Rice has not commented on the report. It would likely be legal for Rice to request the unmasking—“The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything,” Lake notes.
As Lake notes, nothing he—or anyone else—has uncovered lends credence to President Trump’s outlandish and unsupported claim that Obama ordered surveillance of him at Trump Tower prior to the election. Nor does the new story suggest any illegal behavior on Rice’s part. As with each step in the story, this one offers only a small sliver of information. Many experts seem to think the Bloomberg View story does not imply anything improper or unusual. Others withheld judgment, saying there’s simply not enough information to judge.
“In a situation where there’s incidental collection and it appears that they’re discussing U.S. incoming or current officials, it would not be unusual for a national security adviser to try to understand what it is this foreign government is trying to do to manipulate their position against the U.S.,” said Nada Bakos, a former CIA analyst and national-security commentator. “That’s how the game is played.”
Here’s a WaPo piece that tries to strike a balance between the defense of Rice and the outrage at Rice.
It is my understanding that the question is about the pattern of her requests for the unmasking timeline is what is causing the biggest concern. It was discovered as an anomaly, not the normal pattern, that these things generate when done. She was in a position where she could legally request unmasking of names and I understand the law on this. If what she got was what was disseminated to all those other agencies before Obama left, than yeah, she got huge explaining to do about it and the anomaly of requests.