Ed Morrissey:
So how many versions of Susan Rice’s story about the unmasking of Trump associates during the election have we been through now? This morning another log was chucked onto the fire when the former Former National Security Adviser showed up on Fareed Zakaria’s show for the next round of questions. Rice remains too clever by half, couching all of her answers in ways which seemingly imply one thing while not pinning herself down. (Politico)
Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice denied President Donald Trump’s claim that she tried to unmask Americans in an attempt to implicate Trump campaign officials, adding that she never did anything “untoward with respect to the intelligence” she received.
During an interview with CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS” airing Sunday morning, Rice said Trump’s accusation is “absolutely false” and that members of Congress have not found anything inappropriate in the situation.
“I think now we’ve had subsequently members of Congress on the intelligence committees on both sides of the aisle take a look at the information that apparently was the basis for Chairman [Devin] Nunes’ concern, and say publicly that they didn’t see anything that was unusual or untoward,” Rice said, referring to the California Republican.
Anyone noticing anything different in this version of the tale? You may recall that when the story first broke Rice spoke to Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC and at least heavily implied that Trump’s initial accusations were all some sort of fever swamp fantasies. (What she actually said was that she never leaked anything.) But before very long the details which emerged told a very different story. Within days it was revealed that she had, in fact, actively sought to have names revealed to her even if they had originally been picked up “incidentally.” Eventually we reached the point where the best they could say was that it appeared that she hadn’t done anything that was technically illegal.
Now, in the fashion so typical of politicians (as opposed to national security experts), she’s answering an entirely different question.
Hmmm…. Ms. Susan thinks that not finding anything implies total and ongoing innocence, yet the fact that not one shred (or smidgen) of evidence or indication that anyone within the Trump team contacted or colluded with any Russian to in any way affect the election only means the goodies have not been unearthed yet. Isn’t that strange?
Can of worms, indeed. Were there a media around that reported news instead of propagandizing for the Democrat party, this would already be in the history books.
I will believe anyone in Washington is accountable when I see, it an actual indictment.
It’s the hillary defense, ” I’ve never been convicted!”.
She is an illiterate tool of the left. Her role was to spread lies. She didn’t do a good job of it.
“Misuse”. Carefully thought out. She did not deny she “used it” did she? Misuse is right up there with “Misspoke” aka Lied.
@Songbird: “Misuse”? No, she used it properly like any other member of a despotic regime would use it.
Like Ed Meese would say, the police wouldn’t be talking to you if you were innocent.