Below is my recent column in The Hill Newspaper on the Rice controversy. Media spins for Rice continue including MSNBC “AM Joy” host Joy Reid describing the softball interview with Andrea Mitchell as a type of “Government for Dummies” lecture: “She was on with our own Andrea Mitchell yesterday trying to explain how government works, for those that don’t know.” Of course, unmasking political opponents (if the allegations are proven to be true), would not be how the government is supposed work. Nor is alleged lying about knowing nothing about the unmasking in prior interviews — a curious conflict with Reid’s take that Rice was trying to explain how government works. This was Rice’s second or third explanation.
The controversy occurs after the Washington Post gave Rice a retroactive “Four Pinnochios” for her claim that the Obama Administration got rid of all chemical weapons in Syria. (That is not the first time that Rice has been accused of false statements on national security issues, as discussed below). None of this seems to matter in the coverage of the most recent controversy involving Rice. It appears that Trump is the temptation that many journalists simply cannot resist. It is a Faustian bargain: media is so intent on pursuing Trump that they have lost any sense of their own navigational beacons of objectivity and neutrality.
There is a common expression in the media that there are “some facts too good to check.” It is used in jest to reflect how you sometimes hate to give up a great story for the real facts. That tension was well on display this week as media seemed to tie itself into knots to avoid admitting that there are legitimate questions raised by the “unmasking” allegations surrounding the actions of Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice.
For weeks, the media has hammered President Trump over his sensational tweets accusing President Obama of “wiretapping” Trump Tower. The media was right to demand proof and to castigate the administration for a less than forthcoming response to the controversy.
Then came the disclosure that Susan Rice had repeatedly asked for the unmasking of the protected identities of Trump associates who were intercepted by American intelligence in the course of lawful surveillance. By any objective measure, that should be a major story. Rice may have an explanation but, at least on its face, it would confirm the interception of Trump aides by the Obama administration.
Instead of acknowledging that this is a serious development, the immediate response of the media was to actively debunk the story and portray it as facially invalid. CNN anchor Chris Cuomo responded to the story with the following: “All right, President Trump, right-wing media types [are] peddling a fake scandal.” CNN anchor Don Lemon called the story a “diversion” and refused to discuss it so “not insult your intelligence.”
In the meantime, NBC had Andrea Mitchell interview Rice. One would think that any interview would begin where Rice had left the controversy just last month in an interview on PBS Newshour. Rice was asked about the allegations of unmasking raised by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes and responded with a categorical denial: “I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today … So today, I really don’t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring. But he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.”
It would seem a rather newsworthy place to start, right? Yet, in the segment, Mitchell asked nary a single question on the prior statement. Not one. Instead, she spent time discussing the “politicized” investigation of the House Intelligence Committee and outrage over Trump’s tweets. She never got around to noting that Rice was saying something diametrically at odds to her prior statement on this very controversy.
She was not alone. ABC News ran an interview with Rice and again never mentioned to the viewers that she said the opposite on a national news program just weeks ago.
Instead, the media actively sought to focus on aspects of Rice’s statement that could still be supported. Media insisted that that was no proof that Rice leaked the information. Indeed, Rice said that she has never — ever — leaked anything as a high-ranking government official. If so, she would be in one of the smallest groups of Washington (that could be a difficult question under oath in a future hearing). The threshold question is whether Trump aides were indeed subject to surveillance and were indeed unmasked. Alternatively, the media hit on the fact that such surveillance is legal. Of course, the use of lawful surveillance in an abusive way could still be abusive and, yes, newsworthy.
The media also did not pursue the question of how the unmasked transcripts might have been shared with officials like former National Intelligence chief James Clapper, who also said that he had no knowledge of such unmasking. Clapper and Rice would seem to warrant such added probing. After all, Clapper lied about his knowledge of one of the most massive secret surveillance programs in history and later explained that he simply chose “the least untruthful” answer to give the Senate.
For her part, Rice has been repeatedly criticized for past false statements. The most glaring was her repeated public statements in 2012, that the Benghazi terror attacks were spontaneous responses to a “hateful” Internet video. Later it was shown that the administration already knew the Benghazi attacks were the result of terrorism and unnamed administration officials criticized Rice for misrepresenting the facts. Rice later said that she did “regret that the information I was provided was wrong. That doesn’t make me a liar.” That is correct but it also does not make Rice the most reliable source. So why run a story and not lead (or even mention) a prior conflicting question?
A more serious question is raised by the other ignored aspect of this story. For years, many of us have criticized the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows surveillance without meeting the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The law is filled with nice sounding protections that are practically meaningless. That includes the rule that Americans incidentally intercepted on surveillance of foreign targets must have their identities “masked.”
U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive (Section 18) only allows unmasking of the identity of U.S persons when it is essential to national security. The question is why the identity of Trump aides satisfied this standard if there was no evidence (as has been reported) of collusion. Nevertheless, this intent standard is difficult to violate absent a confession or incriminating statement.
Objectively, a reporter might want to ask Rice how privacy is protected when she can just routinely unmask names without any serious review or need for explanation. That concern would seem particularly great when these are the names of Republican operatives on a campaign criticizing your administration. Indeed, Rice herself was a common target of such criticism by Trump aides.
I happen to share the anger in the media over the treatment of the press by this president. However, journalistic ethics require reporters to transcend such anger and maintain objectivity. It often means acknowledging facts that favor someone who has shown little respect for the press. That is the point of the joke. No matter how much we might prefer blissful ignorance, there are no facts too good to check.
Reporters are now so committed to refuting Trump that they are refuting actual stories. The loss of objectivity in the response to the Rice story reflects a broader problem of the press focusing so hard on Trump that it is losing sight of its own bearings. The irony is that Trump was wrong about the media but many in the media seem to be working hard to prove him right.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
Excellent post, and by a liberal. The only quibble I have concerns his statement, ” I happen to share the anger in the media over the treatment of the press by this president.” From what does Turley suspect that “treatment” is based, if not the very type of vile, agenda-based reporting which is the basis of Turley’s critique?
“Reporters are now so committed to refuting Trump that they are refuting actual stories.” This is nothing new. These very same reporters, the very same ones that Trump regularly calls out as “Fake News”, the very same “reporters” that most Americans have absolutely no respect for (lower approval ratings that Congress!) ignored all of the HUGE stories of the Barack Hussein Obama administration. These very same “reporters” ignored his ties to terrorist Bill Ayers, his phony birth certificate and SS card (belonging to dead guy from the NE), his hidden college transcripts, his absolute ineptness at everything he touched. Like I said, nothing new here. Today’s “reporters” are not reporters at all. They are Dem shills who spin away all Dem failures and corrupt practices and invent Russian intervention conspiracies while they blow out of all proportion any Republican mistake while NEVER, EVER admitting anything positive. Shame on them all.
Reblogged this on pundit from another planet.
Jonathan Turley, this is the most turgid, incomprehensible post ever.
The irony in this article is the last sentence. It would have been more correct to say that Trump was right about the media and every day they are working to affirm that fact.
For someone who appears on the Fox channel, on a regular basis, I find your column to ring somewhat hollow. How often dose your channel find a particular story line with no basis and then creates hour after hour, day after day selling the nonsense to their gullible audience (“Clinton trashed Air Force one”, “Gore trashed vice presidents office”, “Obama was born in Kenya”, “Obama is a Muslim”), I don’t recall any of your columns calling out Fox for its continuous “Fake News” and I do understand your personal desire to continue your revenue and notoriety as a Fox talking head. If the Trump administration has evidence of wrong doing (unlawful) expose it, if it is true it will leak out eventually. Continuous Tweeting of unfounded claims just leaves voters with less confidence in our elected leaders.
You make these comments about Fox News offering ‘hour after hour of continuous Fake News’ as if CNN, MSNBC and many other mainstream outlets don’t do the same. And they do it in many ways including their editorial decisions on what stories to run, which ones to skip, what angle to report and how much time is given to a story. This blatant bias is rampant in all the other outlets. Fox News at least covers the stories and the angles that no other outlet will even air or print. CNN and MSNBC are especially bad in case you hadn’t noticed.
Bob,…
People like CNN’s Don Lemon are merely “protecting” us from news stories that they dislike.😒
That’s right….and Don Lemon actually said that he would not ‘insult our intelligence’ by even bothering to report on or cover the Susan Rice unmasking story – even though it was and still is a huge and important story. Unbelievable. How can people even stand to watch CNN? Crap News Network.
Yep, he was right – and I say tweet on, Mr. President…because if not for his calling out the media for bias (and lying) we wouldn’t even be talking about it now…same for the immigration issue…if Trump hadn’t spoken out about the detrimental effects of illegal immigration it would have been a non-issue during the 2016 election – no matter who the Rep nominee was. The American mainstream media deserves everything it’s getting.
NO doubt CNN & MSNBC are two vary obvious partisan media networks! Neither, sadly, are responsible news sources. However, both are irresponsible, politically biased, outlets. Are they not both ESTABLISHMENT sources infatuated with media privilege? In short, are synonymous with synthetic news!
Bob – I have to appreciate a man like Bob Lemon, who takes on the task of deciding what I should know and not know. It takes so much pressure off me. 😉
I’m not sure why the Wapo indicated Rice was lying about her statement that Assad’s chemical weapons were gone. As of today, I haven’t seen any hard evidence of any kind to indicate the Assad government had anything to do with the reported use of gas last week for which Trump blew about $70 million worth of Tomahawk missiles. The idea that we “know” with any certainty that chemical weapons were used and that it was Assad’s forces using them is not supported by any media reports I have seen or read. There is simply no proof that this is true. It may be true or not but what’s certain is that many claims are being made as though there is reason to be certain, when, in fact, that is just not the case.
I agree, no proof…just ask the question: who benefits? Not Assad, who was on the brink of negotiating his way out of the war and remaining in power…how does he benefit from gassing his own people? The 2013 gassing was proven by UN inspectors to have been perpetrated by the opposition, not Assad. There is just too much independent reporting coming from Syria by many different sources to allow yourself NOT to question this situation. We should be questioning everything….absolutely everything. And here’s a question: Why did John McCain illegally enter Syria in February, 2017? Who did he see while there and for what purpose? Why is John McCain seen in so many photos cavorting with terrorists?
Because John McCain wants US to be in a constant war footing in order to benefit his campaign donors, the american war industry. Next he will stand up in Senate to tell us why we need “boots on the ground” in Syria. Of course, those boots will be filled by the poorest Americans, people he doesn’t give a whit about.
Exactly. McCain needs to be stopped.
ffs,
You are so right. It is difficult to fathom why he wants our young people to be killed. He just doesn’t care about them at all. It’s beyond disgusting.
Jill – the problem is that McCain seems destined to die on the floor of the Senate. Arizona used to be represented by Carl Hayden, a Democrat, who was in the Senate so long the literally wheeled him onto the floor for votes. Hayden set the record for time in Congress, House and Senate combined. Like McCain, he was unbeatable. Unlike McCain, he was known as Silent Carl and he ruled the Senate from the committee rooms. He was THE most powerful Senator in office when he died.
I’m still trusting Senate Intel to do good work. I hope they’ll have her testify. The guy replacing Nunes on House IC apparently thinks that hiring Mexican musicians for democratic campaign events is analogous to Russia hacking, so that committee leadership is a farce.. There are international journalists on this whole story and I assume that the US IC is not the only one interested in Trump family’s longstanding financial connections with Russian “businessmen.” Follow the money and follow the dead Russians……..
When you do business with sharks, you may end up swimming with the fishes [literally or metaphorically].
As far as media, the WSJ, which could never be accused as having a liberal bent, could devote resources to investigating the Rice story, if they think there is any there “there.” They were first legitimate source to break the story.
From my perspective, a common theme I’ve experienced with far Left Democrats is a sneering derision. Present them with opposing facts and they turn their nose up, fail to address them, resort to ad hominem, and then virtue signal their superiority, all while failing to engage in the most basic form of debate or polite conversation.
More and more, the mainstream media behaves the same, on a larger scale than the one-on-one phenomenon that has become so common.
It really is a turn off to voters who are not extremist far Left.
Karen,
I’m on the far left and I find it very offensive. I saw a Fox newz anchor do the same to Dennis Kucinich when he questioned Syria’s use of chemical weapons. The anchor just talked over him with talking points. He didn’t listen, he just kept repeating his talking points. You could have seen this type of exchange on CNN.
I think it’s a mistake to believe this is what liberals do. It will keep us from seeing the larger issue at hand. Every person, right or left is being propagandized at this time. We all have to watch out for it. There are many things which Democrats and liberals are not seeing. However, there are many things Republicans and Libertarians aren’t seeing either. At this time, I will agree with you that Democrats especially and actual liberals as well are messing up badly, going full on authoritarian! However, if you look at some of the right wing comments here you will see that same authoritarianism on display.
That authoritarianism is what this govt. wants. They have been working everything they have towards that goal. They need obedient citizens, people who like to see others hurt, who never imagine the state will turn on them because they are so righteous and good. This is happening more on the left than the right at this time but believe me, it’s a strong current on the right as well.
We all need to wake up fast!
“if you look at some of the right wing comments here you will see that same authoritarianism on display.”
Jill, Which comments are you referring to?
I’m not certain authoritarianism is the goal but rather the side-effect of enabling the government to do things that produce a result one desires. It seems as though a relatively small percentage of people actually care about the means of government. Today we have a story about a law being signed that went through congress that gives back power to the state of Alaska. If you believe the hype, every predator species (including their defenseless offspring) will now be hunted to extinction by Labor Day. Of course underlying all of this is the prevailing belief that the only saints in government exist at the federal level.
The canary in the coal mine for authoritarian regimes is California. This country would function just like California if progressives continued to have their way. I applaud EVERY effort to unwind the federal bureaucracy and restore power to the states. At least when a state exceeds its constitutional limits we don’t have to abandon our country to regain our rights. We can make the effort to remove the oppressive state regime or just leave the state.
Many states are more repressive than the feds. For instance, Arkansas is rushing through 7 executions. Give me Califonia any day.
Your example of “repression” is for the state to carry out a sentence? What does “rushing through” actually mean to you? Are they violating the law?
The state’s supply of a lethal injection drug is about to expire.
So are they violating the law?
No, they are not violating the law, they are attempting to comply with the law even though leftists have made the acquisition of the drugs necessary for lethal injection next to impossible…maybe it’s time to bring back the electric chair or hanging in order to complete these death sentences – or maybe break out some of those guillotines our government is rumored to have purchased a few years ago. If those of us who believe in the constitution don’t push back constantly and consistently the left will obliterate this country.
You noticed T.R. that anon had no response to the question. He apparently couldn’t find a tweet that supported his argument.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/04/10/arkansas-execution-schedule-debacle-midazolam-john-grisham-column/100119398/ Death penalty law is very complicated and I am not a lawyer. It does appear that they are disregarding some constitutional safeguards.
They’ve exhausted their appeals. The crimes in question occurred over the period running from 1990 to 1998, so it’s not as if the courts haven’t had time to ponder matters. (One of those scheduled had a previous murder conviction in 1977, btw).
All the foofaraw over the drug cocktails is silly, of course. Put them in front of a firing squad.
You won’t stay there long! Oh! Unless you are illegal or a refugee!
What about these crazy states that want to tell people which bathroom to use?
Do you mean which “public” bathroom to use? It’s crazy that this has even become an issue that needs to be addressed by laws and regulations.
Obviously many of these bathroom legislators have not traveled out side the US. I’ve been in countries where subway toilets were “coed” men and women lined up right next to each other and using stalls with no dividing panel.
Olly,
Check out the comments regarding the police in Ft. Collins. You read here and know which commenters are on the right. You’ll see the complete acceptance and appreciate of excess force. Police violence is a method of repression when used in this manner.
And you’ll see here a woman-child who has no appreciation of the challenges people face in learning and doing their job.
From my limited research on the Alaskan bill, Obama had (once again) overreached federal power and unilaterally superseded the role of the state vs the federal government in Alaska in 2016. This was just another instance of rolling back federal over-reach, rather than encouraging denning.
http://www.snopes.com/2017/04/04/house-votes-killing-hibernating-bears-alaska/
When I first read the inflammatory carefully crafted headlines of the Propaganda Machine, I was appalled. Clubbing wolf and coyote pups! Killing helpless hibernating bears!
But then I discovered this:
“In reality, however, most of those practices were already prohibited to sport hunters under Alaska law, and some of them, including hunting coyotes in their dens and killing hibernating bears and cubs, were permitted to subsistence hunters even under the federal regulations.”
So, Alaska already, and still, restricts all of these activities, except for subsistence hunters, which were also granted exemptions under that federal law.
So this wasn’t about starting a free for all on wolf cubs and driving wolfs to extinction. This was yet another argument on what is the fed’s job vs what is the state’s job.
And this is yet another reason why I’ve become so jaded and disillusioned with the mainstream media.
Karen,
You’ve proven yourself to be a critical-thinker which is outside the mainstream today. I’m surprised Turley would allow himself to be overwhelmed by this false narrative and completely whiff at the federalism side of this story. He proves his commentary about the rule of law and separation of powers extends only as far as the ends he supports.
Thank you, Olly. I really enjoy reading your posts. Your comments about individual rights in the past helped me focus and clarify my own opinions.
As for Professor Turley, he might disagree with Trump’s take on the media, but he still penned an article on the failure of the media to investigate a story that exonerates Trump. He’s consistently criticized both the Left and the Right, as well as the erosion of free speech in the university system, even though he is a Professor himself. I do not agree with him on all things, but I greatly respect anyone who does not judge an issue through political glasses.
Jill – I personally do not consider you extremist hard Left by any means.
I lean towards classical Liberal and fiscal conservative, although I would never use the former term as a descriptor in modern times. A classic Liberal is more similar to what we call a Libertarian nowadays. There is an emphasis on personal liberty as well as personal responsibility. You have the right to your own freedom, but you don’t have the right to infringe on someone else’s by, say, poisoning them with an unsafe work place. Much of what you have written seems to oppose the authoritarian trajectory of our government. I consider an extremist, Hard Left, position one in which the government is weaponized against conservatives, free speech of conservatives is curtailed, sometimes through violence, universities have become propaganda Liberal madrassas where conservatives experience a hostile environment, safe spaces, racism against whites, deeming women too fragile to discuss tough issues without having a teddy bear and some bubbles at hand, banning classic authors because they were white or held opinions normal for their time but anathema to modern times, holding Caucasians from the US accountable for what their ancestors did 200 years ago but not the Native Americans, the Portugues (who were infamous slavers), the Dutch, or the African tribes who also engaged in slavery, white guilt, hostility towards males, hostility against all cops and the consideration of all African American inmates to be political prisoners, the desire for a dictatorship as long as a Liberal is at the helm, hatred of the rich and a desire to tax them at close to 100% with the assumption that they will loyally continue employing people out of the goodness of their hearts even when they no longer earn a dime…there’s more but this post will get too long.
If you consider yourself far Left, then you and I hold different definitions of the term. My constant criticism of the Hard Left do not apply to you. You and I may not agree on everything, as it is quite difficult to find anyone with the exact same opinions as myself. But I applaud when anyone opposes the growing tyranny, and creeping bureaucratic bloat of the federal government. And I respect anyone who criticizes propaganda and fraud that would have benefitted their own party. Most of all, we need opposing viewpoints on the blog in order to come at problems from all angles and to keep things interesting. I learn something all the time on the blog, and it’s even important to regularly hear opinions with which I disagree. So for the most part I enjoy the spectrum of beliefs that are on display.
There are some who truly believe that every regulation must be virtuous, every tax is warranted, tax and spend will have no downside, but the government could grow to the point that it becomes a juggernaut of red tape. Consider, for example, how the EPA has run amuck. They can consider any land that is not perfect flat, and has rain runoff, to be a “wetland”, which requires permits. Homeowners who disagree are faced with $30,000 fines a day and are reluctant to risk facing off with a faceless Agency that has an unlimited budget for attorneys fees. My fear is that the entire government may one day become such a bloated, unjust, mess against which citizens are helpless when wronged.
Hi Karen,
I always value reading what you have to say! I like hearing THOUGHTFUL viewpoints as well and have also learned a lot from others on this blog. I wanted to share this with you and others because I think this man has a really good idea about confronting the awful things we all face:
https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2017/04/10/my-strategy-for-confronting-and-defeating-the-status-quo/
There are many good people commenting here.
Thanks for the link, Jill.
In the linked article, the perspective on unity of those in power:
” There’s a reason a small group of vested parties are able to run this country in their interests alone while the general public gets scraps, and it’s not simply money. A big part of the problem lies in ourselves and our inability to form mass movements that cross political lines on issues of tremendous importance. The “elite” don’t suffer from such divisiveness, which is how they are able to hold on to power despite repeated failures spanning decades.”
made me think about my 2-year-old’s favorite movie: A Bug’s Life.
The ants do not realize that, despite their small size in comparison to the grasshoppers’, they have more power through numbers, if only they would unite in the common goal of getting rid of the bully grasshoppers.
Hopper, the grasshopper gang leader says, “You let one ant stand up to us, then they all might stand up! Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one and if they ever figure that out there goes our way of life! It’s not about food, it’s about keeping those ants in line.”
I have been thinking about this movie quite a bit in light of our current political issues.
We are not meant to serve grasshoppers.
Prairie Rose,
I think that Michael has this exactly correct. The elites will unite to accomplish their goals. In the meantime, they have taught us to hate each other and never work with others if they aren’t “pure” enough (meaning don’t agree with everything we think). They have propagandized us into stupidity and authority worshiping slaves (not everyone, but a lot of people). That’s how the keep control.
I’m glad you brought up your movie analogy. It is a good one!
Thank you, Jill!
Well said, Karen!
“I happen to share the anger in the media over the treatment of the press by this president.”
And yet, the gist of the entire story is how the press, yet again, is a blatant Democratic mouthpiece refusing journalistic due diligence when it can shield Democrats.
These repeated instances has eroded the public trust (of non extremist Democrats). This is why we are deeply mistrustful and resentful of the mainstream press. At times, it is as if we are in the USSR rolling our eyes at yet another propaganda piece explaining how accounts of the long bread lines we’re standing in are all lies.
Trump can be ineffectual in his accusations of media malfeasance. For instance, he could have roasted the press by merely releasing proof of the story, and Spencer or other pundits could have remarked about who Mitchel failed to ask Rice about her changing story while claiming there was nothing to see here. The POTUS could have stayed above the fray. And fair or not, the President needs to anticipate and accept a media suspicious of his motives and actions. That is how the media is supposed to act in regard to all government officials. It is a check and balance that we have on government. When they cross the line into fraud, as in this case, then it is up to the opposing media, pundits, and even his Press Secretary to point it out, but not the President. An appropriate conversation he could have had with the American people could have been a version of the Fireside Chat, with a positive spin along the lines of, look we’re in this together and we’ll deal with false propaganda when it comes up. Extemporaneous Twitter rants are not helpful, especially when he did not have the proof ready to reveal.
But I cannot be angry in his comments about the press when it continually acts like an office of the DNC. If they want to be the DNC, then they should stop pretending to be journalists and just call it what it is, a news magazine for members of the Democratic Party.
Wrong! He is a real American and acted as you or I would if we were in the hot seat! He continually shows them up to be liars and not to be trusted as news people! He keeps them in a pile of shit because they keep shitting on themselves, and do it non-stop!! More and more people are waking up to the fact of how stupid they are by trying to hide their bias! He’s smarter than them and it is killing them!
And don’t forget the crime of conspiracy to leak.
Obama et al were sure Clinton would win and they’d get away with abusive unmasking.
When Trump won, Obama, with legitimate good reason, increased the number of govt people who could see classified reports and, thereby, the number of people who could leak.
This scenario kills two birds with 1 stone.
1. With many many more people with motive and opportunity to leak Trump et al. misdeeds w/ Russians, the fact that no actionable evidence has leaked to establish collusion makes the allegation all the more specious.
2. It puts Obama himself in the conspiracy. Can anyone fathom a legitimate reason a sitting president would have to weaken security controls over classified information? Me neither.
Consipiracy 101.
Any word on when Barry is coming back to DC to rejoin his family (including his roomie Valerie Jarrett who has officially moved in to the Resistance Bunker) from his remote French Polynesian island hideout? Wanna bet not one news truck will be parked out front of his house here in DC waiting to pounce with questions. Not one. Not gonna happen.
“The irony is that Trump was wrong about the media but many in the media seem to be working hard to prove him right.”
That’s actually not irony, it just means Trump was right.
There is no question someone leaked classified information.
That’s a Felony.
Anyone who requested unmasking (e.g., Rice) is a prime suspect.
Like any crime, leaking can be proven with circumstantial evidence.
A circumstantial case is strongest when there was opportunity and motive, which are obvious here.
And when someone has a track record of dishonesty, her exculpating testimony is disregarded.
Bottom line, Rice and Obama will be in the hot seat for the foreseeable future.
“Bottom line, Rice and Obama will be in the hot seat for the foreseeable future.” Really?
I say hardly, the MSM is doing their best to not report that part of the story and leave it at “Trump makes wild accusations”. Clapper? An admitted liar. Rice? Shown to have been “less than honest” with regards Benghazi and now unmasking. Move along, nothing to see here, Obama was the great and wonderful one and HRC should have been his heir.
Ever hear of Jeff Sessions?
“Rice later said that she did “regret that the information I was provided was wrong. That doesn’t make me a liar.” That is correct …”
********************
Not exactly. When you’re the person traipsed out by the government to tell us what happened, and you relay false information that nobody else confirms which helps the administration, that makes you a liar.
To lie is too intentionally relate a falsehood.
Use a dictionary.
To think is to assemble and extrapolate from given facts. Get a mind.
https://twitter.com/TVietor08/status/852191775997538304
Trump has never had a fair shake from the msm. Their disgusting behavior puts our country at risk. The msm has killed the free press which is essential to our freedom. They refused to report any of the scandals initiated by Obama for fear of being called racist. Had they done their job vetting someone who sealed his records years before the election, he would have never been allowed to run for the senate or the presidency. We almost did not survive his 8 years and the jury is still out if we will survive at all.
You have no right to be angry with Trump. Direct your anger to where it belongs, the msm. And push for a return of the free, not the partisan press.
Definitely. All through the 16 campaign the MSM treated Trump as a side show, including the best clips for ratings effect. On election night they were completely blown away because the polls they bought and paid for indicated HRC would be the clear winner. So now what? Report honestly on the sideshow they helped create? Hardly, continue to treat him as a side show in the hopes of bringing back someone that can be “trusted” like HRC or another Repo they “trust”.
Which came first – the chicken or the egg?
Eliminate names and dates from this story and the outrage would be overwhelming (save for a few) against this abuse of power. Tribalism is strong in this country and the media is directly responsible for the extent of the division.
If this was Dick Cheney on some Halliburton scandal, the press would be howling.
Exactly. It demonstrates the pure hypocrisy of it all.
I guess JT missed the interview with Rice where she explained that it isn’t just she who decides on the unmasking. She can request the unmasking but the IC has a procedure to determine if it is appropriate to do so. I can see a legitimate request if the US citizen is mentioned as one who is involved in activities that are detrimental to US security, e.g. colluding to meddle in our elections. Who did Rice unmask? She said she made several requests for unmasking over the years. Some of her requests could have been for political reasons, but they also could have been legitimate requests that seem political.
BK,
Does it matter to you that Rice lied? She said flat out she didn’t know anything about this. That was a lie. Do you care? If not, why not?
Does it matter to you that the IC can unmask our names and information so easily, against the fourth amendment? If not, why not?
It seems like terrorism justifies the abrogation of the rule of law to you? Is that correct?
Do you want to know if the IC or Rice did unmask for political purposes? Would that matter to you? If not, why not?
Of course it matters. My point is that the unmaskings may or may not have been for political reasons and we don’t have enough information for the judgements that many are making.
The last thing we need is to err on the side of less scrutiny.
Bettykath,…
I guess you missed the interview where Rice flatly denied knowing anything about unmasking Trump associates.
I think you have misunderstood her. Rice refused to identify, confirm or deny, the identities of anyone unmasked because it would have been a security violation for which she could be prosecuted.
No, we didn’t misnderstand her. She lied.
Democrats will seldom admit to the reality that “their people” lie, do harm, or even that they kill people. Just two days ago a Democrat told me that Clinton was for the people. I know you all mostly believe this, but sometimes it just boggles my mind that so many Democrats cannot come to terms with reality.
She lied! That should upset anyone from any party. She has not been held to account for her lies. That should upset anyone from any party.
Bettykath,
On March 22, Judy Woodruff asked Rice about the possibility that Trump and/ or Trump associates were caught up in surveillance of foreign targets of investigations.
Rice replied “I know nothing about this”.
Rice’s subsequent answer was that the the unmasking of the non-foreign subjects caught up in the surveillance was “not done for political purposes”.
So at one point, she “knows nothing about” the unmasking.
Later, she says the unmasking was not “done for political purposes”.
If her first statement were true, she obviously could not identify the identities of those unmasked, since she “knew nothing” about it.
It remains to be seen if her second statement is true ( that unmasking was not done for political purposes).
The questions raised by the two contradictory statements by Rice remain.
So far, Rice hasn’t been dumb enough to publically reveal who was unmasked; that does not resolve the issue raised by her two contradictory statements in the interviews.
Is it not possible that Trump’s associates were unmasked by someone other than Rice and that she, personally, has no knowledge of it? She is not the only one who could request unmasking. We already have found that the FBI got a FISA warrant on a Trump associate. It was probably based on an unmasking for national security reasons and had nothing to do with Trump unless subsequent surveillance/investigation shows a connection.
Considering the number of his campaign associates were receiving significant amounts of money from foreign governments to lobby for them, there may be more FISA warrants that we don’t know about. it doesn’t look good for Trump but it doesn’t mean that he knew he was being lobbied. There are many D’s, maybe some on Clinton’s staff, who are lobbyists for foreign governments. This is not a partisan issue.
I don’t know how Rice could be sure that no one else did an unmasking for political purposes. Could Rice be lying? Yes, but I haven’t seen evidence of it. Let’s hope there is more digging.
https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/852142093506150405
This is a well argued and important post. These are very serious questions. No one even has to care about Trump to raise them. These actions effect people world wide. They show the destruction of our Constitution.
The “press”, whether right, left or center (whatever those terms mean at this time) have largely encouraged the destruction of our Constitution, the one real safeguard any of us have against the abrogation of our basic rights. They do not hold the govt. to account, including Trump, when it comes to abrogation of our rights and the laying waste to the Constitution.
The press are courtiers. They are told what to say and they say it. We saw this clearly from the Podesta e-mails. They are willing tools. They just want to be hangers-on in halls of power. Talk about useful idiots!
It is scary to see how they avoid confronting basic questions. Rice said A. Not it turns out that A wasn’t true. O.K., maybe there’s an explanation. How do we know unless some one will ask the obvious question? Further they call upon known liars as experts for news stories. They fail to disclose these “experts'” business interests in the matter at hand. Newz anchors act like experts themselves. They just make statements which we are expected to believe without question.
So you think your fourth amendment rights matter do you? Well you’re an idiot. I say they don’t! This is a non-story! Jeez, the will to serve powerful wrong doers is great among this class. Give them a lavish lifestyle and some crumbs of power and they are good to go on betraying not only the rest of us, but if they were smart enough to see it, themselves as well.
What’s still missing and still stinks is a full, rigorous inquiry into what actually happened regarding chemical weapons. Until that occurs, this is simply one lie predicated on another predicated on yet another.
There remains considerable doubt that Assad was behind the recent attack.
Former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, tells Paul Jay that the Syrian Government may not be responsible for the chemical attack and that Trump’s response was a violation of international law
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=18841
Put aside that Andrea Mitchell is a political hack. She is a TV reporter and can’t complete simple sentences. Listen to her interview people. She’s been doing this for decades and she sounds like a middle school girl doing a pretend interview for class.
Mitchell is Greenspan’s frau. That’s why she has the job.
She an old woman. She was an established broadcaster (and past 50) before she ever married Greenspan. Business and finance was never her beat, Greenspan retired a decade ago, and about the only known libertarian in broadcasting is John Stossel.
She’s a Hillary pal, too. Just look for photos of the two of them laughing and yukking it up. One of the problems with DC politics is the inter-mingling of the press and the politicians. They all socialize together in the cocktail party scene and there is a revolving door from administration to media punditry and it has become one totally biased inbreeding family. How on earth can the mostly liberal incestuous partisan political press cover a Republican or Democratic administration fairly? They cannot. The White House Correspondents Dinner is an example of the incestuousness and inherent bias in those who are supposed to critically cover each administration. It’s not possible any more in Washington DC today. That is the reality.
For example: David Rhodes was in Obama’s inner circle while his brother, David Rhodes was (and still is) head of CBS News. George Stephanopoulous was in Bill and Hillary Clinton’s inner circle and he is host on ABC. Then we have all the pundits on CNN who have moved from Obama admin to the panels on CNN including “reporter” Jim Sciutto who has never disclosed to the viewing public the gross conflicts of interest inherent in his position – or Valerie Jarrett’s daughter Laura Jarret who is now covering the Justice Dept ofr CNN – and many of the reporters and pundits on CNN. They don’t even bother to disclose it anymore. It’s all a farce. And they count on the stupidity of the American people. Jonathan Gruber spilled those beans as to how they got Obamacare passed — it was the stupidity of the American people. He told us so. And they count on it. My advice? Cut your cable chord and find all you want for free on You Tube and elsewhere. CNN is a sad excuse for anything resembling “unbiased news.” Cut the chord and cut the crap out of your life.
Correction: Ben Rhodes worked for Obama. David Rhodes is at CBS.
This goes way back. The premier ABC Sunday am news show is now “with George Stephanopoulous, but used to be “with Cokie Roberts” (a Democratic partisan). Back then, Stephanopoulous was a member of the panel. When conservatives raised the bias issue, the ABC response was “but we have George Will on the panel to balance Stephanopoulous.” Some balance! When Roberts moved on, Stephanopoulous got the show. No more mention of his being a balance for Will.
Few should doubt Rice is a close, loyal friend & surrogate to both Obama’s. As such, she is knowingly willing, without hesitation, to fall on any political, helter-skelter, sword thrown Obama’s way. In short, she will never waver in the face of facts to challenge those facts with impunity.