Image 01 Image 03

Susan Rice unmasked? Previously said “I know nothing about” Nunes allegations

Susan Rice unmasked? Previously said “I know nothing about” Nunes allegations

Reports indicate discovery of pattern of unmasking requests by Rice prompted Devin Nunes actions.

Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice, infamous for lying repeatedly on national television about the Benghazi attack being the result of a video, may be at the center of the “unmasking” scandal uncovered by Congressman Devin Nunes.

We covered yesterday how Dems want Devin Nunes removed, but can’t unhear unmasking allegations.

Eli Lake at Bloomberg News reports on the discovery of a suspicious pattern of unmasking requests by Rice near the end of the Obama administration, Top Obama Adviser Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel:

White House lawyers last month discovered that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The pattern of Rice’s requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government’s policy on “unmasking” the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like “U.S. Person One.”

Lake argues that Rice’s requests do not necessarily violate the law, since she would have had broad authority to request unmasking, but that does not lessen the political impact:

But Rice’s multiple requests to learn the identities of Trump officials discussed in intelligence reports during the transition period does highlight a longstanding concern for civil liberties advocates about U.S. surveillance programs. The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice’s unmasking requests were likely within the law.

The news about Rice also sheds light on the strange behavior of Nunes in the last two weeks. It emerged last week that he traveled to the White House last month, the night before he made an explosive allegation about Trump transition officials caught up in incidental surveillance. At the time he said he needed to go to the White House because the reports were only on a database for the executive branch. It now appears that he needed to view computer systems within the National Security Council that would include the logs of Rice’s requests to unmask U.S. persons.

This information was first reported by Mike Cernovich in a post at Medium yesterday:

Susan Rice, who served as the National Security Adviser under President Obama, has been identified as the official who requested unmasking of incoming Trump officials, Cernovich Media can exclusively report.

The White House Counsel’s office identified Rice as the person responsible for the unmasking after examining Rice’s document log requests. The reports Rice requested to see are kept under tightly-controlled conditions. Each person must log her name before being granted access to them.

Upon learning of Rice’s actions, H. R. McMaster dispatched his close aide Derek Harvey to Capitol Hill to brief Chairman Nunes.

This could be a major league scandal, as Rice publicly has said “I know nothing” about Nunes’ allegations, Susan Rice on Trump’s wiretapping claim: ‘Nothing of the sort occurred.’

Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice pushed back Wednesday against President Donald Trump’s claim that he was wiretapped by the Obama administration during the 2016 election.

“Nothing of the sort occurred,” Rice told PBS NewsHour’s Judy Woodruff, in her first interview since stepping down as national security adviser when President Barack Obama left office.

Why hadn’t the NY Times or WaPo, with all their leak sources, previously reported this?

This post will be updated as more information emerges.

UPDATE: The Daily Mail reports, State Department insiders have discussed Susan Rice’s role in unmasking names ‘for weeks’:

The diplomat who is in line to be America’s next NATO ambassador said Monday that former National Security Advisor Susan Rice has been suspected ‘for weeks’ of involvement in an effort to publicly unmask Donald Trump associates whose names appeared in foreign intelligence reports.

And he claimed ten days ago that if Rice and her deputy Ben Rhodes were behind politically motivated leaks of classified intelligence, former president Barack Obama was also in the know.

‘Former State Department colleagues of mine have been talking about Susan Rice’s role for weeks,’ Richard Grenell told on Monday

‘She and her team certainly were hyper-partisan throughout their tenure. It makes sense.’


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“If @Cernovich scooped the NYT and MSM and they therefore simply refuse to report about #SusanRice, we will have reached peak lib media.”

No such limit.

The left’s depravity knows no bounds.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to fscarn. | April 3, 2017 at 12:55 pm

    As I recall Susan Rice is a BIG Democrat.

    So is almost 100% of the old MSM………

    Go figure….

    mzk in reply to fscarn. | April 4, 2017 at 2:26 pm

    The Is No Bottom. More to the point, there is no limit to what they can get away with.

There is a difference between being technically permitted to access information as a function of your position and “need to know”. Accessing classified information without a need to know is not permissible. Usually those of high rank aren’t questioned on their motives for access, but as you can see here, it is sometimes possible to discern motive after the fact.

Americans have little appetite for politicians using our security apparatus as their own private dicks. It is a violation of the trust we put in them to recognize and stay on the right side of a particular line when it comes to privacy.

I would like to see the flow chart or timeline made with what she signed for in the log book to unmask and the leaks/media/disseminators of said unmasked US citizens. And she reportedly did it dozens of times. And she SIGNED for it all.

    With the realization that if this had been a Hillary administration, those logs would promptly be classified, then either lost or declared permanently off-limits somehow.

      Voyager in reply to georgfelis. | April 3, 2017 at 8:33 pm

      I keep finding myself saying this it seems, but, even if there was nothing else Trump did, this alone, to me, tells me voting for him was worth it.

      It’s getting to be quite a list…

    OneVoiceInAmerica in reply to Elliott. | April 3, 2017 at 7:14 pm

    That would be great to see when she signed off on an item and how long it took for that information to leak out into the colluding media.

The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value,…

…or be needed for a Democrat witch-hunt.

Susan Rice lied and Americans died. Does anyone really think that, even if she told the truth, would anyone believe her?

Bucky Barkingham | April 3, 2017 at 12:23 pm

Rice didn’t lie about Trump’s wires being tapped. It was wireless communications which were intercepted. It all comes down to the meaning of “wires” doesn’t it?

    It was wireless communications which were intercepted.

    Also, they weren’t Trump’s communications.

      Voyager in reply to Awing1. | April 3, 2017 at 8:35 pm

      Merely everyone he ever talked to, or his team ever talked to, or were ever in proximity to, or wandered past the same building to or…

      It is an interesting philosophical question; when do a collection of trees become a forest, but in this case, it’s gotten way, way beyond that point.

        Awing1 in reply to Voyager. | April 3, 2017 at 9:12 pm

        The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations — primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials.

        Unless everyone Trump ever talked to is talking to monitored foreign officials, that’s a nonsensical claim.

Lying liars lie.

Unmasking for the purposes of the NSC is a far cry from the same information becoming public.

While Rice’s requests to unmask may not be illegal, they do act as a starting point to find out who leaked the unmasked information.

But really, what could Flynn and the Russian ambassador have said that could have required an unmasking ?

    Liz in reply to Neo. | April 3, 2017 at 5:10 pm

    Or… was the conversation between two foreign nationals and they talked about US Citizen 1?

    That raises the question of why, if there were no national security issues, were the US names revealed?

    Unless you were on a very secure line, you have to assume that you are being “wiretapped” or under surveillance by some means. So, a conversation could have been a gossip session or whatever?

If we don’t have anyting indictable, we don’t have anything useful. Just exposure of another lying dirtbag Dem; big deal. Except that this would be the same lying dirtbag Dem; and even smaller big deal.

As usual, the Dems will deny it, excoriate the accusers, and try to change the subject, and the Press will help them do it.

If we can get a criminal trial, then it becomes something real the Dems and the lackey Press can’t pretend isn’t there.

Ditto if the trail goes higher. ValJar? JugEars? If there’s no crime, there’s no indictment, no trial, no news, just the same-old same-old.

I gotta admit, Barack Obama must really know how to pick ’em.

Too bad he was always selecting for the bottom of the barrel.


Somebody wake me up when the arrests start.

inspectorudy | April 3, 2017 at 2:49 pm

I can only think that Rhodes and obama knew that this would eventually come out and for that reason, obama modified the dissemination by 16 more agencies so that any leaks or missteps by his minions would be much harder to pin down. Rice will say that she thought there was a national security problem and she will SWEAR that she did not tell or leak any name. This may well be true but when obama expanded the number of gencies that received this info, the chances of a leak were more than 16 times greater since each agency has many more employees. This stinks of Ben Rhodes evil greasy hands. This is as evil as the Benghazi video fantasy that he dreamed up. If there is anyone who needs to go to prison it is Rhodes.

    Agree. Eight days before leaving office Obama changes how this stuff is disseminated so all kinds of folks can access it. Then they push this bogus narrative about a Trump /Russian collusion to divert attention away for what really was going on. Using our intelligence agencies to look for dirt on a political opponent. The new orange should be Rice in a jumpsuit being led to the slammer.

      OneVoiceInAmerica in reply to bt1. | April 3, 2017 at 7:18 pm

      I thought there were some things leaked before bo signed that EO, wouldn’t there be some of the earlier leaks that would be easiest to track?

Rice has no expression on her face and never has which makes her well qualified to lie with a straight face. P.S. i think your site has been hacked , when i tried to log in, i was was swiftly taken to a site called activate your girl friend.

One thing about the MSM take on Nunes conversation is that they are trying to say it was a leak. It seems that it was a whistle-blower reporting on activity of the IC.

If it is a whistle-blower, then the actions of a person reporting to a member of congress appears to be very reasonable. From some reports that I have seen, Nunes was given report numbers and he was unable to get the detail delivered to him, so that is why he had to go to the WH Complex to view the information.

The MSM is guilty of misreporting or ignoring some critical facts about the disclosure.

This reporter has been informed that Maggie Haberman has had this story about Susan Rice for at least 48 hours, and has chosen to sit on it in an effort to protect the reputation of former President Barack Obama.

    heyjoojoo in reply to 4fun. | April 3, 2017 at 7:31 pm

    Just amazes me to no end how they want to protect this guy like he’s some god or something.

The LHMFM is already trying to defend Rice. They’re claiming that almost anything can be of intelligence value, and therefore Rice’s request to unmask the identities of the Americans involved is probably legal.

That’s not true. This was collected under a FISA or Foreign intelligence Surveillance Act warrant. She’d have to prove she asked for the identities to be unmasked because the Americans had said something of foreign intelligence value. Rice is a political hack; I bet she’s never heard of the intelligence cycle. If you asked her to name the five steps she’d look at you like a deer caught in the headlights. Intelligence can’t be almost anything; among other things it has to be relevant to a collection requirement. I.E. the justification for the FISA warrant under which it was collected.

Rice is a political hack, nothing more. She’s never been qualified for any job she’s ever held. Obama just put her in those jobs because she’s a loyal Obamunist whore.

Also, I have strong suspicions this so-called incidental collection wasn’t so incidental.

    Awing1 in reply to Arminius. | April 3, 2017 at 7:03 pm

    Considering the vast majority of the communications at issue here were entirely between foreign entities, and all included at least one foreign entity, what makes you think that a FISA “warrant” was involved?

    You do know that FISA “warrants” (technically they’re not warrants, but it is common for people to refer to them that way) only apply to intentional collection of entirely domestic communitications, communications where the target of the collection is a US person, or communications to or from persons in the US when the collection occurs within the US, right? Collecting Kremlin communications from a rental house down the street doesn’t require a FISA court order, even if the person on the other end of the line is Mike Flynn sitting in Trump Tower, so long as Flynn isn’t the target.

    Now, they’re still required to treat information about US Persons with certain safeguards all the same, but you should know the basics of FISA and how it works.

      Arminius in reply to Awing1. | April 3, 2017 at 8:37 pm

      I have a basic understanding of FISA and I wonder if you do. A warrant (I’m going to continue to call them warrants because the people involved in the activity call them warrants, but you call them court orders if it makes you feel better) are required for domestic surveillance within the US for foreign intelligence purposes. The target must be a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

      It is not necessary for the agent of the foreign power to be a US person. I have no idea where you get the notion that the target must be a US person. No where in the Foreign intelligence Surveillance Act does it say that. Nor must the communication be entirely domestic. There’s no such thing as entirely domestic communication since anybody could make an international phone call from any phone since at least the 1950s.

      I’m not going to cite from the actual act. I’ve slogged through it, but it’s clear you haven’t read it. And most others wouldn’t be interested since it’s not an easy read to say the least. Instead I’m going to quote from another government site that makes things a bit clearer and simpler to understand. It cuts to the chase, and explains the basics in sort of an executive summary.

      “…Warrant applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act are drafted by attorneys in the General Counsel’s Office at the National Security Agency at the request of an officer of one of the federal intelligence agencies. Each application must contain the Attorney General’s certification that the target of the proposed surveillance is either a “foreign power” or “the agent of a foreign power” and, in the case of a U.S. citizen or resident alien, that the target may be involved in the commission of a crime…”

      I have no idea where you’re getting your information but it’s either wildly incorrect or you just can’t make it clear what you mean.

        Awing1 in reply to Arminius. | April 3, 2017 at 9:09 pm

        I don’t even know where to begin with this mess, not only do you get FISA wrong, you don’t even understand the basic implications of grammar in my response to you. I guess I’ll just go through the relevant portions of the act, which you quite clearly have not read, for you. The act governs what it terms “electronic surveillance”. This is a very specific legal term defined by the act as:

        (f) “Electronic surveillance” means—

        (1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;

        (2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511(2)(i) of title 18;

        (3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or

        (4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.

        50 USC 1801

        If the circumstances surrounding an intercept doesn’t fall under one of those four categories, it is not “electronic surveillance” under the act, and is not subject to its restrictions (except those contained in 50 USC 1806, which applies to any information collected under the statute).

        An example of this would be interceptions of communications of Russian government officials in the Kremlin, from an apartment down the street from the Kremlin, where the target of the interception is those Russian government officials, even though Mike Flynn is on the other line. That scenario does not fall under any of the definitions of “electronic surveillance” under the statute, and thus would not be subject to it’s restrictions or requirements for a court order.

        There are other exemptions contained in the statute, codified at 50 USC 1802, that would exempt an intercept from the requirements of a court order even if they constitute “electronic surveillance”, but they’re not really relevant when the intercept isn’t “electronic surveillance” under the act to begin with.

        You’re quoting from a government statement on the requirements the statute imposes on the government for intercepts that do require an order, given that my argument is that these particular intercepts do not require an order. That, to me, further emphasizes the fact that you don’t understand even the basic aspects of FISA.

          Awing1 in reply to Awing1. | April 3, 2017 at 9:22 pm

          Where I say:

          That scenario does not fall under any of the definitions of “electronic surveillance” under the statute, and thus would not be subject to it’s restrictions or requirements for a court order.

          I meant:

          That scenario does not fall under the relevant definition of “electronic surveillance” under the statute, and thus would not be subject to its restrictions or requirements for a court order.

          That scenario does fall under the definition of “electronic surveillance” applicable specifically to 50 USC 1806, which governs the dissemination of information collected in certain specified instances, but does not have anything to do with when a particular interception requires a court order before being carried out.

          Arminius in reply to Awing1. | April 3, 2017 at 10:34 pm

          Actually the act covers more than electronic surveillance. It also provides for physical searches and access to certain business records for foreign intelligence searches.

          And this is lovely.You don’t understand the difference between a law enforcement warrant and a FISA warrant.

          “…if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;”

          Of course intentionally targeting US citizens under the circumstances you describe doesn’t fall under the definition of electronic surveillance for the purposes of FISA. You can’t use a FISA warrant for that purpose. That’s the whole point of FISA and the FISA court; to prevent exactly the abuse you’re describing. If government is going to intentionally target US persons under the conditions you describe the government must get a law enforcement warrant per the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (Wiretap Act) of 1968.

          Unlike you imagine, the government can not conduct warrantless surveillance of US persons citimg FISA as legal authority. That’s beyond ridiculous. If the government incidentally collects information on US persons under a FISA warrant the government must destroy the records.

          “(i) Destruction of unintentionally acquired information

          In circumstances involving the unintentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States, such contents shall be destroyed upon recognition, unless the Attorney General determines that the contents indicate a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.”

          50 U.S. Code § 1806 – Use of information

          I see you haven’t read 50 U.S. Code Chapter 36 – FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE past the definitions section. And you don’t know that your scenario is precisely the type of situation that requires a FISA warrant.

          “(a) Submission by Federal officer; approval of Attorney General; contentsEach application for an order approving electronic surveillance under this subchapter shall be made by a Federal officer in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title. Each application shall require the approval of the Attorney General based upon his finding that it satisfies the criteria and requirements of such application as set forth in this subchapter. It shall include—
          (1) the identity of the Federal officer making the application;
          (2) the identity, if known, or a description of the specific target of the electronic surveillance;
          (3) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that—
          (A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a FOREIGN POWER or an AGENT OF A FOREIGN POWER; and
          (4) a statement of the proposed minimization procedures;
          (5) a description of the nature of the information sought and the type of communications or activities to be subjected to the surveillance;
          (6) a certification or certifications by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, an executive branch official or officials designated by the President from among those executive officers employed in the area of national security or defense and appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, or the Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, if designated by the President as a certifying official—
          (A) that the certifying official deems the information sought to be foreign intelligence information;
          (B) that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information;
          (C) that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;
          (D) that designates the type of foreign intelligence information being sought according to the categories described in section 1801(e) of this title; and
          (E) including a statement of the basis for the certification that—
          (i) the information sought is the type of foreign intelligence information designated; and
          (ii) such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;
          (7) a summary statement of the means by which the surveillance will be effected and a statement whether physical entry is required to effect the surveillance;
          (8) a statement of the facts concerning all previous applications that have been made to any judge under this subchapter involving any of the persons, facilities, or places specified in the application, and the action taken on each previous application; and
          (9) a statement of the period of time for which the electronic surveillance is required to be maintained, and if the nature of the intelligence gathering is such that the approval of the use of electronic surveillance under this subchapter should not automatically terminate when the described type of information has first been obtained, a description of facts supporting the belief that additional information of the same type will be obtained thereafter…”

          You have to have a warrant to conduct electronic surveillance in this country. There is no exemption from the requirement for a warrant for that “Kremlin spy shop” operating out of the apartment down the street. If you knew anything about the history behind FISA you’d know that if that were the case the government would simply assert every domestic location it wanted to surveil a “Kremlin spy shop” and monitor away. This is precisely the kind of abuse of our foreign intelligence agencies that led to FISA in the first place, and why the FISA court was established. So the government can’t simply claim every and any apartment is a “Kremlin spy shop.” The government has to go before the FISA court and establish that fact.

          Otherwise the government has to go before a regular court and establish to the court’s satisfaction that a crime has been committed to acquire a law enforcement warrant.

          The only exception to the requirement to have warrant for any and all electronic surveillance within the US are, under limited circumstances, the President may authorize warrantless surveillance under his own authority. But two of those circumstances are that it’s for foreign intelligence purposes and that there is almost no chance that any US person will be incidentally monitored. And the AG has to certify these facts.

          Thanks for demonstrating you have no idea what you’re talking about.

          Arminius in reply to Awing1. | April 4, 2017 at 12:27 am

          For the edification of anybody besides Awing1 who might actually be interested in knowing what they’re talking about, FISA was enacted precisely because of abuses uncovered by the Committee to Study Government Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (otherwise known as the Church Committee) as well as revelations uncovered under various court proceedings. For instance Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d 594, 613-14 (D.C. Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944 (1976), concerned a situation that was Awing1’s scenario to a “T.” A foreign intelligence agency asserted that since they were monitoring the equivalent of “Kremlin communications” from the house down the street they didn’t need a warrant. As it happened they were monitoring the activities and communications of an organization consisting entirely of US persons, that was not an agent of a foreign power or working in collaboration with a foreign power.

          Basically it was a bunch of leftist hippies.

          I didn’t like their politics. I doubt the DC Circuit Court liked their politics. But naturally the court ruled that that of course a warrant was required. The court also ruled that “an analysis of the policies implicated by foreign security surveillance indicates that, absent exigent circumstances, all warrantless electronic surveillance is unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional.”

          FISA was enacted to establish a legal framework to conduct electronic surveillance within the US for foreign intelligence purposes, and since Title I was passed in 1978 was amended over the years to provide a similar statutory framework for physical searches, pen registers or trap and trace devices, and access to business records or other tangible things for foreign intelligence purposes.

          And the FISA court was established so that all this domestic activity would be subject to judicial review.

          The exemptions to the requirements for a warrant that Awing1 imagines exist simply don’t. That is simply missing the point entirely. The whole point of FISA and the FISA court was to put and end to warrantless electronic surveillance. Since 1978 no intel agency can conduct warrantless surveillance on it’s own say so; “Trust us, we’re just collecting Kremlin comms from that Kremlin spy shop down the street, so we don’t need a warrant.”

          No, you need a warrant. Electronic surveillance, and other types of surveillance, within the borders of the United States requires a warrant. Even under the guise of foreign intelligence collection.

          Awing1 in reply to Awing1. | April 4, 2017 at 8:00 am

          Ok, it’s clear you aren’t skilled in basic reading comprehension. Nowhere do I talk about intentionally targeting a US person, you claim I haven’t read past the definitions in the statute, then quote at length from a part of the statute I cited to twice that’s well after the definitions, and you’ve somehow, in your broken little mind, turned my collection in an apartment down the street from the Kremlin into domestic collection. News flash, the Kremlin isn’t in the US.

          Get mental help.

          Arminius in reply to Awing1. | April 4, 2017 at 1:34 pm

          Yeah, you did talk about the intentional targeting of US persons. At April 3, 2017 at 7:03 pm you said:

          “You do know that FISA “warrants” (technically they’re not warrants, but it is common for people to refer to them that way) only apply to INTENTIONAL COLLECTON of entirely domestic communitications, communications WHERE THE TARGET OF THE COLLECTION IS A US PERSON, or communications to or from persons in the US when the collection occurs within the US, right? ”

          You don’t know what you’re talking about, admit it. But go ahead, try to weasel out of the clear meaning of what you wrote.

    mzk in reply to Arminius. | April 4, 2017 at 2:35 pm

    Well, we have her book on genocide. I went right to VietNam, and when she pooh-pooh what happened after the Democrats stabbed the South VietNam in the back, I lost interest in it. She may be quite intelligent. Just immoral.

“Lake argues that Rice’s requests do not necessarily violate the law, since she would have had broad authority to request unmasking, but that does not lessen the political impact…”

Broad authority still isn’t unlimited authority. Did Obama grant her authority that violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Specifically the portions that, since a FISA warrant can be granted under a much lower standard than a request for for a surveillance warrant in a criminal investigation since no suggestion of wrongdoing is required for the FISA warrant, that the identity of any Americans must be protected.

Hillary was asking about Trump’s Russians a week before the election, so this was done long before Obama’s relaxing of the rules.

I’m sure if any surveillance of Trump’s team was done that it was because of a YouTube video.

OneVoiceInAmerica | April 3, 2017 at 7:12 pm

I guess she meant that she had no idea how much information Devin Nunes had on her at the time. ??

Two thoughts:

1) Eli Lake & Mike Cernovich – The Bob Woodward & Carl Bernstein of the New Millennium.

2) Susan Rice is not a Rove-like political genius. She is a water-carrier. She did this at the behest of someone else. If I were to bet, I would put money on the brains behind Team Obama…Valerie Jarrett.

susan rice said if Nunes doesn’t have a video it couldn’t have happened.

Susan Rice, in a desperate attempt to surpass Bill and Hillary as the greatest liar of our time, may have just done that. She really belongs in jail. Will someone have the courage to prosecute?

If the majority of the documents Rice requested and then unmasked involved Trump and/or his associates, then this begs the question of how did she know what documents to request? Given the enormous numbers of security/classified documents, the chances of picking those that involved Trump and/or his people would be astronomically small which indicates that someone had been giving her information as to what documents she should request. This should be proof of reverse targeting that is expressly illegal and shows how this is a much larger conspiracy that just Susan.

Now that I see what a National Security Advisor does, and all the brouhaha over which well qualified patriotic individual Trump puts where, I have to ask —

How did the USA survive 8 years with Susan Rice as National Security Advisor?

I thought all those functions didn’t exist, or didn’t think about them, because of the people that frankly the past 3 or 4 administrations have put there. Ridiculous low-caliber people. Now I see what power that position has, and Susan Rice was in it??


She will lie or lawyer up. What she cannot do is tell the truth. She is protected, as Cheryl Mills is, because; she’s black, female, liberal, protecting a progressive icon. So she can claim innocence and she will get away with it.

That said for Trump, and our society, to survive he has to prosecute and jail those who thought they could commit crimes while hiding behind their position in government. I was a government employee. Not going to jail like the last guy is a motivation! None of those suit wearing, pencil necked Bureaucrats want to spend 10yrs in a fed pen, fighting over the upper bunk with a 300lb guy nicknamed “Tiny”. The guy (or gal) who is faced with this will puke it up. Then the truth will come out.