Susan Rice’s White House Unmasking: A Watergate-style Scandal....By Andrew C. McCarthy

[mystery-ak]

 Susan Rice’s White House Unmasking: A Watergate-style Scandal
Her interest was not in national security but to advance the political interests of the Democratic party.
By Andrew C. McCarthy — April 4, 2017

The thing to bear in mind is that the White House does not do investigations. Not criminal investigations, not intelligence investigations.

Remember that.

Why is that so important in the context of explosive revelations that Susan Rice, President Obama’s national-security adviser, confidant, and chief dissembler, called for the “unmasking” of Trump campaign and transition officials whose identities and communications were captured in the collection of U.S. intelligence on foreign targets?

Because we’ve been told for weeks that any unmasking of people in Trump’s circle that may have occurred had two innocent explanations: (1) the FBI’s investigation of Russian meddling in the election and (2) the need to know, for purposes of understanding the communications of foreign intelligence targets, the identities of Americans incidentally intercepted or mentioned. The unmasking, Obama apologists insist, had nothing to do with targeting Trump or his people.

That won’t wash.

more
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/446415/print

[Victoria33]

The National Review has an opinion and there are "gobs" of opinions being written.  I will wait until the actual facts come out before accusing this one and that one of something when I don't know the facts.  Rice, in her position, could ask for unmasking but the intelligence agency who had that info. did not have to give it to her.  They would have if the reason was legitimate and we don't know what that reason was.  In fact, we don't know if Rice actually had the info. and don't know if she gave it to anyone if she had it.  There are too many unknowns to know what happened.

[don-o]

The National Review has an opinion and there are "gobs" of opinions being written.  I will wait until the actual facts come out before accusing this one and that one of something when I don't know the facts.  Rice, in her position, could ask for unmasking but the intelligence agency who had that info. did not have to give it to her.  They would have if the reason was legitimate and we don't know what that reason was.  In fact, we don't know if Rice actually had the info. and don't know if she gave it to anyone if she had it.  There are too many unknowns to know what happened.

So what is one to make of #dirtyrice going from "know nothing about it" to "not for political purposes" in the space of two weeks?

@Victoria33

[Victoria33]

So what is one to make of #dirtyrice going from "know nothing about it" to "not for political purposes" in the space of two weeks?
@Victoria33

@don-o

When her name first came up, we did not know she had asked for unmasking names of certain communications.  We now know she did ask and it went through the process and was given to her.  However, what she said was, she knew nothing about "leaking" as she did not "leak'" the names.  We don't know how many with top clearance had the actual names so we don't know who leaked names.  We have known for some time that Trump people met with the Russians/had communications with the Russians, that was not secret information.

[don-o]

@don-o

When her name first came up, we did not know she had asked for unmasking names of certain communications.  We now know she did ask and it went through the process and was given to her.  However, what she said was, she knew nothing about "leaking" as she did not "leak'" the names.  We don't know how many with top clearance had the actual names so we don't know who leaked names.  We have known for some time that Trump people met with the Russians/had communications with the Russians, that was not secret information.

All I am saying is that the "not for political purposes" phrase makes one wonder why it was added, when a simple "No" would  have sufficed.