Wednesday, April 5, 2017

Susan Rice implies that Trump and his aides were an imminent theat to the US

Flopping Aces ^ | 04-05-17 | DrJohn 


Susan Rice is a liar. We need to establish that as the baseline. She apparently unmasks the names of Americans caught up in surveillance matters, especially if their names rhyme with "bump."
Next, Andrew McCarthy (who knows a few things about this)
The thing to bear in mind is that the White House does not do investigations. Not criminal investigations, not intelligence investigations. Remember that.
And
In general, it is the FBI that conducts investigations that bear on American citizens suspected of committing crimes or of acting as agents of foreign powers. In the matter of alleged Russian meddling, the investigative camp also includes the CIA and the NSA. All three agencies conducted a probe and issued a joint report in January. That was after Obama, despite having previously acknowledged that the Russian activity was inconsequential, suddenly made a great show of ordering an inquiry and issuing sanctions.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.
So why would Rice need to unmask Americans identities if the other agencies did not? Let's go to Rice:
Let me explain how this works. I was the National Security Advisor. My job is to protect the American people and the security of our country. That's the same as the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the CIA director. And every morning, to enable us to do that, we received from the intelligence community a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us on a daily basis to give us the best information as to what's going on around the world.
She's a political appointee. A dishonest one at that. Someone needs to explain how her judgment is more finely honed than the NSA or the CIA. Neither agency found it necessary to unmask Trump, his family and his aides.
But she did.  And it had nothing to do with Russia. So what was the justification? Apparently she thinks Trump is going to bomb America:
But let's say there was a conversation between two foreigners about a conversation they were having with an American, who was proposing to sell to them high-tech bomb making equipment. Now, if that came to me as National Security Advisor, it would matter enormously. Is this some kook sitting in his living room communicating via the internet, offering to sell something he doesn't have? Or is it a serious person or company or entity with the ability to provide that technology perhaps to an adversary? That would be an example of a case where knowing who the U.S. person was, was necessary to assess the information.So when that occurred, what I would do, or what any official would do, is to ask their briefer whether the intelligence committee would go through its process -- and there's a long-standing, established process -- to decide whether that information as to who the identity of the U.S. person was could be provided to me. So they'd take that question back, they'd put it through a process, and the intelligence community made the determination as to whether or not the identity of that American individual could be provided to me.
She is implying that Trump wanted to bomb the US or sell bomb technology to a foreign entity.
Heady stuff. Then she states:
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net ...

California Senate Votes Yes to Becoming a Sanctuary State (do not support them by traveling there)

Epoch Times ^ | April 4, 2017 | Charlotte Cuthbertson 

The California Senate passed a sanctuary bill on April 3 that limits cooperation between local law enforcement and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The bill was passed 27–12 along party lines that saw Democrat support and Republican opposition.

Senate bill (SB) 54 prevents local jails from holding inmates for up to 48 hours extra when ICE requests it for transfer—except those who have committed certain crimes, such as murder, robbery, rape, or kidnapping.
(Excerpt) Read more at theepochtimes.com ...

Fresh evidence the Russia ‘scandal’ is a Team Obama operation!

NY Post ^ | April 4, 2017 | NY Post Editorial Board 

Do you suspect that the noise over Trump campaign contacts with the Russians is just a political hit arranged by Obama insiders before they left? You got fresh evidence of that Monday, with news that then-national security adviser Susan Rice was behind the “unmasking” of Trumpites in transcripts of calls with Russian officials.
Again, nothing on the public record so far shows that anyone on Team Trump said anything improper on those calls.
It’s no surprise that US spooks intercept foreign officials’ calls. But intelligence community reports don’t disclose the names of US citizens on the other end. To get that info, a high official must (but rarely does) push to “unmask” the Americans’ names.
Bloomberg’s Eli Lake now reports that Rice started doing just that last year.
That was perfectly legal. But we also know that the Obama administration later changed the classification of the “unmasked” transcripts, and other similar material, in order to spread the information as widely as possible within the government.
The motive for that was (supposedly) to prevent Team Trump from burying it all once it took over. But the result was that it made it relatively safe for someone (or someones) to leak the info to the press. Which made it likely somebody would leak. So Team Obama’s “spread the info” initiative certainly broke the spirit of the laws.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...

The pursuit of Trump may have caught the Obama White House!

The Washington Post ^ | April 4, 2017 | By Ed Rogers 

It is said that Watergate wasn’t about the crime, but about the coverup. Well, at least in the Watergate scandal, there was a proper crime — specifically, the break-in and wiretapping. The frenzy has created a scandal without perpetrators or a crime. There is a sense that Washington is on the brink, but no one can say on the brink of what.
Rice has a history of a strained relationship with the truth, and for a national security adviser, she has, at times, flown close to the partisan political flame. So, what was going on? Why did she do it? And with whom, in the government and the media, did she share the information?
Multiple senators are now demanding her testimony. There could have been crimes committed and a real scandal could develop, so you can bet the full story will be slow to emerge. It appears that Rice has issued the standard denials. And her defenders on Capitol Hill and in the media will do all they can to distract and demand that there is nothing to see here. Democrats and their media allies will continue to make baseless allegations, hoping that the Russia investigations will somehow deliver for them and become this president’s Watergate.
The result so far? Competing outrage. Just as Democrats are pursuing L-TACs (links, ties, associations or contacts) in search of a crime, the Obama White House’s national security adviser has now landed as one of the ones who will have to answer for her actions under oath. Washington is as scandal-primed as I’ve ever seen it — there is a lot of smoke right now, but no clear fire. So the noise and finger-pointing will continue. And I have no idea who is winning.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...

UPDATE: Susan Rice Confirms Her “Unmasking Requests” Were for President Obama

The Conservative Treehouse ^ | April 4, 2017 | Sundance 

With a general set of narrative ‘talking points’ in hand President Obama’s Former National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, appeared this morning on MSNBC for an interview with Andrea Mitchell. This is the ‘We-Have-To-Respond-phase‘, which necessitates the optic.

Andrea Mitchell is considered a trustworthy ally of the Clinton/Obama political networks; as such, it is not a surprise to see Mitchell selected as the interviewer. Mitchell’s use of wording carefully guides Susan Rice through the narrow path of self-incrimination by providing plausible deniability for verbal missteps.

You already know the routine. MSNBC is the favorable proprietary venue. Mitchell plays the role of media-legal-adviser, her client is Susan Rice. Live interviews are always the greatest risk (see: Evelyn Farkas) The full interview is below:
However, that said, there are some interesting aspects to the interview:
Susan Rice @00:51 – …”Let me explain how this works. I was a National Security Adviser, my job is to protect the American people and the security of our country. That’s the same as the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and CIA Director.; and every morning, to enable us to do that, we receive – from the intelligence community – a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us –on a daily basis– to give us the best information as to what’s going on around the world.”
[Note, Susan Rice is describing the PDB]
“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to. Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.
And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”
OK, so right there, in the very beginning of the forward narrative, Susan Rice is confirming the “unmasking” request(s) which can be pinned upon her, are directly related to her need to understand -on behalf of President Obama- intelligence for the President’s Daily Briefing (the PDB). This was a previous question now answered.
This is EXPLOSIVE, and here’s why.
Remember, the President’s Daily Brief under President Obama went to almost everyone at top levels in his administration. Regarding the Obama PDB:
[…] But while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.
In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers.
By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments.

DUH!

U6agcFA.jpg

PROOF!

WPBozpb.jpg

RUSSIANS!

MiUWuWx.jpg

SLAUGHTER

mm.jpg

SPIES

C8dIk-nVoAAMvKv.jpg

Sanctuary

29G5Blb.jpg

Martial Law

7XPFG03.jpg

KILLING!

2sQoOy3.jpg

MORON?

bub8JWn.jpg

I remember...

C8ZB0LNXYAE6TBm.jpg