The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like "U.S. Person One."...
The news about Rice also sheds light on the strange behavior of Nunes in the last two weeks. It emerged last week that he traveled to the White House last month, the night before he made an explosive allegation about Trump transition officials caught up in incidental surveillance. At the time he said he needed to go to the White House because the reports were only on a database for the executive branch. It now appears that he needed to view computer systems within the National Security Council that would include the logs of Rice's requests to unmask U.S. persons....
April 3, 2017
"White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign..."
Writes Eli Lake at Bloomberg, citing "U.S. officials familiar with the matter."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
479 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 479 of 479Wow, why are you people so poorly informed? It's not my job to catch you up on the details.
Blogger Inga said...
Matthew, sheesh. What it has to do with it is this: he should've never been appointed NSA advisor. Either you are extremely naive or we are speaking at cross purposes.
Yet the evidence points to Obama NSA Susan Rice as the person who illegally leaked confidential information to the press, and did so for purely political purposes.
What evidence is there that Rice unmasked names for political purposes? There is no such evidence. Have her testify under oath.
Inga: "It was his job to deal with the Russians and other foreign powers."
LOL
Like give them Reset buttons, 1/5th of our uranium, loving and tender embraces while whispering about "flexibility" "after the election", not yakking too much about Crimea or the Ukraine, ensuring that Red Lines Drawn become Red Lines Forgotten enabling Russia to reestablish its presence in the Middle East where the "JV" ISIS guys suddenly became the Varsity/Graduate Students of Terror.
All the while delivering pallet after pallet of hard currency to the biggest state sponsor of terror in the world, Iran. Who just happens to be a key Russian ally.
Nope. Nothing to see there. At all.
Why do you ask?
"-- Actually people have seen the transcripts."
Thanks, Matthew.
As Buwaya said a long time ago and two pages back:
"The truth emerges, as we see, and explains itself. One part after another in order. Give it time.
... Patience. This is a long running serial, the best drama on TV (or print) currently running. Dramatic scenes and side-plots are being set up, to be sprinkled through the episodes."
I think most people thought from the start Obama was wiretapping the opposition to help Hillary, that that was the meaning of Trump's tweet. What is emerging is how slow and reluctant the media is the acknowledge a truth the public accepted a long while back. And we have a chance to study the psychology of this reluctance up close as Lifelong and Inga explode across the comments with their wet-lettuce excuses and utterly frenzied attempts at diversion. Laslo tracked the fever in Lifelong and it's my idea that we will see Lifelong's fever chart replicated in the MSM over the next few days. Stay calm; don't let the zombie madness infect you.
"Obama was President."
-- And he was making promises of what he would do AFTER his next election.
Blogger Original Mike said...
""-- Actually people have seen the transcripts."
Thanks, Matthew."
Well, duh. As I said, it came out in testimony at the House Intel hearing that the people there heard what Flynn said on that intercept with he Russian Ambassador.
Inga: "What evidence is there that Rice unmasked names for political purposes?"
The volume of requests, the nature of the targets, the lack of any connection to Russia.
Stuff like that.
Not to worry. There is no hiding it now that the stonewalling of the obama intel holdovers have been bypassed by whistleblowers who were smart enough to create lists of documents by number so they can be specifically identified, retrieved and reviewed. Which is exactly what Nunes was doing on White House grounds to keep the left from identifying (too quickly) who the whistleblowers were and attack them.
And it all happened just in time as one of the key whistleblowers has already come under attack from obama holdovers.
Nothing to see here. Move along lefties. Don't you worry your pretty little heads about it.
BTW, Nunes has been requesting those documents since January and gotten stiff-armed the entire time.
Until the whistleblowers.
Gee, I wonder why obama holdovers would sit on such specifically-cited documents that would have been easy to retrieve since January?
Gee, this is a toughie. We'll really have to noodle over this a bit, won't we?
LOL
Inga: And the intelligence community has, uniformly, said it was a nothing-burger. Why was it leaked when it had no intelligence value?
Inga said...
What evidence is there that Rice unmasked names for political purposes? There is no such evidence. Have her testify under oath.
Waterboarding would be more appropriate. Avoid the "I do not recall" evasions.
Blogger Inga said...
Matthew, you are no longer making sense. Obama was President. It was his job to deal with the Russians and other foreign powers. It was not the job of Flynn to make promises of lifting sanctions to the Russian even before Trump was sworn in as President. You don't see the difference? Wow.
4/3/17, 10:09 PM
But the WaPo says:
Officials said this week that the FBI is continuing to examine Flynn’s communications with Kislyak. Several officials emphasized that while sanctions were discussed, they did not see evidence that Flynn had an intent to convey an explicit promise to take action after the inauguration.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html
All the "current and former officials " (aka Obama political types) were anonymously sourced, of course.
Journalistic rules say that anonymous sources must be independently confirmed, but we now have reason to believe that the leaking was orchestrated from the highest office in the land at the time, so there aren't really any "independent anonymous sources" to cross check.
WaPo, like most MSM outfits, has thrown aside its integrity to pursue its war on Trump.
Inga: "Well, duh. As I said, it came out in testimony at the House Intel hearing that the people there heard what Flynn said on that intercept with he Russian Ambassador."
Oh, so you can tell us, precisely, what was said?
Can't wait!
Inga: "-- And he was making promises of what he would do AFTER his next election."
Indeed.
Loving. Warm. Tender promises of what he would do for his moscow-based boyfriend AFTER the next election.
Who knew at the time that would mean giving control of large chunks of US strategic assets to Russia, clearing the way for Russia to emerge as a bigshot in a US-vacated Middle East, continued massive degradation of the US military force strength, continued attacks on US energy development, etc.
Loving. Warm. Tender promises indeed.
Gives you goosebumps, doesn't it?
Are you bored?
""Obama was President."
-- And he was making promises of what he would do AFTER his next election."
This is a canard, Matthew.
So what? As I said, he was acting within the scope of his job. He was the acting President when he said that. There was absolutely nothing wrong with what he said.
MPH: "Are you bored?"
Yep.
Nobody breaks news late at night anymore. Apparently they allow these reporters to sleep.
It's an outrage I tellya and I just hope for the reporters sake no tells the shareholders.
"Well, duh. As I said, it came out in testimony at the House Intel hearing that the people there heard what Flynn said on that intercept with he Russian Ambassador."
What you said bears little resemblence to what's in Matthew's link.
"Are you bored?"
I think Drago is desperate to distract, like his buddy Trump.
Inga: "This is a canard, Matthew."
I think you mean "prevarication".
Or "lie".
I'll have to re-watch "The Natural" to be sure.
Inga: "I think Drago is desperate to distract, like his buddy Trump."
Yes, how dare I disrupt a thread about obama admin spying on Trump by talking about the events surrounding obama admin spying on Trump!
Distracting from a thread topic by addressing a thread topic is indeed the most pernicious of distractor techniques.
Also the most unexpected.
LOL
"So what? As I said, he was acting within the scope of his job. He was the acting President when he said that. There was absolutely nothing wrong with what he said."
-- No. The proper thing to have said would be: "I can't discuss what will happen after the election." Saying that makes it look like he's promising something once the whole mess of the election is over. Like, "Right now, I can't promise you things because I have to be presentable to the People who will elect me. But, once this... formality is over, I can do things for you. Wonderful things."
And wonderful they were indeed, for Putin.
Thanks obambi!
@ Drago
Be nice or Inga will have to invent some children/cousins to refute any logical arguments you make.
Where is Francisco D when Birkel needs him? Paging Francisco...
Comes now so-called Chuck, and deposeth and saith:
I wrote that in 90 seconds. I managed it, without a single reckless untruth. I didn't go beyond what was indisputable; I didn't make any reckless unsupportable allegations. All as I previously said, you asshole.
"Asshole"? Why, Chuck, I'm surprised at you, abominator of recklessness that you are.
And yes, the fact that you wrote it in 90 seconds is part of my point. It is, seemingly, reflexive with you to write like that, to hesitate rhetorically, to undercut your own points, to turn to the passive voice as though it were a reassuring teddy bear.
Let's rewrite, shall we?
"I have just learned thatThe CIA and NSA surveilled members of my campaign staff were surveilled under CIA/NSA collection techniques; their names were inappropriately and probably illegally circulated within the White House staff or related intel staff. It happened, as I understand it, during the height of the election campaign. Which raises such profound questions for our Democracy, I am calling for an investigation by have ordered the FBI to investigate, as well as requesting the appropriate and asked Congressional oversight committees... to investigate."
(One notes with displeasure Blogger's refusal to accept the strikeout tag. If you're having trouble reading that: "The CIA and NSA surveilled members of my campaign staff; their names were circulated within the White House. It happened during the height of the election campaign. Which raises such profound questions for our Democracy, I have ordered the FBI to investigate and asked Congress to investigate.")
There. I even left in one instance of the passive voice, just to make you feel better, plus the really rather bombastic (but still rhetorically quite weak!) "profound questions for our Democracy".
I'm afraid I did remove the ellipsis that makes your statement trail off uncertainly, but editors have their standards.
@ Matthew Sablan
The election may have been a formality in 2012 if the national security apparatus was already weaponized.
BTW, did anyone else notice Comey starting to throw obambi under the bus by leaking (and let us not pretend it wasn't a pro-Comey leaker) that Comey wanted to go public with Russia meddling last summer but was rebuffed by.....wait for it.....wait for it......OBAMBI!
You can't make this stuff up.
So, I wonder why obambi, after making loving promises to his Moscow-boyfriend would not allow Comey to go public last summer about Comey's Russia concerns?
Gee, maybe it's the same reason that obambi laughed at Romney during the debate when Romney tried to explain how dangerous Russia remains to us?
That obambi. Always doing a Russian Brother a real solid, eh?
The Left is exploring new horizons of political hatred and insanity.
Milbank begins his latest column this way:
The name of the game is gaming the name.
Politico this week reported on an innovative new policy from the Trump administration: An Energy Department official had directed staff “not to use the phrases ‘climate change,’ ‘emissions reduction’ or ‘Paris Agreement’ in written memos, briefings or other written communication.”
In the next paragraph Milbank says that no such policy directive was ever issued. There is nothing there. It is literally an invention of Politico and Milbank.
Birkel: "@ Drago Be nice or Inga will have to invent some children/cousins to refute any logical arguments you make"
There was an aged old liberal,
Who lived in a liberal shoe,
She had so many make-believe daughters,
She didn't know what to do.
So she conjured up roles for each one in a pinch,
in case that credibility was required to "win".
She deployed those fantasy gals in a strategic way,
With roles covering the globe,
and impacting the key political issues of the day
Imagine her surprise,
when in arguments online,
she spoke of these daughters,
But didn't keep count!
Alas, this tactic, like others, has been killed,
But defending sweet sweet Chuck will always keep her thrilled!
Does Susan Rice rat out ValJar and/or Barack?
I say she does. She has young children. Val doesn't.
Why shouldn't she? They threw her under the bus with the Benghazi story.
How many of these people are going to jail?
Original Mike said...
How many of these people are going to jail?
4/3/17, 10:51 PM
Oh, that picture is so sweet. Undoubtedly, all of them deserve to, but it would make me soooo happy to see ValJar marched off to the pokey.
mockturtle: "Why shouldn't she? They threw her under the bus with the Benghazi story"
Let it go.
I don't mean don't press home the facts and nail the politics of it.
But I think we have reached a point where the "rules" were so purposely muddied up by obama and his team that abuse of the system is now "legal".
We will have to content ourselves with "winning" the political battle over this only and this will probably lead to some bipartisan legislation to re-tighten the rules now that the cat is out of the bag.
In this way the dems in congress will regain "credibility" after this fake collusion witch-hunt and clear acceptance of lefties violating norms.
Something tells me that there are so many people with access to the raw data thanks to obambi's machinations that no one will even be held to account for the clearly felonious leaks.
Again, we will have to content ourselves with the truth emerging and certain knowledge that Trump will never stop mentioning it or let any of them forget it. Nor should he.
Susan Rice = meaningless
"We will have to content ourselves with "winning" the political battle over this only and this will probably lead to some bipartisan legislation to re-tighten the rules now that the cat is out of the bag."
Obama and Nixon will be joined at the hip in future discussions of political corruption. There's that.
I was not very much interested in politics during the 1960 Kennedy Nixon debates, but I quickly chalked up Nixon as a pious hypocrite after his criticism of Truman:
'...One thing I've noted as I've traveled around the country are the tremendous number of children who come out to see the presidential candidates. I see mothers holding their babies up, so that they can see a man who might be president of the United States. I know Senator Kennedy sees them, too. It makes you realize that whoever is president is going to be a man that all the children of America will either look up to, or will look down to. And I can only say that I'm very proud that President Eisenhower restored dignity and decency and, frankly, good language to the conduct of the presidency of the United States. And I only hope that, should I win this election, that I could approach President Eisenhower in maintaining the dignity of the office; in seeing to it that whenever any mother or father talks to his child, he can look at the man in the White House and, whatever he may think of his policies, he will say: "Well, there is a man who maintains the kind of standards personally that I would want my child to follow."'
When Watergate came around I watched with fascination as the onion was slowly peeled to finally expose Nixon's mendacity.
Susan Rice's onion is now also being slowly peeled. Rice's earlier mendacity on Benghazi is a strong portent for a similar outcome in Surveillance-Gate.
Logic suggests she will take the 5th if called to testify before a Congressional committee.
It's difficult not to believe that Rice didn't inform Obama privately about the fruits of the unmasking.
FullMoon said...
...
...
Seriously? Then provide a link to prove your innocence, and I will forever abstain from mentioning your threats to Greta, unless provoked. Seems reasonable?
Beside the insult of my having to somehow "prove my innocence" to worthless shit like you; how do you suggest my providing you with a link to something In never wrote?
I've made myself perfectly clear on the subject of Greta van Susteren. If she is so confident in the harmless non-criminality of Corey Lewandowski's touching of Michelle Fields, then my proposal to touch her in precisely the same way shouldn't be actionable either. That has been my one and only point from the beginning. (Well, no; the other points at the time were that both Corey Lewandowski and Trump also lied about Michelle Fields, too.)
The rest of your bullshit was what you cooked up in your own imagination.
"lifelong republican" Chuck knows just where to focus now that more information about obambi-ites spying on the Trump Campaign is oozing out.
"The rest of your bullshit was what you cooked up in your own imagination"
On the Crazy Land Express
They are a mess
Prevarications galore
Conspiracies to adore
The fun never ends on the Crazy Land Express
All aboard, Drago drives the train
While Birkel obsesses over Leviathan.
Full Moon hangs his head out the window, "We're loony we confess!"
Inga. tsk tsk
Never an original thought.
Drago, mine is an original poem, unlike you riffing off of an Old Lady in the Shoe. No talent Drago.
It's difficult not to believe that Rice didn't inform Obama privately about the fruits of the unmasking.
Why else would she have done it but to please him? She served at his pleasure. It was like a metaphorical blow job.
Obama's last minute "legalization" of unmasking (in a de facto sense), makes sense in view of Trump's unexpected win. Something that consequential received little forethought because Hillary was expected to win. None of what we're beginning to see would have come to light. Lord knows the press was going to treat Hillary like they treated Obama.
Oh boy! Lets get some music cued up!
Chesnut's roasting on an open fire...
"Former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova."
Oh Snap!
“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”
Say what?
"Also on Monday, Fox News and Bloomberg News, citing multiple sources reported that Rice had requested the intelligence information that was produced in a highly organized operation. Fox said the unmasked names of Trump aides were given to officials at the National Security Council (NSC), the Department of Defense, James Clapper, President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, and John Brennan, Obama’s CIA Director."
That's called "conspiracy."
Evelyn Farkas is an idiot btw.
"Michael Doran, former NSC senior director, told TheDCNF Monday that “somebody blew a hole in the wall between national security secrets and partisan politics.” This “was a stream of information that was supposed to be hermetically sealed from politics and the Obama administration found a way to blow a hole in that wall.”"
Jail time coming up for a lot of people.
"Doran charged that potential serious crimes were undertaken because “this is a leaking of signal intelligence.”
“That’s a felony,” he told TheDCNF. “And you can get 10 years for that. It is a tremendous abuse of the system. We’re not supposed to be monitoring American citizens. Bigger than the crime, is the breach of public trust.”"
You don't just get to leak SIGINT. This is going to keep going for the next year minimum. These investigations do not stop once they are started. It is clear there are enough decent people left in these institutions to make sure this is dealt with.
Exiled wrote: Oh, that picture is so sweet. Undoubtedly, all of them deserve to, but it would make me soooo happy to see ValJar marched off to the pokey.
She'll seek asylum in Iran before ever facing trial. She belongs there, IMHO.
Inga: "Drago, mine is an original poem,.."
That explains the brevity.
The funniest thing about this story is that Mike Cernovich revealed where he got the information on Susan Rice- he didn't have a source inside the committee or the intelligence community- he had sources inside both the NYTimes and Bloomberg. Apparently both publications have had this information for some time, but sat on it. Lake only published because Cernovich forced his hand. Simply, wow.
And Susan Rice is married to CNN news producer Ian Cameron.
CNN, along with most of the MSM, has declared war on Trump.
This is good: http://www.snopes.com/you-had-a-hunch-the-news-system-was-rigged/
"The Rig Is Up: A list documenting familial ties between news media personnel and the Obama administration is often shared as evidence that the news system is rigged in the President's favor."
Oh, lordy, I had no idea that the people we trust to bring us the news had so readily compromised their integrity.
"Michael Doran, former NSC senior director, told TheDCNF Monday that “somebody blew a hole in the wall between national security secrets and partisan politics.” This “was a stream of information that was supposed to be hermetically sealed from politics and the Obama administration found a way to blow a hole in that wall.”
This is the scary thing. What Rice, Lynch, and Obama did was maybe not strictly illegal, but it was very bad. Or, at least Rice is probably not going to prison for what she did, since any jury would very likely be heavily black as well as strong Obama supporters (which really means that we need to ultimately get govt corruption trials out of DC, for the same reason that TX needs to get them out of left wing Austin).
Here is what I expect happened:
1) broadened class of people who can authorize unmasking to include Nat Sec Advisor (may not have been needed, could be long standing policy)
2) Fake target and resulting investigation of Russian interference with our election, and maybe coordination with Trump campaign.
3) Reverse targeting of Trump people by Obama Admin, justified by #2. My guess is that it wasn't Rice behind this. In any case, this required approval and support by AG Lynch. Not necessarily necessary, but likely, I think, to get sufficient surveillance. Otherwise, they would have been stuck with incidental interceptions of chance targets.
4) Unmasking of intercepts by Rice, claiming #2 as justification.
5) Feeding unmasked intercepts to Crooked Hillary camp through their continued top security clearances.
6) Greatly broadening number of agencies able to view raw signals intelligence. This made it much harder to control distribution.
7) Someone somewhere with access to the unmasked intercepts leaked them to the left wing MSM.
The changing of regulations was apparently done through executive action, of one type or another. Well within the President's Constitutional power, operating at the height of his power (in his role defending the country from external threats). Obama/Rice/Kynch had Chevron and Youngstown Steel pushing in their direction, despite the explicit FISA requirement for "minimization" (which is at the heart of the failure). A little nibble here, and a little nibble there, and pretty soon you have a hole big enough to drive a freight train through.
What is worrisome to me is the fundamental breakdown in our checks and balances through the administrative state. If you read FISA, it is clear that "minimization" is supposed to provide a strong bar against what the Obama Administration seems to have done and is likely to get away with. They did this in the same way that express bars on abortion funding could be eased around by Obamacare, ultimately resulting in required funding of birth control methods essentially utilizing abortions. It is done through a series of reasonable sounding regulations and executive orders. Each one opens the hole just a bit more, and eventually you have the freight train screaming through.
What this shows, illegal or not, is that the Democrats cannot be trusted with great power.
My point on getting govt corruption trials out of DC is that the city has an extreme ethnic and political bias that guarantees that Dems, and in particular black Dems, can, essentially, get away with murder there. Almost literally. This is the city that reelected Marion Berry as mayor after being convicted of felony drug possession. This is akin to, but maybe worse, than the political jihads waged against Republican politicians by the Travis County (TX) DA, because that county contains lift wing Austin, where the TX govt is based. By a seumilar series of historic coincidences, the operation of our federal govt is based in heavily Democratic and heavily black DC. Which would be fine, except that the policies enacted, and the corruption that takes place there affects the rest of the country.
Blogger tim in vermont said...
"What this shows, illegal or not, is that the Democrats cannot be trusted with great power."
I have just worked from the theory if the speaker is a democrat they are lying. It's easier to winnow the facts that way.
buwaya puti said...
Chuck,
Certainly.
The previous administration deliberately intercepted communications by Trumps staff and associates in order to use that material for partisan political purposes.
In the old days it would have been having the Post Office turning over their letters and having the Secret Service steam open the envelopes in order to read other gentlemen's mail, and pass that information to politicians. That would have been a terrible scandal in a more honest time.
It is not the part of a gentleman to hide behind words.
4/3/17, 2:59 PM
Buwaya, you just stole Chuck's soul, stuffed it into a 5-pound bag with 6 pounds of s***, soaked it in diesel and lit a match. But it's okay, he wasn't using it anyway.
Chuck, if you really are a Republican, do you ever worry that you will go to hell when you die? But if you are a Democrat, good job, all in a day's work, carry on.
The NYT is in the habit of spiking stories that may hurt their candidate. Remember the ACORN/Obama story from the '08 election?
https://spectator.org/18757_new-york-times-finally-admits-it-spiked-obamaacorn-corruption-story/
May 18, 2009, 5:50 am
"Acknowledging what the blogosphere has known for weeks, the New York Times finally went on record to admit that just before last Election Day it killed a politically sensitive news story involving corruption allegations that might have made the Obama campaign look bad."
Over 400 comments before I got here! Wow.
I'd just like to remind everyone of the extremely precise wording of Obama's non-denial denials and suggest we do a compare/contrast with the overly broad and yet apparently correct "wiretap" language employed by our less-than-lifetime-Republican president, Trump.
Who says there is no such thing as evolution?
1. "Trump colluded with Russia!"
2. "Well not Trump, but his campaign!"
3. "Trump wasn't wiretapped!"
4. "Surveillance isn't wiretapping!"
5. "incidental collecting isn't surveillance!"
6. "No one was unmasked!"
7. "Unmasking is perfectly normal and legal!"
(List from @johncardillo)
Erik Price the brother of Betsy Devos was setting up a backchannel connection between the Trump transition team and Putin on remote islands in the UAE. It just keeps getting more bizzare. Why all the cloak and dagger if they had nothing to hide? FBI already investigating.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/327074-blackwater-founder-held-meeting-to-establish-trump-russia
Blackwater founder Erik Prince met with a Russian close to President Vladimir Putin in early January in what The Washington Post reports was an apparent effort to create a back channel line of communications between Moscow and the incoming Trump administration.i
The meeting, on the Seychelles islands, reportedly occurred less than two weeks before President Trump’s inauguration.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) agreed to arrange the meeting in order to see if Russia might roll back its support for Iran, including in the Syrian civil war, the Post reports.
The full agenda of the meeting, however, is still unclear.
The Post reported that Prince, who donated to the Trump campaign and is the brother of Education Secretary Betsy Devos, presented himself as an unofficial envoy for Trump.
Keep hope alive, Inga!
I hope all this gets discussed under oath in some open hearing, better than any spy novel ever written! And I hope to have enough popcorn on hand when it does.
Mental institutions provide popcorn?
if the election was 'hacked', then trump was 'tapped'.
2017 is all metaphors
Don't fret about it dear, I hear they do have popcorn over at the Leviathan Fun House, your favorite stop on the Crazy Land Express route.
So what did Eric Price do that was unusual? We know its not illegal. Like say, spying on rival political campaigns.
This has been known, saved until the news cycle needed hijacked. Of course the intell in this had to be leaked, more evidence that Obama used the govt to do political dirty tricks.
Given the Obama admin history of politicizing & then weaponizing federal agencies against their political opponents (DOJ, IRS), I am going with Trump on this one. Something bad happened here.
@ Inga
What do you know of Leviathan? Impress me with your subtlety.
Crazy Chuck says:
I've made myself perfectly clear on the subject of Greta van Susteren. If she is so confident in the harmless non-criminality of Corey Lewandowski's touching of Michelle Fields, then my proposal to touch her in precisely the same way shouldn't be actionable either.
Hold on a gol dang second,Chuck. If you agree with Greta that it was not criminal, why are you arguing? If you do not agree with Greta, then your position is that it was, indeed, a criminal assault. An assault you wish to duplicate in order to prove your point. In other words, pre-meditated, criminal assault and battery.Or, am I mis-understanding?
As for titty twisting, I may have confused your statement with something Inga said regarding the Corey-Michelle incident. Let us compromise with "fake, but accurate"
I'll just note that Chuck is never so unhinged and swearing, cussing, and full out freakshow as when Obama is under assault. Maybe he can tell us why it is that every time Obama or his administration are shown to have done something illegal that Chuck, who after all is a lifelong REPUBLICAN and thus should actually be opposed to Obama, instead defends him at all costs and does his best to attack everyone accusing Obama.
The bile spilled by Chuck attacking people who "say bad things about Obama!" is really the key reason why you, Chuck, are accused of being a Democrat flunky.
--Vance
Vance, the intelligent Unknown.
"Officials said this week that the FBI is continuing to examine Flynn’s communications with Kislyak. Several officials emphasized that while sanctions were discussed, they did not see evidence that Flynn had an intent to convey an explicit promise to take action after the inauguration."
That's what was reported by Washington post. And it tracks with Michael Flynn said. And it also tracks with what was reported about what the transcript was about.
Namely Michael Flynn was asked at one point about sanctions and he said "we aren't in power yet and so haven't had any time to work in policy yet. So we'll get back to you after we are officially in power"
No promises of any kind. The only discussion about sanctions was from kisyliak, and Flynn rebuffed him.
Again, here is no controversy here. This is why all the people who saw the transcript use all sorts of qualifiers to downplay the concersation
Things are getting interesting with Rice. Apparently, she had a spreadsheet created by intelligence people for a bunch of Trump people, and it seems maybe to have been used to drive the unmasking ng, in order to accumulate intercepted communications from them. Which gets pretty close, in my mind, to the targeting of US Persons that shouldn't be done on such without a strongly supported FISA warrant, which they weren't going to get, thanks to Chief Justice Roberts appointing the FISC judges. My thoughts right now is that the spreadsheet may just be the thing that leads to criminal culpability on her part. We shall see.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/susan-rice-ordered-spy-agencies-to-produce-detailed-spreadsheets-involving-trump/
Dems - if Hillary had won, would't all of this espionage done to damage Trump have been done so with no reprisal whatsoever on Hillary's part? Do you REALLY think that she would hold a SINGLE hearing on this?
And isn't it also true that everyone thought HIllary had it in the bag? The week before the election the news organizations like CNN were sying she had a 98% chance to win. A 98% chance.The Obama adminstration, similarly thought it was a lock. Therefore, they figured they coudl surveil Trump with impunity since they assumed that there was a 98% that Hillary woudn't give two craps once she won.
Obama already showed that he has no problem siccnig the IRS on Republicans groups or using the govt to punish journalists. What was done to James Rosen alone, leaves me no doubt that Obama adminstration could or would use intel apparatus to BLATANTLY target everyone in Trumps camp on the flimsiest of pretences.
They got all the phone records for James Rosen on the pretense that he violated the Espionage Act. THey accused him of being a spy. For writnig a story. And they got all the warrants needed simply by saying "james rosen may have vioalted Espionage Act". And then Eric Holder LIED about his involvement. WHen HE was the one who started the process.
And yet you are now saying, there is NO WAY Obama would target Trump?
Are you kidding us here?
Inga writes, breathlessly:
Blackwater founder Erik Prince met with a Russian close to President Vladimir Putin in early January in what The Washington Post reports was an apparent effort to create a back channel line of communications between Moscow and the incoming Trump administration.i
The meeting, on the Seychelles islands, reportedly occurred less than two weeks before President Trump’s inauguration.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) agreed to arrange the meeting in order to see if Russia might roll back its support for Iran, including in the Syrian civil war, the Post reports.
THE FULL AGENDA OF THE MEETING, HOWEVER, IS STILL UNCLEAR.
Ah, so its not clear what the meeting was about? So, then why is it being written about as is the agenda of the meeting IS clear.
The Democrats and the media are writing these conspiracy stories as if we have ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia. Its' classic doublespeak. But it ignores the fact that OBAMA WAS PRESIDENT AT THE TIME. AND HAD DONE A RESET WITH RUSSIA ALREADY.
If you ignore the 8 years of Obama playing nice with putin, then you might assume this story has merit. But the fact is, all the things that sound sinister WERE ALREADY DONE BY OBAMA when he did the reset in the first place. And if they weren't noticeable to Inga when Obama did them, why are they noticeable NOW?
"The United Arab Emirates (UAE) agreed to arrange the meeting in order to see if Russia might roll back its support for Iran" That's interesting. Why did Russia Support Iran? Oh, does that have something to do with Obama setting up the Iran deal where they essentially rewarded Iran with billions of dollars. WITH RUSSIAS HELP. THat deal falls apart unless Russia cooperates with Obama administration.
And here's 30 Democrats meeting with Russia in 2016 to shore up the deal and make sure it doesn't fall apart: http://www.dailywire.com/news/14047/flashback-30-senate-democrats-met-russian-and-aaron-bandler#exit-modal
So, the gist of that meeting was that Russia should NOT pull away from Iran. But instead work with Iran and Obama adminstration to keep that awesome deal in place.
WHy was Inga not worried when 30 Democrats spoke to Russia about not distancing themsleves from Iran?
Also, the UAE met with Trump officials about Syrian war. AGAIN, why would this be relevant? Well, because Obama propped up Russia in Syria since he didnt' want to have to deal with Syria directly. And Obama had just sent John Kerry to Russia to work out an exact deal with Russia to help the fight rebels.
All this back door and front door negotiations from Obama and other democrast, and yet, INga thinks its somehow noteworthy that an incoming administration might deal with Russia about those same issues?
The same diplomat that Flynn got in trouble for meeting was at the WH 4 times in 2016 alone. Since when has it been some sinister thing that we might talk to Russians?
Or is it not sinister when Obama does a reset with them and gives them power in Syria and lets them sell uranium to Iran in his last month. But somehow if the Trump campaign speaks to Russians "WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH THEM".
This talking point may work on dingbat liberals. But seroiusly. We've been following the Obama exploits with Russia since he did his reset. SO, that talking point doesn't fly, Inga
We had this exact discussion during the last election. ROmney said Russia was our number one geopolitical foe. And the democrats mocked him. THey said "The 80's are calling they want their foreign policy back" and "The only thing Romney knows about Russia is what he learned in Rocky IV (when Ivan Drago was the bad guy)" And Obama governed with this principle. That cold war agianst Russia was over. and anyone who thought otherwise was a cold war relic who deserved to be mocked.
Well, Inga, the 80's are calling, and they want their foreign policy back. YOur red baiting isn't working.
Well, Inga, the 80's are calling, and they want their foreign policy back. YOur red baiting isn't working.
Inga is sorely disappointed in Midwestern Trump voters. "What kind of red-blooded Americans are you? You can't even get worked up about Trump and the Russians.
Meanwhile, events like the St. Petersburg suicide bombing bring Americans and Russians closer together. We know we have a common enemy -- one whose name Obama and his chosen successor still cannot even bring themselves to name.
Post a Comment