Report: H.R. McMaster Believes Susan Rice Did Nothing Wrong in Unmasking Requests
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
trump is a a moron if he lets these establishment rinos stay on his staff past Aug 30.
Kelly must kick all these morons out.
Even if that really is what McMasters thinks... why the hell is it being leaked as his his opinion.
Either McMasters denies he ever said this or he and the leakers need to be fired.
Kelly must kick all these morons out.
Even if that really is what McMasters thinks... why the hell is it being leaked as his his opinion.
Either McMasters denies he ever said this or he and the leakers need to be fired.
McMasters definitely has to disavow this. How would he be in a position to judge? How is he able to determine her motives? Because she had a plausible responsibility to look at intercepts? I can promise you, the Director of National Security does not sit around reading thousands of intercepts every day. Someone brought these to her. Then what happened after she unmasked them? Who had access to those files? I am guessing a lot of political people.
Rice had no authority to unmask, only to request which is then referred to the IC, if someone was unmasked then that data would be with IC.
Clapper's 12 hand picked analysts, that were reported as all 17 intell agencies, wrote the report regurgitating Crowdstrike's russia narrative. They were probably the same analysts who sat around all day finding monitored russians that they could then get rice powers rhodes and brennan to request an unmasking.
If those 12 were to have the book thrown at them, I bet they would have some interesting tales to tell to reduce their sentences.
did she request the unmasking? if so she had them unmasked... that is unmasking..
her defense would be she had a right to do so... not that since she did not have the authority she is excused.
yours is a ridiculously deceptive fake news argument.
her defense would be she had a right to do so... not that since she did not have the authority she is excused.
yours is a ridiculously deceptive fake news argument.
its gets worse.. for McMaster
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...n-rice-keep-security-clearance-secret-letter/
President Donald Trump’s National Security adviser H.R. McMaster allowed former President Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice to maintain her security clearance to access classified information — despite reservations Trump had about her motives.
McMaster sent an official letter to Rice informing her that she would maintain unfettered access to classified information, according to a report from Circa’s Sara Carter.
The president was not aware of his actions, according to two senior White House officials and an intelligence official.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...n-rice-keep-security-clearance-secret-letter/
President Donald Trump’s National Security adviser H.R. McMaster allowed former President Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice to maintain her security clearance to access classified information — despite reservations Trump had about her motives.
McMaster sent an official letter to Rice informing her that she would maintain unfettered access to classified information, according to a report from Circa’s Sara Carter.
The president was not aware of his actions, according to two senior White House officials and an intelligence official.
So if I request a burger be made at McDonalds, that means I made the burger?
She can request as many unmasking as she wants, it's routine and has proper protocol which is exactly why McMaster is agreeing with it.
You are the one who posts fake news (Seth Rich, fake peer reviews, Kim Dotcom), dont try to blame me for your nonsense.
you keep lying about the seth rich argument stuff. you misrepresented what fox news claimed and I disabused of it.
If you are working for the president and you order an improper drone strike which kills your political competition. You don't get to excuse your conduct by saying you did not have the authority to order the drone strike.
here was see how nefarious susan rices actions must have been.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...aign-members-obama-administration-fbi-cia-nsa
Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies. The national-security adviser is not an investigator. She is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic-party interests.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...aign-members-obama-administration-fbi-cia-nsa
If you are working for the president and you order an improper drone strike which kills your political competition. You don't get to excuse your conduct by saying you did not have the authority to order the drone strike.
here was see how nefarious susan rices actions must have been.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...aign-members-obama-administration-fbi-cia-nsa
Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies. The national-security adviser is not an investigator. She is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic-party interests.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...aign-members-obama-administration-fbi-cia-nsa
Last edited:
Correct. And even if a person is an investigator or authorized to review or request intelligence data that does not necessarily mean that it is a lawful exercise of their power. You have to examine what their purpose was for exercising the authority and access that they had. By way of analogy, a local prosecutor has all sorts of authority to initiate investigations, collaborate with other agencies, to speak with private citizens etc as part of their legitimate duties. But if they are accessing information or talking to others because they are snooping on political opponents then that is an abuse of power. You can't just give them a pass by saying "oh he/she is authorized to look at this or that or to talk to this person or another or to ask the police if they know this or that. They only have that authority as part of the lawful exercise of their powers.
Similarly you have a whole bunch of people saying that Susan Rice has the authority to look at this or that, to request this or that and so on. We don't know that. You have to examine her purpose and motives. I certainly do not trust Rice and would do a full investigation of her because she was one of the requesters and she is a known liar. But I doubt that she is the sole culprit if she is the culprit at all. But somewhere in that rat's nest that consists of Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, and Samantha Powers lies the answer. There was an exponential increase in the requests for intelligence files for Trump opponents during the campaign and it happened in their sphere of influence wherein they either did it or are responsible for the record-keeping that went with the requests out of their offices. As I said above, you can't just brush this away by saying that they authorized in their positions to have access to that or to request unmasking. You have to examine why they did it and it better be for some reason other than "because I could." Keep your eye on that Samatha Powers weasel. Her request level was suddenly off the charts. Fortunately the committee is looking at this so we dont need to do cloak and dagger speculation. If there is a good reason, then fine, let's hear it. If not, well then, .............more to come, much more.