That’s my understanding as well. He’s recusing himself from the Russian investigation while the Ethics Committee investigates the complaints about his [del]bumbling[/del] handling of the intelligence reports.
Nunes statement is right on par with the partisan hackery one would expect from him. Short version, leftists reported him to the ethics committee right as he was uncovering the truth: Nunes Statement on Russia Investigation | Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence
According to Susan Rice. :rolleyes: Given her history and ideological leanings, she’s not exactly an unimpeachable source. Put her under oath and see if her story/version changes again.
Which groups?
And if she says it again, under oath? And there is no actual evidence to contradict her testimony? You will investigate the suspicious lack of evidence for your suspicions?
Is Bush’s former NSA and CIA director a reliable source on unmasking?
You’re assuming facts not in evidence.
Flynn, Page, Manafort, and Stone have been under FBI investigation since July 2016 at least. Flynn in particular has been proven to be involved in a variety of unethical, illegal, and inappropriate activities, as well as failing to disclose these activities. The leaks on Flynn could have come from anywhere in the FBI or from other members of the intelligence community.
No evidence at all that Rice leaked, and no reason for her to. The Obama administration had already made a choice to sit on the evidence of election tampering that Comey wanted to go public with early on, precisely because it would be seen as too partisan.
I want the facts, as well as the claims, to actually be in evidence. Submitted under oath. YMMV.
That seems OK to me too, but there’s a huge imbalance here - ALL the claims without evidence are for the Trump side. We know that Rice would have names unmasked as part of her job. The claim, by the Republicans, and so far without evidence, is that she did so inappropriately.
The claim that Obama had wiretapped, or otherwise put under surveillance, the Trump campaign, is also without evidence.
I don’t consider myself a Republican or a Democrat, but with everything around the Russia connection and allegations of illegal snooping, it’s the Democrats who have all the facts on their side. I guess if the Republicans could produce facts to support their claims, that would be different, but I’ll believe that when I see it.
Let’s consider what he said:
HAYDEN: … But on its face what I know about the Susan Rice unmasking story, what has gone on here was lawful, appropriate and – here’s the punch line – pretty routine. Not exceptional.
“On its face” doesn’t sound like he knows what actually went on beyond what’s been publically discussed. Does “on its face” mean what’s been reported in the news media outlets, or something else?
“What I know” means just what it is, but is he in a position to know the whole truth? “As far as I can see, there’s no trouble here,” said the blind man.
(post shortened)
Which actual facts are you referring to? There are investigations by the FBI, but the FBI isn’t talking specifics. Others are speculating as fast as they possibly can, while still others are claiming that someone else MUST know something concrete. Not exactly actual evidence.
Claims, speculation, innuendo, political spin, it’s been a busy few weeks. I say they should all be put under oath. Let’s stop the insinuations. Make 'em put up or shut up. Under penalty of law.
I would say that it means, “absent any other evidence”, and any other evidence is currently absent.
Produce some, and things might change.
Hayden made no claims about the specific case (of Susan Rice). He made no claims about “no trouble here,” because he made no claims about the particular history of Susan Rice’s interactions with the NSA personnel who handle unmasking requests.
What he was making claims about was the system or process for unmasking names. Your objections don’t appear to apply.
Is that how things are going to go now? Trump wakes up with a wild hair across his ass one morning and Tweets: Susan Rice is a criminal! and now she has to be hauled into hearings to swear under oath that she’s not?
Hey, deflection is a full-time job. There are only so many stories that will distract people from the Russia connection–it’s hard work, coming up with them!
On the other hand, a Congress that is holding hearings on every dumb ass thing the President tweets is a Congress that’s too damn busy to make the tax code more regressive.
In your analogy, the blind man is the guy who is a lifelong intelligence professional who ran two intelligence agencies by appointment of a Republican president, who happens to be commenting on matters of law relating to the agencies he oversaw? This is what you think a blind man is?
In my analogy, the blind man is the person who doesn’t have access to all the facts, but is still willing to answer questions put to him by the media. To the best of his limited ability, of course.
That doesn’t stop others from using that self-professed limited-knowledge answer as proof that Sharon Rice couldn’t possibly have been involved in a politically motivated search for her parties political opponent’s contacts, and conversations.
I suggest that they put all of the actual participants under oath, and find out what actually happened. But I’m in favor of investigations.
Let’s keep track of what the accusations actually are. The Republicans were using the fact that Rice had the names unmasked as verification of their “political snooping” bullshit. What Hayden said is that unmasking of names, based on what we know of the circumstances, would be a normal and expected part of her job. It refuted their claims that the unmasking of names, by itself, was inappropriate.
Now, if someone at the White House actually has evidence that what she did was for political purposes, that should be pretty clear from the paper trail. And who has access to this evidence, without the need for any under-oath witness testimony? The White House! They’ve made charges of criminal conduct, and the evidence to back up their claims should be in their possession.
(underline added)
“Accusations actually are”, “based on what we know of the circumstances”, “by itself”, “actually has evidence” are all important considerations when considering whether there should be an actual, under-oath, investigation into the circumstances surrounding this latest crisis/media circus.
“Without the need for any under-oath witness testimony” only leads to more speculation. Should the speculation continue, or would you prefer to find out who actually said what, to whom they said it, and can anyone confirm the information under oath?
“I/he/she/it didn’t do anything wrong”, simply isn’t very convincing, unless you’ve already chosen that you do not need any convincing and unsubstantiated claims are proof enough.