Does the Declassified Susan Rice Email Prove she Lied to NPR in 2017?

Maybe. First, the email:

By scrolling down you can read the email, which is large enough to read if you have decent eyes.

Now the article from the National Review, which asserts that the email is proof that Susan Rice lied during a 2017 interview on NPR. The National Review is a right wing publication (I would doubt that anyone would dispute that characterization, although with the DOPE and the Five Rockers nothing is impossible):

The National Review article quotes the question put to Rice by NPR anchor Judy Woodruff:

“We’ve been following a disclosure by [Chairman Nunes] that in essence, during the final days of the Obama administration, during the transition after President Trump had been elected, that he and the people around him may have been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals and their identities may have been disclosed. Do you know anything about this?” anchor Judy Woodruff asked Rice.

“I know nothing about this,” Rice answered. “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.”

It is clear from the email that Comey knew, and related to those attending the January 5 meeting, that "Flynn [was] speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador Kislyak." While Comey doesn't say it directly, it is implied in the email that Comey's knowledge of the Flynn-Kislyak contacts came from the NSA, and by implication from the NSA through its "surveillance of foreign individuals" as Judy Woodruff put it. So it would be hard for Susan Rice to argue that she knew "nothing" about at least one person around president-elect Trump who had "been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals".

The problem for the Trumpists is that Judy Woodruff's question was a two-part question. She asked whether Rice knew anything about the assertion that people around Trump had been swept up in surveillance, and in the same question she asked whether Rice knew whether the identities of those swept up "may have been disclosed."

Just as it is clear from the email that Rice knew at least one person close to Trump had most probably been swept up in NSA surveillance of Kislyak, it is equally clear from the email that there was no discussion at the meeting of disclosure of the NSA information. So clearly, Rice could not have known anything about such alleged disclosure, unless she learned it from somewhere else.

And the somewhere else could have been the Washington Post, which reported on December 29 or December 30 that Flynn had numerous conversations with Kislyak on December 29. Except that the Post source for it's story about the contacts between Flynn and Kislyak was a "Trump transition official" and not someone from inside the Obama administration.

See the thread where I discuss how Flynn's contacts were publicly disclosed by the Trump transition official:

So I would give the National Review a half true on it's story. Clearly Rice knew, as the email confirmed, that Flynn and Kislyak had numerous contacts which had worried Comey sufficiently that he felt that information should be kept from the incoming administration. Just as clearly, the email supports Rice's statement that she had no knowledge of the alleged disclosure of that sensitive NSA surveillance information by the Obama administration, because whether in fact that had happened was not discussed in the email, and presumably not discussed at the meeting which the email memorialized. And also that Flynn's contacts with Kislyak on December 29 had been publicly disclosed to the Washington Post by a Trump transition official at least six days before the meeting on January 5, 2017.


Sign In or Register to comment.