Mollie Hemingway, senior editor at The Federalist, made a great point about Susan Rice and the “unmasking” controversy and how Susan Rice changed her initial statement  on her involvement:
Yesterday, in a damage control interview with prominent Democratic journalist Andrea Mitchell, Rice admitted her unmasking efforts and said they were routine. Mitchell’s 16-minute interview involved no tough questions. Mitchell asked, “Did you seek to unmask the names of people involved in the Trump transition?” Rice responded in the Clintonian fashion, “Absolutely not for any political purposes.” A natural follow-up would have been if she requested the unmasking for any other purpose. It didn’t occur to Mitchell. Instead she followed-up with the related question, “Did you leak?” to which Rice responded, somewhat confusingly, “I leaked nothing to nobody.”
Somehow Rice tried to claim  later that her initial statement of having no clue about Nunes’ earlier claim was not at odds with her 16-minute answer about her unmasking efforts.
This brings up the question: why is the media focusing on President Trump, Mike Flynn and not Rice’s change in her statement?