt ( Debbie Wasserman-Shultz / Donna Brazile ) to rig the primaries as well as how the Hillary campaign overtly trying to start violent encounters at Trump events is only part of what Americans found out. And not all of that info came from hacking anyone's server or phishing their e-mail accounts.  Your premise is that because we knew how deviant and dishonest the Democrats were, and had no such knowledge on the GOP, then what, ... the election wasn't fair ?  

Democrats had ' contact ' with the Russians as well, so all of this is nothing but a complete sham. You know this too. 

How do you know Obama's info was " limited " ? You have no CLUE about what he knew!  And that's the point... there wasn't anything there ! If so, then Obama would have been duty bound to out that info asap. 

We already know. There's nothing to " find out ". No need for a special prosecutor. Just accept the election, move on, and deal w/ it. 

[homersapien 11,461]

27 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

There's been no evidence shown. Nothing, what so ever. How long are you ( and the Left ) going to keep claiming there MUST be , somewhere ? 

It's very true, and has already been shown. She first denied having any knowledge, and then came around and admitted she did it. DO keep up w/ the news, Gomer.

Knowing the truth about the Democrats, their attempt ( Debbie Wasserman-Shultz / Donna Brazile ) to rig the primaries as well as how the Hillary campaign overtly trying to start violent encounters at Trump events is only part of what Americans found out. And not all of that info came from hacking anyone's server or phishing their e-mail accounts.  Your premise is that because we knew how deviant and dishonest the Democrats were, and had no such knowledge on the GOP, then what, ... the election wasn't fair ?  

Democrats had ' contact ' with the Russians as well, so all of this is nothing but a complete sham. You know this too. 

How do you know Obama's info was " limited " ? You have no CLUE about what he knew!  And that's the point... there wasn't anything there ! If so, then Obama would have been duty bound to out that info asap. 

We already know. There's nothing to " find out ". No need for a special prosecutor. Just accept the election, move on, and deal w/ it. 

No, you already know.  Because you think you are omnipotent. But stop lying about what I think.  I think we need to find out.  The only way that will happen is with a special prosecutor.

And there is clearly evidence - as well as a history - regarding contact between Trump campaign officials and the Russians. 

If we can investigate Benghazi what, 7 times? for no reason, we can investigate this at least once.

If there's nothing there, then what are you so afraid of?

[AURaptor 1,128]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No, you already know.  Because you think you are omnipotent. But stop lying about what I think.  I think we need to find out.  The only way that will happen is with a special prosecutor.

And there is clearly evidence - as well as a history - regarding contact between Trump campaign officials and the Russians. 

If we can investigate Benghazi what, 7 times? for no reason, we can investigate this at least once.

If there's nothing there, then what are you so afraid of?

I follow the news. That makes me " omnipotent " ? If you say so !    And ANYONE who follows the news SHOULD be able, if they're honest, to see there's no evidence, just smoke, double talk and rancor from the Dems.  

There's nothing there to find out. By YOUR logic, any half baked conspiracy theory would need a special prosecutor " just to find out " that something is or isn't valid. Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, ... where are they on your list ?

There's plenty of evidence with damn near every politician and foreign representatives. That's what we DO, as a nation, is dialogue with other countries. But Trump ...  

4 Americans were killed,and you think there's no reason for us to find out why ? Good god, you are a flat out delusional partisan nutjob. Never mind that the admin LIED about what happened in Benghazi. It was never about a video. We KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE !  From the very start, it was a terrorist attack. 

Emails Show She Knew Immediately Attack Was Not Result of Video

If there's nothing there, what are you afraid of ?  Wow ! That's the truely pathetic logic of one who is a full blown useful idiot of the big state.  Sure, let's just go fishing for something, ANYTHING , simply because we hate Trump, and want the election to be overturned. Unbelievable. 

[homersapien 11,461]

7 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

I follow the news. That makes me " omnipotent " ? If you say so !    And ANYONE who follows the news SHOULD be able, if they're honest, to see there's no evidence, just smoke, double talk and rancor from the Dems.  

There's nothing there to find out. By YOUR logic, any half baked conspiracy theory would need a special prosecutor " just to find out " that something is or isn't valid. Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, ... where are they on your list ?

There's plenty of evidence with damn near every politician and foreign representatives. That's what we DO, as a nation, is dialogue with other countries. But Trump ...  

4 Americans were killed,and you think there's no reason for us to find out why ? Good god, you are a flat out delusional partisan nutjob. Never mind that the admin LIED about what happened in Benghazi. It was never about a video. We KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE !  From the very start, it was a terrorist attack. 

Emails Show She Knew Immediately Attack Was Not Result of Video

If there's nothing there, what are you afraid of ?  Wow ! That's the truely pathetic logic of one who is a full blown useful idiot of the big state.  Sure, let's just go fishing for something, ANYTHING , simply because we hate Trump, and want the election to be overturned. Unbelievable. 

Even though I know you can't, could you please try harder to stop lying?  

I never said Benghazi should not be investigated nor did I ever think that.

I am just pointing out that if we can investigate Benghazi seven times, we should at least investigate the Trump-Russian connection once.

And you clearly have an irrational adversion to doing that. If there is nothing there, what are you afraid of?

And again, please stop with the insults.  They are traumatizing me.  

 

 

[AURaptor 1,128]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Even though I know you can't, could you please try harder to stop lying?  

I never said Benghazi should not be investigated nor did I ever think that.

I am just pointing out that if we can investigate Benghazi seven times, we should at least investigate the Trump-Russian connection once.

And you clearly have an irrational adversion to doing that. If there is nothing there, what are you afraid of?

And again, please stop with the insults.  They are traumatizing me.  

 

 

I've never lied once, jackass. Stop telling me to STOP lying. Your inability to follow a coherent , sane conversation isn't by ANY stretch a case of me or anyone else lying. 

I never claimed that you said Benghazi should not be investigated. Now YOU stop lying. 

Benghazi has absolutely nothing to do w/ the non Trump-Russia issue. But thanks for showing everyone all YOU see here is a political tit-for-tat game, and nothing else. 

If there's nothing there, there's no reason for any investigation. There's no evidence. CLEARLY , you don't understand the nature of the law, or what it takes for investigations to be warranted. 

I'm not insulting you, I'm simply pointing out the inanity of your views. You stop making ridiculous comments, and false claims of me lying. 

[homersapien 11,461]

18 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

I never claimed that you said Benghazi should not be investigated. 

"4 Americans were killed,and you think there's no reason for us to find out why ? "

Liar.

[AURaptor 1,128]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"4 Americans were killed,and you think there's no reason for us to find out why ? "

Liar.

Not lying, that's how I see your callous, partisan whining over NOT wanting to admit that Benghazi was a full blown cover up, while then trying to connect imaginary dots to Trump , simply because you hate seeing him as President, and have nothing else better to do .

[homersapien 11,461]

20 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

I'm not insulting you, 

Liar:

" jackass"   "you are a flat out delusional partisan nutjob."    "Gomer" (twice)   "D.A"

"you're too dim to understand"   "your child like mind"    

(This is too easy.)

 

 Like this

 

 

[AURaptor 1,128]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Liar:

" jackass"   "you are a flat out delusional partisan nutjob."    "Gomer" (twice)   "D.A"

"you're too dim to understand"   "your child like mind"    

(This is too easy.) Like this

 

You insult me every time you call me a liar, every time you butcher my name, and expect no response ? 

But fact is, you are an idiot. Your views are of the worst ill informed , biased and petty nonsense. And it's all needlessly so, on your part, because instead of taking the time to actually deal in facts, you cling to sheltered views that support your cherished beliefs. You only spout that which you WISH were true, instead of accepting things as they are. 

That makes you an idiot, jackass and delusional nutjob . Because you CHOOSE to be those things. So I simply call you what you are. 

[homersapien 11,461]

2 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

You insult me every time you call me a liar, every time you butcher my name, and expect no response ? 

But fact is, you are an idiot. Your views are of the worst ill informed , biased and petty nonsense. And it's all needlessly so, on your part, because instead of taking the time to actually deal in facts, you cling to sheltered views that support your cherished beliefs. You only spout that which you WISH were true, instead of accepting things as they are. 

That makes you an idiot, jackass and delusional nutjob . Because you CHOOSE to be those things. So I simply call you what you are. 

Well, at least you admit you lied about it.  I suppose that's improvement.

(How's your blood pressure? )

[AURaptor 1,128]

20 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, at least you admit you lied about it.  I suppose that's improvement.

(How's your blood pressure? )

I admitted that you're a jack ass. No lie there. 

Why asking about my B P ? Are you intentionally trying to kill me ? Is that what you want ? Honestly ? 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

On 4/8/2017 at 8:09 AM, homersapien said:

As I understood Rice's explanation regarding the PBS interview, she was saying that she knew nothing about exactly what Nunce revealed to the White House.  

This interview confirms that - she doesn't know exactly what Nunce revealed to the White House nor what report is the subject of the controversy.  She also says she has leaked no information to anyone.  Those statements are not incompatible.

Again, as far as Trump officials "being under surveillance", the premise is they were not the objects of surveillance, the Russians were, but the Russians were talking to them.  Nothing that Rice has said suggests otherwise.

But again, for the sake of argument, even if she had leaked the names that were unmasked,  how would that materially affect the possibility that Trump officials were working with Russia regarding their wiretapping of Democrats?

 

Because Susan Rice had the power to unmask U.S. persons in a report. She spelled out how she did so in her interview on MSNBC Apr. 4, and she didn't deny that Trump officials had been unmasked, just that she didn't leak them and that it wasn't done politically. She was basically saying they may have been caught up incidentally from surveillance, not that they were the target. That's a far cry from her interview on PBS Mar. 22 where she flat out denied any knowledge of Trump officials being unmasked. I don't see why people would give her the benefit of the doubt since she's been caught multiple times giving dishonest answers over the past few years.

It's political what she did in that some of the alleged Trump officials that were swept up from surveillance were still part of Trump's campaign run for president. Unless there were some serious threats from Russia that had been picked up through surveillance, unmasking Trump officials simply for having contact with foreign officials seems political rather than for national security. It was part of her job to sometimes unmask U.S. persons in a report. If U.S. persons were unmasked, she would have known about it since she was the National Security Advisor. You can correctly say that what Rice did was legal; after all the NSA has the power to sweep up Americans in their surveillance and can request to unmask U.S. persons using national security as the reason for doing so, but that doesn't make what Rice did proper and morally justified. She's not above reproach and should be rightfully questioned since it's very likely she knew about Trump officials being unmasked. 

Adam Schiff has dismissed criticism of Susan Rice's double talk interviews and considers people going after her as part of the "Breitbart crowd" and using a Breitbart "formula". It's reasonable to question Schiff's bias and consider that he should recuse himself from leading the investigation since he's showing his partisanship and not looking at all the facts, only the one's he's interested in looking at. It's very likely that Susan Rice will become part of the Trump-Russia investigation at some point and might be asked to answer questions at a hearing. The fact that Schiff is already defending Rice should call into question his conflict of interest in leading the investigation.