A Quote by Susan Rice

The notion that -- which some people are trying to suggest, that by asking for the identity of an American person, that is the same as leaking it, is completely false. There's no equivalence between so-called unmasking and leaking.
On a daily basis I'm covering things that are leaking out of the White House and leaking out what should be closed-door meetings on the Hill. That is not integrity.
The competitive spirit of basketball is slowly leaking out. Taking pride in one-on-one defense is slowly leaking out. It's more about selling calls and flopping.
Some of those things come out and you don't know where they came from - somebody's leaking totally false information. They follow you for years and you have to be like, "I don't know anything about that."
I recently read some of the transcripts of Nixon's Watergate tapes, and they spent hours trying to figure out who was leaking and providing information to Carl and myself.
Ever since I've become a filmmaker, I'm traveling the world a lot. I feel like I'm a citizen of the world, yet there's no single place that I can put my roots down and call home. I don't own anything. I'm not a homeowner. I've always rented and never stayed in one place for long. Almost every time I rent a place, I have some sort of water leakage or flooding. Whenever that happens, I just move somewhere else. Even when I moved to Paris, my apartment started leaking after a month. Maybe the leaking is just part of my life, doomed to follow me around.
Intuitionists think that there are cases in which, say, some identity statement between real numbers is neither true nor false, even though we know that it cannot possibly be false. That is: We know that it cannot not be that a = b, say, but we cannot conclude that a = b. We can't, in general, move from not-not-p to p in intuitionistic logic. , I suggest that the believer in vague objects should say something similar. It can never be true that it is vague whether A is B. But that does not imply that there is always a fact of the matter whether A is B.
In our system, grand juries take every charge, every lie, and they try to sort the truth from the lies, and then they move forward into the system. And that's how the system ought to work. We should respect the secrecy of the grand jury so they can sort through what's true and what's not. And someone is leaking, and if they are leaking from the grand jury investigation, then that's a violation of the law.
Well you've been brought here against your will, just like I have. If you ask me, we're all in the same boat. And it's leaking.
It's hard to surprise people with everything leaking on the Internet.
I don't think that leaking an American diplomat's private information, pictures, names of their children, I don't think that is a formal protest, that is what a thuggish regime would do.
Leaking classified information is a crime. And if we have evidence that somebody in the executive branch is committing a crime, we should prosecute that person.
Things, even people have a way of leaking into each other like flavours when you cook.
And $18 million in three Japanese banks, completely false. That I have two factories in Panama, also completely false. This is part of the counter campaign of some people.
To me, the funniest American of the Twentieth Century is Richard Nixon because he had the most to hide, and he was so bad at hiding it. To me, that's what's really funny - people who think they're doing a great job of hiding stuff, and it just keeps leaking out.
When I open them, most of the books have the smell of an earlier time leaking out between the pages - a special odor of the knowledge and emotions that for ages have been calmly resting between the covers. Breathing it in, I glance through a few pages before returning each book to its shelf.
We cannot have people leaking classified information at any level, and we certainly take that very seriously and would not ignore that.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!