Saturday, April 8

More on Rice lying her ass off about "unmasking"

A few days ago I wrote an article (here) about the illegal revelation of the names of Americans whose conversations had been recorded by the NSA while it was legally wiretapping foreign citizens. 

The NSA is barred by law from wiretapping Americans without an express warrant, but lawmakers anticipated exactly the case just noted, in which Americans were "swept up" during a legal wiretap.

So lawmakers ordered that the names of Americans recorded in this way would be concealed--"masked"--in intelligence reports.  They would only be named in the reports if they were known to have engaged in activity that was a threat to national security.

Thus when the media--trying to torpedo one of Trump's key nominees--leaked the name of General Flynn as having talked with the Russian ambassador after the election, the question was not only who leaked the information to the media, but how did Flynn's name get "unmasked"?

In a television interview on PBS on March 22nd, Susan Rice denied knowing anything at all about the unmasking.  But on April 4th the same Susan Rice appeared on another Democrat-defending network--MSNBC--and totally reversed course: she admitted asking the intel agencies to unmask the names of various "officials," but said this was totally necessary--for national security.

If you think this can't possibly be true--that no competent person would lie on national TV and then less than two weeks later admit what she adamantly denied just two weeks earlier, take a look at the screen-shot below:

If the source of this new narrative was some blogger or amateur operation like, oh, CNN, I wouldn't blame anyone for being skeptical.  But this is...well, maybe a little better.  

Of course the media and Dems know that the public's attention span is about two hours, so they'd know only a few political junkies would remember Rice's earlier televised denials, but still...why would she reverse herself so fast, in such a public way?

The answer is easy:  She's protecting Obama, who was the only person outside the intel community who had the authority to order the unmasking.

"Oh that's not possible!" say Dems.  "Rice is a tower of virtue--she'd never lie like that!"

Of course that's just what she did right after the killing of four Americans--including our ambassador--in the attack in Benghazi, when she went on five Sunday talk shows to parrot the fable--the lie--that the attack was triggered by an internet video insulting to Islam.  Hilliary's secret emails showed that Hilliary told her daughter (via email) the evening of the attack that it was a terrorist attack.  Obama knew.  But Rice was sent out to plant the false narrative.  The cover story.

So now the new narrative is to imply that she had the authority to ask the agencies to unmask the names of American citizens "when it seemed relevant."  She didn't.  Her boss did.  But Obama has a legacy to protect, so he can't be unmasked as the person who ordered an underling to break the law.

So Rice will imply that she requested the unmasking on her own, and that it was perfectly normal because it "seemed revelant" and/or was to protect national security.  Both notions are nonsense, but she won't be cross-examined about it--because she's got three "immunity cards:"  black, female and liberal.  Any one of the three would get her off, but with all three it's a guarantee to skate.

Two sets of laws, people.  Two sets of laws.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home