says she did that.
Otherwise, trump and company lie almost all the time.

a hay day--in Rice bashing.

And the fact that they turned the faux outrage over Susan Rice up to maximum, and yet never succeeded in getting her scalp from Obama, made them even madder. The Susan Rice thing has been a smouldering bombshell ever since, with them just LOOKING for something to pin on her. This is the perfect opportunity. Next to Hillary Clinton and Obama himself, there's nobody the RW hates more than Susan Rice.

Bowling Green Massacre to Trump outright lying about Obama wiretapping him.

that Rice didnt' have the power to do the unmasking which undercuts their conspiracy theory off the bat. They're just trying to muddy the waters which means the investigation is right over the target. Makes sense since flynn is so pathetically desperate for immunity.

Eli Lake ran an article naming Susan Rice as the person who requested some unmasking of Trump officials, but conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich, formerly of Pizzagate fame, is the guy that first reported on this story.

Unmasking is not at all equivalent to leaking. There is nothing inherently wrong with requesting that something be unmasked.

Did Cohen-Watnick care to mention just how many times "U.S. Person One." just happened to appear in communications?

per the rules. Any more than that is frowned upon because of copyright issues.

Welcome to DU.

That's not a nice way to introduce yourself to the community.

Especially considering what we know that has been going on lately with Russian trolls.

Some people here on DU don't like folks with low post count. Not sure why because we all had low post counts at one time. Low post count can be very informative if someone is pushing Right Wing propaganda or whatever but many times that is not the case & folks will jump on those with a low post count just because they disagree with what they're saying. Obviously you clearly were not a Right Wing troll so I'm not sure why it was even brought up.

Welcome to DU!

Excerpts from copyrighted sources must be no more than four paragraphs and include a link to the source. The OP followed this guideline from the DU terms of service.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Don't you think that is a key piece of information from the article?

for unmasking the identify, it was most likely well within the guidelines.

It makes it appear as fact, especially sitting in LBN with no comment in the OP.

to know who the Russians were talking to about national security matters. In other words, she was doing her job.

Its negativity is in the eye of the beholder.

By making it a headline, it implies something negative, like she was doing something wrong. Plus, she denied being involved in Trump campaign incidental surveillance.

to do so under appropriate circumstances. As NSA advisor, which is specified in the second line, she would frequently have that right -- and responsibility.

Then the words "Trump associates." Those words are misapplied IF she only found out AFTER she got the info that they were Trump associates. BUT perhaps she knew it was a Trump person, and that person was engaged in some bad activity -- so she had to find out WHO (was offering a bribe, etc.) So that part of the headline was sloppy.

I think the Rethugs are just trying to spin this, like they did with all the leaks.

Here's a more even-handed article on the subject:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/susan-rice-asked-for-unmasking-for-national-security-source-says/


Too bad the OP chose the Bloomberg article over the CBS one.

Narratives and agendas are getting sloppy.

rest of the article.

They contain the main bit of news, and are thus entirely appropriate for the excerpt. There's more analysis later, but that's why LBN stories must contain a link, so people can read it all.

...not having seen any news yet today, the thing I found interesting was that the RW have found their narrative, found a convenient (and effective) villain to mobilize their wingnut army around; and that this will probably have traction (for Trump followers, anyway). That's what I found fascinating. I naturally assumed that Rice would deny it.

Just my two cents.

Particularly since posted in LBN.

They were actually claiming that 'she hadn't denied it.' And that she 'hasn't said anything about this, yet.'

There's no point in calling them liars, because they'd only plead 'ignorance.' And that's entirely believable.

There wasn't a denial. There was a lack of confirmation or denial. That is not the most important part of the story. How can "no response" be late breaking news?

If people are limited to 4 paragraphs, it makes more sense to put in the news, rather than the background. And the headline must be that used in the news report.

It should have been included.

in which only news spun to suit the preferences of people like us is allowed. How about we look at what is being reported, rather than whining when something isn't as sunny as you'd like it?

You want to write a news article, you become a reporter. The you can write the first 4 paragraphs as you want. Or you monitor the news sources and post them with the spin you'd like.

Cheers!

The OP deleted a key fact THAT WAS IN THE ARTICLE. I am saying it should have been included, like it was IN THE FUCKING ARTICLE, because otherwise the headline is misleading.

They quoted the first 4 paragraphs of the article. You are moaning that they didn't delete some of that, and skip ahead to something from last month.

You've been here long enough. You know there is a 4 paragraph limit. You also know that many people will always just post the 4 paragraphs. That is the most neutral thing to do. People are expected to follow the link if they want to see everything in the article.

Of course I know about the 4 paragraph limit. That does not explain why the OP chose those particular 4 paragraphs, especially when the OP chose an article with such a misleading headline. Not including Rice's denial makes it look like the headline is a statement of fact rather than a Trump White House assertion.

Why lookie here, a headline over at CBS on this subject that ISN'T misleading:

Susan Rice asked for "unmasking" for national security, source says
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/susan-rice-asked-for-unmasking-for-national-security-source-says/

because the OP contains the original news story about this. What's the point of saying they should not have posted the news when it appeared? Were they meant to be psychic, and know to wait for the headline that would be more to your liking?

I don't know - you seem to have so little idea about news stories and how they are posted in LBN that I'm not sure you did understand about the 4 paragraph rule.

Again, Rice's denial was something that happened several days ago. It's background to this story (and, frankly, doesn't look great; the article you've just linked to seems to be confirming that she did ask for the names to be shown to her. Do you think it's important to show that her answer on TV might have been a bit vaguer than it could have been?)

The OP chose the 4 paragraphs because they're the 1st 4 paragraphs, in the original story about this. They are the beginning.

And this was not the first story about this. It came from the right wing fever swamp. The CBS headline was factual. The Bloomberg headline was misleading.

See? This comes from the Eli Lake article - the one quoted in the OP. The CBS article says "for national security", but, you know, she was the National Security Adviser, so that would be the reason you'd expect anyway. Yes, we are allowed to pick different paragraphs if we want, but many people regularly post the 1st 4. It's ridiculous to whine when someone does something extremely common here.

If you think there were "right wing fever swamp" articles on this from earlier, then if you liked them so much, you should have posted them in GD. Any source you can describe like that would be unsuitable for LBN. Bloomberg, however, is an acceptable source.

Your comments have descended to silly insults, and I am done giving this misleading OP kicks. Buh-bye.

I dont think i've ever seen someone get so worked up over a post from a legit source just because it could have been written or headlined differently
And as you point out, that later story really doesnt look great.

For some time I've posted 1st 4 paragraphs, as most do, because
If I'd skipped around I'd be probably be accused of leaving out something on purpose. Cant please everyone when there are 200k members.

Especially when you chose an article with such a misleading headline. Not including Rice's denial makes it look like the headline is a statement of fact rather than a Trump White House assertion.

Why lookie here, a headline over at CBS on this subject that ISN'T misleading:

Susan Rice asked for "unmasking" for national security, source says
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/susan-rice-asked-for-unmasking-for-national-security-source-says/

Remember 'epistemic closure', when we saw that conservatives were just reading what other conservatives wrote, and they thought that was all reality? We don't want to fall into that trap. If news happens, the idea is to look at it, not to convince ourselves we have a spin on it that is better than reality.

The OP chose an article with a misleading headline, then compounded it by not including key facts FROM THE ARTICLE, like the Rice denial.

spin on the news, same as the headline writer did.
Not a lot of people know that the "meat" of an article is quite often in the last couple of paragraphs. I learned that years ago and Rachel pointed out that she makes her staff read an article to the last word because of that happening.

When choosing the 4, it's always reasonable to use the 1st 4. The idea of LBN is that a link to the full story is always given (that's in the rules), and people who want to read the story can follow the link. DU is not the place doing the reporting; the excerpt gives an idea, and the 1st 4 paragraphs are going to be, on the whole, they best way to get that across. If you want to read a story, then follow the link.

Let's says this yet again: loads of DUers post news stories by giving the 1st 4 paragraphs. There is nothing wrong with it whatsoever. The idea a few of you have got that it's OK to start having a go at a DUer for posting in a typical way a news story is just rude.

And I answered your other point already; I post 1st 4 and dont selectively edit articles. READ THE ARTICLE and you get the story. Or withhold comment until you do

3 posts and accusing others already? Enjoy your stay!

How about ponying up some dough and supporting it? Go to "My Account" at the top of the page and become a gold star member.

Welcome again to DU!

Cheers!

It definitely does not look anything like a "troll's post".

So I looked at all that and my only reaction was - "so?"

But watch the phony false-equivalency crap churn and churn.

unless you have seen a pattern of behavior. It is SOP to take the first 4 paragraphs of an article and paste them.

Calling a DUer a Russian operative because s/he did not police/caveat the Bloomberg article to your liking... and doing so within your first dozen posts... makes you look like you just showed up here to disrupt things.

Enjoy your stay, I hope you can contribute constructively.

I tried to find something to see who he is and zip, nada.

that I've found. Some are even about a Leonard Cohen.

Especially if he's singing "First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin!"

... of this twerp who McMaster wanted to fire for being problematic to deal with.

Flynn’s successor, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, sought to remove Cohen-Watnick from the team, following input from the CIA director who pointed to problems intelligence officers had when dealing with Cohen-Watnick. Questions were raised about his ability to carry out the position of senior NSC director for intelligence programs, who oversees ties with intelligence agencies and vets information that should reach the president’s desk.

Do you think you've already seen him somewhere and need to show it was him?

And there is no evidence this 'unmasking' went any further than herself. More bogus whining from the usual suspects.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

She was a National security Advisor. I would think that russian interference in to the U.S. elections should be looked at by the NSC. And yep, if a U.S. citizen was aiding or abetting that interference it should be known.

And Why is Rand Paul so giddy about this? "Smoking gun"??

The republicans, that is -- besides distractions. They can never discuss the issues in real, concrete terms without lying, because if they did, if they actually came out and said what they want to do -- well, you see how popular they are now, when they can't be vague. Nobody wants it or them.

The writer should be ashamed of himself. Ptooey!

The Daily Beast and now Bloomberg. At least that's what I heard on the radio

Politically useful information? Maybe but the Obama administration didn't use it in that manner because we would be saying Madame President

The F in FISA means foreign and there is zero evidence of what you claim. They were tapping the russians and if every single person tainted by degenerate donnie wasn't up to his neck in russian connections, they would have nothing to worry about. Pres Obama didn't want it to appear he was putting his thumb on the scales of the election - he probably should have in hindsight.

A US person who is acting as an agent of a foreign govt can be subject to a FISA warrant. Go back and read stories on history of FBI FISA warrant request on TRUMP campaign persons

Since that has been denied over and over again. Anything that caught degenerate donnies folks was incidental and wouldn't have come to light if they weren't up to their eyeballs with Russian connections. This whole unmasking story is nothing but a distraction that should only work with imbeciles who don't know better and think unmasking is illegal.

US persons can be targets of a FISA warrant. And yes FISA warrants for US persons were granted in either October or Dec of 2016 associated with the Trump campaign. Prior applications were denied by the Court including one the DOJ?FBI attempted to obtain in June or July of 2016. The Russia Trump investigation is both a national security and criminal COUNTERINTELLIGENCE investigation, which means its secret. But we all know how that works. This is what Comey testified to in front of the House intel committee.

Since there is no evidence of anything improper in the intelligence gathering or any evidence of leaking by Rice, seems the only definite leakers are within the Trump's own WH circle who are leaking this info and are the likely leakers of the Flynn info and other WH stories that have come out based on "anonymous govt officials"

You should swap out one of your four paragraph with this from the article:

She would have been derelict to not ask for the names to be unmasked to explore connections to known Russian (or other foreign) assets. When you see patterns for potential harm, you must follow up.

That the incoming administration was raising so many red flags is itself a YUGE red flag. There was likely enough to justify not informing them of the scrutiny so they could follow where the intell led w/o tipping off the non-US targets.

Here we go. Damn!

...and the GOP has finally succeeded in crafting a narrative that will get traction in the right-wing nut-o-sphere. Congratulations, guys. Score one for the Trump team.

Since right wing nutjobs hate Susan Rice with a burning passion, this will catch hold in the right-wing echo chamber.


But let me re-write the Bloomberg quote:

The Original: " Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting the review, according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy. "

" Ezra Cohen-Watnick, taking his cue from Trey Gowdy at the House Intel hearing, was trying to find a way to pin the faux scandal over the unmasking of Flynn on a really good right-wing villain. (You can only whip up so much right wing outrage over the unmasking nonsense. But it will get real traction if you can couple it to somebody the RW loves to hate!) Cohen-Watnick looked to see if Susan Rice had requested the information, found she had (in addition to probably a dozen other people) and decided to make her the villain, with the help of useful idiot Devin Nunes."

which was a complete re-wording of what Farkas said AND defies the space-time continuum

Rice requested the unmasking of names, but, presumably, her requests were never answered. Cohen-Watnick brought the requests to the attention of McGahn, who then squealed to someone else (probably Bannon). That sent Nunes on his infamous run.

So where is the treachery in all of this? The documents existed regardless of Rice, and I would think that it was Obama's business to know. However, there is no evidence that Obama even ordered Rice to make the requests.

If I understand the argument correctly, the WH is not denying that explosive documents exist. They are not denying that tRump and his transition team colluded. Instead, their outrage is directed at someone who wanted to keep the then president informed of treasonous activity? Really?

The voice of reason. Thank you! This whole thing is RW media obfuscation to get the publics eye off the ball. And our eye as well. This story should be a nothing-burger. Not worth 117 posts that's for sure. Come on people.

Since it wasn't leaked who was unmasked, it's a big nothing.

...probably didn't ask or what is being portrayed. She probably wanted to know who the Russians were talking to, and they turned out to be trump's people. I'm sure she didn't ask "give me the names of trump's people", just "give me the names", which she had every right to do.

...that they were talking to trump people.

If I were trump I wouldn't want to make a big thing about this, it only PROVES that his campaign was coordinating with the Russians.

Bottom line, this had already been hashed out a week or two ago.

Came from the same source as Pizzagate.

Obama sensed that something was dirty about Trump and his campaign so he wrote EO 12333 to out those who were conspiring with Russian authorities. Susan Rice was 100% within the law. As National Security advisor she was within her rights to intercept anything that was shady and possibly threatening to the security of the United States. Do not let this latest deflection gain legs, Trump already set the stage for an epic showdown with the Chinese later this week. All this drama is a stage and we are the unwitting audience, don't be fooled.

know who's acting as agents of a hostile foreign power.

There were other articles on this with different headlines. Plus, you could have included Rice's denial from the article so that the headline was not so misleading. Even if you just luuurved those first four paragraphs, you could have still noted Rice's denial in a comment to the article, as allowed under the LBN format--there's a box for it.

Its not changing. And now so far down the ticker its OLD NEWS

So what if Susan was doing her job??

from Bloomberg was pushing this tripe. I saw the fat bald head dead eye stooge on Lawrence O'Donnell last week repeating this bull shit & he got eviscerated by David Corn.