Did Obama Wiretap The Donald?
- Thread starter iatrogenic
- Start date
If she was using it is as a noun, she was saying she leaked it to no one of importance or consequence. Ha! If it was meant as a pronoun, it was sloppy and stupid, a double negative. Either way, she is in deep doo-doo.
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
+ weaponized DOJ
+ weaponized the federal courts
+ weaponized the EPA
It's Nixon on steroids
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
from Michael Goodwin today --
http://nypost.com/2017/04/05/susan-rices-track-record-damages-her-credibility/
"....... Gen. Mike Flynn was the first example, Attorney General Jeff Sessions was second and others include Jared Kushner. Those leaks, always from anonymous officials, serve to undermine the new president and encourage Democrats to obstruct the administration in the hope that impeachment is coming.
By my count, at least six people — including Trump himself — have been identified as having their communications intercepted by American law enforcement or intelligence. Always, it was “incidental.”
Which gets us to Susan Rice and the importance of her role in seeking the unmasking of those Trump officials. Weeks after she denied any knowledge of unmasking, Obama’s national security adviser flip-flopped Tuesday and admitted she had “sometimes” asked intelligence agencies to identify American citizens whose names had been withheld, as required, in initial reports.
“And sometimes, in that context, in order to understand the importance of the report and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out, or request the information as to find out who that US official was,” she told MSNBC.
Count that as one mystery solved. But Rice made two other denials. One, that she didn’t leak any names to the media. And two, that the unmasking was never done for political purposes.
Her track record doesn’t help her credibility. Rice infamously went on five Sunday television shows in 2012 to assure the nation that the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans was in response to an Internet video. That was a flat-out lie — it was a planned terror attack and she had to know as much.
She also brazenly insisted in 2014 that Bowe Bergdahl, the Army sergeant held by the Taliban for five years, had “served with honor and distinction” to justify the trade of five terrorists from Gitmo for his release. Her claim was false, and even the Army disagreed with Rice, charging Bergdahl with desertion.
So when Rice and her defenders insist that SpyGate is much ado about very little, that’s not even close to good enough. She has to prove it — by testifying under oath to Congress.
A grand jury is also necessary. Along with Evelyn Farkas, the former Obama Defense Department aide who admitted the widespread dissemination of surveillance data and the leaking of names was done because the Obamas didn’t trust the Trumps, Rice has opened the door to a criminal investigation. The leaks are federal crimes and the Justice Department must find the guilty and hold them accountable....."
By my count, at least six people — including Trump himself — have been identified as having their communications intercepted by American law enforcement or intelligence. Always, it was “incidental.”
Which gets us to Susan Rice and the importance of her role in seeking the unmasking of those Trump officials. Weeks after she denied any knowledge of unmasking, Obama’s national security adviser flip-flopped Tuesday and admitted she had “sometimes” asked intelligence agencies to identify American citizens whose names had been withheld, as required, in initial reports.
“And sometimes, in that context, in order to understand the importance of the report and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out, or request the information as to find out who that US official was,” she told MSNBC.
Count that as one mystery solved. But Rice made two other denials. One, that she didn’t leak any names to the media. And two, that the unmasking was never done for political purposes.
Her track record doesn’t help her credibility. Rice infamously went on five Sunday television shows in 2012 to assure the nation that the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans was in response to an Internet video. That was a flat-out lie — it was a planned terror attack and she had to know as much.
She also brazenly insisted in 2014 that Bowe Bergdahl, the Army sergeant held by the Taliban for five years, had “served with honor and distinction” to justify the trade of five terrorists from Gitmo for his release. Her claim was false, and even the Army disagreed with Rice, charging Bergdahl with desertion.
So when Rice and her defenders insist that SpyGate is much ado about very little, that’s not even close to good enough. She has to prove it — by testifying under oath to Congress.
A grand jury is also necessary. Along with Evelyn Farkas, the former Obama Defense Department aide who admitted the widespread dissemination of surveillance data and the leaking of names was done because the Obamas didn’t trust the Trumps, Rice has opened the door to a criminal investigation. The leaks are federal crimes and the Justice Department must find the guilty and hold them accountable....."
http://nypost.com/2017/04/05/susan-rices-track-record-damages-her-credibility/
Just a smidgeon.
Clean
5,000+ Posts
Got a kick out of Glenn Thrush of the NY Times on Hugh Hewitt show today. He bristled with indignation when Hugh compared Obama Admin to Nixon Admin.
Glenn, by the way, was outed by Wikileaks for clearing language in his column with Hillary's campaign before publishing it. He's a democratic lap dog who won't be going too hard after the Susan Rice story.
Glenn, by the way, was outed by Wikileaks for clearing language in his column with Hillary's campaign before publishing it. He's a democratic lap dog who won't be going too hard after the Susan Rice story.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
But "something" to "everybody?"
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Investigate them. Have the testify. If appropriate, punish them. That's fine. You guys are up in arms about the action of the leaking but want to ignore the substance of the leaks. [insert the Trump video "I love wikileaks" here]
v. Gorka, Boris, Page, Manafort, Stone, etc. That part is going to get ugly. I'm glad we're a civilized country. If Putin were running the US end of this operation some of these peeps would start falling out of 4th story windows or having blunt force trauma cardiac events or be disappeared like that Braverman guy.
v. Gorka, Boris, Page, Manafort, Stone, etc. That part is going to get ugly. I'm glad we're a civilized country. If Putin were running the US end of this operation some of these peeps would start falling out of 4th story windows or having blunt force trauma cardiac events or be disappeared like that Braverman guy.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
What would you consider the "substance of the leaks" and which part is not currently under investigation?
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Does this mean you guys are now willing to cover the substance of Podesta and DNC emails too? They could name a new yoga move for this latest twist
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
More "Nixon-on-Steroids" --
Obama used the same tactics against opponents of his infamous Iran Deal that he applied to Trump-Russia. With the Iran Deal, Obama used the cover of NSA wiretapping of Israelis to spy on US citizens, classifying them as "Israeli agents" --
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-new...gn-intelligence-collection-start-before-trump
Obama used the same tactics against opponents of his infamous Iran Deal that he applied to Trump-Russia. With the Iran Deal, Obama used the cover of NSA wiretapping of Israelis to spy on US citizens, classifying them as "Israeli agents" --
"..... In order to spy on U.S. congressmen before the Iran Deal vote, the Obama administration exploited a loophole...... The U.S. intelligence community is supposed to keep tabs on foreign officials, even those representing allies. Hence, everyone in Washington knows that Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer is under surveillance. But it’s different for his American interlocutors, especially U.S. lawmakers, whose identities are, according to NSA protocol, supposed to be, at the very least, redacted. But the standard for collecting and disseminating “intercepted communications involving U.S. lawmakers” is much less strict if it is swept up through “foreign-foreign” intercepts, for instance between a foreign ambassador and his capital. Washington, i.e. the seat of the American government, is where foreign ambassadors are supposed to meet with American officials. The Obama administration turned an ancient diplomatic convention inside out—foreign ambassadors were so dangerous that meeting them signaled betrayal of your own country.
During the long and contentious lead-up to the Iran Deal the Israeli ambassador was regularly briefing senior officials in Jerusalem, including the prime minister, about the situation, including his meetings with American lawmakers and Jewish community leaders. The Obama administration would be less interested in what the Israelis were doing than in the actions of those who actually had the ability to block the deal—namely, Senate and House members. The administration then fed this information to members of the press, who were happy to relay thinly veiled anti-Semitic conceits by accusing deal opponents of dual loyalty and being in the pay of foreign interests.
It didn’t take much imagination for members of Congress to imagine their names being inserted in the Iran deal echo chamber’s boilerplate—that they were beholden to “donors” and “foreign lobbies.” What would happen if the White House leaked your phone call with the Israeli ambassador to a friendly reporter, and you were then profiled as betraying the interests of your constituents and the security of your nation to a foreign power? What if the fact of your phone call appeared under the byline of a famous columnist friendly to the Obama administration, say, in a major national publication?
To make its case for the Iran Deal, the Obama administration redefined America’s pro-Israel community as agents of Israel. They did something similar with Trump and the Russians—whereby every Russian with money was defined as an agent of the state. Where the Israeli ambassador once was poison, now the Russian ambassador is the kiss of death—a phone call with him led to Flynn’s departure from the White House and a meeting with him landed Attorney General Jeff Sessions in hot water....."
During the long and contentious lead-up to the Iran Deal the Israeli ambassador was regularly briefing senior officials in Jerusalem, including the prime minister, about the situation, including his meetings with American lawmakers and Jewish community leaders. The Obama administration would be less interested in what the Israelis were doing than in the actions of those who actually had the ability to block the deal—namely, Senate and House members. The administration then fed this information to members of the press, who were happy to relay thinly veiled anti-Semitic conceits by accusing deal opponents of dual loyalty and being in the pay of foreign interests.
It didn’t take much imagination for members of Congress to imagine their names being inserted in the Iran deal echo chamber’s boilerplate—that they were beholden to “donors” and “foreign lobbies.” What would happen if the White House leaked your phone call with the Israeli ambassador to a friendly reporter, and you were then profiled as betraying the interests of your constituents and the security of your nation to a foreign power? What if the fact of your phone call appeared under the byline of a famous columnist friendly to the Obama administration, say, in a major national publication?
To make its case for the Iran Deal, the Obama administration redefined America’s pro-Israel community as agents of Israel. They did something similar with Trump and the Russians—whereby every Russian with money was defined as an agent of the state. Where the Israeli ambassador once was poison, now the Russian ambassador is the kiss of death—a phone call with him led to Flynn’s departure from the White House and a meeting with him landed Attorney General Jeff Sessions in hot water....."
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-new...gn-intelligence-collection-start-before-trump
Wasn't it the NYT that said that it would be illegal to be in possession of the leaked DNC emails so therefore they could not talk about what was in them?
You weren't around much during the campaign, so you may not know this. However, I didn't vote Trump, and it was mostly because of foreign policy and possible Russia connections. So I definitely do not want to ignore the substance of the leaks. In fact, I've called for a special prosecutor to look into the entire Russia issue, including but not limited to the campaign.
However, there are a few things that are undeniable about this point. First, right now, there's only evidence of one side committing an actual crime, and that's the person who leaked the information in the surveillance. Furthermore, that's not a side issue, and it's not a mere diversion. It's a big deal and a major national security breach. If the leakers are caught, they should go to the slammer, no matter what they uncovered.
Second, the FBI and two congressional committees are looking into the matter. So far, they haven't found any evidence of wrongdoing by Trump, despite the fact that there are obviously people inside the government who are trying very hard to find and/or expose such evidence (hence the leaks). Maybe that'll change, and people need to be patient with the investigations, but so far, they're striking out.
Do many of the Trump-lovers here do prejudge the case as groundless? Yes. However, you're doing the same thing in reverse - assuming that something dirty happened with Trump and that it's going to be ugly. Both sides that are prejudging the matter should be shutting up, setting their political agendas aside, and letting the chips fall where the may.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Is Mike Cernovich's reporting really the one that the right wants to hang their credibility on? This guy has a mountain of crazy statements and conspiracy theories, most notably the pizzagate garbage.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
When Alex Jones has to distance himself from you because you've been discredited, that's pretty bad.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Good points. As you well know, I've self identified as a hack.
Representing the devil in absentia.
Good points. As you well know, I've self identified as a hack.
I'll give you points for honesty. It's easy to overlook the Switzer picture and start taking you seriously. I need to just stop doing that. lol
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
I think it was McMaster, but ultimately Trump
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
It was McMaster that righted that wrong. Flynn was truly clueless. His actions since joining the Trump train justify the Obama admin kicking him to the curb.
Probably so, but I'll give Trump credit for listening to him rather than standing by his campaign hack and propagandist.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
The WSJ claims that two US citizens who were part of the Trump transition team have been unmasked in intelligence reports. One is Flynn and the other has not yet been identified. And it was someone else inside Team Obama who did this, not Rice.
The second person on Team Trump unmasked may or may not have already been noted by the WAPO and NYT, but the bottom line appears to be that Susan Rice was not unmasking alone.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/susan-...p-associates-for-political-reasons-1491331871
“...... Ms. Rice wasn’t the administration official who instigated Mr. Flynn’s unmasking.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/susan-...p-associates-for-political-reasons-1491331871
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
More folks weighing in on Rice and her everchanging story --
Former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau --
Fred Fleitz, ex-CIA analyst --
Retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer --
Former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau --
"It was her f----ng job to know this information!
This is utter bulls--t."
This is utter bulls--t."
Fred Fleitz, ex-CIA analyst --
“Rice’s denials don’t add up. It is hard to fathom how the demasking of multiple Trump campaign and transition officials was not politically motivated.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...-rices-nsa-demasking-denials-dont-add-up.htmlRetired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer --
“From my direct experience dealing at this level, that is never done. The national security adviser person is a manager position, not an analyst position. You have analysts in the intelligence community whose job is to sort through who is doing what with what. Susan Rice is a senior manager looking over the entire intelligence community. She should not have time to be unmasking individuals having conversations. It’s insane. It’s never done.”
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Senate Leader vote
- Started by BrntOrngStmpeDe
- Replies: 22
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
