How Long will U.S. Law Ignore Obama Admin. Corruption?


John R. Houk

© April 20, 2017

 

Back in March I was extremely upset that Fox News had suspended (two posts: HERE & HERE) Judge Andrew Napolitano for breaking the news that British Intel organization Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) was spying on President Donald Trump during his campaign run and during the Obama lame duck period prior to the Trump inauguration on January 20, 2017.

 

There was no surprise that Leftist MSM called the Judge’s report fake news, but many Conservative news outlets also threw the Judge under the bus just like Fox News. Fox News anchor totally discredited Andrew Napolitano the same day that the Judge was on Fox and Friends. Very disconcerting to me was the way typically Conservative RedState reported on Napolitano’s GCHQ exposé:

 

Judge Andrew Napolitano is back on Fox News after reports that he was suspended temporarily because he openly promoted an internet hoax about the British intelligence community surveilling Donald Trump’s team, at the behest of former President Obama.

 

His poorly sourced story was used by the president as “proof,” but otherwise discounted by others at Fox, such as Shepard Smith, who said Fox News had seen nothing to back up Napolitano’s claims. (Back On The Air With Fox News, Judge Napolitano Stands By His Claims Of British Spying; By Susan Wright; RedState; 3/29/17 6:30 pm)

 

Susan Wright uses words like “internet hoax” and “discounted by others at Fox” which in my opinion unjustly impugns Andrew Napolitano’s reputation.

 

I found a couple of articles that amplify the Andrew Napolitano GCHQ exposé, yet lends a huge amount credence to the Judge’s reporting. The articles are both by the Daily Wire. The articles refer to Obama’s Administration gathering intel on Trump:

 

1. By gathering Intel on Trump not only from the UK, but also several other American ally foreign Intelligence services. HELLO JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO!

2. The other Daily Wire story is about then CIA Director John Brennan actively working with foreign Intelligence services to “Falsify Trump-Russia Connections”.

 

How does this not incriminate Barack Hussein Obama, American Intelligence service officials and probably numerable top Executive Branch officials in felonious crimes that must be tried in Court before a jury?

 

YES, THAT INCLUDES FORMER PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!

 

AllenWestRepublic.com Intro:

 

It is bad enough that candidate and now President Donald Trump had to run the gauntlet of the Obama administration plotting against him. It is a whole new ball game when you find out that most of the world’s intelligence agencies were feeding data to the Obama Camp. If this is true, then there is no way that President Trump or his team can ever trust any of these perpetrators.

 

JRH 4/20/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

BOMBSHELL Report: Entire Western World Helped Obama WIRETAP Trump

 

By JOHN NOLTE

APRIL 17, 2017

Daily Wire

 

If you are wondering why our national media has pretty much dropped the whole Trump-Is-A-Russian-Manchurian-Candidate thing, it is because the naked truth about the Obama administration’s chilling spying — something the media has covered up for months — is finally coming to light. Last week, both The Washington Post and The New York Times quietly reported that the Obama administration had “wiretapped” (their word, not mine) a Trump staffer.

 

The Trump-hating Guardian then dropped another bombshell, the news that pretty much every Western intelligence agency in the world was aiding and abetting the Obama administration’s unbelievable and unprecedented (Nixon only wanted to do this) abuse of power against a political opponent:

 

Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said.

 

The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as sigint – included Germany, Estonia and Poland. Australia, a member of the “Five Eyes” spying alliance that also includes the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand, also relayed material, one source said.

 

Another source suggested the Dutch and the French spy agency, the General Directorate for External Security or DGSE, were contributors.

 

Q: So what exactly is this “sigint”?

 

A: It perfectly meets the modern definition of — you ready for it? — wiretapping!

 

Signals intelligence (SIGINT) is intelligence-gathering by interception of signals, whether communications between people (communications intelligence—abbreviated to COMINT) or from electronic signals not directly used in communication (electronic intelligence—abbreviated to ELINT). Signals intelligence is a subset of intelligence collection management.

 

This next bit from the Guardian report is important because it appears to vindicate Fox News commentator Judge Napolitano, who was widely-ridiculed in the political media, and then suspended by Fox News, for reporting something very close to this back in March:

 

Britain’s spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, the Guardian has been told.

 

GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.

 

No one better summed up what was going on here better than PowerLine’s John Hinderaker:

 

The blindingly obvious point that the Guardian tries to obscure is that the combined assets of all of these agencies failed to find any evidence of collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia. We know this, because the Democrats have pulled out all the stops. Both before the election, and especially after the election, they have leaked furiously to try to discredit President Trump. If there were any evidence of collusion between Trump (or even obscure, minor “advisers” like Carter Page) and Russia, there would have been nothing else in the Washington Post or the New York Times for the past five months. But they have nothing.

 

In other words, the whole world was spying on Trump, not just the Obama administration, and even with all of these resources the Democrats and their media got exactly squat. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing between Team Trump and Russia. There is, however, a growing pile of evidence that Team Barry needs to be investigated by Congress and the Justice Department.

 

Hinderaker’s second point is that everyone in the world was so sure Hillary Clinton was going to beat Trump that all of these countries believed it was safe to “curry favor with the new administration” by spying on her opponent, by offering her intelligence-oppo during the campaign that was then leaked to a MSM that was 100% complicit in this illegal behavior — because leaking intelligence is a felony.

 

If this is not scary enough, try to imagine what Hillary’s administration and the MSM would be doing to Donald Trump right now if he did not have the power of the presidency to defend himself. As it is, the media have been lyingsmearing, and slandering him without any evidence.

 

The only weapon Trump has had to fight back with is his access to truth about Obama’s spying, access he would not have had had he not won the presidency.

 

We have already seen the terrifying lengths Hillary and Obama will go to as a means to cover up their lies, we have already seen the violence our media (especially CNN) is willing to gin up in order to protect a Narrative. There is no doubt in my mind that with the help of their media pals, had Hillary won the presidency, Trump would right now be in federal prison for a crime he did not commit.

 

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

 

+++

Report: Former CIA Director Colluded With Foreign Spies to Falsify Trump-Russia Connections

 

By JOSEPH CURL

APRIL 20, 2017

Daily Wire

 

There were dueling headlines this week, one from a liberal British newspaper, the other from a conservative U.S. magazine.

 

“British spies were first to spot Trump team’s links with Russia,” wrote The Guardian. Well, bother, that’ll put the prezzy in a bit of a spot.

 

But wait, there was this other headline — same story, just a different headline, from The American Spectator: “Confirmed: John Brennan Colluded With Foreign Spies to Defeat Trump.”

 

Well dang, now we don’t know what to think.

 

The Guardian painted the “facts” in dull hues:

 

The Guardian has been told the FBI and the CIA were slow to appreciate the extensive nature of contacts between Trump’s team and Moscow ahead of the US election. This was in part due to US law that prohibits US agencies from examining the private communications of American citizens without warrants. “They are trained not to do this,” the source stressed.

 

“It looks like the [US] agencies were asleep,” the source added. “They [the European agencies] were saying: ‘There are contacts going on between people close to Mr Trump and people we believe are Russian intelligence agents. You should be wary of this.’

 

Thank God for British intelligence, or we surely would’ve missed this massive Trump-Russia collusion.

 

But The Spectator shined the spotlight into the dark crevasses of the story:

 

Seeking to retain his position as CIA director under Hillary, [John] Brennan teamed up with British spies and Estonian spies to cripple Trump’s candidacy. He used their phony intelligence as a pretext for a multi-agency investigation into Trump, which led the FBI to probe a computer server connected to Trump Tower and gave cover to Susan Rice, among other Hillary supporters, to spy on Trump and his people.

 

John Brennan’s CIA operated like a branch office of the Hillary campaign, leaking out mentions of this bogus investigation to the press in the hopes of inflicting maximum political damage on Trump. An official in the intelligence community tells TAS that Brennan’s retinue of political radicals didn’t even bother to hide their activism, decorating offices with “Hillary for president cups” and other campaign paraphernalia.

 

Huh. What a very different story.

 

What’s important from the U.S. side, of course, is what our own CIA director did.

 

Says The Spectator: “The Guardian says that British spy head Robert Hannigan ‘passed material in summer 2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan.’ To ensure that these flaky tips leaked out, Brennan disseminated them on Capitol Hill. In August and September of 2016, he gave briefings to the’“Gang of Eight’ about them, which then turned up on the front page of the New York Times.”

 

Funny, it was all right there in The Guardian report — Brennan was the center of the storm. “The matter was deemed so sensitive it was handled at ‘director level.’ After an initially slow start, Brennan used GCHQ information and intelligence from other partners to launch a major inter-agency investigation.”

 

But The Guardian sought to play up the roles of British and European agencies.

 

 Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said.

 

The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as sigint – included Germany, Estonia and Poland. Australia, a member of the “Five Eyes” spying alliance that also includes the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand, also relayed material, one source said.

 

But The Spectator cuts to the point far more succinctly:

 

Were the media not so completely in the tank for Obama and Hillary, all of this political mischief would make for a compelling 2016 version of All the President’s Men. Instead, the public gets a steady stream of Orwellian propaganda about the sudden propriety of political espionage. The headline writers at Pravda couldn’t improve on this week’s official lie, tweeted out by the Maggie Habermans: “Susan Rice Did Nothing Wrong, Say Both Dem and Republican House Aides.”

 

_______________

How Long will U.S. Law Ignore Obama Admin. Corruption?

John R. Houk

© April 20, 2017

_____________

BOMBSHELL Report: Entire Western World Helped Obama WIRETAP Trump

 

AND

 

Report: Former CIA Director Colluded With Foreign Spies to Falsify Trump-Russia Connections

 

© COPYRIGHT 2017, THE DAILY WIRE

 

We are a Nation of Believers. If we trust in God, we will succeed. President Trump


President Trump’s Easter message.

JRH 4/16/17 (Hat Tip: Cynthia Derrick Juengel)

Please Support NCCR

***************

VIDEO:  We are a Nation of Believers. If we trust in God, we will succeed. President Trump

 

Posted by TRUMP MAFIA

Published on Apr 15, 2017

The Only Moral Choice


Intro to ‘The Only Moral Choice

John R. Houk Editor

By Justin O. Smith

Posted 4/10/17

 

Syria is an enigma to American Foreign Policy, National Interests and National Security. Just about any action along a policy choice is a damned if we do or damned if we don’t.

 

There is no doubt that Bashar Assad is a brutal and nefarious dictator that butchers the Sunni majority in his nation. YET much of the Sunni majority is fractured under the control of Islamic terrorist entities that are just as if not more so brutal than Assad. AND the Sunni rebel militias that claim no affiliation to the Islamic terrorists are less organized and/or unreliable in their moderate assertions.

 

Military action taken by President Trump against the Assad controlled airbase that launched a chemical weapon attack on the civilians of Khan Sheikhoun was quite proportional as a warning against continued chemical WMD attacks.

 

AND YET Syria took advantage of Russia and Iran’s version of a redline warning against the U.S. claiming (or pretending) they’d retaliate for their little/widdle client if more military action is forthcoming.

 

I do like Justin Smith’s analysis of the Syrian enigma as relating President Trump’s proportional response to a chemical weapon attack.

 

JRH 4/10/17

Please Support NCCR

******************

The Only Moral Choice

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 4/9/2017 1:29 PM

 

Making the only moral choice and protecting the United States vital interests, President Donald Trump ordered the first direct U.S. attack on Syria in six years, in response to Syrian President Bashar Assad’s use of a sarin gas nerve-agent on his own people and the images of little children dying and foaming at the mouth, on April 6th 2017. While President Trump seemed to act solely out of humanitarian concern, his decision sent a clear message around the world and to all America’s enemies, that the United States is back, strong as it ever once was, and willing to act with its military might should it prove necessary.

 

On Tuesday, April 4th, U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies tracked Syrian SU-22 jets leaving Al Shayrat Airbase, for Idlib Province, where one jet dropped a sarin bomb in the middle of Kahn Sheikhoun. Eighty-seven people were killed, including 26 children, and 546 more were deathly sick and injured.

 

Approximately 600,000 Syrians have been killed by conventional warfare in the Syrian Civil War, but Assad’s use of sarin changed the entire world’s view of the situation. The horrors of chemical weapons used in WWI have long convinced civilized nations to ban their use through treaties such as the Chemical Weapons Convention, because they kill everyone within range in a most horrific manner.

 

Unlike former President Obama, whose fear created failed policies, President Trump did something tangible to respond to Assad’s atrocities, even after Russia warned the United States against any strike on Syria at the United Nations, and at 8:40 p.m. EST 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from the destroyers USS Ross and USS Porter. They hit Al Shayrat’s infrastructure in Homs Province, air defense systems and ammunition bunkers, and they destroyed approximately 25 aircraft of the 7th Wing of the Syrian Air Force.

 

After the cruise missile strikes, President Trump stated: “No child of God should suffer such horror. … It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons. … We pray … for the souls of those who passed … Good night and God Bless America and the entire world.”

 

Most of the world’s nations embraced President Trump’s missile strike as a necessary move, and Prime Minister Theresa May’s office said the action was “an appropriate response to the barbaric chemical weapons attack.” France, Italy and Israel also welcomed the strikes.

 

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “President Trump sent a strong and clear message today that the use and spread of chemical weapons will not be tolerated. Israel fully supports President Trump’s decision and hopes that this message of resolve in the face of the Assad regime’s horrific actions will resonate not only in Damascus, but Tehran, Pyongyang and elsewhere.”

 

While an originalist reading of Constitution has many in the public and in Congress questioning President Trump’s authority to use immediate military force to counter foreign threats, President Trump’s action against Assad’s heinous sarin attack, undertaken as a second step to prevent the spread and repeated use of chemical weapons, is perfectly consistent with the Constitution, especially so, since U.S. troops are in nearby proximity. In the relevant part of the War Powers Act passed by Congress in 1973, the President is permitted to launch a military act on his own, as long as he notifies or consults Congress within 48 hours. Trump acted within these guidelines.

 

However, America would do well to recall that U.S. Presidents like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are responsible for the rise of the Islamofascists, like the Ayatollah Khomeini and the subsequent Iranian nuclear program, embedding Hamas in the Palestinian territories; and most recently, Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed the Arab [Islamic, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda] Spring and their “democracy” initiative, which has toppled one strong man after another, undoing the entire Middle East and paving the way for the Islamic State in both Iraq and Syria and creating general chaos.

 

Without oil resources, Syria has never really been of too much concern to the United States, other than being a thorn in our side due to its alliance with Iran, support of Islamofascist Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists and its own pursuit of nuclear weapons, confirmed in 2007. It doesn’t seek to control the Persian Gulf or dominate the region, unlike Iran.

 

It should be noted here, that generals of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard have said they stand prepared to retaliate against America for its strike on Al Shayrat. They claim to have thousands of Iranian “sleeper agents” in the U.S. just waiting for a call to arms.

 

Assad’s opposition is primarily the Islamofascists of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic State, and if they gain control of Syria, the country and its people will face even more heinous atrocities. The Syrian Free Army is no much better, being comprised of anti-American, pro-Hamas Muslims, who are content to accept U.S. funding, if it can place them in control of Syria.

 

Due to the Muslim Brotherhood’s own brutal nature, their brutality has been met with extreme overkill measures, since the Baath Party rose to power in Syria in 1963. In 1982, a Sunni Islamist rebellion was murderously crushed by Bashar’s father, Hafez Assad, that left 20,000 people dead. Bashar’s insane use of sarin gas is the last crime against humanity by a desperate despot.

 

Prior to the uprising in Deraa [aka Daraa] in March 2011, Syria had become a proper nation-state with a sense of Saryana (Syrianhood) that had never before existed, and it was evident it Syria’s literature, television, journalism and its own version of Arabic. Assad’s regime had improved access to higher education and health care services, and he had helped to create a new urban middle class with Western-style political aspirations. Agriculture and handicraft industries had revived and were unrestrained by the government. And the Christian population flourished under Assad’s secular authoritarian regime. This all changed through international interference.

 

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said President Vladimir Putin views the U.S. strike as an “aggression against a sovereign state in violation of international law [that] deals a significant blow to Russia-U.S. relations”.

 

Just how wonderful has Russia turning a blind-eye to Syria’s sarin stock been for U.S.-Russia relations? Russia supposedly assisted in the destruction of Assad’s chemical weapons stores, but since 2015, Russia has repeatedly obfuscated evidence of new chemical attacks by Assad’s regime.

 

A few hours before the strike, United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley stated: “Russia cannot escape responsibility for this. They chose to close their eyes to the barbarity. They defied the conscience of the world.”

 

Both America’s and Russia’s interests center more on ending the Syrian Civil War than on any one particular political future for Damascus; but, the sarin attacks have renewed calls for Assad’s removal. Of greater importance, the focus of America and the free world and Russia must be unified on eradicating the Islamic State [Daesh] and the Islamofascists who are destabilizing the entire region.

 

President Trump acted contrary to the popular consensus and what most presidents would have done. He attacked Syria solely for humanitarian reasons. Now he must clearly articulate the mission ahead and America’s interests in this war, since there isn’t any nation with the capacity to fix Syria’s problems. Getting rid of Assad will most assuredly be hard and have serious consequences, but America’s new, strong and determined President Trump has shown his willingness to effectively counter the world’s dictators, and he will not tolerate egregious, inhuman chemical weapons attacks on innocent civilians.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links and text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Was Obama’s White House Politicizing Intelligence To Influence The 2016 Elections


Intro to ‘Was Obama’s White House Politicizing Intelligence To Influence The 2016 Elections’

Blog Editor John R. Houk

By Fred Fleitz

Posted 4/6/17

 

The Dems and the Leftist Mainstream Media (MSM) have been hell-bent to disqualify President Trump since election day 2016. All disqualification agendas seem to gravitate around President Trump colluded with Russia to win over Crooked Hillary.

 

It is my belief the “collusion” accusation is horse pucky, but Russian attempts to manipulate the American voter is very possible. AND if POSSIBLE turns into reality, Russia needs to suffer any kind consequences the Trump Administration is willing to inflict. By inflict I mean at least with a Cold War-style agitation to see how far the Russians are willing to confront the still most powerful nation in the world which of course is the United States of America.

 

That being said, the continuous disparaging of President Trump should be examined by the Trump Administration Department of Justice for crimes by Dems, the Left MSM, current government civil servant lifers loyal to BHO AND former Obama Administration Officials INCLUDING the treasonous former President Barack Hussein Obama.

 

My thoughts on American collusion with evil leads me to a Fred Fleitz article entitled, “Was Obama’s White House Politicizing Intelligence To Influence The 2016 Elections”.

 

JRH 4/6/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

Was Obama’s White House Politicizing Intelligence To Influence The 2016 Elections

 

By Fred Fleitz

April 6, 2017

The Federalist

 

The truth is that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies did not conclude that Russia tried to interfere in the election or help Trump win. Not even close.

 

Although there are strong indications the Obama administration abused intelligence collection by U.S. agencies to gather information on the Trump campaign to leak to the news media, it also appeared to abuse another U.S. intelligence mission: intelligence analysis.

 

Congressional Democrats and the mainstream media consider it gospel truth that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to help Donald Trump win. But should we treat this assessment as true in light of major errors in U.S. intelligence analysis in the past and its politicization? Is something gospel truth just because U.S. intelligence agencies say it is?

 

The truth is that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies did not conclude that Russia tried to interfere in the election or help Trump win. Not even close.

 

What Intelligence Has Really Confirmed About Russia

 

U.S. intelligence agencies issued two assessments on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The first was an October 7 statement by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that said WikiLeaks disclosures of Democratic emails during the election were “consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts” but did not say there was any evidence of Russian involvement.

 

Moreover, although this statement said the U.S. intelligence community held this position, the memo was issued by only two agencies, and was called a “Joint DHS and ODNI Election Security Statement.” Hillary Clinton seized on this statement in the last presidential debate on October 19 by inaccurately claiming “We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin.”

 

The fact that this memo was not an intelligence community document issued by all agencies with equities in this issue was very unusual. It also was suspicious that an unclassified intelligence analysis so advantageous to one presidential candidate was issued just before the election and only two weeks before the last presidential debate. In my view, this looked like looked like a clumsy attempt by the Obama White House to issue an intelligence assessment to boost Clinton’s presidential campaign and hurt the Trump campaign.

 

The second intelligence assessment on this question, issued on January 6, 2017, I believe represents a serious instance of a presidential administration manipulating U.S. intelligence analysis to issue a politicized analysis to sabotage an incoming president from a different political party. The January 6 analysis found that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and hurt Hillary’s candidacy to promote Trump. The assessment said this interference came at the direction of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

 

What About All the Missing Intelligence Agencies?

 

Like the October memo, congressional Democrats and the news media have said this was the unanimous conclusion of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. But also like the October memo, this was not the case. The January 6 assessment was an “Intelligence Community Assessment.” Such analyses are usually issued and cleared by most if not all U.S. intelligence agencies and have a statement on the first page that usually reads “this is an IC-coordinated assessment.”

 

The January 6 Intelligence Community Assessment lacked such a statement because it reflected the views of only three U.S. intelligence agencies: Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and National Security Agency. The CIA and FBI concluded with high confidence that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win. NSA concluded this with moderate confidence.

 

Why did other U.S. intelligence agencies with major equities in this issue not participate in the January 6 assessment? Why were the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security part of the October assessment but not the January one? Where were the Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and the military intelligence agencies?

 

The January assessment also was very unusual because it was such a conclusive analysis of a very controversial subject with no dissenting views. Based my CIA experience, this is unprecedented and makes me wonder whether intelligence agencies that may have dissented were deliberately excluded.

 

There also is the question as to whether this assessment was written to conform to a predetermined conclusion by the Obama White House to undermine the Trump administration. The U.S. intelligence community has played political games like this before with interagency assessments to promote political agendas. One of the most notorious examples of this was the controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program that was intended to undermine President Bush’s Iran policy.

 

There Are Indications Intelligence Has Been Politicized

 

CIA Director John Brennan’s role in approving this assessment raises serious questions about whether it was manipulated for political reasons. Brennan has been heavily criticized for politicizing intelligence for the Obama administration. This includes the role he played in the 2012 CIA talking points on the Benghazi terrorist attacks. He also has been openly and extremely hostile toward Trump before and after the election.

 

Given FBI Director James Comey’s statements at a recent House Intelligence Committee hearing that the conclusion in the January 6 assessment that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump was based on logic and not evidence, it is hard to believe this was not a pre-cooked conclusion driven by the highly partisan Brennan.

 

I strongly believe that if there were any evidence that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win, or that Russia and the Trump campaign collaborated to affect the outcome of the election, this intelligence would have been leaked by Obama holdovers in government and the so-called “Deep State” to The New York Times long ago. The fact that Comey could not point to such evidence and this information has not been leaked suggests there is no such evidence because this didn’t happen.

 

The current congressional investigations of possible Russian interference in the election and the Obama administration’s misuse of U.S. intelligence collection to surveil the Trump campaign must also include whether intelligence analysis was politicized to damage Trump’s candidacy and presidency. These investigations must look at how the above analyses were drafted, who drafted them, and why some agencies did not participate. The committees also need to uncover any evidence of the White House trying to influence the outcome of these assessments or excluding certain agencies from participating.

 

It is time to call out Democrats and reporters who portray the idea that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win as established truth because it is the unanimous assessment of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. I expect the congressional investigations will conclude this claim is false and actually represented a deliberate effort to manipulate intelligence analysis to undermine the Trump presidency.

 

________________

Fred Fleitz is senior vice president for policy and programs with the Center for Security Policy. He worked in national-security positions for 25 years with the CIA, the State Department, and the House Intelligence Committee. Follow him on Twitter @fredfleitz.

 

Copyright © 2017 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

 

Do YOU Trust Benghazi/Bergdahl Liar?


John R. Houk

© April 5, 2017

 

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.

 

Susan Rice Lying to Americans on 5 MSM Networks

 

 

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 …”

 

VIDEO: Susan Rice: Bergdahl Served With ‘Honor and Distinction’

 

Posted by PoliticalTurkey1

Published on Jun 2, 2014

 

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.

 

JRH 4/5/17

Please Support NCCR

*****************

Why Susan Rice’s Role In The Obama Spying Story Is A Big Deal

 

By Mollie Hemingway

April 5, 2017

The Federalist

 

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

 

Two weeks ago, PBS’ Judy Woodruff asked Rice a very general question about Nunes’ claims:

 

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.

 

The Bush administration also collected and used information on members of Congress this way.

 

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 easily weaponized and 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.

 

The media have thousands of questions to force answers on regarding this important story. As Ari Fleischer wrote on Twitter:

 

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

 

By Adam Housley

April 03, 2017

Fox News

 

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 caught up 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.

 

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

 

Such amazing reporting on unmasking and the crooked scheme against us by @foxandfriends. “Spied on before nomination.” The real story.

 

5:15 AM – 3 Apr 2017

 

“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

 

By GARTH KANT

Updated: 04/03/2017 at 11:05 PM

WND

 

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

 

By BEN SHAPIRO

APRIL 3, 2017

Daily Wire

 

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.

 

And here’s another inconvenient fact …

 

+++

Benghazi Liar Susan Rice’s Treachery Continues

 

By Daniel John Sobieski

April 4, 2017

American Thinker

 

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

 

By Natasha Bertrand

April 4, 2017

Business Insider

 

Former national security adviser Susan Rice told MSNBC on Tuesday that allegations she “unmasked” associates of Donald Trump for political reasons while she served in the Obama administration were “absolutely false.”

 

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

 

By Juliegrace Brufke, DCNF

April 4, 2017 

BizPAC Review

 

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?”

 

He said he believes there should be …

++++++++++

VIDEO: Susan Rice Requested Intel to Unmask Names of Trump Transition Officials

 

Posted by Lionel Nation

Published on Apr 3, 2017

 

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.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel

The Official Lionel READ THE REST

 

+++

FORMER US ATTORNEY JOSEPH DIGENOVA: SUSAN RICE ORDERED SPY AGENCIES TO PRODUCE ‘DETAILED SPREADSHEETS’ INVOLVING TRUMP

 

By ALICIA

APRIL 4, 2017

Patriot Tribune

 

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?

 

Daily Caller:

 

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

 

VIDEO: Hannity: Susan Rice has a lot of explaining to do

 

Posted by Fox News

Published on Apr 3, 2017

 

Multiple reports reveal the former Obama adviser requested the names of Trump transition team members be unmasked.

 

+++

Former US Attorney: Susan Rice Ordered Spy Agencies To Produce ‘Detailed Spreadsheets’ Involving Trump

 

By Richard Pollock

04/03/2017 10:08 PM 

Daily Caller

 

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

 

By Onan Coca

April 4, 2017

Constitution.com

 

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.

 

 

VIDEO: Tucker: Susan Rice revelation more disturbing than Russia

 

Posted by Fox News

Published on Apr 3, 2017

 

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.

 

 

VIDEO: Rice unmasked as Team Trump unmasker: What it really means

 

Posted by Fox News

Published on Apr 3, 2017

 

+++

FAKE-NEWS GIANTS CLAIM SUSAN RICE SPY SCANDAL IS ‘FAKE’

Chorus of legacy media: Nothing to see here

 

By ALICIA POWE

April 4, 2017

WND

 

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”

 

By Tyler Durden

Apr 4, 2017 9:47 PM

ZeroHedge

 

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 …

______________

Do YOU Trust Benghazi/Bergdahl Liar?

John R. Houk

© April 5, 2017

___________

Why Susan Rice’s Role In The Obama Spying Story Is A Big Deal

 

Copyright © 2017 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved

____________

Susan Rice requested to unmask names of Trump transition officials, sources say

 

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2017 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

[Blog Editor: FYI, I did not get Fox News permission to cross post. If requested, this cross post will be removed.]

Obama’s Saboteurs


Justin Smith nails the Obama criminal spying on political opponents straight on the head.

 

JRH 3/14/17

Please Support NCCR

******************

Obama’s Saboteurs

Undermining Our Republic

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 3/13/2017 12:30 PM

 

Setting a dangerous precedent for the future of America, the New York Times, the Washington Post and other Leftist propaganda machines and an army of the Obama administration’s holdovers, nothing less than saboteurs, have waged a war of innuendo and speculation and felony leaks for months in an attempt to destroy President Donald Trump’s administration and the government American voters demanded. They have turned their backs on the Constitution and the American people, their oath to protect and defend both, and they have sought to undermine our democratic process and the Republic of the United States of America.

 

Classified information leaked to the media – a felony – set speculation in motion as the New York Times and the left-leaning Mother Jones alleged collusion between Donald Trump and his advisors and Russia for the past six months, even though their own reports show an initial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) warrant targeting Trump and several associates was denied and nothing criminal was ever proven. And, according to Heat Street [HERE & HERE], a more narrowly drawn FISA warrant was granted in October to investigate the Trump campaign’s alleged links to Russia’s Alfa Bank and SVB Bank; the FBI found nothing “nefarious” and attributed the raised alarm to “spam”.

 

Essentially, Donald Trump was not named in the second FISA warrant, but surveillance of him and his inner circle, private citizens such as Michael Flynn, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, continued up to the general election [HERE & HERE]. One can only surmise that Obama and his leftist minions banked on finding information that would defeat Trump; and after Donald Trump won, they continued surveillance in hopes of eventually impeaching and unseating President Trump.

 

If phone calls to Russia merit an investigation, shouldn’t Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been investigated for accepting a $145 million bribe from Russia and ROSATOM [HERE & HERE] in exchange for helping them acquire twenty-five percent of America’s uranium resources? Oh, wait a minute — Hillary is a Democrat, so just overlook any criminal behavior.

 

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested the Obama administration’s extensive surveillance of Trump’s presidential campaign was troubling but not surprising. Hatch “suspected that they were going to do that anyways.”

 

How could the media and the Obama machine — the Obama Foundation, billionaire George Soros and Organizing for America — not expect Trump to counter-punch? But incredulously, they were unprepared for President Trump’s March 4th 2017 allegation on Twitter that former President Obama “had my wires tapped in Trump Tower just before the victory”.

 

Who in the Obama administration ordered the FISA wiretaps and why?

 

U.S. citizens normally cannot be searched or subjected to electronic eavesdropping without probable cause of a crime, however FISA makes exceptions if there is probable cause they are agents of a foreign power. No one person can state with a straight face that “Trump is a Russian spy”.

 

Retired Lt. Colonel Tony Shaffer, a defense intelligence officer trained by the CIA (Fox News), said, “I put this right at the feet of John Brennan and Jim Clapper, and I would even go so far as to say the White House was directly involved before [Obama} left”. He also asserted that it was clear sensitive information was divulged to the media by people who had access to beyond Top Secret material.

 

[Blog Editor: Here’s a Youtube video of Shaffer on Fox & Friends Weekend

 

VIDEO: Lt. Col. Shaffer: Potential Obama Wiretapping Is ‘Soviet-Level Wrongdoing’ @OBAMAFORPRISON2017

 

Posted by Wesley Veras

Published on Mar 4, 2017

@OBAMAFORPRISON2017 SHARE IT/MAKE IT VIRAL.]

 

On the same day of President Trump’s bombshell, Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s former campaign manager, told Judge Jeanine Pirro (Fox News) that the Obama administration was also “listening to conversations between then-Senator Jeff Sessions and the Ambassador from Russia while he was in his U.S. Senate office’. (And) the fact that the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act is being used to listen to a political opponent is “very, very damaging”.

 

[Blog Editor: Here’s a Youtube video of Pirro/Lewandowski interview:

 

VIDEO: Corey Lewandowski: Obama Bugged Sessions Meeting With Russian Ambassador

 

Posted by The PolitiStick

Published on Mar 4, 2017

 

Full Pirro/Lewandowski interview HERE.]

 

Please note that Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and many other Democrats met with this same Russian Ambassador. Their hypocrisy is on full display.

 

Some sort of surveillance of the Trump campaign occurred, if one can believe James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence. Clapper told NBC and ABC News that during his tenure in the Obama administration, up to January 20th 2017, there wasn’t any collusion or collaboration between Donald Trump’s campaign and the government of Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

 

The NYT’s story “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides” on January 19th 2017 states: “The FBI is leading the investigation, aided by the National Security Agency, the CIA and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks … intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the [Obama] White House.

 

With FBI Director James Comey’s motivation suspect, he asked the Justice Department to confirm that President Trump’s allegation was “absolutely false”. This was followed recently with Congress’s demand for any and all documents concerning any Department of Justice investigation of President Trump and his campaign.

 

Once the Democrats had their “uh oh moment”, as Garth Kant of WND called it, they realized that a scandal bigger than Watergate was beginning to unfold. The Obama Justice Department had apparently used its legal authorities to target a political opponent and a presidential candidate.

 

Any outrage from the Obama White House is extremely exaggerated. Obama does not deny that Trump was being monitored by his Justice Department, and any spying on his arch rival, a man with the ability to diminish his legacy, was done with Obama’s blessing. Only a fool could believe that Obama was ignorant of the spying. [Editor’s Bold Text]

 

From the DOJ’s seizure of Associated Press phone records and Fox News reporter James Rosen’s email records, to heavy IRS scrutiny of the Tea Party and on to the NSA’s warrantless mass surveillance of American citizens, the Obama administration’s enthusiasm for surveillance and using government power against its political enemies is a matter of shameful record. Obama’s and the Leftists’ so-called “Resistance” to the Trump administration has developed the feel of a not-so-covert coup against President Trump. [Editor’s Bold Text]

 

Americans are entitled to the full truth surrounding former President Obama’s use of nation-state resources for the purposes of political gain. Sycophantic rogue agents of the NSA, the CIA, the FBI and the Justice Department, all Democrat ideologues and communists, have apparently subverted the U.S. Constitution and spied on President Trump’s presidential campaign in a manner that was not approved by any court, in order to derail his election and the Democratic process, leaking sensitive national security secrets along the way. And anyone involved, including Obama, must be prosecuted and placed behind bars. [Editor’s Bold Text]

 

By Justin O. Smith

___________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets and all source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Is Deep State Conspiracy Unraveling?


justice-drain-deep-state

Compiled by John R. Houk

March 4, 2017

 

You’d think after the election cycle that the Dems would be content to stall the GOP/Trump agenda by whatever legal means necessary, right?

 

Unfortunately, it is becoming clear that the Soros/Obama and probably Clinton faction of the Dems have become so unhinged for losing to President Trump that between November 8, 2016 and Inauguration Day January 20, 2017; the Leftist Moonbats conspired a shadow government disruption of the Trump Administration.

 

So, the question every American that honors America’s Founding Documents should be, “WHY?”

 

JRH 3/4/17

Please Support NCCR

**************

The “Deep State” Strikes Again

 

By Cliff Kincaid

Sent March 2, 2017 4:44 PM

From American Survival, Inc. (ASI)

 

Dear Friend of America’s Survival:

 

Eminating [sic] from the “deep state,” another “scandal” has been created. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has just held a news conference. It is much ado about nothing.

 

This will never end until and unless Trump cleans house. DRAIN THE SWAMP

 

INVESTIGATE THE LEAKS!!!

 

My new column, The “Alternative Government” Vs. Trump, identifies the person in the press getting the leaks. START WITH HIM!!!  He is a mouthpiece for the CIA.

 

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and Ranking Member Schiff have approved the Scope of Investigation for the inquiry by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence into the Russian active measures campaign targeting the 2016 U.S. election.

 

One of the issues is: What possible leaks of classified information took place related to the Intelligence Community Assessment of these matters?

 

There is an easy way to answer this: subpoena the Post columnist getting the leaks. We know who he is. Read my column.

 

Do you believe in elected constitutional government? Or should the “deep state” run our affairs as a nation?

 

A great conservative lawyer, Larry Klayman, has described in detail what the “alternative government” is doing to the Trump Administration.

 

My new column, The “Alternative Government” Vs. Trump, explains the stakes.

 

Send me your thoughts at Kincaid@comcast.net

 

For America’s Survival,

 

Cliff Kincaid, President

+++

The “Alternative Government” Vs. Trump

 

 nsa-listening-to-trump

NSA Listening to Trump

 

By Cliff Kincaid

March 2, 2017

America’s Survival

 

President Trump gave a good speech on Tuesday night, but his presidency is still hanging by a thread. Attorney Larry Klayman says an “alternative government” in the intelligence community continues to target him. “These intelligence agencies are more powerful than the president himself,” Klayman said on the Fox Business Network. “They have the ability to blackmail people in this administration to the point that the American people’s interests are going to be subverted.”

 

Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch, said, “How can he [President Trump] represent the interests of the American people when he knows the NSA is likely wiretapping everything he says with foreign leaders and everyone else?”

 

klayman-nsa-tapping-trump

Klayman: NSA Tapping Trump

 

It may seem like ancient history, but the media used to be concerned about surveillance of American citizens by U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies. After President Trump was elected, such concern suddenly disappeared. In fact, the media became the recipients of illegal leaks of private conversations by Trump administration officials. One such leak forced the resignation of national security adviser Michael T. Flynn.

 

Claude Barfield, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), writes that there was nothing improper with U.S. intelligence surveillance of phone calls to and from the Russian ambassador. However, in regard to Flynn, existing law does not permit the NSA or FBI to “listen to the communications of Americans who may be caught in…eavesdropping.”

 

The allegation that Flynn violated “the ancient 18th century Logan Act that forbids diplomatic activity by private U.S. citizens is no longer relevant, according to almost all legal experts,” notes Barfield. So the wiretaps could not be justified on that flimsy basis.

 

Flynn was forced out on the equally spurious grounds that he forgot to tell Vice President Mike Pence about elements of the conversations he had with the Russian official.

 

Barfield says that “a criminal—and certainly civil rights—violation did occur with the public leaks of the details of his conversations with the foreign ambassador from someone (or some persons) in the intelligence community.” The leak violated the Espionage Act, which makes intentional disclosure of classified “communications intelligence activities” a felony. What’s more, citing Timothy H. Edgar of Brown University, it is also a crime for national security officials “to leverage legitimate foreign intelligence collection to reveal public information in order to damage [an] individual they do not believe should serve.”

 

It is well-known that Flynn’s appointment as national security adviser was opposed by elements in the intelligence community, especially the CIA.

 

Edgar writes that “Flynn himself may be the first victim of civil liberties abuse during the Trump administration.” He says, “If officials had concerns about Flynn, the law requires they lodge those complaints through the system and not through leaks.”

 

This means that some intelligence officials viewed Flynn as a threat and wanted him out, using any means possible.

 

Edgar suggests that Flynn call the ACLU for legal help, but a far better course of action would be to call litigator Larry Klayman, who says it’s clear that “the NSA is spying on the President, his White House, and the administration in general.”

 

Klayman believes that “loyalists to former President Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, and their leftist comrades” are behind the illegal surveillance.

 

david-ignatius

David Ignatius

 

Former Congressman Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) told Newsmax TV that the NSA “can collect on the Russian embassy, no problem,” but that “when they collect on an American, whether it’s here in the United States or when we collect inadvertently on an American overseas, that information immediately should be what we call minimized. The name should be taken away.”

 

“Hoekstra explained that a court order must be granted in order to receive permission to release the name of any American captured by the NSA’s spying techniques,” the Newsmax story said.

 

Rather than be minimized or eliminated, the name was illegally leaked to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. We discussed this sequence of events in the column, “Why the CIA Wants to Destroy Flynn.” Ignatius quoted “a senior U.S. government official” as the source of the information about Flynn.

 

During his appearance on the Fox Business Channel, Klayman discussed this illegal surveillance and offered to represent Flynn in a legal action. He repeated his claim that the intelligence community was engaged in illegal surveillance not only of Flynn but of other Trump officials, including the President himself.

 

Klayman has asked for an emergency hearing on this matter from Judge Richard Leon, who had previously ruled in Klayman’s favor in a lawsuit against NSA surveillance. He said the evidence suggests the existence of an “alternative government,” based in the intelligence community, which is more powerful than elected officials.

 

On the same program, a clip was played of Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, saying that the Flynn case represented an abuse of authority. He said that Flynn had his telephone call listened to by the government and leaked to the press, and that if this had happened to a member of the Obama administration, “you can imagine the Democrats in the House and Senate would be going crazy…”

 

Nunes said that, in order for the intelligence community to listen to an American such as Flynn, a special warrant is required. “I am quite sure this wasn’t done in this case,” he said.

 

The Washington Monthly, a liberal publication, published a story by Martin Longman that began, “When it comes to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, I have long seen him as an informal member of the intelligence community who often acts as their mouthpiece.” Longman concluded that “the intelligence community took down Flynn…”

 

The official bio for Ignatius mentions that he covered the CIA when he worked for The Wall Street Journal.

 

At the Post, Ignatius has expressed concern about whether Obama CIA director John Brennan’s “modernization” of the agency will survive Trump. “After interviewing several dozen CIA officers and veterans over the past several months,” Ignatius wrote, “my conclusion is that Brennan’s reforms should continue…”

 

Based on stories like this, it would appear that Ignatius is more than willing, even anxious, to advertise his CIA connections.

 

Any investigation of what Trump calls “illegal leaks” should begin with him.

 

+++

TRUMP TWEETS HIS OUTRAGE OVER OBAMA WIRE TAPPING TRUMP TOWER DURING CAMPAIGN

 

MARCH 4, 2017

Minutemen News

 

In a possible reaction to a Breitbart story published yesterday, in which writer, Joel Pollak, detailed Mark Levin’s analysis of ten ways the Obama administration tried to undermine the presidential campaign and administration of Donald Trump.

 

Breitbart offers:

 

  1. June 2016: FISA request.The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

 

 

  1. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

 

The article sums up the ten actions, Levin says, should be the target of a Congressional investigation:

 

In summary: the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

 

In response, President Trump began tweeting for all to see.

 

Donald J. Trump 

✔@realDonaldTrump

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

5:35 AM – 4 Mar 2017

__

 

Donald J. Trump 

✔@realDonaldTrump

Is it legal for a sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!

5:49 AM – 4 Mar 2017

 

 

Donald J. Trump 

✔@realDonaldTrump

I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!

5:52 AM – 4 Mar 2017

 

 

Donald J. Trump 

✔@realDonaldTrump

How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!

6:02 AM – 4 Mar 2017

 

___________________

Is Deep State Conspiracy Unraveling?

Compiled by John R. Houk

March 4, 2017

_________________

The “Deep State” Strikes Again

The “Alternative Government” Vs. Trump

 

America’s Survival, Inc. is recognized as a 501 (C)3 organization by the IRS. Your donation is tax-deductible to the full extent of the law.

 

© America’s Survival, Inc.

_______________

TRUMP TWEETS HIS OUTRAGE OVER OBAMA WIRE TAPPING TRUMP TOWER DURING CAMPAIGN

 

COPYRIGHT © 2017. MINUTEMENNEWS.COM IS A MEMBER OF LIBERTY ALLIANCE. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 

About Minutemen News

 

The minutemen were among the first people to fight in the American Revolution; their teams constituted about a quarter of the entire militia. Generally younger and more mobile, they served as part of a network for early response. They provided a highly mobile, rapidly deployed force that allowed the colonies to respond immediately to war threats, hence the name.

 

The term has also been applied to various later United States civilian-based military forces to recall the success and patriotism of the originals.

 

MinutemenNews.com honors the minuteman spirit: patriotic, politically enthused, poised to help when the need arises.

 

This website is not just about publishing the latest and most relevant news. It’s not just about informing individuals. It’s about facilitating community and fostering conversation. It’s about seeing a new media militia supporting each other and becoming increasingly equipped to challenge the progressive onslaught.

 

So, we want to hear your opinions. So after you’ve read an article, please leave a comment. When you receive a newsletter from us, with links to the most important stories of the day, please consider clicking one of the headlines and typing your thoughts at the end of the article. Make an impact, make your voice heard, share your insights, learn from others.

 

Again, we value your being part of MinutemenNews.com. We’re looking forward to getting to know you on this website.

 

With patriotic appreciation,

 

The Minutemen (and Minutewomen) at MinutemenNews.com