Did Obama Wiretap The Donald?

Every story I've read points out that Rice didn't break any laws by requesting the unmasking, and if she had kept it to herself, she'd probably be in the clear. However, isn't it still against the law to disseminate the information retrieved in the unmasking to the public? How did the information she retrieved make its way to the media?
 
I could possibly jump on the high crimes train IF any of this information had been brought out prior to the election, when discriminating voters could have actually applied the knowledge. Instead, Comey comes out to say nothing and then comes out a week or so before the election to say nothing again. Now, when it has to do with Trump, he says "I can't comment on ongoing investigations". It actually leads me to believe one of two things. 1. The FBI politicized the email investigation to hurt Clinton or 2. They've got big fish in the water that they're tracking currently with the Russia stuff.
 
From Fox^ to CNN \/

Is calling the Rice revelation a "ginned up" "diversion" really covering the story every hour?

C8klbkuV0AAnxLi.jpg

C8klbkxU0AU3T2N.jpg

C8klbkvUAAInPtV.jpg
 
Mr. Deez said:
Every story I've read points out that Rice didn't break any laws by requesting the unmasking, and if she had kept it to herself, she'd probably be in the clear. However, isn't it still against the law to disseminate the information retrieved in the unmasking to the public? How did the information she retrieved make its way to the media?
Click to expand...
Look Deez, you just need to quit using your brain and start listening to CNN. They will tell you what is important and what is not, and you are not to vary from their narrative. Got it?
 
OUBubba said:
The FBI politicized the email investigation to hurt Clinton
Click to expand...

Would that be the same FBI Director that secretly met with HRC's husband during their ongoing criminal investigation into his wife?

I guess it's just coincidence the AG then said she'll leave it up to the FBI to determine if the State Department will prosecute (which is NOT protocol). That'd be like a police detective turning his case evidence over to the prosecutor's office and then being the only person who decides if the prosecutor will file charges. Wtf?

Then Comey claims there's no grounds to prosecute due to the lack of 'intent'. Never mind countless federal prosecutors went on record right after saying there was overwhelming evidence to file charges. Furthermore proving 'intent' isn't even necessary to convict a person on some of the mishandling of classified info charges.

So there was no intent? Direct communications from HRC telling her staff to remove classified labels and send the info over an unsecured fax machine is not intent?

After the emails were subpoenaed HRC has an outside firm delete them in sophisticated way as to be unrecoverable. No intent?

Lying to Congress about her emails during the Bengazi hearings? That's another crime.

Comey shielded HRC from being charged with clear and undeniable crimes. No sane person believes if DT or any Rep SOS did what she did, he/she wouldn't be charged.

It's laughable Libs still claim Comey ruined HRC. The very guy who colluded with her hubby during an investigation, and uniquely became the authority to decide the State Department was not going to prosecute her.

Comey is the very man who kept her in the race and free of charges. Without him, HRC would've never made it to the final ballot.
 
Last edited:
Brad Austin said:
Would that be the same FBI Director that secretly met with HRC's husband during their ongoing criminal investigation into his wife?

I guess it's just coincidence the AG then said she'll leave it up to the FBI to determine if the State Department will prosecute (which is NOT protocol). That'd be like a police detective turning his case evidence over to the prosecutor's office and then being the only person who decides if the prosecutor will file charges. Wtf?

Then Comey claims there's no grounds to prosecute due to the lack of 'intent'. Never mind countless federal prosecutors went on record right after saying there was overwhelming evidence to file charges. Furthermore proving 'intent' isn't even necessary to convict a person on some of the mishandling of classified info charges.

So there was no intent? Direct communications from HRC telling her staff to remove classified labels and send the info over an unsecured fax machine is not intent?

After the emails were subpoenaed HRC has an outside firm delete them in sophisticated way as to be unrecoverable. No intent?

Lying to Congress about her emails during the Bengazi hearings? That's another crime.

Comey shielded HRC from being charged with clear and undeniable crimes. No sane person believes if DT or any Rep SOS did what she did, he/she wouldn't be charged.

It's laughable Libs still claim Comey ruined HRC. The very guy who colluded with her hubby during an investigation, and uniquely became the authority to decide the State Department was not going to prosecute her.

Comey is the very man who kept her in the race and out of prison. Without him, HRC would've never made it to the final ballot.
Click to expand...
And yet, the world would be a safer place if she'd have won the election. That speaks volumes about how unpresidented this guy is.
 
OUBubba said:
And yet, the world would be a safer place if she'd have won the election. That speaks volumes about how unpresidented this guy is.
Click to expand...

Apparently you slept through BO and HRC's reign of terror in the Middle East.

How's Libya doing these days? How do you feel about arming AQ and other extremists groups in Libya and Syria? How's Yemen faring? All three places are in total chaos and hell from BO and HRC's desire to play master of puppets.

Should we even get into Iran's post-deal (which HRC supported) defiant behavior? Actively testing long range ballistic missiles capable of housing nukes. Once the uranium restrictions end, experts say they can be nuclear armed within a year. Or how about Iran's increasing hostility and threats toward us as soon as the ink dried?

The world is a safer place with regime changing war mongers and radical enablers? Both Bush and Obama (with HRC) made this world a terrorist haven and the West a heavily infiltrated bulls eye.

The very woman who had a hand in stoking all these fires and escalating the threat to massive levels is a better choice to solve it? :rolleyes1:

The woman who promised a 6 times increase of Syrian refugees in 2017, despite countless Obama intel heads saying they have no way to vet their past. Ignoring daily examples of refugee rapes, violence, and refusal to integrate into allied countries.

Then there's her desire to make America a sanctuary country exposing Americans to unnecessary crimes from illegals. Texans alone have endured thousands of rapes and murders at the hands of illegals since 2007.

If HRC had won and turned SCOTUS into a radical enabling authority, America as we know it was lost forever. Half of the people who voted for DT did so to prevent that.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
Every story I've read points out that Rice didn't break any laws by requesting the unmasking, and if she had kept it to herself, she'd probably be in the clear. However, isn't it still against the law to disseminate the information retrieved in the unmasking to the public? How did the information she retrieved make its way to the media?
Click to expand...
If she kept it to herself, no one would ever know even if it was illegal.
 
Brad Austin said:
Apparently you slept through BO and HRC's reign of terror in the Middle East.

How's Libya doing these days? How do you feel about arming AQ and other extremists groups in Libya and Syria? How's Yemen faring? All three places are in total chaos and hell from BO and HRC's desire to play master of puppets.

Should we even get into Iran's post-deal (which HRC supported) defiant behavior? Actively testing long range ballistic missiles capable of housing nukes. Once the uranium restrictions end, experts say they can be nuclear armed within a year. Or how about Iran's increasing hostility and threats toward us as soon as the ink dried?

The world is a safer place with regime changing war mongers and radical enablers? Both Bush and Obama (with HRC) made this world a terrorist haven and the West a heavily infiltrated bulls eye.

The very woman who had a hand in stoking all these fires and escalating the threat to massive levels is a better choice to solve it? :rolleyes1:

The woman who promised a 6 times increase of Syrian refugees in 2017, despite countless Obama intel heads saying they have no way to vet their past. Ignoring daily examples of refugee rapes, violence, and refusal to integrate into allied countries.

Then there's her desire to make America a sanctuary country exposing Americans to unnecessary crimes from illegals. Texans alone have endured thousands of rapes and murders at the hands of illegals since 2007.

If HRC had won and turned SCOTUS into a radical enabling authority, America as we know it was lost forever. Half of the people who voted for DT did so to prevent that.
Click to expand...

Brad, you can't argue facts with people who watch the MSM. ;)
 
Here is Evelyn Farkas in Poland just a couple weeks before the US election
Seems like she had knowledge of a plan to get rid of Trump, just in case the polls were wrong

I set this to FF to ~ 10:14
 
And here she is again, after the election, on Mar 27, 2017 on MSNBC
"That's why you have the leaking"

 
Last edited:
Here is more from McCarthy (see above link)
This part about the Rice-Farkas nexus

"..... The most telling remark that former Obama deputy defense secretary Evelyn Farkas made in her now-infamous MSNBC interview was the throw-away line at the end: “That’s why you have all the leaking.”

Put this in context: Farkas had left the Obama administration in 2015, subsequently joining the presidential campaign of, yes, Hillary Clinton — Trump’s opponent. She told MSNBC that she had been encouraging her former Obama-administration colleagues and members of Congress to seek “as much information as you can” from the intelligence community.

“That’s why you have the leaking.”

To summarize: At a high level, officials like Susan Rice had names unmasked that would not ordinarily be unmasked. That information was then being pushed widely throughout the intelligence community in unmasked form . . . particularly after Obama, toward the end of his presidency, suddenly — and seemingly apropos of nothing — changed the rules so that all of the intelligence agencies (not just the collecting agencies) could have access to raw intelligence information....."​
 
Soooo it's now confirmed classified, unmasked info on the Trump campaign was collected and shared during the election. Rice just confirmed it.

Didn't we also recently learn HRC and 6 of her aides retained access to classified systems during the campaign?

"In 2015, Cheryl Mills’ attorney said her client had access as late as Oct. 30 of that year. After leaving the State Department, Mills was an advisor to Clinton’s presidential bid. Heather Samuelson, a lawyer who worked under Mills and also was a staffer for Clinton in 2008 during her presidential run, also apparently retained an active Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) security clearance."

So what this is boiling down to is info was collected and shared on the Trump campaign team while his rival campaign and her biggest backer (BO) both had classified clearance. Nothing to see here. :rolleyes1:
 
http://observer.com/2017/04/nsa-susan-rice-donald-trump/ This is interesting. This guy is not a Dem (he's anti Hillary) and not a fan of the Trumpster.

"As a longtime NSA official who experienced Rice’s wrath more than once told me, “We tried to tell her to pound sand on some things, but it wasn’t allowed—we were always overruled.” On multiple occasions, Rice got top Agency leadership to approve things which NSA personnel on the front end of the spy business refused. This means there may be something Congress and the FBI need to investigate here.

Susan Rice and Team Trump are both despised by our intelligence agencies, albeit for different reasons. The prospect of a death-match between them is causing unusual emotions in the IC. “For us, this is like the Iran-Iraq war,” explained another longtime NSA official: “We’d like both sides to lose.”
 
Brad Austin said:
Soooo it's now confirmed classified, unmasked info on the Trump campaign was collected and shared during the election. Rice just confirmed it.,,,,
Click to expand...

This is from Eli Lake of Bloomberg (who, if you do not already know, are Trump-haters)

"White House lawyers last month discovered 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, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

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.”

*****
Rice herself has not spoken directly on the issue of unmasking. Last month when she was asked on the “PBS NewsHour” about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were swept up in incidental intelligence collection, Rice said: “I know nothing about this,” adding, “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today......”​

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...ser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel
 
This is becoming the theatre of the absurd

CNN assigned a pretty dubious point guy on this story -- Jim Sciutto
Guess who he used to work for?

That's right, the Obama administration.

You might also note the words he uses. An "anonymous source." And "improperly sought.”

One more thing, before Sciutto worked at the White House, he worked at ABC. At ABC he worked for a guy named Ian Officer Cameron.
Would you care to guess who he is married to?

(insert drum roll)

Susan Rice

Gee, I wonder who his "anonymous source/person close to Rice" might be?

You cannot make this stuff up

 
Joe Fan said:
..."White House lawyers last month discovered 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, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter......
Click to expand...

Somebody is lying
And we already know Rice lied about Benghazi, Bergdahl and the Ukraine.

 
Mr. Deez said:
Every story I've read points out that Rice didn't break any laws by requesting the unmasking, and if she had kept it to herself, she'd probably be in the clear. However, isn't it still against the law to disseminate the information retrieved in the unmasking to the public? How did the information she retrieved make its way to the media?
Click to expand...

Napolitano (quote below) thinks the unmasking in this instance is espionage.
Personally I am not sure. I feel more confident that the leaking was a felony. Each instance.

Can she reveal the identity of an American for a purpose other than national security? Absolutely not. Can she ask for more Americans involved an then unmask them and say to her boss, ‘by the way, guess what Trump and Manafort were talking about last night?’ You know what that’s called? That’s called espionage. That’s called the failure to safeguard top secret information.”​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top