The Jessie Liu clue: A D.C. cover-up that IS Spygate


A lengthy yet stupendous article written by J.E. Dyer exposes the hypocrisy of the lying Dems when it comes to criminal justice and the U.S. Constitution. The Dems feign (cough Pelosi) love of the rule of law except or unless that law applies to Dem/Leftist/Deep State law violations. READ ON!

 

JRH 2/14/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee.

 

BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”

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

The Jessie Liu clue: A D.C. cover-up that IS Spygate

 

By J.E. Dyer

February 13, 2020

Liberty Unyielding

 

The “Old” (Eisenhower) Executive Office Building across from the White House in Washington, D.C.. (Image: Wikimedia)

 

Four federal prosecutors resigned from their case on Tuesday when Attorney General William Barr overruled the sentencing recommendation they made for Roger Stone, whom Robert Mueller had forwarded charges against involving “five separate counts of lying to the House Intelligence Committee and two charges of obstructing a congressional investigation and intimidating a witness.”

 

Notably, the Justice Department’s lead counsel in the Stone case, Jessie Liu – the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia – had recently turned over that role to Timothy Shea, because Ms. Liu had been nominated for a post at the U.S. Treasury.  Liu was also the lead counsel for some time on the Michael Flynn case.

 

On Tuesday, Trump withdrew the Liu nomination for the Treasury job, about the same time the four prosecutors, three of whom were members of the Mueller team, announced they were off the Stone case.  Liu was previously scheduled for a Senate hearing on Thursday.

 

Jessie Liu – center on MSNBC – MSNBC video (screen capture)

 

In the interest of getting expeditiously to the meat of this post, I won’t rehash the whole story on this.  It can be gleaned at the links.  One thing is important to note, however, as we survey what looks very much like a major maneuver of some kind between the “swamp” and the Trump administration.

 

According to a DOJ source, the four prosecutors who left the Stone case on Tuesday changed their sentencing recommendation between the time they briefed it to the Department and their formal filing with the court.  The clear implication is that they told their bosses one thing, but then filed with the court for another.  The sentence they recommended – seven to nine years – was well outside the sentencing guidelines for the offenses, and the DOJ (according to the source) had not seen or approved it.  Rather, the DOJ thought the recommendation would be a different one.

 

At this initial stage, readers should draw their own conclusions about who is telling the truth here.  There is reason, at least, to believe that the formal sentencing recommendation was made without approval from the DOJ higher-ups.

 

That would be enough reason for the four prosecutors to be off the case.  But Jessie Liu wasn’t involved in the sentencing recommendation, so that incident, in itself, doesn’t explain why her nomination was withdrawn.

 

Enter the March 2017 handoff

 

This section of the analysis is what we might call a wholly-owned subsidiary of sundance at Conservative Treehouse, to whom the credit goes for the superb sleuthing that revealed a bottom line I’m going to state up-front.  It is fully developed by sundance, and for the essential background and documentation, please read the CTH article.

 

The bottom line is that some media outlets have had a complete copy of at least the first FISA application on Carter Page since March of 2017, when Senate Intelligence Committee official James Wolfe leaked it to four journalists, including his girlfriend Ali Watkins.  This is recorded in documents from James Wolfe’s prosecution, which were unsealed in 2018.

 

CTH points out what that means: that outlets like the New York Times, where Watkins later took a job, have known what was in the FISA application since shortly after the compromising handover by James Wolfe took place.  The date was 17 March 2017, two months after Trump took office, and long before the FISA applications were made available in redacted form to the public.

 

James A. Wolfe. (Image: Fox News, LinkedIn)

 

Moreover, Senator Mark Warner, the ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee, may have known about the compromise at the time it happened.

 

And Jessie Liu was the prosecutor who eventually accepted a plea from James Wolfe to a minimal charge, and effectively swept this bombshell leak of incendiary Top Secret material under the rug.  As pointed out at CTH, a core motive for this was the determination of Wolfe’s defense to call witnesses who would almost certainly have revealed that members of the Senate knew what Wolfe was doing.

 

Sundance calls this the “DC cover-up that’s as big as Spygate.”  Key aspects must be noted in that regard; e.g., that there are media outlets that must therefore be complicit in selling the pubic a bill of goods on the “FISA applications” narrative.  They’ve known all along what those applications contained, yet published as if they didn’t: not to protect national secrets, but to support a narrative that injured real people – through harassment and manufactured prosecutions – based on falsehoods that the FISA applications expose.

 

Sundance also makes a sound case that Mark Warner, and probably others, knew as well; not only what was in the FISA applications (which Warner had to know, having been authorized to read them unredacted in the SCIF), but that the FISA applications had been leaked to the media.

 

Again, it is certain that at least one of the first two FISA applications (from October 2016 and January 2017) constituted the material leaked.  A sentencing document filed by the DOJ in December 2018 makes that clear.  It may have been only the first application that was leaked; I discuss that below.

 

This is undoubtedly enough of a compromising situation for some in the Senate to not want it coming out in a confirmation hearing for Jessie Liu.  Sundance prepared some good, suggested questions for the now-canceled hearing.  But I doubt members of the Senate would really want the answers coming out in public – or even just the implications raised by the questions.

 

This was Spygate

 

I would go further than sundance, meanwhile, and say that this cover-up isn’t merely as big as Spygate.  It is Spygate.  It was part and parcel of the effort to gain advantage over Trump and take him down, an effort that started before he was even elected, and one whose full panoply of methods we still haven’t grasped.

 

To lay it out, I’ll start by noting something that hadn’t clicked into place with me until sundance highlighted it in the post linked above.  I had followed the James Wolfe case, knew about Jessie Liu’s role, and even understood that the classified material involved – i.e., leaked by Wolfe –  was related to the FISA applications.

 

But it hadn’t registered meaningfully with me that Wolfe leaked the material on 17 March 2017.

 

Recognizing the significance of that specific date makes the difference in how we see the event and its motivation.  Why?  Because during that period, Devin Nunes was working on a set of requests for the executive agencies which included FISA applications, and information about “unmasking” actions taken by federal authorities.

 

Devin Nunes (Image: Screen grab of Fox News video, YouTube)

 

Nunes had sent a demand – disclosed to the Washington Post on 15 March – to the NSA, CIA, and FBI for information from them on whose names had been “unmasked” from incidental (non-targeted) electronic surveillance, in the period of the Trump transition (and probably some additional time on either side of it).

 

But he also sent a separate request to the Justice Department specifically for FISA applications.

 

In February 2018, the Lawfare blog posted a handy (if hostile) timeline of Nunes’s efforts to figure out what was going on with the unmasking.  Most Spygate followers will chiefly remember Nunes’s dramatic press conferences later in March of 2017.

 

But he had gained sharpened awareness of the unmasking as an issue when it became clear, with the David Ignatius article in the Washington Post on 11 January 2017, that Michael Flynn had been unmasked in a phone call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

 

Nunes fully understood the relationship between FISA-authorized surveillance and unmasking.  And he knew that it would be necessary to look into the records on both aspects of intelligence processing to determine what had been going on.

 

VIDEO: Devin Nunes: Trump Communications ‘Incidentally’ Collected By Intelligence Agencies | NBC News

 

 [Posted by NBC News

1.84M subscribers – Mar 22, 2017

 

Devin Nunes, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee tells press he has been notified that Trump team communications have been “incidentally,” legally collected. He also said more names involved in Trump campaign have been unmasked but MORE TO READ]

 

After President Trump sent his famous 4 March 2017 tweets about having been “wiretapped” by Obama, Nunes and Adam Schiff, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, sent a letter to the acting attorney general (Dana Boente) requesting “copies of any applications the Justice Department submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, any orders that the court released, and any copies of warrants issued by federal judges or magistrates regarding Trump, his campaign surrogates, business associates, employees, family and friends.”  The timeframe requested was the year 2016.

 

That letter was sent 8 March 2017.  And note this about it: whatever your opinion of Devin Nunes, one thing no one would say of him is that he was complicit with either anti-Trump media or anti-Trump officials (i.e., “deep staters”) inside the government.

 

Thus, his letter of 8 March would have been the first communication from such a person – an official outside the anti-Trump circle – posing formal questions, to which the Carter Page FISA applications had to be the answer.

 

In other words, Nunes was taking aim at the real target.  (Something I noted at the time; see my link on his 22 March 2017 press conference, above.)

 

Don’t get ahead of me here, because understanding this as a Spygate episode requires seeing it whole.  Nunes and Schiff gave the DOJ a deadline of 13 March to respond.  On 13 March, the DOJ requested more time.  Nunes’s office told the media that if there was no response before FBI Director James Comey testified to the House committee the following Monday (20 March), Nunes would request the information during Comey’s hearing, and would subpoena it if necessary.

 

On 17 March, the day the FISA applications were made available in the SCIF on Capitol Hill, Nunes then provided this very informative statement to the media: “The Committee is satisfied that the Department of Justice has fully complied with our request for information from our March 8 letter on possible surveillance related to Donald Trump or his associates.”

 

That statement comports perfectly with what we would expect if the DOJ had forwarded copies of its 2016 applications made to the FISA court, including the Carter Page application.

 

Note two things.  One, fulfilling this request from Nunes and Schiff would have been the reason the Carter Page FISA application was sent to the Hill on 17 March 2017.

 

Mark Warner and the Senate Intelligence staff would have known the request had been made – and known that the documents were coming on the 17th – because Warner was in the Intelligence Gang of Eight, and Schiff would have shared it with him, at a minimum.

 

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) – Youtube (screen capture)

 

Two, only the first Carter Page application, from October 2016, would have met the terms of the House Intelligence Committee request, which was for applications made in 2016.

 

That’s why I think it’s probable that only the first FISA application was leaked to the media on 17 March 2017.

 

A decision point, identified

 

But of more importance is the point that Nunes was the catalyst for shaking it out of the DOJ.  That means that at the time the FISA application was leaked, and indeed for at least a couple of weeks before, some group of Deep Staters was closely attuned already to the significance of Nunes’s role and what he was trying to do.  They knew he was on the hunt for a trail of activity that would lead back to them.

 

The interval between 13 and 17 March is thus an intriguing one.  The DOJ asked for more time on 13 March, but apparently without previewing anything it was committing to.  By 17 March, it had delivered the Carter Page FISA application, along with the others from 2016.

 

That tells me a decision was made between 13 and 17 March to deploy the Carter Page application rather than trying to keep it under wraps.  The method of deployment was sending it to Capitol Hill.

 

This would constitute circumstantial evidence of the collusion that sundance postulates, presumably involving actors other than James Wolfe on Capitol Hill – and suggesting cooperation with the Justice Department, which sent the FISA application, and the media, whose members received the leak from Wolfe.

 

On Tuesday 21 March, the day after Comey’s 20 March hearing, Nunes made his famous visit to the White House complex and viewed material on the unmasking of U.S. persons, an inspection arranged for him by officials inside the White House.  The next day, 22 March, Nunes briefed his concerns to the media, setting off a firestorm.

 

There were other events in the ensuing timeline; read them at your leisure.  I’ll skip ahead to the one on 30 March, when as Lawfare recounts, “The New York Times reports that Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the National Security Council’s senior director for intelligence, and Michael Ellis, a lawyer in the White House counsel’s office working on national security issues, provided Nunes the intelligence documents he referenced in his March 22 press conference.”

 

The events highlighted above, including that last one, are the ones that matter.

 

The Nunes events make this Spygate

 

The date 17 March 2017 was not happenstance.  Because Devin Nunes was probing for information about surveillance of the Trump team, there were quite a few people on Capitol Hill – and in the media – who would be motivated to set a counter-operation in motion at the first opportunity.

 

It’s easy to identify 17 March 2017 as that opportunity, because that’s the date stamped on the “official copy” of the Carter Page FISA application that made its way to the Hill.

 

But can we find the outlines of a Deep State/anti-Trump plan here?  Can we justify thinking in terms of collusion, and supposing that multiple people were involved in taking advantage of that opportunity?

 

There are strong reasons to say yes.  They relate to two circumstances.  One is the 30 March New York Times article identifying two individuals as Devin Nunes’s contacts in the White House.

 

The other is the very first event in the Lawfare timeline: 11 November 2016, when Nunes was appointed as an adviser to the Trump transition team.

 

Trump-transition-Trump-Tower – AFP video, YouTube (screen capture)

 

That means Nunes himself had been subject to being dragnetted in the Carter Page surveillance, by the two-hop rule, since 11 November 2016.

 

Nunes probably wasn’t the only one on Capitol Hill, for that matter.  But once he was seriously on the hunt for FISA and unmasking information – which would lead to the activity trail of the anti-Trump surveillance – the motive to keep him under surveillance would have been exceptionally strong.  He met that definition by mid-February 2017 at the latest.

 

Remember, it’s not “wiretapping” we’re talking about.  It’s not listening in on phone calls.  The method would have been retrieving “non-contents” information from telecom providers, using tailored queries that met the criteria authorized by the Carter Page FISA warrant.  That kind of surveillance, covering phone calls, texts, and other instant messages, could be done without the subject or anyone connected with him ever knowing.

 

If Deep State planners were tracking Nunes, they had not only the motive to drop the Carter Page FISA application to the Hill, and thence to the media, on 17 March 2017, but the means to foresee that Nunes’s contacts with the White House would lead very soon to his being afforded a look at what had been going on there.  They were alerted, in other words, to the danger to themselves, in time to take planned and deliberate advantage of the FISA application’s arrival on Capitol Hill.

 

Tracking Nunes (and probably the other two individuals named by the New York Times) was also a likely and accurate way to identify Nunes’s White House contacts(s).  It had the merit of not requiring an initial cue from a source who actually witnessed the interactions.  Knowing whom Nunes had been in contact with, his monitors could then ask intelligent questions of White House leakers who had only incidental awareness of what others in their vicinity were doing.

 

Pulling Liu’s nomination

 

If I were Trump and Barr, and had assembled information pointing in essence to a scenario like this – or were still in the process of assembling it – I wouldn’t want the Jessie Liu confirmation hearing to trip landmines before their time.

 

Trump wouldn’t withdraw the Liu nomination merely out of misplaced compassion for embarrassed senators or Deep Staters.  He’d have good reasons to do it for his own purposes (with or without a dramatic event like the four prosecutors’ departure).

 

One of those reasons would be that Jessie Liu probably doesn’t belong in the job at Treasury.  Whatever else she knew about James Wolfe and the Senate Intelligence Committee in the March 2017 timeframe, she knew that the classified material Wolfe leaked to the media was the Carter Page FISA application.  She was apparently willing to cooperate in keeping that explosive information out of the public eye.

 

It may be that Liu was less culpably complicit than willing to go along, on the sidelines of an ambiguous situation, under pressure from higher echelon.  We needn’t have a bloodthirsty attitude about Liu, per se.

 

But here’s what we do need to have: an accounting to the American people, before even one more official involved in very questionable actions by the government gets another pass.

 

The people have trusted the system in the blind long enough.  No reckoning – no happy-face career progression for the known participants.  If you want to object, go sell it to Michael Flynn and his family. (Or sell it to Roger Stone. DOJ let James Wolfe off with a two-month sentence.)

 

An additional reason for pulling the Liu nomination is simply that it may not be time to detonate the landmine yet.  John Durham is doing his job.  He, Barr, and Trump will know when it’s time.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”

____________________________

J.E. Dyer is a retired Naval Intelligence officer who lives in Southern California, blogging as The Optimistic Conservative for domestic tranquility and world peace. Her articles have appeared at Hot Air, Commentary’s Contentions, Patheos, The Daily Caller, The Jewish Press, and The Weekly Standard.

 

Copyright © 2020 Liberty Unyielding. 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.]