Remember when Susan Rice took to the Sunday news shows and told America repeatedly that the deaths of those heroes in Benghazi, Libya were due to an 'internet video' no one had ever seen?
The fact that everyone knew she was brazenly lying didn't seem to phase her at all. Think about that.
Well now Susan Rice is back and she's trying to convince America that there was nothing 'inappropriate' about their surveillance of Donald Trump and his associates during the 2016 election campaign.
The same surveillance she previously said had never occurred...
Blogger DWebster analyzed Susan Rice's latest attempt at pulling the wool over America's eyes, with her 'weasel words', in this comment DWebster left at TheHill.com. Check it out!
The first attempt at weaseling is to claim people are equating "unmasking" and "leaking" as the same thing. No one has said that "unmasking" and "leaking" are equivalent.
What is being said is that the PURPOSE of the unmasking was to help facilitate illegal leaking. Once the individuals involved are unmasked, it becomes more likely that the information will be leaked, if there is a political/media purpose to do so.
Especially if it is released to a large enough group within the government, which was apparently done in this instance.
For example, if some Obama administration hack gets hold of a report that identifies Ms. Smith as an individual caught up by surveillance, it is not likely that that information is going to be leaked, because it has no value to do so. No one in the media or elsewhere is going to care.
Conversely, if the unmasked/identified individual is D. Trump, J Bush, R Paul, H Clinton, etc... then leaking that information not only has value from a political standpoint, but also captures the interest of media operatives (like CNN).
“The notion, which some people are trying to suggest, that by asking for the identity of the American person is the same is leaking it — that’s completely false,” Rice said. “There is no equivalence between so-called unmasking and leaking.”
Here is the next set of weasel words:
“It was not uncommon, it was necessary at times to make those requests,"
That may or may not be true, but it says nothing about whether or not there was a "necessity" to unmask the Trump people. What was the necessity, given that NONE of the reports indicate any wrong doing by Mr Trump or members of his team?
Next group of weasel words:
"I don’t have a particular recollection of doing that more frequently after the election." and “I leaked nothing to nobody,” she said.
The first sentence simply says she can't remember. It denies nothing. The second sentence is pure gibberish, the kind of thing you would expect an illiterate child to say. Meaningless double negative.
When highly educated political operatives use such language, it almost always means they are hiding from the truth and attempting to deceive the public, with the assistance of biased political media hacks, like A Mitchell. This is not the first time for Ms Rice.
This comment was left by DWebster at TheHill.com - Read more of DWebster’s comments at https://disqus.com/by/disqus_fB326cov38/
Read the article at The Hill http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/327197-rice-denies-obama-administration-inappropriately-unmasked-trump-team
Comment Category Tags