As Victory Girl, Deanna, discussed here yesterday, news broke late Sunday evening that Susan Rice, former National Security Advisor for the Obama Administration, was the party responsible for requests to “unmask” the names of American citizens destined to populate the Trump administration. To say that the revelation exploded on social media Monday morning is like saying The Walking Dead finale was a mild jolt. Consequently, the revelation raises a whole litany of questions begging for answers. Here are five:

1. Why did Susan Rice deny knowing anything about the unmasking during an interview just days ago? Watch:

We all know that Susan Rice is not above flat-out lying. The Benghazi Sunday Show Tour proved that. So either Rice is denser than a loaf of German bauernbrot, or she was fibbing her tuckus off. Again.

2. Why was Rice so adamant in her explanation that the surveillance was “incidental” and completely within the law?

Granted, she may have had a legitimate reason for unmasking the names. But if it’s political—and it certainly looks that way given the targeted unmasking of Trump transition members—that’s as illegitimate a reason as it gets. And in hindsight, re-watching the PBS inerview given what we now know is interesting. Was she trying to cover her own posterior knowing full well she was the very person described as the “high-level” intel figure? Or, again, is she just that thick?

3. Why was Rice unmasking names of American citizens that had nothing to do with Russia or national security?

AND

4. Why did the unmasking accelerate leading up to, and following, the November election?

Was Rice providing an assist to her soon-to-be former boss—by abusing her position as NSA—in Mr. Obama’s reported quest to see Donald Trump impeached?

Fox’s Adam Housley says his sources insist that the unmasking had nothing to do with security interests; they say the unmasking was purely political.

Our sources: Unmasking the names and then spreading the names was for political purposes that have nothing to do with national security

— Adam Housley (@adamhousley) March 31, 2017

Our sources: "It had everything to do with hurting and embarrassing Trump and his team"

— Adam Housley (@adamhousley) March 31, 2017

And if that’s proven true, WaterGate will look like a friendly game of Patty Cake in comparison.

5. Who in Trump’s administration leaked the names to the media? Obama holdovers?

Former staffer, Katie Walsh, comes to mind. Is that why, as Mike Cernovich, the independent journalist who broke the story late Sunday night, asserts, she’s no longer a White House employee? Reports were floating around recently that Ms. Walsh was, indeed, one of the leakers:

Very strong source told me that Katie Walsh was fired for leaking. Her creds were yanked and she was escorted out of the White House.

— John Cardillo (@johncardillo) March 30, 2017

Did Mr. Trump discover this? Is that why she’s no longer a White House staffer?

Meanwhile, former Obama foreign policy advisor, Ben Rhodes, is desperately trying to change the narrative, and shoot the messenger, with 140-character ammo. This, retweeted to his Twitter wall:

No matter that Mr. Cernovich’s story turns out to be dead-on accurate…look over here at the Ruskies!

Think Progress. Now there’s an example of stellar journalism. And by the way, Mr. Rhodes, repeat after me: To date, no evidence has been found showing President Trump colluded with Russia in any way to throw the election. And you know, and I know, that if there were any evidence Trump wouldn’t be president today. The mysterious White House Leakers would have seen to that.

And then there’s Marie “Jobs For Jihadis” Harf, a new hire over at Fox News, who’s bound and determined to cover for her former employer. And for some reason unbeknownst to me, they’ve given her a huge microphone to do just that. Check out her swing dance regarding the not-so-surprising revelation that Susan Rice was the one responsible for the unmasking of names:

Harf: "It is not at all unusual for the national security adviser to request additional information…of an intelligence report." #First100 pic.twitter.com/ZcNnv6is1S

— Fox News (@FoxNews) April 3, 2017

Nothing to see here; move along. She must have learned that snappy two-step from Mr. Ben Rhodes.

It’s likely in the coming days we’ll begin getting answers to the plethora of questions the Rice Revelation has elicited, as the tip of the very deep iceberg seems to have been snipped off. At least one congressperson believes Rice should face criminal investigation. And Senator Rand Paul is calling for her to testify before Congress. The questions are: will the answers we receive be the truth? And will any heads roll as a consequence?