It’s 1984! GOP Investigators Say It’s Really Okay Susan Rice Lied And Unmasked!


House investigators let Susan Rice testify in private about her role in unmasking Trump campaign officials while she served as National Security Adviser. That has allowed them to selectively release the information they want to release, damage Devin Nukes and Donald Trump, and fully exonerate her.

Rice lied repeatedly and unmasked members of Trump’s campaign and Republicans on the committee are fine with it.

Former national security adviser Susan Rice told House investigators that she internally unmasked the identities of senior Trump officials in order to understand why the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates was in New York late last year, CNN reports.

According to the committee, Devin Nunes and Donald Trump are suddenly the villains. Susan Rice’s lies and vast number of unmasking requests are not a problem.


Let’s go back to Rice’s original statement. The day Devine Nunes accused her, she said, “I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.”

As time went on, she said she didn’t know “what reports Nunes was referring to.”

Then in April, she said she never did anything “untoward”.

That takes us to yesterday. Rice was called to testify in secret. Multiple sources told CNN that her new statement was that she unmasked the senior Trump officials to figure out why the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates was in New York late last year.

The meeting allegedly took place before the UAE attempted to set up a backchannel between Russian and Trump transition officials. Obama was said to be unaware and feeling misled.

Susan Rice’s new story is that she did it, and she obviously lied about it, but it was for a really good reason. Therefore, it’s okay for politicians to lie to the American people over and over.


CNN reported that her explanation appears to have satisfied some influential Republicans on the committee. They are claiming it undercut both Devin Nunes and Donald Trump while raising new questions about whether any Trump associates tried to arrange backchannel discussions with the Russians.

“I didn’t hear anything to believe that she did anything illegal,” Florida Rep. Tom Rooney, a Republican helping to lead the panel’s Russia investigation, told CNN of Rice’s testimony.

Rep. Conaway, the Republican who took over the investigation from Nunes, said there was no reason to bring Rice in for further questioning.

“She was a good witness, answered all our questions,” Rep. Mike Conaway, the Texas Republican told CNN. “I’m not aware of any reason to bring her back.”

Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said he believed people were satisfied with Rice’s testimony.

“I can certainly express my own view that I see no indication that she did anything at all wrong, and, in fact, I think that what she did in her role was perfectly appropriate,” he told CNN.

Judge Napolitano doesn’t agree and wants Mueller to investigate Rice and Obama:

Sean Hannity summarizes below. Rice not only unmasked a vast number of Trump campaign people, the information she obtained was sent to unknown others in government agencies during the run up to the election:



  1. RIce’s story is not credible. Some republicans are willing to pretend to believe Rice since it fits into the anti-Trump narrative on Russian election interference. Their statements make Ryan happy.

  2. Judge Andrew Napolitano’s statements are pure bluff. They will only work in oral argumentation where no one asks questions. His arguments won’t make any logical sense in a written transcript.

    He first confirmed that the story was “huge”. Then he argued for a different conclusion than CNN, Trey Gowdy, Tom Rooney and Mike Conaway.

    (written transcript)
    “It’s consistent with the president’s allegations and the unmasking seems to have occurred at about the same time that mysteriously portions of the transcript of a telephone conversation between Mike Flynn, then President-Elect Donald Trump‘s pick for national security advisor and [Sergey] Kislyak, then the Russian ambassador to the United States mysteriously appeared in the Washington Post,” Napolitano said. “That’s almost the linchpin that started the ball rolling to what’s going on between the Russians and the Trump people.”

    He added that he didn’t want to “bury the lead” when he said the following:

    “Susan Rice knew and presumably President [Barack] Obama knew that President-Elect Trump and his people were being surveilled in Trump Tower in the era before he was the president of the United States. And she knew how to take advantage of that,” Napolitano stated.

    It’s completely meaningless. “the president’s allegations” were about “wire tapping” of Trump Tower. Susan Rice testified about an intelligence report. The testimony didn’t say anything about surveillance or wire tapping. The original report in WaPo said that the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi was mentioned in the flight manifest (extended passenger list).

    If you use arguments like “Susan Rice knew” in a written discussion then opponents will throw stones at you. What Napolitano says there is that “Trump Tower was wire tapped because Susan Rice and Obama knew it was wire tapped”.

  3. (quote)
    Susan Rice’s lies and vast number of unmasking requests are not a problem.
    (end quote)

    She didn’t lie. The PBS NewsHour interview was from March 22nd — from the same day Devin Nunes held 2 press conferences and several interviews. The story was then that he had been contacted by a whistleblower and had been given access to secret documents. He didn’t mention The White House. He tried to hide the fact that the documents originated from The White House for almost a week.

    Rachel Maddow made several jokes about those press conferences the same day — jokes about how vague they were. Devin Nunes had seen something that made him feel really concerned, but he was unable to describe what he had seen because it was so secret that he couldn’t tell anyone. He only knew that he had to rush down to The White House and inform the president about what he had seen.

    Devin Nunes made up that story about a whistleblower to conceal the fact that the documents originated from The White House. He gave rather vague descriptions of the documents, like “they appeared to be legal, but they made him feel very concerned”. “Some of the documents contained names of Trump associates that had been unmasked. Other documents had the names masked, but it was possible to guess the identities based on the context”.

    “I know nothing about that!” is a perfectly good answer. Devin Nunes tried to mislead people. He tried to conceal the fact that the documents originated from The White House.

  4. (quote)
    House investigators let Susan Rice testify in private about her role in unmasking Trump campaign officials while she served as National Security Adviser. That has allowed them to selectively release the information they want to release, damage Devin Nukes and Donald Trump, and fully exonerate her.
    (end quote)

    The problem can be described like this:
    “The Susan Rice testimony didn’t meet my excpectations. I had expected a different result based on the information I had received over the last few months”.

    That’s a true description of the real problem. It was about expectations. It isn’t about that THEY failed to see something in a specific way. It was about “wrong expectatons”.

    When you analyse a problem, always try to place it inside an area where you have direct control — where you can change things directly by your own actions. Don’t place it “out there somewhere”.
    * “I had the wrong expectations” is directly under your own control. You can easily change that.
    * “Trey Gowdy didn’t come to the right conclusion” is under HIS control.
    * “Susan Rice didn’t give the right testimony” is under HER control.
    * “Judge Napolitano had a better interpretation” isn’t about problem solving..

    You can of course try to give Trey Gowdy a better conclusion. Or you can try to make Susan Rice change her testimony. Just tell her that she’s supposed to be the villain here and that she should start to act like one. A short testimony may do the job — “I admit, on behalf of myself and Barack Obama, to all the wrong-doing people have suspected us of. That includes, but are not limited to, political surveillance, unmasking of political opponents, treason, false accusations”. A testimony like that should better match your expectations.

  5. Trey Gowdy is a former U.S. Attorney. He probably knew that they had a weak case against Susan Rice, but he gave it a chance anyway. Judge Andrew Napolitano isn’t a solution to a weak case. He may be a solution if you want to mislead yourself or others about something — e.g. if you can’t escape from a “group pressure situation” where you need to reflect some specific ideas to be accepted by the group.

    They most likely had a weak case. It had major logical errors and legal flaws.
    * Unmasking was a normal, legitimate part of her job.
    * “Unmasking + dissemination” is illegal, but unmasking isn’t.

    Devin Nunes always tried to combine “unmasking AND dissemination” in his descriptions to have a valid case he could investigate. He never managed to find any evidence to support his own theories that classified material had been unmasked AND disseminated. He only managed to prove unmasking — that people had followed the law.

    The fact that Devin Nunes tried to falsify the origin of the evidence didn’t improve his case. The evidence against Susan Rice had been gathered in an illegal way. Ezra Cohen-Watnick acted outside the limitations of his own authority when he discovered the evidence. Devin Nunes tried to camouflage the illegal origin by making up a story about a whistleblower.

    Devin Nunes story would eventually have backfired. Trey Gowdy, Tom Rooney and Mike Conaway decided to get off that particular train before it derailed completely. The evidence against Susan Rice would never have been accepted by any court because of its illegal origin.

    The rest of the case — Samantha Power, Ben Rhodes, etc. — isn’t based on anything illegal. But it still has major logical errors.

    • When you analyze, don’t think complex issues can be put into a narrow little basket of things. Regular readers of this website know the enormous amount of evidence pointing to Rice as a liar and an unmasker of confidential information of political opponents during an election.

      This has not been explained and only anti-Trump information has been released. This is all covert but we are supposed to trust known liars.

      You conveniently leave out all the information except that which allows you to knock the analysis. My ‘expectations’ were to have information proving her right to know and explanations for her lying repeatedly. They basically are telling us it is okay for politicians to lie to us.

Comments are closed.