Posted on 04/04/2017 9:20:39 AM PDT by confederatecarpetbag
Agree Rice will be the sacrificial lamb to protect Soetero the polynesian poofter.
That’s what I’ve been thinking. No lawyer here of course, but not only does Flynn has grounds for a suit, but doesn’t the guy imprisoned over that Ben Ghazi video have grounds as well?
“I’d bet the pardon was already signed by Obama, we just don’t know about it yet.”
Unfortunately, that is an excellent point!
Impressions from Rice’s interview just now with Democrat political propagandist Andrea Mitchell.
Takeaways:
1. My take is that Rice has already lawyered up. She would be stupid not to. On the other hand, this is a woman who agreed to go out and lie on TV about a youtube video in Benghazi in place of the Secretary of State who should have have been giving the interviews, but who called in sick that Sunday in order to leave Rice holding the bag.
But they must think there’s a chance for Rice to nip it in the bud with the help of the MSM, so she agreed to a TV interview with a Democrat media hack.
2. Basically, she is claiming the Intel Community is responsible for making sure Rice is not spying on political opponents, not her. So if she ordered unmasked intel reports on Donald Trump and team, it was their responsibility to tell the White House no, you can’t do that. It’s like the President ordering someone to do something illegal, and later claiming, well, that underling should have refused because it was illegal.
So yeah, she ordered it is the takeaway.
3. Andrea asked the money question in a way to play into Rice’s defense: “Did you order blah blah blah, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SPYING ON TRUMP?”
That gave Rice the opportunity to say no, because of her claim as to her motive, even if in fact she did order it, as appears to be the case.
4. Similarly the “spreadsheet” claim. Obviously Rice herself did not prepare any spreadsheet. She probably does not even know how to work Excel or whatever program was used. I would guess someone subordinate or someone in the Intel Community made the spreadsheet, not Rice personally, so Andrea asked the question again in a way to give her an out.
5. Rice said such unmasked intel was not “typically” broadly disseminated in the government. That dodged the question of whether the Trump intel was broadly disseminated.
6. Did you leak Flynn? “I can’t get into specific reports.” And, indignantly, I will not sit here and discuss classified info with you, Andrea! So yeah, appears guilty on this one.
7. Did the pace increase as election approached? Rice: no, but the number of reports became more frequent. So, yeah.
8. Rice talks about protecting the integrity of the US election, which apparently means keeping people from knowing that the DNC rigged the election to screw Bernie in the primaries.
9. Rice relied on the technicality that only the DOJ can apply for court surveillance, not the president. So it sounds like Obama is guilty on all of this too, which would be surprising if it were not the case, since Rice is simply his flunky.
10. Andrea asked Rice about someone on a radio show calling Rice a mean name. How did that make you feel?
11. What if you’re subpoenaed before Congress, will you testify? Rice: Let’s see what comes. Translation: if I get a subpoena, I’m taking the Fifth.
12. Andrea: Shouldn’t you have blown the whistle on Russian hacking earlier? This is trademark MSM deceptiveness. As the Crowdstrike claim on which it all is based is weakening, the MSM likes to ask questions that assume the Russian hacking as a given in order for the party line to be reinforced in the public mind that it is not to questioned but taken as proven.
Summary: Girl in big trouble! She will have to rely on the McCain/Graham faction to join with Schumer et al to save her bacon. But if she goes down, she may take Obama down, so McCain and Graham will probably come to her defense.
There's no reason GTMO can't be coed.
Did Trump KNOW they had wiretapped Flynn BEFORE he nominated him? And if so did The Donald set this all up as a sting operation?
According to the dem she unmasked because it was a national security issue thus she was protecting us from the evil Trump.
I don’t know why people are ragging on Susan Rice. She served her country honorably and with distinction. Oh wait, that was Bo Bergdahl....
Fhios, I think your 1st question is the most important. How and why did she know - or even suspect - that phone intercepts were taking place of the Trump team?
If they were spying on Trump a year before the election, most likely they were spying on many more people as well.
It goes back farther than that. She thinks Mugabe is a brilliant man.
She helped the Clinton Admin. mislead about the Rawanda slaughter for election purposes.
She’s been a paid LIAR for decades.
Do you have links to support this? I had not heard this until now
I believe he did.
“SO, if it wasn’t done for political purposes, then why is it that only Trump and his staff were ‘unmasked’ ?”
There’s a darn good circumstantial case to be made that it was an illegal abuse of the system. It appears the Trump team was singled out and targeted. Certainly it will be hard to explain “dozens” of documented requests.
But without somebody on the inside turning against their co-conspirators...prosecution is very unlikely.
They need to catch the LEAKER and turn the screws up the line.
“If they were spying on Trump a year before the election, most likely they were spying on many more people as well.”
That’s a point I’ve been making on these threads since yesterday. I expect we’ll someday soon hear of Sanders, Cruz, Bush and Rubio. Anyone who had a modicum of a chance.
And that’s when this thing blows sky high.
And Rice needs to be asked that question, under oath, in front of the US Congress. Or, by FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors.
Or both.
She was the point woman responsible for refusing to accept Bin Laden when the Sudan government tried to hand him over to the USA in 1995-96. She refused, claiming later that there was no reason — even though Bin Laden was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Trade Tower bombing and Al Qaeda was directly involved in terrorist operations in Somalia and Bosnia.
If they were spying on Trump a year before the election, most likely they were spying on many more people as well.
Yep. This is the tip of the iceberg. Let’s see what other “incidental” surveillance was done. John Roberts? The list of Obama Enemies is endless.
5. How many other Presidential nominees since 2012 have had incidental surveillance? If you did it to Trump what about the other candidates?
Throwing Rice under the bus just means they want to declare the scandal over, nothing to see here, investigation closed. I take it as an invitation to dig deeper to see who REALLY did it.
Absolutely Sanders was a target.
Wasserman-Shultz had the DNC angle covered in the primaries, so evesdropping on Bernie helped Hillary coordinate campaign resources.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.