My fellow Trump supporters, I’m certain you have been upset as much I for Deep State Leftists openly threatening the President of the United States for his swamp emptying efforts (which is not moving fast enough). The Leftist hubris truly showed its ugly head when the lying (coup encouraging) criminal Andrew McCabe was not only removed from the position of Deputy Director of the FBI but was also fired when lying under oath and criminal leaks to the Leftist MSM became undeniable.
Enter former CIA Director John Brennan (one-time devoteeCPUSA voter of Gus Hall (SEE ALSO HERE) and rumored Muslim convert). Brennan not only criticized President Trump in a vile manner but also hinted at a coup to remove the President from Office.
Dee Fatouros cross posted a very erudite exposition of Brennan treachery from The American Spectator. I am crossing Fatouros’ post because I like her introduction.
(As an aside note, I usually promote blog posts extensive on Social Media, but Fatouros has already done so. By all means go to her post on The Realistic Observer and like it!)
Well John, for someone in your position, openly calling for a coup is not the brightest of ideas. Your iniquities have gone far beyond “just” lying under oath. Like most dwellers in the DC muck and mire, the more exposed you are, the more unhinged you become.
Ten years ago, the lawlessness and treason which occurred under the previous administration was unfathomable.
With the election of the new president, we now have well funded seditious activity to a degree not ever seen before.
Is this now the new normal? Will every newly elected administration face rebellion, anarchy and chaos if the “powers that be” do not agree with the electorate?
If the lefty elites have their way, you, you betcha.
The following article adds another chapter to the Chronicles of John Brennan.
As his plot to destroy Trump backfires, his squeals grow louder.
Facebook It was the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky who coined the phrase the “dustbin of history.” To his political opponents, he sputtered, “You are pitiful, isolated individuals! You are bankrupts. Your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on — into the dustbin of history!”
It is no coincidence that John Brennan, who supported the Soviet-controlled American Communist Party in the 1970s (he has acknowledged that he thought his vote for its presidential candidate Gus Hall threatened his prospects at the CIA; unfortunately, it didn’t), would borrow from Trotsky’s rhetoric in his fulminations against Donald Trump. His tweet last week, shortly after the firing of Andrew McCabe, reeked of Trotskyite revolutionary schlock: “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America… America will triumph over you.”
America will triumph over a president it [sic] elected? That’s the raw language of coup, and of course it is not the first time Brennan has indulged it. In 2017, he was calling for members of the executive branch to defy the chief executive. They should “refuse to carry out” his lawful directives if they don’t agree with them, he said.
Trump has said that the Russians are “laughing their asses off” over the turmoil caused by Obamagate. No doubt many of the laughs come at the sight of Brennan, a supporter of Soviet stooges like Gus Hall, conducting a de facto coup from the top of the CIA and then continuing it after his ouster. Who needs Gus Hall when John Brennan is around? This time the Russians don’t even have to pay for the anti-American activity.
Another hardcore leftist, Samantha Power, who spent the weeks after Trump’s victory rifling through intelligence picked up on his staff, found Brennan’s revolutionary tweet very inspiring. “Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan,” she wrote. Sounded pretty dark and grave. But not to worry, she tweeted later. She just meant that the former CIA director was going to smite Trump with the power of his “eloquent voice.”
Out of power, these aging radicals can’t help themselves. They had their shot to stop Trump, they failed, and now they are furious. The adolescent coup talk grows more feverish with each passing day. We have a former CIA director calling for the overthrow of a duly elected president, a former attorney general (Eric Holder) calling for a “knife fight,” a Senate minority leader speaking ominously about what the intelligence community might do to Trump (“they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer has said), and assorted former FBI and CIA officials cheering for a coup, such as CNN’s Phil Mudd who says, “You’ve been around for 13 months. We’ve been around since 1908. I know how this game is going to be played. We’re going to win.”
In all this unhinged chatter, the partisan origins of Obamagate become clearer. The same anti-Trump hatred on display in their tweets and punditry drove the political espionage. James Kallstrom, the former FBI Assistant Director, notes that the “animus and malice” contained in Brennan’s tweet is “prima facie exposure of how he felt about Trump before the election.”
All the key figures in the decision to open up a probe on Trump wanted him to lose — from Brennan to Peter Strzok, whose anti-Trump machinations included, according to the latest batch of texts with his mistress, plotting to manipulate a buddy on the FISA court. In one text, he wonders if he can finagle a meeting with his friend by inviting him to a “cocktail party.” The impropriety aforethought on display in that tweet is staggering, but of course the media has paid no attention to it, preoccupied as it is with Andrew McCabe’s retirement income.
McCabe, by the way, has removed all doubts about his capacity for partisan lying with his post-firing statement, which rests entirely upon it. With all of its anti-Trump special pleading, the statement reads like it was cobbled together by Rachel Maddow. Like so many other ruling-class frauds, McCabe seeks absolution for his perjury and leaking through liberal politics. I stand with the liberal powerful against Trump, you can’t touch me — that’s the upshot of his defense. Comey has taken the same tack. The title of his forthcoming book should be: How the Law Doesn’t Apply to the Self-Appointed Ruling Class.
What an amazing collection of entitled creeps, who long ago convinced themselves that the “rule of law” is identical to what they see as their sacred right to exercise power in any way they see fit. All the blather about Trump’s violation of the law is simply a projection of their own lawlessness. So far the coup has been thwarted. They had hoped to stop him in the campaign through political espionage. But that didn’t work. Then they tried to upend him through spying during the transition, holding out hope until the very last moment, as evidenced by Susan Rice penning her sham exculpatory note only after Trump’s swearing-in. Now they join Brennan in seeking to bury Trump in Mueller’s dustbin.
Trotsky would have understood the shorthand of all the tweets, polemics, and posturing perfectly. Nothing in this show trial bears any relationship to reality or justice. It is simply an expression of power politics, which doesn’t always end well for its exponents. As even an old Gus Hall supporter like John Brennan must know, and perhaps his fulminating panic indicates a dawning awareness of it, those who talk the loudest about their enemies heading for the ash heap of history often end up in it.
We are being lied to on every front, both foreign and domestic.
“We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”Ayn Rand
While it is true that our “leaders” have been lying to us for decades, the current administration has elevated it to Orwellian proportions. The double think, news speak, prevarication, obstructionism, and out right perfidy that comes out of Washington D.C. is heart stopping.
Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Extortion 17 are just a few of the major lies and cover-ups pushed by D.C.
Executive over reach, and Congressional abdication of authority over to the bureaucratic alphabet agencies is in itself a scandalous breach of trust with its constituents.
The unbridled national debt wrought upon us by those in office is Cloward Piven on steroids, and its ramifications will be devastating.
Last but not least is the use of the IRS as a tool for punishment and harassment of those who are on the wrong side of the administration’s political fence.
The harsh reality is that the America many of us grew up in and took for granted has now become a fascist state. We need to do our best to climb out of any boxes we may be in, thoroughly examine any assumptions we may be carrying, and search for the truth, bitter though it may be.
Knowledge is power. Even though we may feel powerless and may not see a restoration of our great country within our life time, we will hold and guard the truth so as to pass it on to future generations. They will then have the necessary knowledge to reclaim America when the time presents itself…
Robin Rosenblatt at the G+ Community UnitedWe Stand!! Posted an interesting video attributed to “Anonymous” that shows a strong argument that there is a enough evidence to investigate and probably prosecute members of the Obama Administration. It begins with Huma Abedin following through many alleged Dem Party probable crimes which includes one of the most under-reported stories by MSM on the Seth Rich murder cover-up.
A bonus video is The Next News Network comments on Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton talking about Obama corruption (Hat Tip: Cynthia Derrick Juengel).
Sub for more: http://nnn.is/the_new_media | Cristina Laila for the Gateway Pundit reports, as was previously reported, Judicial Watch announced that the National Security Council (NSC) on May 23, 2017, informed it by letter that the materials regarding the unmasking by Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice of “the identities of any U.S. citizens associated with the Trump presidential campaign or transition team” were removed from government possession.
Susan Rice is a typical lying Dem that unmasked Trump campaign staff names that did NOTHING illegal while using an investigation of Russian collusion/voting interference as a MERE excuse to politically impugn Donald Trump during the 2016 election and during the Obama lame duck period leading President Trump’s inauguration!!!!
AND even more reprehensible is the Left Stream Media either didn’t report on Ly’n Rice or defended her for doing nothing wrong while simultaneously still stick to the UNPROVEN – ergo lie – accusation the President Trump colluded with the Russians to defeat Crooked Hillary in the 2016 election cycle.
For any American to believe Rice’s words that she “leaked nothing to nobody,” were also duped by her lies about Benghazi and her lies the traitor Bergdahl was an upstanding loyal American: “He served the United States with honor and distinction …”
Hmm … IF SUSAN RICE SAYS SHE DIDN’T UNMASK TRUMP SURVEILLANCE FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, I CAN CONFIDENTLY SAY “I DON’T BELIEVE HER!”
I have found loads of articles that question the veracity of Susan Rice and Barack Obama. The Left Stream Media will not take up the question of reliability because they are essentially a propaganda of Obama, The Dems and the Left in general.
I am cross posting two articles. One from The Federalist posted today and another from Fox News’ Adam Housley post on April third. At the end, I will provide some links (perhaps some excerpts) from other sources that pretty much have the same opinion about Susan Rice but may add some details lacking between each article.
Susan Rice was one Obama official who requested the unmasking of Trump associates’ information that was widely disseminated. Here’s why that’s significant.
Since Donald Trump won the election for president in November, U.S. media outlets have received and eagerly published selective, damaging leaks about him from anonymous intelligence officials. The general effort, which appeared highly coordinated, was an effort to delegitimize Trump’s election and paint him as a stooge of Russia or otherwise unfit for office.
The media outlets claimed their information came from very highly placed officials in the Obama administration. Even if they hadn’t claimed their anonymous sources were Obama officials, the information they were leaking, such as the name of a U.S. citizen caught up in surveillance by the Obama administration, would have been known only by highly placed intelligence officials.
As the publishers of the information that was illegally disclosed, many media outlets weren’t keen to make a story, much less a big story, about the leak campaign by Obama officials. This despite the fact that the same Obama officials who had run the infamous Iran Echo Chamber operation, in which reporters were duped into reporting the Obama administration’s spin on the Iran deal, had bragged that they’d continue a highly developed communications operation in the Trump era.
In early March, Donald Trump tweeted out a series of unsubstantiated claims:
Trump Tweets on BHO Wiretapping
Two weeks ago, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, revealed that he’d seen dozens of reports featuring unmasked information on Trump and his associates and family members. He said these reports arose out of incidental collection during FISA surveillance, had nothing to do with Russia, were disseminated widely throughout the intelligence agencies, and contained little to no foreign intelligence value.
It should go without saying that the country’s powerful surveillance capabilities are not to be used against American citizens so that such unmasking should be exceedingly rare, be done for only the strongest reasons, and make pains to avoid the appearance of politicization. Nunes said the incidental collection might be legal but the unmasked dissemination of information about political opponents was disconcerting.
Despite the bombshell allegations, many in the media responded by downplaying or denigrating his news, distracting with process complaints, or quickly thrown-together stories from anonymous sources with no evidence claiming more breathless wrongdoing with Russia.
On Monday, Eli Lake of Bloomberg Views reported that sources said “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.” Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the National Security Council’s senior director for intelligence, was conducting a review of unmasking procedures when he “discovered Rice’s multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities.”
Susan Rice was Obama’s National Security Advisor for his second term.
Again, many in the media are attempting to downplay, denigrate and distract, some are doing so shamelessly. Here are five reasons why this is a story worth covering:
1) Susan Rice’s Story Changed Dramatically From Two Weeks Ago
JUDY WOODRUFF: I began by asking about the allegations leveled today by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes that Trump transition officials, including the president, may have been swept up in surveillance of foreigners at the end of the Obama administration.
SUSAN RICE, Former U.S. National Security Adviser: I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.
I know nothing about this, she said.
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.
Rice has a reputation for dishonesty, most notably for her claim that a September 11, 2012, attack in Libya that killed four Americans was a spontaneous result of anger at a video critical of Islam. At the time she said this, the State Department knew well that it was a coordinated terrorist attack.
Rice also falsely claimed that Bowe Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction,” when critics began raising questions about why President Obama traded high-value Taliban detainees and a ransom for the Army deserter. Bergdahl is expected to face a court-martial in August for desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. His desertion was already known at the time Rice made her comments.
2) The Unmasking Was Related To Political Information
When Nunes first alerted the public about his concerns over the unmasking and dissemination, he noted that the information had nothing to do with Russia and had little to no intelligence value. Lake reported that Rice’s multiple unmasking requests were related to reports on Trump transition activities. She is said to have requested the identities of Americans in reports of monitored conversations between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition and in surveilled contact between the Trump team and monitored foreign officials.
“One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration,” according to Lake.
When Rice gave her interview to the friendly journalist Mitchell, she gave a hypothetical example of when it would be appropriate to request an unmasking of a U.S. citizen’s name that was caught up in foreign surveillance. She said that if two foreigners were talking about a terrorist attack to be committed with a U.S. citizen, she would seek out that name. That’s a great hypothetical. And no one is making the claim that Susan Rice sought to unmask a Trump family member or transition member’s name because she believed they were about to set off a bomb. They are making the claim that the information in the reports was politically valuable and related to the Trump transition.
3) Susan Rice Worked In The White House
Rice was known as Obama’s “right-hand woman,” “like a sister,” and was his National Security Advisor throughout his second term.
Weeks ago, diplomat Richard Grennell said that if Rice were involved, that would implicate President Obama:
‘But within that realm there could have easily been a political calculation to listen in, and then to take those transcripts and the summaries of those transcripts, make sure that those in the NSC and the political people – like Ben Rhodes and Susan Rice – make sure that they have them so they can leak them to reporters.’
‘I think that it would be easy to figure out if Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes knew about this,’ he added, ‘because if they did, clearly President Obama knew about it.’
Even if Rice wasn’t working with Obama on this effort or informing him of her activities, her role as National Security Advisor means her unmasking request in this instance doesn’t make sense, according to Andrew McCarthy. If the identities of U.S. citizens had intelligence value, it would have been unmasked by agencies that conduct investigations, he wrote:
Consequently, if unmasking was relevant to the Russia investigation, it would have been done by those three agencies. And if it had been critical to know the identities of Americans caught up in other foreign intelligence efforts, the agencies that collect the information and conduct investigations would have unmasked it. Because they are the agencies that collect and refine intelligence ‘products’ for the rest of the ‘intelligence community,’ they are responsible for any unmasking; and they do it under ‘minimization’ standards that FBI Director James Comey, in recent congressional testimony, described as ‘obsessive’ in their determination to protect the identities and privacy of Americans.
Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies. The national-security adviser is not an investigator. She is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic-party interests.
It is unclear what President Obama knew about Rice’s successful request to unmask information on Trump transition members.
4) This Substantiates Nunes’ Claim
When Nunes told the public that information about the Trump team had been collected, unmasked, and widely disseminated, many media figures questioned the legitimacy of his claim. With the news that no less than Susan Rice requested unmasking of political operatives, it appears that Nunes was onto something.
Also of note, Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democratic member on the committee, had been very upset with Nunes for telling the public and the White House about the reports he’d seen before briefing the committee. However, after Schiff saw the information, he more or less went quiet. He didn’t say the reports were a distraction or unimportant, unlike other Democratic operatives.
5) Civil Liberties Questions Remain
The most frequent defense of the Obama administration’s unmasking efforts is that incidental information collection on U.S. citizens is routine, and that requests to unmask that information about U.S. citizens is also routine. When we learn more about the widespread dissemination of such information, we can anticipate that the media and other Democrats will say that such dissemination is more than routine.
When Nunes revealed the collection, unmasking, and dissemination news, he specifically referenced the incidental information collection on members of Congress during the Iran deal. The U.S. spies on foreign leaders, including Benjamin Netanyahu and his advisors. As a result, the Obama administration picked up information on politically valuable information:
White House officials believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign. They also recognized that asking for it was politically risky. So, wary of a paper trail stemming from a request, the White House let the NSA decide what to share and what to withhold, officials said. ‘We didn’t say, ‘Do it,’ ‘a senior U.S. official said. ‘We didn’t say, ‘Don’t do it.’ ‘
Stepped-up NSA eavesdropping revealed to the White House how Mr. Netanyahu and his advisers had leaked details of the U.S.-Iran negotiations—learned through Israeli spying operations—to undermine the talks; coordinated talking points with Jewish-American groups against the deal; and asked undecided lawmakers what it would take to win their votes, according to current and former officials familiar with the intercepts.
In some ways, this “routine” defense of collecting and disseminating information on political adversaries is the most disconcerting. The federal government’s surveillance powers are intense, from metadata collection to surveillance of communications. Such information is easilyweaponizedand exceedingly difficult to oversee for accountability purposes.
As one journalist who used to be worried about such things wrote a few years ago:
Instead, the NSA’s approach of grabbing up every bit of information that it can guarantees that the metadata and sometimes even the content of legislator communications are swept up, and will continue to be available to a secretive class of executive branch employees for years to come. There is obvious potential that this will be exploited with abusive intent–it isn’t like we’ve never had a president try to spy on his political opponents before! But even absent any nefarious motives, incidentally collected data could damage the integrity of our political system.
Members of the media should try to cover, rather than cover up, this aspect of the story. The civil liberties of U.S. citizens are of vital importance and the unmasking of information on them should not be routine, not regular, and not a light matter.
About Susan Rice: The President’s National Security Advisor has authority to request unmasking of American names from intel agencies.
But in this instance, I am stunned by the lack of curiosity most media have shown about the facts and circumstances present here.
This is a good example of media giving soft coverage to President Obama while they’re hard on the GOP in general & Trump in particular.
Bear in mind, Rice is the official who praised Bowe Bergdahl for his ‘honorable service’ & claimed he was captured ‘on the battlefield.’
She also said two weeks ago in a TV interview that she didn’t know anything about the unmasking.
I would have thought the media would ask tough questions. There is no reason this should be a FOX News and conservative press issue only.
If I were a reporter, I would want to know why Rice sought the unmasking. The FBI is investigating possible Trump collusion, not the WH.
How often did she ask? What reasons did she give? (Each request is tracked and catalogued in writing by the NSA. A procedure exists.)
The info would have been provided ONLY to her as the requester. It is highly classified. Did she share it? With whom? Why?
If she shared it with anyone, why did she do so? What did they do with it? Did they give it to the media or tell media about it?
One of the reasons we live in a polarized era is because too many reporters look the other way at issues like this. Bias is real.
It’s not too late. The press knows how to dig and get answers. I hope they do so.
It’s not just Rice. She wasn’t the only person to request the unmasking of Trump officials regarding politically sensitive operations, and she wasn’t the person who requested that Flynn’s name be unmasked, meaning she requested at least one other Trump associate’s unmasking. We still don’t know who committed the crime of leaking Flynn’s name to the Washington Post. It’s time to start working on covering this story, rather than running interference for anonymous sources.
Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway
+++
Susan Rice requested to unmask names of Trump transition officials, sources say
Multiple sources tell Fox News that Susan Rice, former national security adviser under then-President Barack Obama, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caughtup in surveillance.
The unmasked names, of people associated with Donald Trump, were then sent to all those at the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan – essentially, the officials at the top, including former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes.
The names were part of incidental electronic surveillance of candidate and President-elect Trump and people close to him, including family members, for up to a year before he took office.
It was not clear how Rice knew to ask for the names to be unmasked, but the question was being posed by the sources late Monday.
“What I know is this … If the intelligence community professionals decide that there’s some value, national security, foreign policy or otherwise in unmasking someone, they will grant those requests,” former Obama State Department spokeswoman and Fox News contributor Marie Harf told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum on “The First 100 Days. “And we have seen no evidence … that there was partisan political notice behind this and we can’t say that unless there’s actual evidence to back that up.”
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, asked about the revelations at Monday’s briefing, declined to comment specifically on what role Rice may have played or officials’ motives.
“I’m not going to comment on this any further until [congressional] committees have come to a conclusion,” he said, while contrasting the media’s alleged “lack” of interest in these revelations with the intense coverage of suspected Trump-Russia links.
When names of Americans are incidentally collected, they are supposed to be masked, meaning the name or names are redacted from reports – whether it is international or domestic collection, unless it is an issue of national security, crime or if their security is threatened in any way. There are loopholes and ways to unmask through backchannels, but Americans are supposed to be protected from incidental collection. Sources told Fox News that in this case, they were not.
This comes in the wake of Evelyn Farkas’ television interview last month in which the former Obama deputy secretary of defense said in part: “I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill – it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration.”
Meanwhile, Fox News also is told that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes knew about unmasking and leaking back in January, well before President Trump’s tweet in March alleging wiretapping.
Nunes has faced criticism from Democrats for viewing pertinent documents on White House grounds and announcing their contents to the press. But sources said “the intelligence agencies slow-rolled Nunes. He could have seen the logs at other places besides the White House SCIF [secure facility], but it had already been a few weeks. So he went to the White House because he could protect his sources and he could get to the logs.”
As the Obama administration left office, it also approved new rules that gave the NSA much broader powers by relaxing the rules about sharing intercepted personal communications and the ability to share those with 16 other intelligence agencies.
Rice is no stranger to controversy. As the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, she appeared on several Sunday news shows to defend the adminstration’s [sic] later debunked claim that the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. consulate in Libya was triggered by an Internet video.
Rice also told ABC News in 2014 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction” and that he “wasn’t simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield.”
Bergdahl is currently facing court-martial on charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy for allegedly walking off his post in Afghanistan.
Adam Housley joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in 2001 and currently serves as a Los Angeles-based senior correspondent.
+++
SOURCES: SUSAN RICE BEHIND UNMASKING OF TRUMP OFFICIALS
White House counsel reportedly ID’d former national security adviser
WASHINGTON – Multiple reports indicate former National Security Adviser Susan Rice was the Obama administration official who requested the unmasking of incoming Trump administration officials.
Mike Cernovich broke the story in an article in Medium on Sunday that said, “The White House Counsel’s office identified Rice as the person responsible for the unmasking after examining Rice’s document log requests.”
Unmasking is the revealing of names within the intelligence community of U.S. citizens whose communications were monitored during foreign surveillance.
According to Fox News, the unmasked names of people associated with Donald Trump were sent widely to top officials in the Obama administration.
That is a potential felony.
The unmasked names were reportedly sent to every member of the National Security Council, former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, then-CIA Director John Brennan and some officials at the Defense Department.
The NSA is required to remove the names of Americans incidentally collected during foreign surveillance before sharing intelligence with other agencies unless there is an issue of national security, but Rice reportedly requested the unmasking of the identities of Trump associates.
Sources said …….
+++
BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama National Security Advisor SUSAN RICE Behind Unmasking Of Trump Transition Team
In a massive scoop, on Monday morning Eli Lake of Bloomberg reported that Barack Obama’s national security advisor, Susan Rice, repeatedly requested information from the intelligence community on members of the Trump transition team and campaign, unmasking them to an audience beyond the intelligence community in the process. Normally, raw intelligence masks the identity of American citizens caught up in legal surveillance of other targets.
Here’s Lake:
In February [National Security Council senior director for intelligence] Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice’s multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel’s office, who reviewed more of Rice’s requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy. The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations – primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.
Rice denied that she knew anything about members of the Trump transition caught up in incidental intelligence gathering last month. As Lake also points out, the revelation that Rice requested the documents would explain House Intelligence Chair Devin Nunes’ trip to the White House two weeks ago – he needed to go there to view Rice’s missives. It would also explain why Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the most ardent Trump critic on wiretapping and leaks, suddenly went silent over the weekend after seeing documents the White House presented to him.
This is indeed a huge story for the Trump White House. It doesn’t change the inaccuracy of Trump’s accusations that he was wiretapped by the Obama administration – there is still zero evidence to support that claim. But it demonstrates that the Trump team was not only targeted by members of the Obama intelligence community for unmasking and likely leaking, but that such unmasking went to the very top of the Obama administration.
Call it the tale of two National Security Advisers, Michael Flynn and Susan Rice. As much as Flynn has taken fire as being an architect of unspecified “collusion” with the Russians, Susan Rice has been like the iceberg that sank the Titanic — barely visible above water but dangerous enough to threaten the Trump administration’s ship of state.
As reported by Circa News, Rice, while serving as Obama’s National Security Adviser, requested the unmasking of the names of Team Trump officials mentioned in the so-called “incidental” surveillance of the Trump transition team:
Computer logs that former President Obama’s team left behind in the White House indicate his national security adviser Susan Rice accessed numerous intelligence reports during Obama’s last seven months in office that contained National Security Agency intercepts involving Donald Trump and his associates, Circa has learned.
Intelligence sources said the logs discovered by National Security Council staff suggested Rice’s interest in the NSA materials, some of which included unmasked Americans’ identities, appeared to begin last July around the time Trump secured the GOP nomination and accelerated after Trump’s election in November launched a transition that continued through January.
The intelligence reports included some intercepts of Americans talking to foreigners and many more involving foreign leaders talking about the future president, his campaign associates or his transition, the sources said. Most if not all had nothing to do with the Russian election interference scandal, the sources said, speaking only on condition of anonymity given the sensitive nature of the materials.
Ordinarily, such references to Americans would be redacted or minimized by the NSA before being shared with outside intelligence sources, but in these cases names were sometimes unmasked at the request of Rice or the intelligence reports were specific enough that the American’s identity was easily ascertained, the sources said.
Well, isn’t that special? While Trump’s pick for this sensitive post was under scrutiny, Obama’s adviser was doing opposition research which involved data mining classified intelligence reports. Rice requested the unmasking of names, something only three people,according to Circa, were authorized to do:
Dozens of times in 2016, those intelligence reports identified Americans who were directly intercepted talking to foreign sources or were the subject of conversations between two or more monitored foreign figures. Sometimes the Americans’ names were officially unmasked; other times they were so specifically described in the reports that their identities were readily discernible. Among those cleared to request and consume unmasked NSA-based intelligence reports about U.S. citizens were Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice, his CIA Director John Brennan and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
If Susan Rice had worked for Richard Nixon, she could have been one of his Watergate “plumbers”, perhaps retiring as plumber emeritus. We are all familiar with Susan Rice’s tour of the Sunday talk shows after the Benghazi terrorist attack. That was no accident, but a calculated part of the Obama administration’s disinformation campaign to protect President Obama’s reelection chances and …
+++
‘Absolutely false’: Top Obama adviser denies she ‘unmasked’ Trump associates for political purposes
Bloomberg and Fox on Monday reported that Rice had tried to unmask, or learn the identities of, officials on Trump’s transition team whose conversations with foreign agents — or conversations those agents were having about the transition officials — were incidentally collected during routine intelligence-gathering operations. The Daily Caller then reported that Rice had created a “spreadsheet” with the names she had unmasked.
“The allegation is that somehow Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes,” Rice told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “That’s absolutely false. [Yeah right, & she never lied about Benghazi either]
“I was the National Security Adviser. My job is to protect the American people and the security of our country. That’s …
+++
Rand Paul calls for Susan Rice to testify on unmasking Trump officials
GOP Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said he believes former National Security Advisor Susan Rice should testify before Congress on her request to unmask the names of Trump transition officials collected during routine intelligence-gathering operations.
Paul argued the situation should not be downplayed, saying reforms need to be made to prevent individuals from being blackmailed on personal aspects of their lives through unmasking. He noted there was nothing stopping the former administration from looking through Trump officials and national security advisors’ conversations during the transition window.
“If it is allowed, we shouldn’t be allowing it, but I don’t think should just discount how big a deal it is that Susan Rice was looking at these,” he told reporters Monday. “And she needs to be asked, ‘Did President Obama ask her to do this? Was this a directive from President Obama? I think she should testify under oath on this.”
Paul said he has long thought there are too many people with the ability to unmask individuals.
“The law says you can’t reverse target people, but how would you know that once you get inside the brain and the people that are unmasking people,” Paul continued. “So, what if I decided to unmask and I’m there and I only unmask the conversations of my Democrat opponents — shouldn’t there be more restrictions for unmasking people in the political process?”
BloombergView’s Eli Lake reports that 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, 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.” Not this time. It was Suzie, kids.
I CAN’T SAY I’M REALLY SURPRISED CONSIDERING THIS IS THE SAME LYING FRAUD WHO GOT HER JOB AS NSA ADVISER AS A POLITICAL FAVOR FROM OBAMA/CLINTON FOR BEING THE FRONT-PERSON IN THE BENGHAZI VIDEO LYING SCHEME.
And she did this all on her own, huh? Do you believe that?
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.
“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.
“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.”
Other official sources with direct knowledge and who requested anonymity confirmed to TheDCNF diGenova’s description of surveillance reports Rice ordered one year before the 2016 presidential election. More
Update: In response to a question Tuesday from NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell, former Obama White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice denied that she “prepared” spreadsheets of surveilled telephone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides. The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group, however, reported that Rice “ordered” the spreadsheets to be produced.
In addition, former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova, one of TheDCNF’s sources, said Tuesday in response to Rice that her denial “would come as quite a surprise to the government officials who have reviewed dozens of those spreadsheets.”
…
+++
No Proof of Trump-Russia Collusion but Lots of Evidence of Obama Spying
Fox News’ Tucker Carlson ripped the national media to shreds while condemning the Obama era White House for wrongfully spying on American citizens for political purposes.
Carlson argued that while media continues to focus in on some phantom collusion between President Trump and the Russian government, something for which they have NO PROOF, they are actively ignoring the real scandal unfolding before their eyes. Susan Rice, one of President Obama’s closest advisors, has been caught wrongfully unmasking members of the Trump campaign and transition teams for what seem to be nakedly political purposes. How do we know she did it for political purposes? Many of the reports now being produced show that the data that Rice was collecting had nothing to do with Russia or other national security issues, meaning that she unmasked the names of members of the Trump team without cause.
This fact is what Carlson finds most disturbing because it means that civil libertarians were right all along – there really is NOTHING we can do to stop the government from spying on us.
Carlson then transitioned into a conversation with former Obama advisor David Tafuri, a conversation that grew quite heated when Tafuri argued that the Russia story was the real issue here. Carlson pressed, as he has done time and again with liberals and journalists, for Tafuri to present ANY EVIDENCE that there was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Or, for that matter, for Tafuri to present any evidence that Russia had any impact on the recent election. Of course, Tafuri could provide none, nor has any liberal politician or liberal member of the media been able to show a tangible connection between Russia and recent events.
WASHINGTON – Is it a real story, or is it fake news?
That’s the raging debate about the exploding scandal over Susan Rice’s “unmasking” of incoming Trump administration officials when she served as President Barack Obama’s national security adviser.
Despite some likening the White House use of classified leaks for political purposes to a scandal bigger than Watergate, media outlets Tuesday were shooting down – or flat-out ignoring – the blockbuster report that verified the Obama administration surveilled the Trump team.
…
+++
Susan Rice Responds To Trump Unmasking Allegations: “I Leaked Nothing To Nobody”
If anyone expected former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, the same Susan Rice who “stretched the truth” about Benghazi, to admit in her first public appearance after news that she unmasked members of the Trump team to admit she did something wrong, will be disappointed. Instead, moments ago she told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that she categorically denied that the Obama administration inappropriately spied on members of the Trump transition team.
[Several MSNBC Tweets of Mitchell/Rice interview]
We doubt that anyone’s opinion will change after hearing the above especially considering that, in addition to Benghazi, Rice is the official who praised Bowe Bergdahl for his “honorable service” and claimed he was captured “on the battlefield”, and then just two weeks ago, she told PBS that she didn’t know anything about the unmasking.
Unfortunately, Mitchell’s list of questions did not go so far as to ask about her false claim in the PBS interview, in which she said “I know nothing about unmasking Trump officials.”
It is thus hardly surprising that now that her memory has been “refreshed” about her role in the unmasking, that Rice clearly remembers doing nothing at all wrong.
On Monday night, Rand Paul and other Republicans called for Rice to testify under oath, a request she sidestepped on Tuesday. “Let’s see what comes,” she told Mitchell, when asked if she would testify on …
“Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions are received from individuals, foundations, and corporations and are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.” (FromDonation Page of Judicial Watch)
Thus Judicial Watch is an NGO government and judiciary watchdog organization. JW managed to get a Judge to force the release of documents in which Congress originally subpoenaed but the government failed to deliver. Although Leftists are playing ostriches with their heads in the sand or are just downright deceptive are still claiming there is nothing up their sleeves and are spinning the JW smoking gun data collected.
I call this a promo email because the hook is to read is the offer of JW’s Benghazi Cover Up Report for free. After you click the link in the email it takes you to a page in which you provide your name, address, email and zip code followed by a link to get the report. The report is a 20 odd pages of a pdf file and you are actually sent to the link: The Benghazi Attack of September 11, 2012: Analysis & Further Questions from a Diplomatic Security Service Regional Security Officer and Special Agent; Intro by Tom Fitton – 1/22/13; and an April 29, 2014 update pertaining to the FOIA documents the government was forced to give up by a Judge. So some of you may have read the 2013 portion of the pdf file.
Of course the promo part is the collecting of addresses and email undoubted for marketing and donor purposes in the future. I like JW so I don’t have a problem with that. I can always hit the delete button or file snail mail in the trash.
BUT you really should familiarize yourself with those report. I don’t know about you but I am getting weary of listening, reading and watching Leftists whine about two years of Congressional investigations and zero discoveries of crimes being discovered. The JW report CLEARLY demonstrates the entire Obama Administration is hell bent on covering up probable crimes by not being transparent in releasing documents and the obvious production of government officials lying to Congressional Committees. I am certain the Benghazigate revelations are a mere tip of the iceberg. Since obstruction is now being documented in Benghazi investigations you can count on the probability the other Obama labeled phony scandals have nefarious activities behind them.
So you can click the Judicial Watch link that is a promo to build their donor list (which is a worthy cause) or I provided the pdf link above. In the mean time I took the liberty to provide an incomplete excerpt of the pdf file of portions I find to be obscene obstructions by the Obama Administration. SO REALLY READ THE WHOLE REPORT.
Introduction by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton
Judicial Watch promotes transparency, integrity and accountability in government, politics and the law. We carry out or mission through investigations, research, litigation and public education.From time to time we produce Special Reports on important public policy matters to illuminate the operations of government in a way that informs the public and holds our trusted public servants accountable.
We have prepared this Special Report with the analysis, insights and expertise of Mr. Raymond Fournier, a recently retired Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent with more than thirty years of extraordinary experience managing all aspects of security, to include being a Regional Security Officer in United States Embassies in such countries as: Honduras, Sierra Leone, Belgium, and Lebanon — as well as other sensitive overseas postings to include Afghanistan and Israel. Specifically, Mr. Fournier possesses expertise in: assessing and managing risk; developing and executing security budgets and plans; organizing dignitary protection details; as well as technical, procedural security development and implementation to augment physical security.Mr. Fournier’s assistance has been invaluable.
Judicial Watch has opened its own investigation of the Benghazi attack. Our staff of investigators and researchers includes former intelligence officers, analysts, military officers, attorneys, and journalists. Judicial Watch has more than ten (10) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests pending with various Executive departments and agencies seeking all manner of records relating to the attack. We have filed separate lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to compel the Obama administration to comply with the FOIA law and release the records we seek. In the interim, we pursue additional avenues of investigation in an effort to provide the American people with complete, accurate, factual information concerning a deadly attack costing the lives of United States Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three additional brave Americans.
Thomas Fitton
President
Washington, DC
January 22, 2013
_________________
Background
At9:40p.m.ontheeveningofSeptember11,20l2,agroupofapproximatelyl50heavily armed Islamist militia members attacked the United States’diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.The ensuing 8-hour assault on the Special Mission Compound (SMC, and hereafter: “Compound”) and the nearby CIAannex claimed the lives of four Americans:Ambassador Christopher Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Specialist Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALS Glen Doherty andTyroneWoods.Stevens, who hadpreviously served as the U.S. Special Envoy to the LibyanTransitional National Council,wasthefirstAmbassadorkilledinthelineofdutysincethel979shootingofAmbassador Adolph Dubs in Kabul,Afghanistan.
Intheaftermathoftheattack,PresidentObamaandsenioradministrationofficialswere quick to identify Muslim outrage over an obscure Internet video mocking Mohammedasthemotivationfortheattack1.InaSeptemberl2thstatementabouttheincident, the President remarked, “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs ofothers.”2
AtaSeptemberl4,20l2eventhonoringthefourvictims,SecretaryofStateHilary Clinton stated, “We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the livesof those brave men.We’ve seen rage and violence directed atAmerican embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”3
“There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the Internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government and it’s one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It’s been offensive to many, many people around the world. That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against western facilities including our embassies and consulates. That violence is absolutely unacceptable, it’s not a response that one can ever condone when it comes to sucha video. And we have been working very closely and, indeed, effectively with the governments in the region and around the world to secure our personnel, secure our embassy, condemn the violent response to this video.”5
…
Eventually, the administration was forced to acknowledge what many observers knew from the beginning — that the attack in Benghazi was neither spontaneous nor the result of an Internet video. On September 28th, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence reported that their revised assessment had determined it to be, “a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists” and that, “some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al-Qa’ida.”8
___________________________
ARB Report/Summary of Findings
As required by the Omnibus Diplomatic and Antiterrorism Act of l986, the State Department convened an Accountability Review Board (ARB, and hereafter “Board”) to investigate the attack on October l, 20l2.9 Secretary Clinton chose former Ambassador Thomas Pickering to chair the board. Pickering is also a member of the advisory board of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC)10, a left-wing advocacy group that opposes the imposition of economic sanctions against Iran and that, in the estimation of national security expert Kenneth Timmerman, “has been lobbying Congress to win support for an agenda that mirrors the goals of the Tehran regime.”11In 2009, former FBI counterterrorism agent Kenneth Piernick reported that the group, “may be lobbying on behalf of Iranian government interests. Were I running the counterintelligence program at the bureau now, I would have cause to look into this further.”12
In her 2009 paper Rise of the Iran Lobby, published by the Center for Security Policy, former CIA officer Clare Lopez wrote that, “Ambassador Pickering’s positions on Iran include calls for bilateral talks without preconditions and a plan for a multinational uranium enrichment consortium in Iran. Iran has proposed a similar plan to the UN Security Council. Ambassador Pickering advocates a process leading to mutual diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States. …
The other members of the Board were former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of StaffAdmiral Michael Mullen, former United Nations Undersecretary for Management Catherine Bertini, former State Department Interim Director of Overseas Building Operations Richard Shinnick, and former Deputy CIADirector HughTurner.Despite State Departmentregulations requiring that Board members, “must possess expertise that will contribute to the work of the Board, e.g., knowledge, experience or training in areas such as foreign affairs,law,security, embassy construction, intelligence, and other areas appropriate to the Board’swork,”14no security professionals were selected to the board convened to investigate the Benghazi attack.
…
Notably, the report contradicts the earlier claims by administration officials that the attacks resulted from a protest that escalated into violence. The Board, “concluded that there was no protest prior to the attacks, which were unanticipated in their scale and intensity.”
…
… Shortly after its release, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrel Issa told reporters that he was, “deeply concerned that the unclassified report omits important information the public has a right to know. This includes details about the perpetrators of the attack in Libya as well as the less-than-noble reasons contributing to State Department decisions to deny security resources. Relevant details that would not harm national security have been withheld and the classified report suffers from an enormous over-classification problem.”16
…
Despite the self-evident fact that the security resources dedicated to the Compound in Benghaziwereinsufficient,StateDepartmentofficialscontinuedtodefendtheirstaffingdecisions in the aftermath of the attack.Under questioning by Rep. Darrell Issa during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing investigating the attack, State Department DeputyAssistant Secretary for International Programs Charlene Lamb asserted, “We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11.”21According topublishedreports,theRegionalSecurityOfficerinLibya,EricNordstrom,toldCongressional investigators that Lamb, “wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi ‘artificiallylow.’”22
_______________________________
Fallout
The day after the release of the Board’s report, numerous media outlets reported that four State Department officials responsible for the management and security of the Compound in Benghazi had resigned. Three were identified as Assistant Secretary of State Eric Boswell, Charlene Lamb, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Raymond Maxwell.23In the weeks that followed, however, it became unclear whether the officials had really resigned or even faced any significant disciplinary measures. On December 26th, the New York Post reported that, “The highest-ranking official caught up in the scandal, Assistant Secretary of State Eric Boswell, has not ‘resigned’ from government service, as officials said last week. He is just switching desks. And the other three are simply on administrative leave and are expected back.”24
…
________________________
Additional questions Raised
…
…
… It is also known that the Ambassador met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin on the evening of the attack. The purpose of that meeting has not been disclosed.In October, Fox News reported that Stevens, “was in Benghazi to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists.”31
Some experts believe that the Ambassador’s work in Benghazi may have been related to Administration efforts to transfer arms to Syrian opposition groups. As former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and President of the Center for Security Policy Frank Gaffney wrote, “One of the places in Libya most awash with weapons in the most dangerous of hands is Benghazi. It now appears that Stevens was there — on a particularly risky day, with no security to speak of and despite now copiously documented concerns about his own safety and that of his subordinates — for another priority mission: sending arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the “opposition” in Syria.”32Former CIA Officer Clare Lopez has characterized U.S. activities in Benghazi as “gun running” and reported that Administration officials were, “working with the very same al-Qaeda linked relationships in Libya to gather up and buy back and collect weapons from Gaddafi’s stockpile that were missing from the revolution in Libya last year and what it looks like is that they were shipping them onwards to Syria.”33
Further substantiating the theory that the Obama administration was involved in arms transferstoSyriangroupsisaTimes of LondonreportpublishedonSeptember14,2012,“Syrian Rebels Squabble OverWeapons as Biggest ShiploadArrives from Libya.”34According to the report: “Among more than 400 tonnes of cargo the vessel was carrying wereSAM-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), which Syrian sources said could be a game-changer for the rebels.”The connection to Benghaziwas established by TheTimesthrough an examination of the ship’s port authority papers,“TheTimes wasshowntheLibyanship,TheIntisaarorTheVictory,intheTurkish portofIskenderun and papers stamped by the port authority by the ship’s captain, Omar Mousaeeb,a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organisation called the Libyan National Councilfor Relief and Support, which is supporting the Syrian uprising.”
…
… (AFRICOM) deployed two unmanned aerial vehicles to survey the events in Benghazi — one to the Compound and the other to the airport during the evacuation of American personnel.However, the reportgives no description of the images captured by the UAVs.In addition, the involvement of AFRICOM in the response raises the important question of why lethal air support or other military assets were not deployed in response to the attack.
…
______________________
Conclusion
…
__________________
Latest Update:Judicial Watch: Benghazi Documents Point to White House on Misleading Talking Points
APRIL 29, 2014
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on April 18, 2014, it obtained 41 new Benghazi-related State Department documents. They include a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” and a possible kidnap attempt.
…
Among the top administration PR personnel who received the Rhodes memo were White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy Press Secretary Joshua Earnest, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, then-National Security Council Director of Communications Erin Pelton, Special Assistant to the Press Secretary Howli
Justin Smith lays out the picture excellently that the White House Memo to Susan Rice to talk Mohammed video and spontaneous riots in relation to the nefarious murder of four Americans protected by the international protocol of Diplomatic Immunity.
There are a couple of questions that too many seem to fail to ask.
The most obvious is, “Is it not a crime to manipulate a Presidential election with an obvious lie claiming Mohammed video caused spontaneous Muslim riots rather than the truth? The truth is Islamic terrorists with connections to al Qaeda orchestrated an attack on a diplomatic mission in Benghazi.
Then since the White House Memo is a bold face lie, there must have been more to the Benghazi murders then a mere incompetent failure to provide adequate protection in an obvious dangerous location for a diplomatic mission. The Dem Party line it was the GOP fault by cutting some funding for diplomatic protect is a load of bunk. It would have been more plausible to place budget cuts on security where the host nation has a good reputation in protecting Embassies and diplomatic staff. Benghazi was not one of those places. Of course Dems to consider voters idiots or they would not postulate a blame game theory.
Some of the biggest questions which Mainstream Media and the reputable Conservative leaning media outlets will not touch has to do with the ‘why’. Why did Ansar al Sharia (SEE Also HERE) attack Benghazi diplomatic mission? Was it to kidnap Stevens to exchange for the Blind Sheik in prison in the USA? Was the Obama Administration involved in a Libyan arms scheme to send to Syrian Rebels to fight Assad’s government? If the answers could be traced back to the White House, it would have cost Obama the November 2012 election.
On April 30, 2014 Judicial Watch, a conservative non-profit group, released a new email from Ben Rhodes, deputy national security advisor, along with other documents, that created a chain of events through which the American people may soon receive many new insights and answers to questions surrounding the fiery attack on the U.S. Consulate at Benghazi on September 11, 2012 and the murders of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. These documents have already prompted the revelation from Tommy Vietor, former National Security Council spokesman, that Obama was not in the Situation Room on that night, and they perfectly illustrate one more case for the American people, in which Obama and his administration have calculated in a cold, insensitive and arrogant manner to perpetrate the lie of an anti-Islam video, as they abuse their power and manipulate the military and intelligence communities for their own political gain.
The Rhodes email came shortly after the Congressional Oversight Committee, chaired by Darrell Issa, had reopened hearings on Benghazi, after being stonewalled for twenty months, and in it, Ben Rhodes tells Susan Rice, then U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., to blame the 2012 Benghazi attack on local anger over an “anti-Muslim video.” Although the email was initially heavily redacted, a federal judge and an independent judiciary found in favor of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit and Freedom of Information Request; and now, the American people have proof-positive that the narrative towards an angry protest rather than a coordinated terrorist attack was the creation of White House staffers, if not Obama and Hillary Clinton themselves. Thank God for this independent judiciary.
This email only verifies what many already knew from great reporting by numerous news agencies such as ‘The Independent’. And during the televised (FoxNews) Oversight Committee hearing on May 1, 2014, Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell, former deputy director of intelligence at African Command, stated, in response to a question from Representative Jason Chaffetz, that the attacks at Benghazi were attributable to Ansar al-Sharia, an Al Qaeda affiliate, as early as 3:15 am local time on September 12, 2012.
Recently, Tommy Vietor retorted, “Dude, that was almost two years ago,” in response to Brett Baer’s (FoxNews) question about documents pertaining to Benghazi, and Rep Nancy Pelosi (CA-D) was heard saying, “Diversion, subterfuge – Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi – Why aren’t we talking about something else?” This typifies precisely the cavalier, callous and arrogant manner of Obama, the Progressives, Secretary of State John Kerry and Hillary “what-difference-does-it-make” Clinton, when it comes to Benghazi, the murders of four patriotic Americans and Republican insistence on receiving answers.
Repeatedly Jay Carney, White House press secretary, has denied that the Rhodes email pertained to Benghazi or that a White House cover-up has been ongoing from day one. If the Rhodes email is not about Benghazi, then why is the third goal of the email bringing to justice those who harmed Americans? This shows that Ben Rhodes and the Obama administration were clearly worried about how four dead Americans were going to affect Obama’s presidential campaign, especially in light of Obama’s statements that “Al Qaeda has been decimated and is on the run.”
For months enough suspicion has existed to warrant an intense investigation. On May 2, 2014, Chairman Darrell Issa announced a Select Committee would be formed, and he also issued a subpoena for Secretary of State John Kerry to testify on May 21. Issa stated that Kerry needs to explain why previous congressional subpoenas of documents to the State Dept. were defied, and Issa went further stating “such contempt of Congress may constitute a criminal offense.”
Speaker of the House John Boehner announced his support of the Select Committee, far too long in coming, by stating: “The administration’s withholding of documents – emails showing greater White House involvement in misleading the American people – is a flagrant violation of trust…..it forces us to ask the question, what else about Benghazi is the Obama administration hiding from the American people?”
More than the Rhodes email, millions of Americans (61% believe a cover-up is in progress – FoxNews poll) especially Armed Forces veterans, are demanding for Obama to explain why an In Extremis force, FAST team or any Special Forces group at all was not immediately sent to the aid and rescue of the Americans at the Consulate and CIA Annex. When Rep John Mica (FL-R) asked on May 1, if we had the capability to respond over the six hour period between the time Ambassador Stevens was murdered and the Americans at the CIA Annex were killed, General Lovell stated, “The military should have made a response of some sort.” Later in the Oversight Committee hearing, somewhat rhetorically General Lovell speculated, “Could we have got there in time (to save them)? We may have – We’ll never know,” whereupon, Rep Jason Chaffetz interjected, “Because we never tried.”
Pat Smith, mother of Sean Smith, asks “What are they covering up?” She told Sean Hannity (FoxNews) a story of being forgotten and ignored by the Obama administration, which has basically told her they cannot tell her anything else, after feeding her the same false video story.
Sen. Lindsey Graham asked, “Remember when Obama told us as things became available about Benghazi, we will be transparent and share them with the American people? Remember that statement?” (NewsMax)
AFRICOM’s effectiveness was most certainly compromised by not having enough boots on the ground in Libya, as well as the Consulate not having a Marine security contingent in place, however, as Gen Robert Lovell so eloquently and succinctly stated, “…the question is not in the ‘could or could not’ in relation to time, space and capability – the point is we should have tried…’Always move to the sound of the guns.'”
In the worse scandal and cover-up in American history, surpassing by far the third-rate burglary of Nixon’s Watergate, Ben Rhodes, who also holds a master degree in fiction from NYU, according to Patrick Howley of the Daily Caller, has had the fiction behind his email, “RE: PREP Call with Susan” Rice, exposed. Continued denial of any White House cover-up by the Progressives and the White House’s blatant lies about its role in the Benghazi cover-up, along with their acts of treason, should make it apparent that the Democrats never had any plans to delve further into Benghazi. And twenty months later, the murdering islamofascists responsible still roam free, as the Democrats engage in diversions and subterfuge of the most sinister kind. Such a lack of respect for the dead of Benghazi, their families and all America cannot stand, if any honest Democrats still exist – willing, along with Chairman Issa and the Congressional Select Committee, to seek the truth about Benghazi.
I have grown weary hearing from Dem Party talking – especially President Barack Hussein Obama – that Benghazigate is one of those phony scandals AND the proof is that after months of House investigations from several House Committees zero evidence of wrongdoing or a cover-up has turned up!
I am hardly a journalistic expert or an expert in the law or even an expert political talking heard; NEVERTHELESS I was not born yesterday either. The White House, the State Department, the Defense Department, the CIA, the U.S. Military have all stalled in answering questions in the House investigations. Documents that have been subpoenaed have either failed to be delivered and those that were delivered are redacted to the hilt so that no one could make heads or tails of a sentence let alone a context in a document.
So DUH!!!!!!!!!!!! House Committees have not turned up results because of Executive Branch obfuscation and probably other Government Departments and Agencies have willingly joined in the obfuscations to cover their own hind-quarters perhaps for various different reasons.
WELL! Thanks largely to Judicial Watch – a private NGO-blog and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a White House memo has shown up, that had previously been redacted to the hilt before the House received it, that shows that the White House had directed Susan Rice to tell the public on Sunday News shows that the Benghazi Islamic terrorist attack was a spontaneous Muslim riot egged on by a sophomoric movie trailer on the Internet poking bad taste fun at Mohammed the founder of Islam. (Admittedly bad taste and offensive to Muslims even the humor was based on actual nefarious actions recorded about Mohammed in the Quran, Hadith and Sunnah.)
NOW and FINALLY, House Speaker John Boehner is going to form one Select Committee to investigate a Benghazigate cover-up!
House Speaker John Boehner announced Friday that he will convene a select committee to investigate Benghazi, ending months of resistance to conservative demands that the laser focus of a special panel be brought to bear on perhaps the worst scandal surrounding the Obama administration.
In doing so, Boehner rejected White House claims that a newly uncovered email, withheld from Congress, did not apply to Benghazi. The email not only mentions Benghazi specifically, it refers to “protests,” which by definition included the Benghazi attacks, which the White House considered the result of a “protest” at the time of the email.
Meanwhile, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa Friday issued a subpoena to force Secretary of State John Kerry to testify about Benghazi.
According to reports, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), is being considered to lead the new committee.
From a written statement by Boehner:
Americans learned this week that the Obama Administration is so intent on obstructing the truth about Benghazi that it is even willing to defy subpoenas issued by the standing committees of the People’s House. These revelations compel the House to take every possible action to ensure the American people have the truth about the terrorist attack on our consulate that killed four of our countrymen.
In light of these new developments, the House will vote to establish a new select committee to investigate the attack, provide the necessary accountability, and ensure justice is finally served.
The administration’s withholding of documents – emails showing greater White House involvement in misleading the American people – is a flagrant violation of trust and undermines the basic principles of oversight upon which our system of government is built. And it forces us to ask the question, what else about Benghazi is the Obama administration still hiding from the American people?
This dismissiveness and evasion requires us to elevate the investigation to a new level. I intend for this select committee to have robust authority, and I will expect it to work quickly to get answers for the American people and the families of the victims.
Four Americans died at the hands of terrorists nearly 20 months ago, and we are still missing answers, accountability, and justice. It’s time that change.
Boehner has been in more hot water than usual with conservatives lately, particularly over remarks mocking them for not wanting to move ahead with immigration reform. The special panel may in part be a move to appease them.
But Boehner is also reportedly genuinely furious with the White House.
The committee will also ensure that Benghazi is continually in the headlines during the months leading up to the election.
___________________________
Will House Select Committee Finally have Subpoena Power to find Benghazi Truth?
Copyright 2010-2011 by Keith Koffler. All rights reserved.
About White House Dossier
White House Dossier, written by veteran White House reporter Keith Koffler, is the only 24/7, totally independent, and fully unauthorized White House news website. It delivers a unique blend of White House reporting, commentary and analysis – with frequent doses of humor and satire – to carry forward journalism’s traditional mission of holding the powerful to account. The website focuses mainly on President Obama, his administration, and his antagonists.
Award winning journalist Keith Koffler has 16 years of experience covering Washington. As a reporter for CongressDaily, National Journalmagazine, and Roll Call, Keith wrote primarily from the White House, covering three presidents and learning as few have the intricacies of the West Wing and the behavior and motivations of its occupants. While mainly stationed at the White House, he also extensively covered Congress and … READ THE REST
I am a great (or infamous depending on one’s outlook) cross poster of blogs or online news sources. One of my favorite people to cross post is the blogger Danny Jeffrey (older but still active – Freedom Rings 1776 and Fix Bayonets). In fact I have enjoyed Danny’s perspective so much that I noticed I was cross posting a lot of his articles. So I have slowed down on doing this.
I am on the email list of Fix Bayonets and a post crossed my eyes that Danny was sharing his outlook on Benghazigate. You may or may not agree with Danny’s perspective but he is very hard to refute except perhaps conclusions based on opinion more than facts. In the blogging world facts are like math – they don’t lie. However unlike math facts can be massaged to slant toward one’s perspective. Too much massaging may lead to the danger of turning facts into mirages; i.e. something you want to see but really is not there.
Whatever your take on Benghazigate Danny Jeffrey is one of the best sources to build an information base. Enjoy the read.
Last year I wrote an essay about how little people really know about what is going on, due not to a lack of interest, but to the junk sites that from which they tend to get their information. I am about to prove it.
Benghazi is probably the most mentioned city in the world and has been for nearly the last two years. Everyone talks about, reads about it, posts about it and few know anything other than the fact that four men died there and it was due to Obama allowing them to die, for reasons of his own. Beyond those basics there is only confusion and conjecture. Still, in an effort to waken those who are trying to waken others I shall show you what real research can do and then hope you reconsider using some of the sources I provided in ‘Wake Up America‘. In March of 2011 ‘Rebels’ were involved in an attempted overthrow of Qaddafi. I emphasized ‘Rebels’ because most were not rebels as such. The vast majority of these people were paid militias, and a great many of them were Al Qaeda. The powers that be behind the Obama regime thought it best if we helped to topple a dictator and hand his nation over to Islamic radicals. The simple fact of the matter is that Robert Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were opposed to our becoming involved in a war in Libya, citing no national interest. Credit our intervention to three women who overruled the JCS; Samantha Power, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice.
At any rate we became involved, with John ‘Traitor’ McCain leading the cheering section and CIA spook Christopher Stevens helping to arm the forces of Al Qaeda. Stevens arrived in Benghazi in the middle of the night aboard a Greek freighter. He spent the night in a hotel and moved the next day due to a car bomb going off in the parking lot.
I love using links from Obama’s loyal media for when they concede something you know you have a live one on the line.
Stevens, whose diplomatic foothold were a couple of battered tables, was literally on the rebels’ side while the revolution was at its most vulnerable and in danger of being crushed by Gadhafi’s troops who were moving on the city. The threat was pushed back at the last minute by the intervention of NATO planes which began bombing Gadhafi’s tanks and troops.
At the risk of sounding disloyal I must ask; by what right and in whose interest did we do this? After Ronald Reagan had a bomb dropped in Qaddafi’s front yard that little warlord learned some manners and actually joined us in the war on terror after 911. Not wanting another crater in his yard he had been helping to expose and eliminate Al Qaeda. Then we turned on him, aiding Al Qaeda in his overthrow and murder.
Paraphrasing Julius Caesar Hillary Clinton showed her true worth in this 12 second video as she said laughing “We Came. We Saw. He Died.” Qaddafi did not simply die. He was tortured and murdered. Raped with sharpened sticks at the hands of savages we empowered until he bled to death. And her victory chant tells me everything that I need to know about the woman that is being groomed for the Oval Office.
Christopher Stevens was rewarded for his efforts by being appointed Ambassador to Libya and he returned there in May of 2012 assuming his new role.
The following is a brief from the U.S. Department of State entitled ‘Securing Our Embassies Overseas’. It details the planning that goes into the safeguarding of our embassies abroad, its Ambassadors, support teams, and families. If this plan had been followed. Four Americans, now dead, would be alive today. The Obama regime intentionally disregarded all protocol and with malice aforethought allowed these men to be killed.
Excerpt:
Following the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) and Nairobi (Kenya) in 1998, security countermeasures for our U.S. missions overseas took on greater importance, and this continues today.
Recall this excerpt as I later present a timeline of events as they transpired, for the State Department was far more aware of the danger than was the Ambassador as they removed his safeguards.
Another link from the State Department, this one describing the two types of mobile defense teams available to protect our ambassadors. One is referred to as a Security Support Team and their duties are described as:
A Security Support Team’s job is to augment and enhance security at U.S. Embassies and Consulates that are faced with civil unrest, hostile hosts or any other threat. Recent deployments included Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Jamaica and Cote d’ Ivoire.
And the Tactical Support Team:
Tactical Support Teams deliver counter-assault capability in high-threat protective details both overseas and in the United States. Missions have included deployments to Niger, Zaire, Mauritania, Mali, Indonesia, the Philippines, Yemen, Pakistan, Tunisia and Jamaica.
One would tend to believe that with such support teams available an Ambassador should feel safe, but the fact of the matter is that the Security Support Team was removed and the Tactical Support Team was ordered to “Stand Down!”
Such executive behavior rings not of leadership but of premeditation.
There are a set of standards applied to any foreign mission site. Among them are three meter high walls topped with barbed wire. The building must be set back from those walls by a minimum of one hundred feet. That building must also be equipped with bullet proof glass, tactical doors, and a fire proof safe room. The site in Benghazi had none of the above and could only be operated under the terms of a special waiver from the State Department.
By leaving the Consulate open for business with a waiver, it essentially meant that no barriers were required, no safe room was needed, and multiple layers of security weren’t necessary.
The State Dept’s waiver was mentioned in the Ambassador’s diary which was recovered by CNN on site as the FBI was weeks getting there.
Then we have this video on the topic from CNN as well. Note that such a waiver on such a facility had to be signed off not only by the State Dept, and Libya, but the Ambassador as well. Why was the Ambassador willing to agree to an unprotected mission in the very pits of hell? More on that topic later.
Recall the basic Security Support Team tasked with protecting the Ambassador. Calling yet again on the Obama loyal:
I shall use no excerpt from this link as you should read all of it. It is by Jake Tapper, who pulls no punches.
U.S. Security personnel for the Ambassador were limited to three men and they were not allowed to carry weapons as we did not want to offend the ‘sensitivities’ of the Libyans. Their armed support was recruited from the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, but they were nowhere to be found on the night of September 11, 2012. F17MB has a Facebook page.
Several entries on the militia’s Facebook page openly profess sympathy for Ansar al-Sharia, the hardline Islamist extremist group widely blamed for the deadly attack on the mission. The State Department did not respond to a Newsmax request for an explanation as to why the February 17th Martyrs Brigade was hired to protect the mission.
This is a one time (sic) cover from their FB page:
I have been frequently asked if it is alright to share my essays. By all means please do. The icons on the lower left allow you to email an essay, post it on a blog you follow, post to Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, or Google Plus.
_____________________________
AN INTRODUCTION TO ‘FIX BAYONETS’
For the sake of long term readers, I must briefly explain my need for a new website:
I have an insurmountable problem with my previous blog that has to do with the ‘feed’. Everything about it works just fine with the exception of it not being able to send Emails to my followers whenever I post a new essay. I have learned what caused the cumulative problem but am still unable to repair it, and so today I turn a new page. Armed with a new knowledge of how to avoid future problems, I am relegating Freedom Rings 1776 to a background archive, totally accessible but no longer serving my needs.
There is also a second reason for what I have begun. My first website was named with a sense of optimism, while this one is from a sense of desperation, for we are most assuredly losing in the political arena. Since Obama was first chosen by the Progressive overlords, we have been subjected to betrayal, deceit, a loss of liberty, and … READ THE REST
Israel is once again feeling the brunt of the Obama administration’s enemy centric foreign policy. First, Secretary Kerry put our ally Israel in an untenable position with the deal he brokered with Iran over its nuclear ambitions, then he suggested that Israel could face “delegitimization” and “boycott” campaigns if it didn’t agree on the Obama administration’s idea of a peace deal with the Palestinians, and now he’s denouncing Israel for building homes in a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem. The Israelis are quite appropriately upset about the treatment they’ve received from Kerry. And how has the Obama administration responded? Well, National Security Advisor and former UN Ambassador Susan Rice went on Twitter to chastise Israel for criticizing Kerry! What is this – junior high school diplomacy? What next – using Facebook to “unfriend” Israel? Isn’t it about time for the Obama administration to remember who our friends are and to treat them like friends?
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies before he Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 23, 2013 – “What difference does it make?”
Yesterday I cross posted the James Rosen article summarizing what Obama was actually aware of pertaining to the Benghazigate Scandal. To summarize what knowledge Obama had about the Islamic terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Steven with one word – LIAR. Obama lied AND the President told his Administration surrogates to lie (such as Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Jay Carney).
Undoubtedly the Mainstream Media will twist some propaganda to make lite of one these so-called Obama phony scandals so below is another perspective based on an interview with Rep. Steve King (R-IA) conducted by WND’s Garth Kant that focuses on the next Dem Party darling in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
WASHINGTON — President Obama has problems with credibility, as the world well knows after he disingenuously insisted, “If you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan” about two dozen times in public.
Now, it turns out, the Democrat most political observers believe will try to replace Obama as president apparently also has problems telling the truth.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lied to the American people about Benghazi, a congressman who recently returned from a fact-finding trip to Libya told WND.
He said she also lied to Congress.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, was unequivocal when WND asked him, “What makes you so certain that Hillary Clinton lied?”
“Because,” King replied, “I heard her with my own ears.”
And, what contradicted her?
“The facts.”
King also had a blistering response to a famous question posed by Clinton.
During a Senate committee hearing Jan. 23, 2013, when asked what caused the death of four Americans in Benghazi, Clinton responded indignantly, “At this point, what difference does it make?”
WND asked King if he had an answer for her.
“The reason it makes a difference, Hillary Clinton, is because this administration lied to the American people. Her voice was one of those voices that lied to the American people.”
The congressman related how Clinton and other administration officials were dishonest when they briefed Congress within a week of the terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, computer specialist Sean Smith and CIA security contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed.
King said he could not divulge what was said during a classified briefing he attended, but, “I will just tell you that the administration’s officials told the same lies to members of Congress in a classified setting that they told the public five times on Sunday.”
He was referring to appearances on five political talk shows by then-Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice on Sept. 16, 2012, during which she claimed the attack was a spontaneous protest inspired by anger over an obscure anti-Muslim video on the Internet.
“We know that’s false,” King told WND. “On top of that, we know they knew it was false. They knew within three hours that it was a calculated, strategized attack by an organized enemy on that compound and that annex in Benghazi.”
Strong confirmation of King’s version of events has just come to light, as newly declassified documents show top defense officials briefed Obama that a terrorist attack was underway in Benghazi not long after it began.
During a classified, closed-door hearing last year, Gen. Carter Ham, who was responsible for U.S. forces in North Africa, testified that he very quickly got to the point and told then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that it was a terrorist attack and not a protest.
Panetta and Dempsey then met immediately with Obama.
Last February, Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he told Obama “there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi.”
Panetta said, “There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack.”
And yet, for the next few weeks, as the 2012 presidential election reached the crucial home stretch, a number of aides to both Clinton and Obama repeatedly insisted there was no evidence the attack on Benghazi was planned, but it appeared to be protest that turned violent.
That was contradicted by testimony on May 8, 2013, by U.S. diplomat Gregory Hicks, who was in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attack.
He, and two other key witnesses agreed, there was no basis for Rice to claim the attack began as a protest of an anti-Islamic film. And yet, Obama and Clinton repeatedly made that claim in the hours and days after the incident.
Hicks pointedly said he was “stunned” by Rice’s response to the Benghazi attack.
“My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed,” he said.
Hicks was asked if there was any indication of a protest in Benghazi in response to the Internet video.
“The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya,” he said.
“We know from the testimony,” King told WND. “We know it wasn’t the movie. It is a fact that it wasn’t the movie.”
He also pointed out that people who worked in the intelligence community as well as the State Department have testified under oath that they knew the movie did not trigger the attack.
“And they (administration officials) have not retracted them. They were dishonest,” King flatly stated.
The congressman made the blunt assertions to WND in his first published remarks following a recent trip he organized to hotspots in North Africa and the Middle East, with Reps. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.
The Iowan had more answers to Clinton’s question, “What difference does it make?”
He said, of course, the loss of Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans “who stood there bravely to defend that compound” was a “significant tragedy.”
But, he called the truth an even bigger casualty.
“[T]he biggest tragedy of this is this administration came forward within days and began to misinform the American people on what took place in Benghazi.”
That’s because, King insisted, “It’s a tragedy when the integrity of the presidency and the administration of President Obama, or any president of the United States, can be sacrificed for a political agenda.”
The congressman noted that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates described in his new book how then-senator and presidential candidate Clinton took a position against the surge in Iraq in the presidential primary contests in 2008 for political reasons.
“If political decisions are made on war policy in Iraq when you’re campaigning for office, and if political conditions were part of the decision as to whether there would be a surge in Afghanistan, that’s also part of Gate’s book, then those two things all but confirm that the story that the administration promoted coming out of Benghazi was a political story, designed to cover,” charged King.
And why did they need cover? Because they were in the peak of the president’s re-election campaign, said the congressman.
He said the administration “should have told the American people the straight-up truth as soon as they knew it,” but instead, “they continue to cover-up Benghazi and the only reason they’ve been allowed to do it is a media that is, for a large part, complicit.”
Conceivably, that could derail presidential ambitions Clinton might harbor.
Judge Andrew Napolitano says the former secretary of state could be prosecuted if she did, in fact, lie.
“Lying to Congress carries the same criminal liability and the same punishment as lying under oath to Congress. I’m not suggesting that Mrs. Clinton lied, but I’m saying that a case could be made out, either legally in a courtroom if a prosecutor wanted to, and certainly politically in a public sphere should she decide to seek higher office,” Napolitano said, the day after Hicks testified to Congress that the video played absolutely no role in the Benghazi attack.
When WND asked King if those he spoke with in Libya share his observations about the attack on Benghazi, he said it depends on who you talk to.
He had nothing but praise for U.S. Ambassador to Libya Deborah Jones, calling her “excellent” and “terrific.”
“She’s in a very dangerous place, and she has a very difficult task. She’s upbeat, she’s knowledgeable,” and King said all of their discussions encouraged him that “we’ve got a good State Department operating in Libya.”
Mat Staver via Liberty Counsel Action has come with an amusing fund raiser. LCA will send an award lf dishonor labeled Benghazi Cover-up Medal of Shame (BCMS) to the Benghazi liars Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Jay Carney and President Barack Hussein Obama. The catch is to contribute to the fund raiser. Each time a specified donation is made to LCA in the name of the BCMS, postcards will be sent out to the each Benghazi liar. I’m almost willing to participate just because I find it amusing that a medal of shame could be sent to the Benghazi liars in volumes. The egos that Obama and Clinton possess will drive those two crazy to keep receiving medal of shame postcards.
The Benghazi cover-up has gone on far too long. We refuse to overlook this gross injustice!
My team at Liberty Counsel Action has created a powerful reminder of the deception and dereliction of duty committed by Obama administration operatives. Join us as we demand the truth about the Benghazi attacks and award the “Benghazi Cover-Up Medal of Shame” to deserving recipients.
Please see my very important update below for more details – Mat.
John,
The quote, “A lie repeated enough becomes the truth,” is often attributed to both Vladimir Lenin, the first Premier of the Soviet Union, and Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda.
The original basis of Lenin’s and Goebbels’ thought is believed to have come from William James, known as the father of modern psychology…
“There’s nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it.”
That notion now serves as the unofficial motto of the Obama administration.
++They desperately want us to believe their Benghazi lies…
From the beginning, the Obama administration has shrouded the facts concerning the September 11, 2012, Benghazi attack with deception and dismissive double-speak.
President Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney perpetuated the initial Benghazi lies that blamed the attacks on a radical reaction to an anti-Islam film posted on You-Tube. It wasn’t true and they all knew it.
They further honed and refined their deceptions to ensure the truth behind the carefully planned and vicious Al Qaeda terrorist attack would remain concealed. (Bold Emphasis Editors)
To the watching world, their lies have been painfully obvious, yet these prominent figures continue in their attempts to force their deceptive fabrications on the American people. Their acts have been shameful and are a complete disgrace to the offices they hold and duties they are sworn to uphold.
++For their lies, deceptions, and derelictions of duty, we want to give these four “leaders” something they truly deserve.
One day before the one-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks on our Benghazi facility, Hillary Clinton received the Liberty Medal from the National Constitution Center. It’s given to those who have “furthered the ideals of freedom, democracy, and equality.”
We, along with millions of other Americans, questioned the timing and validity of the award.
In response, the Liberty Counsel Action team decided to award Mrs. Clinton and the other Benghazi liars and derelicts a more appropriate commendation.
WE ARE AWARDING HILLARY CLINTON, SUSAN RICE, JAY CARNEY, AND PRESIDENT BARRACK OBAMA WITH THE LIBERTY COUNSEL ACTION “BENGHAZI COVER-UP MEDAL OF SHAME” (the BCMS).
This isn’t a medal to proudly wear, as former Secretary of State Clinton did in parading her Liberty Medal from the liberal “progressive” National Constitution Center. In fact, the BCMS is far better than a single appropriate medal that the recipients would quickly throw in the nearest trash can.
In addition to high quality vinyl stickers you can obtain, we are preparing “Benghazi Medal of Shame” notification post cards bearing the image of the medal that will alert the recipients of their award – over and over and over again!
These postcards will be delivered to President Obama, Susan Rice, Jay Carney, and Hillary Clinton each time a friend of Liberty Counsel Action orders a flight of four postcards. These postcards – hopefully hundreds of thousands of them – will serve as direct reminders that their lies, treason, and deadly actions are now being given an appropriate award: A Medal of Shame.
++Benghazi is NOT forgotten!
Here is how it works: For your gift of $30, we will send the four recipients the notification post cards bearing the image of the shameful medal.
We will also send you four Benghazi Cover-Up Medal of Shame stickers to use however you would like. These colorful heavy vinyl stickers are similar in weight to quality bumper stickers and stand about 4 inches tall.
They are for you to place in any conspicuous place to tell your friends and neighbors that you hold the “shameful four” of the Benghazi deception accountable, and are demanding the truth about Benghazi.
You can doubtless think of appropriate places to apply a sticker to remind large numbers of Americans that Benghazi is NOT forgotten! The BCMS speaks for itself and every post card and sticker will serve as that reminder.
This is a very unique campaign that has the potential to set the record on the disastrous events of 9/11/12 straight! Click here now to place your order:
It has been fourteen months since the terrorist attack on our Benghazi facility on 9/11/12. Four Americans were brutally slain in the attacks, and not one of the terrorists responsible has been arrested or in any way brought to justice.
Further, not a single person who witnessed the events in Benghazi has been called to testify before Congress.
President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Jay Carney have assisted in keeping the terrorists at large with their continual lies and deception that have seriously impeded the investigation.
With every month that has passed since the 2012 attack, the Benghazi liars have emboldened their stance, and have reached a point of complete disregard for the entire incident and the four American lives lost.
We will continue to demand that everyone responsible at every level of government be held accountable!
Liberty Counsel Action has been calling for a thorough and unobstructed investigation into the muddied Benghazi attack. We are now going one step further, and will be awarding the four chief liars in this grand cover-up scheme, the Benghazi Cover-Up Medal of Shame.
Please join us in our demand for the truth and accountability for the families of the Benghazi victims by sending the four principal Benghazi liars – President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Jay Carney – their “Benghazi Cover-Up Medal of Shame” post card notifications today. Plus, we will send you four Benghazi Medals of Shame vinyl stickers to post as you like.
Other options are available. Go here to make your order or to browse the other options:
Thank you for standing with us in defense of virtue and duty, and for demanding accountability from America’s leadership.
God bless you!
Mathew D. Staver, Chairman
Liberty Counsel Action
P.S. Our message cannot be overstated! We demand the truth for each of the families of the four Americans killed in the Benghazi attack, and for every American to whom this administration has repeatedly lied.
Go here now to order four Benghazi Cover-Up Medal of Shame stickers and to send your four “Benghazi Cover-Up Medal of Shame” postcards to the Benghazi liars, notifying them that we have not forgotten their cowardly and shameful actions:
P.P.S. If you haven’t already done so, please remember to add your name to our petition calling for Congress to establish a Select Committee to investigate the Benghazi cover-up:
Liberty Counsel Action represents a rich heritage of more than three decades, dating back to the 1979 founding of The Moral Majority by Dr. Jerry Falwell. In 1986, Dr. Falwell launched The Liberty Alliance to expand the outreach and continue the impact of The Moral Majority. In 2004, The Liberty Alliance was renamed to Liberty Alliance Action, and in 2010 Liberty Alliance Action was renamed Liberty Counsel Action joining in partnership with Liberty Counsel, the nonprofit litigation, education and policy organization founded by Mat and Anita Staver in 1989.
As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit “grassroots” lobbying organization, Liberty Counsel Action advances religious and civil liberties, the sanctity of human life, the family, limited and responsible government, national security, and support for Israel. In other words, Liberty Counsel Action adheres to the original four tenets of The Moral Majority, which are: Pro-America, Pro-Life, Pro-Family and Pro-Moral. These tenets also include recognizing and upholding the special bond that has always existed between the United States and Israel.
Today Liberty Counsel Action is breaking new ground as a part of the Freedom Federation, joining forces with other pro-family organizations to bring together millions of Americans across racial, ethnic and generational lines united around our core values.
For regular updates about how you can …READ THE REST
The Conservative-Patriot Christian Right 
