Latest Breaking News

ProudLib72

(17,984 posts)

60. Let me get this straight.

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 04:18 PM

Apr 2017

Rice requested the unmasking of names, but, presumably, her requests were never answered. Cohen-Watnick brought the requests to the attention of McGahn, who then squealed to someone else (probably Bannon). That sent Nunes on his infamous run.

So where is the treachery in all of this? The documents existed regardless of Rice, and I would think that it was Obama's business to know. However, there is no evidence that Obama even ordered Rice to make the requests.

If I understand the argument correctly, the WH is not denying that explosive documents exist. They are not denying that tRump and his transition team colluded. Instead, their outrage is directed at someone who wanted to keep the then president informed of treasonous activity? Really?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

120 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Top Obama Adviser Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel [View all] 7962 Apr 2017 OP

The info apparently is coming from the trump team. I'll believe it if and when Rice shraby Apr 2017 #1

I just typed "Susan Rice" into twitter search. Whow--the RW is having riversedge Apr 2017 #2

That was the idea. The RW has had a seething hatred of Rice ever since 'Benghaaaaazi!!1!!!' TrollBuster9090 Apr 2017 #52

Yes, so true. Susan Rice has been on the RW radar for a LONGGGGGGGGG time. riversedge Apr 2017 #96

Agreed they have shown zero regard to telling the truth in the past from the cstanleytech Apr 2017 #23

All they're doing is PROVING leftynyc Apr 2017 #31

yep it's a lie azureblue Apr 2017 #59

I saw who posted it here and figured it might be a lie Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #101

Were these Trump associates communicating with the targets in question? ck4829 Apr 2017 #3

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2017 #4

They posted 4 paragraphs from the article Cal Carpenter Apr 2017 #7

Thank you, Cal. 7962 Apr 2017 #11

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2017 #21

So a summary of what Rice said is "Trump and his people are lying through their teeth....again." cstanleytech Apr 2017 #24

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2017 #32

Thank you Alterego for giving it proper context and content still_one Apr 2017 #29

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2017 #37

Why are you (someone who joined today) accusing a long time DUer of being a troll? Dr Hobbitstein Apr 2017 #30

Or a Russian troll SayItLoud Apr 2017 #33

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2017 #38

I thought it was a very good question... SkyDaddy7 Apr 2017 #57

Exactly, Alterego1955. There's no excuse for the misleading OP. nt SunSeeker Apr 2017 #34

Please don't accuse other posters of fake news Maeve Apr 2017 #8

Thank you, Maeve. 7962 Apr 2017 #12

Why didn't you include Rice's denial? SunSeeker Apr 2017 #36

Anyone can follow the link. I don't see the problem anyway. If Susan Rice saw a reason pnwmom Apr 2017 #65

Few people follow the link. Why ONLY give the White House side in the OP? SunSeeker Apr 2017 #73

I don't think those 4 paragraphs say anything negative. She was the NS advisor and had every right pnwmom Apr 2017 #76

The headline was very misleading and negative. nt SunSeeker Apr 2017 #79

Why? When I saw it, my conclusion was that she had a good reason to seek the names of those involved pnwmom Apr 2017 #80

The article does not provide that good reason, nor explain it was her job to review the intelligence SunSeeker Apr 2017 #83

His top advisor sought names. Nothing in there is negative in itself. Advisors have the right pnwmom Apr 2017 #103

Of course. But the article and headline did not say that. SunSeeker Apr 2017 #105

Narratives and agendas are getting sloppy. LanternWaste Apr 2017 #69

If you want uniform "narratives and agendas," you'll have to go to a right wing site. nt SunSeeker Apr 2017 #84

That doesn't mean he has to take the first four which are misleading as to the shraby Apr 2017 #14

They don't look misleading to me. muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #19

Not including Rice's denial is VERY MISLEADING. SunSeeker Apr 2017 #35

Personally, I don't think it's misleading. I ASSUMED she'd deny it. Not having seen any news yet TrollBuster9090 Apr 2017 #54

Not including Rice's denial makes it look like the headline is fact rather than Trump assertion. SunSeeker Apr 2017 #61

Just watched Faux News' 'The Five,' and sadly you're right. TrollBuster9090 Apr 2017 #92

Which is what I figured she would do as well. nt 7962 Apr 2017 #64

"Rice did not respond to an email seeking comment on Monday morning" muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #77

The headline was very misleading; the OP should have included the denial in the article. SunSeeker Apr 2017 #81

"last month" is not "late breaking news". muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #85

Without the denial, the headline is misleading. The denial was in the article. SunSeeker Apr 2017 #86

Fuck it, I don't want DU to become some closed-off world of denial muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #87

This message was self-deleted by its author Vinnie From Indy Apr 2017 #89

+1 Vinnie From Indy Apr 2017 #90

OFFS, I AM LOOKING AT WHAT IS BEING REPORTED. That is my point. SunSeeker Apr 2017 #91

No, the OP did not delete anything muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #94

The OP chose to not include a key fact FOUND IN THE ARTICLE. SunSeeker Apr 2017 #97

Oh, look, that's an article based on the one in the OP muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #99

The rule is 4 paragraphs, not "the 1st 4 paragraphs." SunSeeker Apr 2017 #102

CBS: "A Monday report by Bloombergs Eli Lake said that Rice requested the unmasking" muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #106

Objections to misleading OPs is not "ridiculous whining." SunSeeker Apr 2017 #108

Thank you for trying but sadly i think you're wasting your "breath' 7962 Apr 2017 #112

Well, hell, maybe folks will actually READ the article! 7962 Apr 2017 #63

How about exercising some JUDGMENT in picking your 4 paragraphs? SunSeeker Apr 2017 #95

See, this is the thing - you are demanding we put our own spin on the news muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #100

I am not asking for "spin," just that the OP not be misleading. SunSeeker Apr 2017 #104

By not including relevant paragraphs which can contradict the headline, you ARE putting a shraby Apr 2017 #119

And there is, for legal reasons, a 4 paragraph limit, so you can't include all of them muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #120

The CBS article is 7 hrs after what I posted. Should I be clairvoyant as well? 7962 Apr 2017 #107

Welcome to DU! Vinnie From Indy Apr 2017 #20

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2017 #27

You like this place? Vinnie From Indy Apr 2017 #39

is this your alter ego? snooper2 Apr 2017 #41

"You cannot deny that the post in context looked like a troll's post." oberliner Apr 2017 #50

Welcome to DU, Alterego1955! calimary Apr 2017 #26

You have pointed out the shortcomings of the BLOOMBERG article, please don't accuse DUers yodermon Apr 2017 #49

I think a 5 post member has some learning of rules before accusing a 9,000 post member Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2017 #51

How come there are no photos or information about this Ezra Cohen-Watnick? shraby Apr 2017 #5

He's been all over the news lately, here's lots of links BamaRefugee Apr 2017 #9

Most of those articles really don't have much about Ezra..and not pictures shraby Apr 2017 #16

Well, if they link to Leonard Cohen, it can't be a waste of time! TrollBuster9090 Apr 2017 #56

Try this: muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #15

Thanks. shraby Apr 2017 #18

Flynns flunkie elehhhhna Apr 2017 #22

Still no photos ... alwaysinflux Apr 2017 #40

Do photos matter? Do you need to be able to recognise him? muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #78

It's her job to decide if she needs to know or not. randome Apr 2017 #6

This!! duncang Apr 2017 #98

Seems prudent to me. harun Apr 2017 #111

Here we go with yet another "distraction" awesomerwb Apr 2017 #10

What else they got? Percy Cholmondeley Apr 2017 #25

After reading the whole article, I find the headline particularly misleading. shraby Apr 2017 #13

The author has worked for Washington Times UPI underpants Apr 2017 #53

It sounds like FISA warrants were obtained on US persons. underthematrix Apr 2017 #17

Uh - no leftynyc Apr 2017 #42

Wait a minute. I did not misspeak underthematrix Apr 2017 #113

Yes you did mispeak leftynyc Apr 2017 #114

I did not misspeak about US persons being the subjects of FISA warrants underthematrix Apr 2017 #115

So Ezra Cohen-Watnik,( Flynn's protege who McMaster tried to fire) is behind leak of this diversion wishstar Apr 2017 #28

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2017 #44

tiny bit of smoke but zero fire - Ms. Rice did nothing wrong - only her job..... NoMoreRepugs Apr 2017 #43

Your OP is very misleading. One of your 4 paragraphs should have been Rices's DENIAL. SunSeeker Apr 2017 #45

If part of Ms. Rice's routine briefings from IC analysts hinted at emerging patterns, bigbrother05 Apr 2017 #46

Oh-oh. zentrum Apr 2017 #47

So, somebody LEAKED the false narrative that Rice was behind the LEAKS that damaged Trump. TrollBuster9090 Apr 2017 #48

Oh yeah this is big shakes in RW world. Following up on Evelyn Farkas underpants Apr 2017 #55

Seems there may have been some in this thread. So many "self deletes" here. C Moon Apr 2017 #58

Let me get this straight. ProudLib72 Apr 2017 #60

THIS SteamAddict Apr 2017 #118

It's perfectly legal for Rice to do this OKNancy Apr 2017 #62

I haven't read through all the stuff about this, but she did so in the course of her job, and she... George II Apr 2017 #66

CNN is explaining exactly what I said above - they were listening to Russians and found out... George II Apr 2017 #68

The head of the nsc for fucks sake elehhhhna Apr 2017 #109

Fake News Fake News. Wellstone ruled Apr 2017 #67

Obama Executive order 12333 Gymbo Apr 2017 #70

" " " " n/t MBS Apr 2017 #88

Um, yeah, she was the National Security Adviser--part of her job to geek tragedy Apr 2017 #71

This bull$hit headline should be removed! rainlillie Apr 2017 #72

I agree. Very misleading headline. nt SunSeeker Apr 2017 #75

We're not allowed to change headlines according to posting rules 7962 Apr 2017 #82

You chose this headline to post as an OP. SunSeeker Apr 2017 #93

It was the FIRST story. Your link refers to THIS story. Please, get over it!! 7962 Apr 2017 #117

I am not sure what the there there is about... pbmus Apr 2017 #74

As of 8:00 PM CNN is reporting that this is false. George II Apr 2017 #110

Eli Lake NewRedDawn Apr 2017 #116