EVERYONE, Please Please Please stick to the issues and not each other.

I saw the story on NBC and CNN today. NBC had an exclusive with Rice.

 

 

FOX doing anything to fill air time so they don't have to cover the sexual harassment allegations of O'Reilly.

 

Hmmmm. Good point. Mercedes Benz and Hyundai gave their side of those allegations.

No argument on possibilities.

 

My post was to get to a point where we can debate with facts and THEN speculate.

 

I feel that some don't fully understand what "unmasking" is and I know most do not know the process I detailed. I didn't. So I read multiple articles and listened to interviews with people who DO know. So when Lipton says I "copied" something I guess I did if he means I listened to a former NSA guy today describe the process and what happens in a the daily life of someone in the intel community.

 

We spend too much time talking in "definites" that aren't based on fact.

 

So unless someone can tell me where my list is incorrect why don't we use that as a starting point for what we really know and then go into speculation.

 

We can speculate she leaked info. We can speculate she did something outside the scope of right and wrong with the info she got in her role. What we do NOT know is she did something illegal.

 

But your post left out important details from new information. I to read up on unmasking and never claimed the unmasking itself was illegal. I don't think anyone has said that.

 

The problem is when you leave out context. Information out there suggests a lot of those documents where Trump transition team were unmasked had classification changed which led to the vulnerability of the leak. Multiple news organzations prior to Trumps tweet and the Rice information hinted or out right stated the Obama Adminstration was rushing to change classification on documents with Trumps team. A lot of those documents have been the leaks.

 

Your post insinuates that someone stated unmasking in itself was illegal. No one said that. But again more context Susan Rice on public television denied it up until this point ? I think someone with common sense has the ability to wonder if everything was on the up and up why deny it ?

 

Then to go further the network who is the #1 critic of the Susan Rice story had someone who worked in the Obama adminstration at the same time as Susan Rice be the lead journalist for the story. Another red flag.

 

So yes you can write a detailed explanation on unmasking that is circulating everywhere today as a defense. But it is not the complete story and why there is outrage.

 

Again why did her interest in Trump's team increase after Trump won the nomination?

I watched someone on TV breakdown the unmasking process and I learned some things too.

 

If nothing else, this is all very interesting information about how our Government conducts business.

 

Very true. Off topic but between this and the filibuster it's no wonder the government has done whatever they want to us for decades. We know so little.

So after two defensive posts. You didn't address the article or any of the points I made.

 

What lazy points did I make ?

 

The questions you posed are all fair to ask. I stated all speculation is fair.

 

The article you linked is full of "if's." I think we can all agree that IF she broke the law she will have to defend herself in court.

 

Again, my posting of the indisputables was so we can stop with the errors and false assumptions and get to decent debate which doesn't include lazy narrative about my implied thinking on anything you suggested.

But your post left out important details from new information. I to read up on unmasking and never claimed the unmasking itself was illegal. I don't think anyone has said that.

 

The problem is when you leave out context. Information out there suggests a lot of those documents where Trump transition team were unmasked had classification changed which led to the vulnerability of the leak. Multiple news organzations prior to Trumps tweet and the Rice information hinted or out right stated the Obama Adminstration was rushing to change classification on documents with Trumps team. A lot of those documents have been the leaks.

 

Your post insinuates that someone stated unmasking in itself was illegal. No one said that. But again more context Susan Rice on public television denied it up until this point ? I think someone with common sense has the ability to wonder if everything was on the up and up why deny it ?

 

Then to go further the network who is the #1 critic of the Susan Rice story had someone who worked in the Obama adminstration at the same time as Susan Rice be the lead journalist for the story. Another red flag.

 

So yes you can write a detailed explanation on unmasking that is circulating everywhere today as a defense. But it is not the complete story and why there is outrage.

 

Again why did her interest in Trump's team increase after the inauguration?

 

Again, you read way too much into my posts.

 

I can guarantee you that 90% of the people in this thread did not know what I posted in that list. So we know have a baseline of facts to work from including the reports you mention and the speculation that comes with that.

Very true. Off topic but between this and the filibuster it's no wonder the government has done whatever they want to us for decades. We know so little.

 

It is what I try to articulate to members all the time here on BGP.

 

Our Government, at all levels, is a Super Secret Organization and we need WAY more disclosure at all levels of Government.

Again, you read way too much into my posts.

 

I can guarantee you that 90% of the people in this thread did not know what I posted in that list. So we know have a baseline of facts to work from including the reports you mention and the speculation that comes with that.

 

Did anyone say that unmasking itself was illegal?

Double

Did anyone say that unmasking itself was illegal?

 

If you read 5, 6, and 8 you can clearly see some think that facts have been presented to show illegalities.

 

My list is for those that think something they read in the OP shows illegalities were committed.

If you read 5, 6, and 8 you can clearly see some think that facts have been presented to show illegalities.

 

My list is for those that think something they read in the OP shows illegalities were committed.

 

I believe with context it shows we need a lot more information and understand the intent. A lot doesn't add up. Could you imagine if someone in the Bush adminstration was accused of this on Obama's transition team? The media would be in pure meltdown mode.

I believe with context it shows we need a lot more information and understand the intent. A lot doesn't add up. Could you imagine if someone in the Bush administration was accused of this on Obama's transition team? The media would be in pure meltdown mode.

 

I think you stole "meltdown mode" from Fox News!

I think you stole "meltdown mode" from Fox News!

 

I didn't watch cable news today at all after yesterday. Needed sanity.

I didn't watch cable news today at all after yesterday. Needed sanity.

 

Tosh and my DVR just conspired to save me from Hannity.

It is what I try to articulate to members all the time here on BGP.

 

Our Government, at all levels, is a Super Secret Organization and we need WAY more disclosure at all levels of Government.

 

Definitely agree there.