Random Politics & Religion #22

Hold on, time out. Can you tell me what Susan Rice's job position was this time last year?

Did you not imply Trump didn't have the power to unmask?


Trump can't unmask but his national security advisor can?

Sorry, I thought she was still the ambassador.

Fine, as National Security Adviser, she would need to know.

How can you stipulate the surveillance wasn't used politically?

No she wouldn't, not unless it was going to be used for political purposes.

Neither Trump nor his team was under surveillance. If they were just caught up in the spying (as so many insist) then there is no reason for Rice to need to know who the targets were talking to.

No, I never implied the POTUS didn't have the power to unmask. I stated he cannot "weaponize" the IC.

What legal grounds does she have at unmasking innocent Americans? Especially unmasking them in regards to activity that is not considered illegal?

Again, 4th Amendment says hi, regardless if you think that illegal searches are relevant or not.

Or help spread it across agencies who do not need to know.

So if she doesn't have that power to unmask people, then why did she need to know?

Yes but when I said "weaponize the IC" I meant unmasking masked individuals.

[REDACTED]








It's in the NBC article Niko linked.

Question to Vic:

Does Trump have Constitutional Rights?

How about that Carter Page?

I know it's in that article, it's in there because it's something Rice herself claims is part of her job. That still isn't an answer to "how is it part of her job? OR why does she need to know?".

This is tiresome, lets just cut to the chase.

Is improperly unmasking US citizens involved in incidental surveillance a way to weaponize intel?

No he doesn't. Not only is he failing to support "The Cause" but he actively fights against the Righteously Divine People. This categorizing him as underneath slime and thus not a human being. Because he's not a human he doesn't have constitutionally protected rights.

What makes this so strange is that while I'm being facetious, when we take a step back we realize this is the exact thought process liberals are using right now. They are categorizing entire swaths of the US population as "otherness" and taking away both the identity and the humanity of those people. It's the exact opposite of the tolerance they profess to have.

Think about it, those "others" shouldn't have the right to vote, shouldn't be allowed to speak, shouldn't be listened to and shouldn't exist. How many liberal posters have in this very forum dehumanized anyone who voted against them? It's why I treat them as religious fanatics and hypocrites.

Yeah I screwed up that edit -_-

What crimes are they being investigated for committing?

Protip: Winning an election is not a crime. No matter how much you wish it to be now.

Unmasking intel is illegal, especially distributing such intel to agencies that do not need to know. Why would you unmask Americans, especially presidential candidates (and would-be President, since the unmasking and distribution occurred after Trump was elected) be considered anything but illegal, especially when neither a crime has been charged nor a real investigation has occurred (the only investigation that occurred is a witch-hunt).

Protip: Trump weighs more than a log.

Are you seriously going to tell us that the unmasking and distribution was not for political purposes, even though she is more than likely not the person who leaks information to the press?

Its well within the National Security Adviser's purview to want to know who is talking to foreign entities, especially if they are talking to the Russians or Chinese. You are just trying to diminish the position to fit your narrative. Its not illegal nor improper for the NSA to want to know that. That is basically the the entire purpose of the NSC. What were these people talking about? Who were these people? Were they a threat? What possible business could they have with foreign entities? All legitimate questions.

Unmasking names is not illegal, you still haven't explained where you are getting this idea from. And no, the 4th Amendment is not in play. Sharing them with the intel community is also not illegal. You can bold it all you want, but just because you say they don't need to know doesn't make it so. All outgoing communications are monitored during a transition, for every administration, its not illegal.
The only illegal act that has occurred is leaking Flynn's name to the press. Thats it. And there is no evidence to suggest it was Rice.
Oh and, you are making up the motives for unmasking the names, but even if it was for political purposes, its still not illegal.

Sounds personal.

You're still not answering the question. Telling me she has a right to know it akin to saying "I don't know why and I don't care".

Rice doesn't do the "analysis" part of intel. The Who what where when why of who is talking to who isn't part of her job. It's done by analysts 6-7 layers below her in those agencies. By the time it gets to her, she and the WH are consumers of what is produced.

So what did she and obama do with all the dozens of unmasked incidental surveillance of trump? Can we know that, because something that did happen was that it was leaked to the media to hurt trump politically.

Nice copy and paste job. You forgot to cite the poster you lifted this from tho.

Seriously. This thread has a strict MLA format. Use it!

Rice is reportedly being called to testify before the House Intel committee.

(Shiroi, at this point you can still suspect this report of being "facts I don't like")

Pure Nausi bro.

Lets get back to why she might have requested the unmasking for all the incidental Trump surveillance?

They consider it facts I don't like because Brian Williams and Chris Matthews say it's facts I don't like.

They should know, they create it all the time!