I trust Andrew McCarthy on all things he sees fit to opine about…
Her interest was not in national security but to advance the political interests of the Democratic party. The thing to bear in mind is that the White House does not do investigations. Not criminal investigations, not intelligence investigations.
Why is that so important in the context of explosive revelations that Susan Rice, President Obama’s national-security adviser, confidant, and chief dissembler, called for the “unmasking” of Trump campaign and transition officials whose identities and communications were captured in the collection of U.S. intelligence on foreign targets?
Because we’ve been told for weeks that any unmasking of people in Trump’s circle that may have occurred had two innocent explanations: (1) the FBI’s investigation of Russian meddling in the election and (2) the need to know, for purposes of understanding the communications of foreign intelligence targets, the identities of Americans incidentally intercepted or mentioned. The unmasking, Obama apologists insist, had nothing to do with targeting Trump or his people.
That won’t wash.
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.
Read the whole thing. BURN.
Wait for it: At any minute someone in the MSM or Obama-admin, in effort to minimize the Susan Rice issue, will shrug, “Well if Trump associates have nothing to hide…”
And let’s not cruise over the important detail Joe DiGenova has uncovered about Susan Rice having ordered “Detailed Spreadsheets” on Trump associates’ legal private phone calls. We’ve been told for weeks that Americans are only ‘incidentally’ netted in the surveillance data of foreign entities. Why would Rice order detailed spread sheets of American’s private and LEGAL phone calls if they were not being directly targeted? I mean we’ve been led to believe, seconds after the revelation the Obama admin had Trump names and had unmasked them, that there were no worries and the names are pretty much a throw away anyway, etc.
And, as I always remind, never forget the Obama/Lynch change in intel-sharing between agencies policy change they made before leaving the White House. NOBODY has asked exactly why they felt they had to do that. NOBODY.
Meantime, the left’s/liberals’ retort to this is right back to “Trump and Russia and the election!”
Except that to date, after nearly 8 months of investigating this and as we are now seeing gobs of ‘surveillance’ targeted by the Obama administration on the Trump machine, there is not a single thing to prove anything against Trump. The FBI, NSA, and CIA have all said more than once Russia had noting to do with the election results. As for an alleged influence on voters with negative info on Hillary Clinton, people were against her since before she entered her cankles and lying ass into the DNC primary race … a race that was proven to have been manipulated and stolen from rival Bernie Sanders by Hillary.
More on this from Rush Limbaugh:
The transcript refutes her denial. She was asked a very broad question about Trump associates being swept up in intelligence. https://t.co/Uv4eHTQC0r
— Brit Hume (@brithume) April 4, 2017
It is a tired, but apropos, joke: how do you know when a politician is lying? When his/her lips move.
Tuesday, Susan Rice was flapping her lips like a loose sail in a stiff breeze. She should have known better. Whenever she talks, trouble is sure to follow. For her.
Rice chose a benign venue in appearing on “Andrea Mitchell Reports” on MSNBC, but even that didn’t help.
The story she peddled was blatantly self-serving and punctuated with a glaring contradiction.
Here is how the law applies to Rice’s conduct. Or at least her version of it…