Susan Rice Denies Trump Spying Rumor, Mattress Girl's Opponent Loses Again, the Blameless President: P.M. Links

|

  • Rice
    Pete Souza/ZUMA Press/Newscom

    Former National Security Advisor Susan Rice says no member of the Obama administration spied on Donald Trump inappropriately.

  • Read William Deresiewicz on political correctness and self-censorship at American universities.
  • Independent movie theaters are screening the film version of 1984 as a kind of protest against Donald Trump.
  • Trump's supporters don't blame him for series of stumbles.
  • Paul Nungesser, who was accused of sexual misconduct by "mattress girl" Emma Sulkowicz, lost again in court.

Advertisement

NEXT: You Don't Have to Be a Foreigner to Have Privacy Violated by Trump's 'Extreme Vetting'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Former National Security Advisor Susan Rice says no member of the Obama administration spied on Donald Trump inappropriately.

    So they did then?

    1. You caused the 503 error when I hit submit, didn’t you?

      1. I strictly work in 404. But we can be co-firsties.

    2. Hello.

      I think the key word up for debate here is ‘inappropriately’.

      1. I think the key word up for debate here is ‘inappropriately’.

        From the bushes, using an extension ladder, with binoculars or a telescope, and while not wearing pants are all right out.

    3. “I would never lie to you about Benghazi or shitty YouTube videos or Chocolate Nixon or anything!”

      1. “I would never lie to you about Benghazi *inappropriately*.”

        1. I don’t think this sociopathic cunt can help herself. Lying appears to come as naturally to her as breathing does to normla humans.

          1. She becomes disoriented and stumbles when telling the truth, as demonstrated multiple times during her campaign.

    4. Of course, but only an appropriate amount.

    5. Former National Security Advisor Susan Rice says no member of the Obama administration spied on Donald Trump inappropriately.

      In her progtard brain, what little there is of it, it was entirely appropriate to spy on Trump and the Trumpsters.

  2. Trump’s supporters don’t blame him for series of stumbles.

    Did Obama’s for his? It’s a thing.

    1. I’m not a supporter, but I can’t really blame him for anything other than the health insurance bill and the immigration EO. So far. Since January 20th.

  3. Former National Security Advisor Susan Rice says no member of the Obama administration spied on Donald Trump inappropriately.

    It’s always appropriate to spy on Literally Hitler.

  4. Classy:

    Today, on the anniversary of his assassination, the FBI honors the life, work, & commitment of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to justice.

    1. I hope they release the videos.

      1. They can’t until Susan Rice doesn’t figure out who’s not in the videos that don’t exist.

  5. Blackwater founder held secret Seychelles meeting to establish Trump-Putin back channel

    The United Arab Emirates arranged a secret meeting in January between Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a Russian close to President Vladi?mir Putin as part of an apparent effort to establish a back-channel line of communication between Moscow and President-elect Donald Trump, according to U.S., European and Arab officials.

    Though Prince had no formal role with the Trump campaign or transition team, he presented himself as an unofficial envoy for Trump to high-ranking Emiratis involved in setting up his meeting with the Putin confidant, according to the officials, who did not identify the Russian.

    1. He stole the idea from “Clear and Present Danger”.

      Also the fact that it supposedly happened like a week before inauguration would seem to make it irrelevant to the whole election tampering conspiracy theory. Now it’s just a hunt for people to tie to russia and blacklist or something.

      1. Wait a minute, I think it was actually “The Sum of all Fears”.

        1. It was most of the Jack Ryan books.

  6. Independent movie theaters are screening the film version of 1984 as a kind of protest against Donald Trump.

    Didn’t they use 1984 against Hillary at some point? Dang but that thing is versatile.

  7. I am not sure how screening 1984 us a ororest against a guy whose schrick is being un-PC. Or do they think Big Brother is the unseen hero of the story?

    1. Yes or no, depending on the target.

    2. No, most of them really think they are the ones who are for freedom and love and good things. They honestly don’t see the connection between their language policing and the idea of Newspeak. Or the many other parallels between the 1984 superstate and progressive/technocratic goals.

      1. They probably like the idea that Winston has the ability to remove fake news from the past

  8. Meet the Muslim teen who repeated #BlackLivesMatter on his Stanford application and got in

    When Ziad Ahmed was asked “What matters to you, and why?” on his Stanford University application, only one thing came to mind: #BlackLivesMatter.

    So for his answer, Ahmed ? who is a senior at Princeton Day School in Princeton, New Jersey ? wrote #BlackLivesMatter exactly 100 times. The risky decision paid off. On Friday, Ahmed received his acceptance letter from Stanford.

    1. So #woke

    2. In addition to Stanford, Ahmed said he has already been accepted to Yale University and Princeton University. He has until May 1 to decide which school to attend. As for his major, he’s still undecided. It’s somewhere among international relations, cognitive science, economics or comparative studies in race and ethnicity, he said.

      But one thing Ahmed is sure about is the reason he purposefully didn’t further explain the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag.

      “The insistence on an explanation is inherently dehumanizing,” Ahmed said. “Black lives have been explicitly and implicitly told they don’t matter for centuries, and as a society ? it is our responsibility to scream that black lives matter because it is not to say that all lives do not matter, but it is to say that black lives have been attacked for so long, and that we must empower through language, perspective, and action.”

      Who wants to bet that’s not what he actually submitted on his application?

      1. Why are you questioning this guy’s #wokeness?

      2. international relations, cognitive science, economics or comparative studies in race and ethnicity

        Well, there’s possibly a job waiting for him when he gets out.

        1. cream of the crop. whatever would the world do without the invaluable contributions from the heights of higher education.

    3. Hah, the dude’s pretty smart. Clever of him to realize he didn’t have to do actual work for that question and that admins at Princeton would find that a perfectly acceptable response.

      1. Sad part is that there are probably other people who got accepted with even stupider answers.

      2. All he needed on the app was his name

    4. There’s more good stuff about this guy in the link; it’s like he was engineered to annoy us. The only problem is mic.com has gone all-in on equal pay day, so the links plastered all around the article may be more amusing/infuriating than the article itself.

    5. Nonsense on college applications has a good chance of being interpreted as creativity and bravery. So it’s sort of like suceeding in art.

  9. Paul Nungesser, who was accused of sexual misconduct by “mattress girl” Emma Sulkowicz, lost again in court.

    You know who else lost in court?

    1. The Miami Heat?

    2. Chad Thundercock?

    3. Life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness?

    4. Al Gore?

  10. The right wing media attacks on Susan Rice are absurd

    We can have a debate about the scope of the NSA’s surveillance authority, but we have to be clear about this: Susan Rice couldn’t have known that the foreign intelligence targets were speaking to Trump associates when she made the unmasking request, because their identities were masked. Unmasking enabled her to find out who they were. I suppose it’s possible that the content of the conversations made it obvious that the foreign intelligence target was speaking with a Trump associate, but at a time when the government was investigating Russian efforts to subvert our election, that would have made it even more urgent to know which Americans they were talking to.

    1. What a big shocker that you’re standing up for your most venerated Obamessiah.

      1. Cuckaschmuck gonna cuckaschmuck.

      2. Simple Mikey reads intent into a simple presentation of a link.

      3. Mikey puts the ass in class.

    2. You do have to wonder why these identities were masked in the first place…

      1. Do you mean unmasked? Identities of American citizens are masked by default.

    3. The comments are truly abysmal.

  11. Independent movie theaters are screening the film version of 1984 as a kind of protest against Donald Trump.

    I mean, whatever floats your boat.

    1. One wonders if the real implication of 1984 will be internalized by the people “protesting Trump” by going to the movie.

  12. Lena Dunham Is ‘Disease-Free’ But Has Mixed Feelings About It

    Dunham wrote, “My pain ? physical ? distracted from my deeper pain ? emotional, spiritual ? and became the ultimate excuse. I had two modes: working and hurting. I was convinced there was nobility in it. There was certainly routine.”

    The actress admits that she’s “embarrassed to say that the excitement is mixed with loss,” but she wants to use the experience as a way to help others. “If we’ve learned anything from the past year, it’s that complacency has no business here,” she wrote. “My job is to educated people, to try to change the pathetic lack of resources for endometriosis.”

    1. What a big shocker that you’re standing up for your most venerated Leaning Dumb-Ham.

    2. What do we want?
      AWARENESS OF ENDOMETRIOSIS!

      When do we want it?
      NOW!

    1. This is my real life page it doesn’t depict my TV character

      TV CHARACTER? YOU MEAN WWE IS FAKE???

  13. It’s Time for the Outdoor Industry to Buy Its Own Politicians

    Rather than complain about the state of politics, work to be the change we believe in, or espouse some other well-meaning but ultimately ineffective slogan, why don’t we borrow a leaf from the Koch brothers’ playbook and buy our own politicians?

    1. Also, how’s it hangin’…”Chad”

        1. Hopefully not so low as to alter that big election.

    2. I thought Hillary Clinton was already bought and paid for, or am I not correct about that?

  14. Paul Nungesser, who was accused of sexual misconduct by “mattress girl” Emma Sulkowicz, lost again in court.

    Well that blows.

    1. I would have guessed none of that.

    2. May be she can find an excuse to make another porn flick. May be this court decision made her relive the shame and she has to document it for the world.

  15. Former National Security Advisor Susan Rice says no member of the Obama administration spied on Donald Trump inappropriately.

    All the spying was totally appropriate.

    1. I ALREADY MADE THAT JOKE, PAUL.

      1. I no longer read the thread comments before posting. I barely read the blogpost.

        1. I don’t even read the comment to which I am replying.

  16. Trump’s supporters don’t blame him for series of stumbles.

    I’m guessing the Word of the Day is “tautology”.

    1. When has Trump stumbled?

      1. Trump has never stumbled or tripped over anything in his life. He has amazing hand-foot coordination. The best. He could have played professional soccer if he wanted to, but chose to do something more challenging with his life instead.

  17. “Former National Security Advisor Susan Rice says no member of the Obama administration spied on Donald Trump inappropriately.”

    Says the bitch who told us Benghazi was due to a video.

    1. And was part of the administration that put a guy in jail for a year to cover their lie. But they won the election, and that is all the ever counts with progs.

  18. “Independent movie theaters are screening the film version of 1984 as a kind of protest against Donald Trump.”

    Brave New World seems to better sum up today’s world generally.

    1. More recently:

      “In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”

      -Theodore Dalrymple

    2. “Brave New World seems to better sum up today’s world generally.”

      Yeah I think you are right. We already basically have soma in the form of social networking and the endless distractions in daily life that cause people’s attention to turn away from what’s important. Wasn’t there a book or an article that attempted to make this case, that we have become Brave New World?

    3. Dunno, I think it’s more Fahrenheit 451, i.e. self-inflicted cultural rot, rather than the top-down dictatorships seen elsewhere.

  19. Independent movie theaters are screening the film version of 1984 as a kind of protest against Donald Trump.

    Not Idiocracy? Because it looks like Mike Judge may have been a little optimistic about his timeframe for that one.

    1. Mike Judge may have been a little optimistic about his timeframe for that one.

      You’re saying it’s not happening soon enough?

    2. That happened last year for the movie’s 10th anniversary.

    3. Like you wouldn’t vote for Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho over Hillary

    4. Or how about the hit movie from Idiocracy, which is just 90 minutes of ass?

  20. Interesting that William Deresiewicz compares the NRA to the safe space movement:

    The PC commissariat reminds me of the NRA. Everyone is terrified of challenging the NRA (everyone in a position to stop it, at least), so it gets whatever it demands. But then, because it can, it thinks up new demands. Guns in playgrounds, guns in bars.

    Two differences come immediately to mind: the NRA is backing an enumerated constitutional right, and they have the votes to contest things in public. The PC police shout down their opponents, subvert the meaning of “free speech”, and generally lose every open argument they get into, so they avoid debate like the plague.

    1. Maybe I missed it, but I don’t recall the NRA demanding more guns in playgrounds or bars. Perhaps allowing law abiding adults to carry guns in those places. But that would be a response to rule restricting guns where they were once unrestricted. Does he think that the primordial state of the world included bans on guns everywhere and the NRA has just been slowly chipping away at it?

      1. Well, these are often the same people who believe that in the primordial state of the world, you got free healthcare. So there’s that for consistency at least.

  21. Well, fuck. I found out that our company’s tech guy, a really nice, patient, funny, competent guy had a heart attack and passed away. We’re right in the middle of a big renovation, he was here the past few weeks working with me and scheduled to be here again this week to do more, and now… not.

    It’s also looking like it’s gonna be time for my/my parents’ dog. He turned 15 this year and we expected he wouldn’t get to 16, but April’s too damn early. So this is a shitty day all around.

    Cucks also cry.

    1. It happens fast. I found out my dog had cancer one November and by February he was dead.

    2. Aww, I’m really sorry šŸ™ I know what you mean, it’s always too early. My parents put down the dog we had when I was growing up a couple months ago, and that was pretty rough. It sounds like you have a lot of heavy stuff to deal with. Sending positive thoughts your way!

  22. Okay so this is what I don’t understand.

    Susan Rice was the National Security Advisor. As a part of her job she had access, and the authority, to view lots of classified and confidential information. So why is it some kind of outrage that she asked for more specific information on a particular classified report on potential connections between a foreign power and a US citizen? Just because those citizens happened to be associated with Trump in some way? Wasn’t it part of her job to be informed on these types of things? I am sure she asked for lots of names to be unmasked on lots of reports that she had access to, not just on ones dealing with Trump. Is everyone just assuming that she ONLY asked for names associated with Trump? If that were true then sure I think her conduct can be fairly construed as abusing her position of authority (depending on what she actually did with that info, if anything). But has that been established at all?

    I mean I get it, she deserves all sorts of blame and condemnation for her role in what happened with Benghazi, blaming it on a video, and helping in part to throw an innocent filmmaker in jail. That behavior was and is inexcusable. But her current behavior? I am largely at a loss as to why this constitutes some sort of terrible activity.

    1. Oh wait, she had “authority”? Never mind then, I guess we should just shut up and obey.

    2. 1 – Unmasking the info was her legal prerogative, but it does raise questions as to what the legitimate national security-concerns were being investigated such that she would exercise that authority in this instance.

      – iow, technically ‘legal’ – but abuse of authority if there were no other purpose than for for political snooping, which is the only plausible reason you’d see this level of attention being paid to the Trump team after they just won the election.

      2. – sharing of that unmasked surveillance intel outside of the very-strictly-limited channels for people with proper clearance is a crime. Rice et al spread it all over the place. The implication is that it was spread throughout govt in order to make the press-leaks that subsequently happened harder to trace to a single source.

      I am sure she asked for lots of names to be unmasked on lots of reports that she had access to, not just on ones dealing with Trump

      You’re ‘sure’? based on what?

      The reporting says that she specifically requested surveillance of Trump people.

      Not, “the trump people were inadvertently caught up in some unrelated investigation”. The focus was on those specific people.

      The short summary here is that the Obama admin basically used national-security-related surveillance powers for baldly-political purposes.

      1. Oh geez. The server ate my beautiful comment, so I will just summarize it thusly:

        – As National Security Advisor, I’m sure she got lots of reports and requested lots of unmaskings for lots of different reasons. It’s called “doing her job”. So yeah unless she was absolutely terrible at her job – which is always a possibility, I suppose – then I’m pretty sure that Trump’s people weren’t the only people that she ever asked to be unmasked on some confidential report.

        – You claim the “only plausible reason” to ask for stuff about Trump is to hurt him politically. Don’t you think it is at least a little bit plausible that she might consider there to be valid national security interests associated with Trump’s and his associates’ connections with Russia? This has nothing to do with any claims about “Russia Hacking The Election” or whatnot. But there WAS an entire FISA warrant thing looking into *known and provable* connections between Trump’s associates and Russia. It doesn’t mean the investigation is legitimate. It doesn’t prove that Russia or Trump did anything untoward. It doesn’t justify using FISA courts in this way (by the FBI). But it did happen and I don’t think it’s unreasonable for this to get the attention of the national security advisor.

        Maybe you are right, maybe it is all just a political op. But I think it would require more evidence than just “she’s a bad person” and “it smells fishy”

        1. I’m just spitballing here, but I’ll be you are fine that people in the government who report directly to the president are using the full power of government surveillance from the FBI, CIA, and NSA to monitor the political party they are competing with. Tell me, though, is just OK so long as it is progs doing it to conservatives?

          1. I’ll bet…

          2. No. I don’t like the surveillance. I’ve said so repeatedly. That being said, not every act of surveillance is a corrupt act of political partisanship. Tell me, is it possible to believe a person is performing their duties properly, even if you don’t approve of what those duties are? Without being some sort of left-wing nut?

            1. Not every act of surveillance is a corrupt act of political partisanship.

              Perhaps. but spreading the unmasked identities of US persons caught up in surveillance around DC is a crime. And has no apparent ‘intelligence value’ at all.

              As Nunes said = none of this was in the context of any nat sec. investigation. You keep pretending there ‘must have been some legitimate reason’, without saying what that reason was.

              You seem to think that “an outgoing admin using national-security powers to surveill political opposition” isn’t OBVIOUSLY problematic.

              Even further, you seem to think that people should be giving it the benefit of the doubt, despite zero evidence suggesting any legitimate reason for the unmasking+leak of intel.

              god forbid anyone accuse you of engaging in these contortions because you’re a shallow partisan.

              1. Perhaps. but spreading the unmasked identities of US persons caught up in surveillance around DC is a crime. And has no apparent ‘intelligence value’ at all.

                Where is the evidence that she is the leaker? If she is, then throw the book at her, of course.

                As Nunes said = none of this was in the context of any nat sec. investigation.

                Why should I believe Nunes over Rice?

                You keep pretending there ‘must have been some legitimate reason’, without saying what that reason was.

                There WAS an actual FISA investigation going on, you know. I think I did mention that part.

                Even further, you seem to think that people should be giving it the benefit of the doubt, despite zero evidence suggesting any legitimate reason for the unmasking+leak of intel.

                I’m not interested in giving either tribe the benefit of the doubt. You are the one who thinks I should give Republicans and Trump the benefit of the doubt while disbelieving any possible believable motive about why she might have had a justification for what she’s doing.

                god forbid anyone accuse you of engaging in these contortions because you’re a shallow partisan.

                Seems to me you are the one pushing the partisan angle here. I’m the one who has held open the possibility that Rice has done something wrong. You have already convicted her based on scant evidence.

              2. And one more thing:

                You seem to think that “an outgoing admin using national-security powers to surveill political opposition” isn’t OBVIOUSLY problematic.

                Yes. It can be obviously problematic. You are right. But every instance of surveillance is not automatically an act of political corruption. Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Suppose Trump and/or his associates really were agents of the Russian government in some way, in the sense laid forth in FISA, and the FBI, Susan Rice, Obama, et al., had reason to suspect so back in early 2016. What would have been their obligations, if any, towards uncovering this connection? Seems to me, your response is that the Obama admin should have done nothing, because that would have been “spying for political purposes”. Now, I don’t really believe Trump is a Russian stooge or anything like that. And yes I do believe Obama and his pals were capable of using the power of government to spy on his political enemies. But just because he was capable of doing so, doesn’t mean that every instance of surveillance is, ipso facto, proof that he is doing so for political espionage.

        2. your entire comment seems to have overlooked the part about how leaking unmasked intel is de-facto evidence of a crime.

          I couldn’t spoon-feed it to you any clearer, and you seem to be struggling to create uncertainty where none exists.

    3. she is claiming that collecting intel on trump and spreading it within the intel organization and by extension to trump’s political opponents is totally different from wiretapping him. And this is being taken as evidence that trump was wrong or lying when he claimed to have been wiretapped.

      Instead she should be apologizing for failing to maintain confidentiality and admitting that from Trump’s position it matters not whether it was an accident. In reality we are all under surveillance all the time. The only safeguard is the presumption that nonrelevant information is flushed. And now they have admitted that they do not protect the privacy of innocent bystanders.

      1. The shitty part of all this is, these idiots keep making sane people defend Trump.

  23. Former National Security Advisor Susan Rice says no member of the Obama administration spied on Donald Trump inappropriately

    “That’s right. We spied on him appropriately.”

  24. The unspoken corollary is that it is unpossible for Trump to ever employ the same approach to domestic surveillance appropriately.

    Hell, even the suspicion of him doing what Rice did would be deemed the end of the Republic.

  25. Nungesser has received a life sentence handed down from the hysterically-offended court of bashtango, the cabal of jaded defects. No Fortune 500 will touch him which is quite the sweeping and dismaying outcome for a concerted interweb tantrum.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.