Discussion»Questions»Politics» It has been proven Trump team was "incidentally" wiretapped. Susan Rice involved and lied. Also lied about Benghazi.Will she be investigated
Google "Susan Rice unmasked Trump" and take your pick. Morning Joe played a who host of interviews where she said she knew nothing about and incidental surveillance of the Trump team, this morning.
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/breaking-down-reports-of-unmasking-what-it-means-913504835952
This post was edited by my2cents at April 4, 2017 11:11 PM MDT
Nah, was asking for the source(s) your conclusions/accusations are based on. I don't want to go trough articles en mas to guess which one(s) you are making use of, next you telling me it's the wrong one.
Using proven as a fact in the context of your question seems a bit hasty, based on this clip anyway.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 4, 2017 9:16 AM MDT
There is no question that the incoming Trump team was "incidentally" wiretapped....that is not an IF anymore. The question now is why were they unmasked and why the files were then disputed throughout several agencies. And why if Rice was the unmasker did she deny knowledge. All of the news station are reporting....Rice was the one who unmasked them. If it was not there then there would have been no one to unmask.
If Trump was unmasked the order came from a department head. If it has been proven he was unmasked the trail leads up to that person and demands them to either accept responsibility or admit to a breakdown in citizen protection laws that amounts to a crime. Most Americans may not know the names of ordinary citizens are normally masked to protect their identities during surveillance when they are not the target. Unmasking them needs a legal motive. Seems Susan is not done falling on her sword for her party.
This post was edited by O-uknow at April 4, 2017 11:12 PM MDT
I hear she has wiggle room. She may have been ordered to unmask the names, she was not the one who did it and/or Obama by executive decision changed the law allowing unmasking to be done on an as need basis related to national security.
This post was edited by O-uknow at April 5, 2017 8:19 AM MDT
The problem at this point in time is that there are still a lot of unanswered questions. I think it all depends upon the prevailing laws. From what I've been reading, the head of the NSA has a great deal of legal latitude and at this time, it appears she did nothing illegal. Unless she was under oath, she can't be prosecuted for lying. I think she should be requested to testify under oath before the senate. If they are able to uncover something that can be used to launch a formal investigation, then it should be done. If they don't and nothing points to her lying under oath, it would be a waste of tax dollars to continue any further investigation IMHO. However, I'm sure Trump will continue his search to uncover something that he can fully investigate and prosecute. Either way, this whole business is sickening to me. Things on both sides of the fence need to be unraveled. The American people deserve to know the truth.
She was not under oath. Rice was on the Sunday news shows saying she knew nothing about any incidental surveilance....if she is the one who ordered the names unmasked....then she lied on the Sunday shows. Just as she lied on the Sunday shows before talking about Benghazi claiming it was a protest about a video. And her unmasking may not have been a crime....the law gives them a lot of head way for this. But she did lie about it...in the last 2 weeks.
Yes. I'm aware that she lied on television. I think you might have misunderstood me due to my wording? We both agree, she wasn't under oath. It's why I believe she needs to be required to testify in front of the Senate. I think it will happen. But, once in front of the Senate, if her testimony holds up (meaning she doesn't perjure herself and it's established she worked within the guidelines of the law) then we shouldn't waste any more money on further investigations. (Unless, of course, someone is able to make a case for perjury and/or illegality).
Sorry..this all one big distraction but it highlights a bigger problem and the Trump propaganda machine is opening a bigger can of worms. Any wiretapping done was not directed at Trump Trump team members may have been bagged because they were talking with people under surveillance for spying or whatever.
This is pretty damn funny to me. It reminds me of the outrage that ensues when a criminal who was caught red-handed in the act has his case against him dismissed because of a technicality.
Boy is Trump & Company sweating bullets! They reek of desperation
Yes that is why it is called "incidental" because they were not direct target. But when that happens the US citizen is not supposed to be identified in the reports (the ID is redacted/masked) and in this case they were unmasked and the info was distributed to different agencies. This is the problem. Rice supposedly the one who unmasked it. Then she just denied it on several interviews.
Yes he did word it wrong. But I know if I were the one on the taps and was unmasked. I would not care if it was incidental or not and would probably feel the head person in charge is the one to blame. And this is not the first time Rice has lied publicly for Obama administration.
Benedict Arnold 