Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians, according to US officials

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Okrahoma

Can I hear the chorus of “what is she hiding”?

You know that chorus would be in full throat if that was a Trump administration official refusing to testify.

[…]

You know that when a Republican official changes his statements, it is “why is he lying, what is he covering up”, right?

Yes. Can you think of any relevant differences between the Trump administration and the Obama administration? Between Susan Rice and the average Trump administration member? I’ll give you a hint: it has to do with how often they lie and how trustworthy they are.

[Okrahoma]

@Aspenglow

This is exactly true. If only you would bend some effort to learn the extremely vast difference between the terms, “unmasking” – a completely routine, expected practice done by persons at the highest levels of government, such as a national security advisor – and “leaking,” which is illegal.

These terms are not interchangeable. It is one of the many disingenuous tactics used by Fox “News” and the alt-right to conflate meanings and imply nefarious conduct where there was none, in order to mislead gullible people.

“Rice told PBS in March that she “knew nothing” about the unmasking of Trump associates.”

Was she telling the truth or not?

[Fubaya]

@Okrahoma

“Rice told PBS in March that she “knew nothing” about the unmasking of Trump associates.”

Was she telling the truth or not?

Okrahoma told us like 5 minutes ago that Rice was refusing to testify. Was he lying or not?

[Aspenglow]

@Okrahoma

“Rice told PBS in March that she “knew nothing” about the unmasking of Trump associates.”

Was she telling the truth or not?

I didn’t see the interview, don’t have the context and won’t venture an uninformed opinion. But watching the way you twist meanings and take things out of context, I wouldn’t be surprised if the answer is no.

By the way, Rice’s appearance in front of the House Intelligence Committee is voluntary, not under subpoena. She could tell them to pound sand if she wanted to.

[Aspenglow]

@Fubaya

Okrahoma told us like 5 minutes ago that Rice was refusing to testify. Was he lying or not?

I have an informed opinion about that.

[bobot]

“Unmasking”. It sounds really devious in a Batman and Robin, or Spiderman kind of way. Meanwhile, Trump associates have 100% certainly coordinated with Russians, according to Don Jr.

[Ravenman]

@Okrahoma

“Rice told PBS in March that she “knew nothing” about the unmasking of Trump associates.”

Was she telling the truth or not?

Sort of a loaded question since you aren’t even quoting the correct question she was asked.

[JohnT]

Feel free to create a “Susan Rice” thread as to not bring irrelevancies into this one.

[VinylTurnip]

@Fubaya

Can I hear a chorus of “Okrahoma is as disingenuous as always?”

a) No one but you and Trump think she did anything wrong.
b) The House hearing has only been postponed and it was postponed by the House Intelligence Committee, not Rice, but you’ll never see that detail on FoxNews.
c) Susan Rice to appear before Senate **Intel **Committee this week

A beach ball on a tee and a giant plastic bat, and still he manages to whiff and crack his own eggs.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Okrahoma

or how about this:

"Rice told PBS in March that she “knew nothing” about the unmasking of Trump associates.

How about this indeed.

In the first question, PBS NewsHour’s Judy Woodruff asked Rice about Nunes’ disclosure that Trump “and the people around him may have been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals and that their identities may have been disclosed. Do you know anything about this?” Woodruff added.

“I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today,” Rice answered. The full first question is unedited in the video above.

“This” almost certainly refers to the disclosure of the identities of the people around Trump. Not “unmasking.”

Easy mistake, glad to know how sheepish your apology is gonna be. In the future, don’t trust Fox News.

[JohnT]

How about “Susan Rice: The Thread”?

Seems like a large enough topic to warrant its own, no need for it to take over this one. Have at it, Okrah.

[yanceylebeef]

@Okrahoma

Can I hear the chorus of “what is she hiding”?

You know that chorus would be in full throat if that was a Trump administration official refusing to testify.
Clipped

You mean like Micheal Flynn did?

[Bone]

@Fubaya

Can I hear a chorus of “Okrahoma is as disingenuous as always?”

While use of disingenuous will not always garner comment, the “as always” component definitely pushes this over the line. That combined with this post as well:

@Fubaya

Okrahoma told us like 5 minutes ago that Rice was refusing to testify. Was he lying or not?

This is a warning for personal insults (for the first quoted post). If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner.

---

As a reminder:

@Bone

I’m picking this one post as an example, but there’s quite a bit of it in this thread. Everyone: enough with the personal digs or subtle hints at the personal digs. I tend to interpret generously but that has run its course in this thread. Please act accordingly.

[/moderating]

[/moderating]

[Thing_Fish]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

IME there are a lot of meetings like that. Either big meetings with many people, or even smaller meetings where you don’t know all the people. E.g. someone from the client or vendor brings along some associates, and you’re focused on the guy you know better.

But generally you’ll remember that there were other people present, even if you don’t remember who they were. It would be unusual, IME, to forget entirely that the other people were there altogether.

But it’s possible that everyone is different and/or that DTJ attends more meetings than me (I avoid them to the extent possible).It’s likely that ex-members of the Russian military who lobby for Russia would be much more memorable to you than they would be to people at high levels of politics (or even business) who meet many people with similar resumes.

More importantly though, it’s not certain that DTJ knew this guy’s background at the time. He would likely have been introduced as so-and-so with such-and-such title, an associate of whoever the main person was.I don’t get the whole Secret Service angle altogether. The role of the SS is to protect the candidates. Not to make sure the people they’re meeting with are appropriate.

I’m sure Trump et al do go to a lot of meetings where there may be people present they don’t know well. But this meeting was for the express purpose of engaging in what many people would view as criminal, even treasonous, conspiracy. Everyone involved clearly knew that, which is why they have consistently lied about every aspect of the meeting.

[Thing_Fish]

Premature posting:

Is it really plausible that anyone would walk into THAT meeting and not want an explanation for the presence of some unexpected third party? Who would find that party’s presence so unremarkable that they would promptly forget about it entirely? I don’t think so.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Thing_Fish

Premature posting:

Is it really plausible that anyone would walk into THAT meeting and not want an explanation for the presence of some unexpected third party? Who would find that party’s presence so unremarkable that they would promptly forget about it entirely? I don’t think so.

Steve Martin had this covered in the '70s:

Two simple words. Two simple words in the English language: “I forgot!” How many times do we let ourselves get into terrible situations because we don’t say “I forgot”? Let’s say you’re on trial for armed robbery. You say to the judge, “I forgot armed robbery was illegal.” Let’s suppose he says back to you, “You have committed a foul crime. you have stolen hundreds and thousands of dollars from people at random, and you say, ‘I forgot’?”

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Thing_Fish

Is it really plausible that anyone would walk into THAT meeting and not want an explanation for the presence of some unexpected third party? Who would find that party’s presence so unremarkable that they would promptly forget about it entirely? I don’t think so.

That might apply to Manafort, but not to the others. They are political neophytes, and would not fully appreciate the significance of that meeting and who was or wasn’t there.

[JohnT]

8th person at the meeting revealed:

8th person at Trump Tower meeting identified | CNN Politics

[Thing_Fish]

I’ve never participated in a meeting whose purpose was to conspire to commit a felony, but if I ever did, I would make sure I knew everyone in the room before I started talking. I mean, that’s not the sort of subtle nuance you only pick up your last year in Treason School.

On the other hand, the stupidity of these people can’t really be underestimated, so maybe…

[Ca3799]

@Okrahoma

Can I hear the chorus of “what is she hiding”?

You know that chorus would be in full throat if that was a Trump administration official refusing to testify.

Susan Rice refuses to testify before House Intelligence Committee

"Susan Rice is no longer expected to visit Capitol Hill on Tuesday for a meeting with the House committee probing allegations she “unmasked” President Trump associates in Russian meddling probes.

Rice had been expected to face tough questions on her role in the matter while serving as then-President Barack Obama’s national security adviser. Trump alleges Rice may have committed a crime by asking government analysts to disclose the names of his associates documented in intelligence reports."

or how about this:

"Rice told PBS in March that she “knew nothing” about the unmasking of Trump associates.

She later acknowledged having occasionally sought the identities of Trump associates who communicated with foreigners, a process known as “unmasking” in the intelligence community. But she later told MSNBC, “I leaked nothing to nobody.”"

You know that when a Republican official changes his statements, it is “why is he lying, what is he covering up”, right?

Hannity posted this on his blog today with a link to the Fox News story (supposedly) supporting his claim that Rice “bailed” on the SI Committee. Hannity’s post: Sean Hannity

But Hannity’s own link says the hearing was “postponed”. Hannity’s link (that he provided in his blogpost): Susan Rice no longer planning to testify Tuesday before House panel | Fox News