With a general set of narrative ‘talking points’ in hand President Obama’s Former National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, appeared this morning on MSNBC for an interview with Andrea Mitchell. This is the ‘We-Have-To-Respond-phase‘, which necessitates the optic.
Andrea Mitchell is considered a trustworthy ally of the Clinton/Obama political networks; as such, it is not a surprise to see Mitchell selected as the interviewer. Mitchell’s use of wording carefully guides Susan Rice through the narrow path of self-incrimination by providing plausible deniability for verbal missteps.
You already know the routine. MSNBC is the favorable proprietary venue. Mitchell plays the role of media-legal-adviser, her client is Susan Rice. Live interviews are always the greatest risk (see: Evelyn Farkas) The full interview is below:
However, that said, there are some interesting aspects to the interview:
Susan Rice @00:51 – …”Let me explain how this works. I was a National Security Adviser, my job is to protect the American people and the security of our country. That’s the same as the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and CIA Director.; and every morning, to enable us to do that, we receive – from the intelligence community – a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us –on a daily basis– to give us the best information as to what’s going on around the world.”
[Note, Susan Rice is describing the PDB]
“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to. Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.
And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”
OK, so right there, in the very beginning of the forward narrative, Susan Rice is confirming the “unmasking” request(s) which can be pinned upon her, are directly related to her need to understand -on behalf of President Obama- intelligence for the President’s Daily Briefing (the PDB). This was a previous question now answered.
This is EXPLOSIVE, and here’s why.
Remember, the President’s Daily Brief under President Obama went to almost everyone at top levels in his administration. Regarding the Obama PDB:
[…] But while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.
In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers.
By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments. (link)
Pay attention to that last part. According to the Washington Post outline Obama’s PDB’s were going to: “Deputy Secretaries of national security departments”.
Today, Susan Rice defined the Obama national security departments to include: “State” – “Defense” (Pentagon includes NSA) and “CIA”….
So under Obama’s watch Deputy Asst. Secretaries of Defense had daily access to the PDB. And who was an Obama Deputy Secretary of Defense?
.
See how that works?
.
Susan Rice is admitting to “unmasking” names within intelligence reports to give her context for how they pertain to the overall briefing material. That briefing material is the PDB. That PDB goes to dozens of political people and political entities, including former Asst. Deputy of Defense, Evelyn Farkas.
Susan Rice unmasked names for the PDB which was also shared with Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense, Evelyn Farkas.
Now, go back to Farkas’s March 2nd MSNBC statement for additional context:
“I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill [Democrat politicians], it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration.”
Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.
So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia; so then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to the Hill. … That’s why you had the leaking”.
.
That right there is the story. With dozens of people with access to President Obama’s PDB, Rice’s unmasking of the intelligence report names gave dozens of people direct access to unmasked intelligence – including Obama officials who could, perhaps did, use the PDB for specific and intentional political purposes, as outlined by Evelyn Farkas who was one of the recipients of the unmasked intelligence.
.
If you know how concentric circle political safety is constructed, you will notice that Susan Rice is now hugging the security of the Presidency. No space. To take Rice down, means to take down President Obama – safe play on her part.
Reverse the safety. No-one in media or congress is going to allow President Obama to be taken down; ergo, everyone will protect Susan Rice. They have no choice.
[Also note how when shifting from rehearsed talking point (script) to cognitive explanation of Rices’ point , the noun shifts from “U.S. Person” to “U.S. Official”.]
“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to. Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.
And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and asses it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”
It’s subtle (like a Freudian slip), but Rice accidentally outlines her filter, her psychological trigger, for when to request the unmasking. She’s looking for the politics behind the intelligence. She’s looking for “U.S. Officials” in masked intelligence reports.
Mrs. Rice then follows up with a “hypothetical example” that is ridiculous as she describes. The example provided (a sketchy dude in mom’s basement) would NEVER reach the level of PDB; it would be pre-filtered, researched and reviewed for value. The PDB NEVER contains such banal information as Rice describes.
The interview goes much further. There is a lot of news in this interview. There is also a tremendous amount of double-speak and self-contradiction; in some cases between sentences that follow each other.
Notice how Susan Rice contradicts herself about what the intelligence community puts into the PDB. Remember, Rice considers the PDB intel community to be very specific: James Clapper (DNI), John Brennan (CIA) and Defense Department (which would be the Pentagon and NSA Mike Rogers). And she states they would never send the President innocuous things unworthy of review….
.
.
