I assume Judy Woodruff is accurately describing what question she asked.
But beyond that, SR clearly said she was surprised at Nunes’ claims, which did not go beyond what she herself turns out to have been the point person for. What part of Nunes’ claims could she have possibly been surprised to see and know nothing about?
You’re really working overtime trying to convince us that the only scandal in this whole Russia thing is the fault of Obama, but there is still no indication Rice did anything wrong. All indications are that she did a normal part of her job. Whatever names were unmasked were not released or leaked. This is all a sideshow to the Nunes bullshit that was it’s own sideshow to begin with.
Part of the transcript of the PBS Newshour:
"Woodruff: "We spoke earlier this evening with former Obama White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice, the author of that piece. It was her first interview since leaving the White House.
I began by asking about the allegations leveled today by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes that Trump transition officials, including the president, may have been swept up in surveillance of foreigners at the end of the Obama administration.
Rice: “I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.”
Wait, what? Unmasking is not illegal and is not the same as leaking.
The leaking of unmasked names, I believe.
I’m sure it’s a more-or-less accurate paraphrase. But since you’re hanging a ton of emphasis on the exact words, it is important to know the exact words. We don’t know if the question asked about Nunes generally or specifically asked about incidental collection or what.
Nunes made lots of claims, including that the unmasking had been widely disseminated, was done for political purposes, and was lacking in intelligence justification. That’s why it’s pretty important to know what exactly Woodruff asked in her question.
That’s a transcript of the show, not a transcript of the interview. It begins with a paraphrase of whatever actual question was asked in the interview.
Do you have a cite for the last two of these?
ETA: SR goes on to say “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.” This doesn’t jibe with the notion that she was referring earlier to more expansive claims by Nunes of the sort you describe.
Nunus’ claim changed a couple times. First it was that Trump team communications were intercepted, then that the names were unmasked (illegally? I really can’t remember), then that the names were masked but you could still figure out who they were. In the end, it seems to be much ado about stuff that was actually normal.
So far, I don’t doubt Rice didn’t know wtf Nunes was talking about with his sensational claims. That Nunes’ claims turned out to be related to normal shit she did at her job is probably news to her.
On the other hand, maybe she did know. Ironically, if she discussed classified matters to PBS, Trumpers would demand she spend her life in prison.
Sure.
I disagree. It is entirely consistent. You’re wildly overreaching in calling her a liar and a weasel before you even know the question she was asked.
Whether or not she lied is completely irrelevant and a distraction. Don’t take the bait.
I don’t agree. If in fact it turns out that senior members of the Obama Administration unmasked foreign intelligence transcripts for improper reasons, that would deserve public scrutiny and would go some distance toward substantiating Trump’s claims that are the subject of this thread. And if Susan Rice gave a deliberately misleading answer about the unmasking when asked, that would be circumstantial evidence that the unmasking was not done for legitimate reasons.
More broadly, I think this whole idea of “distractions” has gotten out of hand. In some sense, this whole thread is a distraction. In some sense, the whole Russia investigation is a distraction. What really matters is that Trump is an incompetent buffoon with the nuclear codes. Talking about anything else is missing the point! But, since we are going to talk about other things, I think it’s worth engaging with non-trolls who had wrongheaded ideas.
Your cite is somewhat less than your claim. ISTM that the “suggestion” of political motives was just a derivation from his claim that there was little to no intelligence value. That’s not the same as a direct claim, such that Rice could claim she knows nothing about Nunes’ claims and mean such inferences and not the central claim.
Either way, if that was what she was asked about, then Judy Woodruff was seriously misrepresenting the question in her characterization. I don’t see anything in it for her to do that.
To the contrary, you’re stretching greatly to avoid an obvious conclusion.
If you ask me, the main significance is to what extent you trust Susan Rice’s and other Obama officials’ versions of events.
There’s an enormous amount of suspicion of claims by Trump and his people - and for good reason - so there’s a tendency to take contrasting claims by Obama people at face value. This is a mistake.
[Though FWIW, I’m not the guy who raised the issue in this thread. Others’ were discussing it, and iiandyiiii suggested that the only reason to assume that Rice was lying is because she’s liberal. That’s far from an accurate claim.]
Nunes said this information was (A) widely disseminated; and (B) had little to no intelligence value. Whether that suggests a political purpose or not is, I suppose, a matter of reasonable dispute.
But it doesn’t matter to our debate in this thread. There is a world of difference between these two potential questions:
(1) What do you make of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes’s claim that conversations with Trump transition officials were swept up in surveillance of foreigners at the end of the Obama administration?
(2) What do you think of the allegations made by Rep. Nunes today that intelligence was unmasked and disseminated widely without intelligence justification, including intelligence swept up in surveillance of foreigners at the end of the Obama administration?
Both are accurately paraphrased by “I began by asking about the allegations leveled today by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes that Trump transition officials, including the president, may have been swept up in surveillance of foreigners at the end of the Obama administration.”
But only one of them makes Susan Rice’s answer incorrect.
You don’t know which one was asked. Instead, you’re comfortable calling her a liar and weasel without knowing.
It suggests a political purpose. It’s not the same as asserting one, for purposes of Rice’s response. Someone who responds that they don’t know about the claims and are surprised by the reports is referring to what you’ve said, not by what might be suggested from what you’ve said.
I disagree that both are accurately paraphrased by those words.
It would also, and much, much more importantly, raise the question of why so many transcripts existed in the first place. As some members of the intelligence community have pointed out, there’s an unprecedented number of these contacts, and we’re discovering more every day.
If someone “unmasked” them for improper reasons, sure, we should investigate that. But it’s still being brought out as a distraction: the Right is telling we shouldn’t investigate the armed robbery because we need to spend time investigating if the bank teller was speeding on her way to work that morning.
You called her a liar and a weasel. You didn’t say “if this report is accurate, she’s a liar and a weasel”, or “if my interpretation of this paraphrasing of the conversation is accurate, she’s a liar and a weasel”.
So are you certain (or close) that she’s a “liar and a weasel”, or are you much less confident? If you’re close to certain, why?
You left out where I said “looks to me”.
Not sure why you would do that.
But in this case we’re talking about a response to a question about the remarks. And so the issue is whether the question might reasonably have included what’s in the reports or what is being suggested by the remarks and not just the remarks.
Well, yeah. As we’ve learned through the course of this discussion, the gravamen of your argument here is that Woodruff’s paraphrase rules out the possibility that the question was at all broader than asking about whether Trump team could have been caught by incidental collection.
That’s an unreasonable take on what the paraphrase might encompass. But we’re not gonna make progress on that. So I’ll just point out that it’s also an awful lot of weight to put on the accuracy of a paraphrase in a news interview hook.
Not so. “At all broader” overstates things considerably, in that it implies asking about incidental collection plus other related matters.
In order for Rice to have truthfully responded “I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today”, Woodruff’s question couldn’t have simply been “broader” than solely asking about incidental collection, it would have to have been primarily focused on other matters. Which is indeed how you structured it under your scenario (2), in which the question was directly about the dissemination without justification, and only mentioned the collection itself as a detail. Characterizing this as “broader” is not accurate.