OK, Now We Know That The Obama Administration DEFINITELY Spied On Trump

So, President Trump was right all along... and now we know that it was Obama's National Security Advisor, Susan Rice who was doing the 'wiretapping'!

For God's sake, folks, this is a scandal of Watergate proportions!!

Susan Rice should definitely be subpoenaed to testify. After she gleaned all this information, what did she tell Obama? What did Obama know and when did he know it? Obama's administration was, obviously, one of the most corrupt our country has ever known. Where's the transparency?

Susan Rice defiant amid growing calls for her to testify under oath

April 4, 2017

As Susan Rice faces growing calls to testify under oath, the former Obama administration official now accused of ordering the unmasking of Trump officials under surveillance is suggesting that she never did so for political purposes, and that it is sometimes "necessary" for investigative purposes.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of both the Senate Judiciary and Select Committee on Intelligence, suggested in a tweet earlier Tuesday that Rice "needs to testify under oath."


Susan Rice Unmasked
Obama’s security adviser sought the name of at least one Trump official in intelligence reports.

He included a link to a Wall Street Journal piece "Susan Rice Unmasked," a report that suggests Rice had sought the name of at least one Trump official in intelligence reports at a time when reports on Russia were reportedly being circulated broadly, according to a former intelligence official.

SUSAN RICE DENIES LEAKING TRUMP ASSOCIATE INTEL, DEFENDS UNMASKING REQUESTS

Responding to the accusation, Rice suggested in an interview on Tuesday that she "absolutely" did not order the unmasking of individuals for political purposes, and suggested that sometimes such a request would be necessary for an investigation.

"The allegation is that somehow Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes," Rice told MSNBC, "that is absolutely false.”

She said there were times she reviewed a report that referred to an American who was unnamed.

“And sometimes, in that context, in order to understand the importance of the report and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out, or request the information as to find out who that U.S. official was,” Rice said.

WHAT IS 'UNMASKING?' SUSAN RICE ALLEGEDLY SOUGHT NAMES OF TRUMP ASSOCIATES UNDER SURVEILLANCE

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who also serves on the Judiciary Committee, told Fox News earlier that while he doesn't know whether Rice acted improperly, “when it comes to Susan Rice, you need to verify, not trust.”

He said he does not want to form an opinion – just yet.

"There's a way to find out,” Graham said. “I intend to find out.”

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., took things one step further, suggesting Rice "ought to be under subpoena," adding that the stories emerging about Rice are "actually eerily similar to what Trump accused them of, which is eavesdropping on conversations for political reasons."

In a tweet earlier today, Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich also pointed out what she sees as the irony in the situation.

Katie Pavlich

✔@KatiePavlich
Democrats have gone from: Trump is insane for suggesting Obama admin spied on him ---> Susan Rice was just doing her job

"Democrats have gone from: Trump is insane for suggesting Obama admin spied on him,” the tweet said, “[to] Susan Rice was just doing her job."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...wing-calls-for-her-to-testify-under-oath.html

 

Enough with the Smokescreens: Susan Rice Caught 'Unmasking' Trump Aides as Democrats, Liberal Media Do Backflips to Divert Attention

By Liz Peek

Published April 04, 2017 | FoxNews.com

Enough with the smokescreens! Democrats, aided and abetted by their friends in the media, have long dismissed President Trump’s charges that he was “wiretapped” by former President Obama, even as evidence mounts that indeed surveillance of the Trump camp took place, and that information collected by so-called “incidental” monitoring was illegally leaked to the public.

The left would rather focus on speculation that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian agents to undermine Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, even though to date there has been zero evidence to support any such charge.

On Monday, in a revelation that Senator Rand Paul describes as a “smoking gun,” numerous sources outed former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice as behind the “unmasking” of Trump associates picked up through surveillance of foreign nationals.

While Rice had legal access to the electronic eavesdropping, and though her exposure of the identities of the individuals involved might be excused under certain circumstances, it is clear she has lied about her involvement and also about what took place in the Obama White House.

Under the harshest interpretation, it appears that Rice, possibly at the behest of President Obama, collected and distributed classified information about Trump and his associates with the sole purpose of politically damaging the incoming president.

If that is true, President Obama and one of his closest advisers committed a massive breach of trust with the American people; they have also confirmed that their White House was the most politicized in our history.

The story begins with a group within the National Security Council, headed by the senior director of intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, undertaking a review of the government’s policy on “unmasking.” Presumably they were intent on finding out who discovered, and then illegally leaked, the contents of phone calls between former Security Council chief Mike Flynn and the Russian ambassador, which ultimately led to Flynn’s ouster.

According to journalist Mike Cernovich, who broke the story, “The White House Counsel’s office identified Rice as the person responsible for the unmasking after examining Rice’s document log requests. The reports Rice requested to see are kept under tightly-controlled conditions. Each person must log her name before being granted access to them.”

The logs led National Security Adviser General H.R. McMaster to conclude that Rice had been responsible for uncovering the identities of individuals who were picked up in “incidental” surveillance of foreign nationals. Usually, such persons are reported anonymously to protect their privacy. No one has yet accused Rice of leaking the information that she collected.

Read the full story in the Opinion section on FoxNews.com

 

Mainstream Media Run to Defense of Obama, Rice, Decry 'Diversion' After Bombshell Unmasking Reports

By Kelly Riddell - The Washington Times

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

On the heels of a bombshell report that Susan Rice – former President Barack Obama’s right hand woman – asked dozens of times for intelligence agencies to unmask the names of Trump associates, the mainstream media is predictably, providing her cover.

Instead of investigating the report, which was first broken by Bloomberg News on Monday, the press corps is calling it a “distraction” from the real story of potential Trump administration collusion with Russia.

Let’s be clear. There are two stories worth pursuing. One is the FBI’s investigation into any collusion between the Trump administration and Russia. So far, no evidence has been provided that there was any. The second is why did Ms. Rice seek this unmasking and was it done for political purposes – in other words, did the Obama administration actively seek to spy on the incoming Trump administration?

The second story doesn’t interest the mainstream media – which instead of investigating, immediately aimed to discredit

“If victim [Lt. Gen Michael] Flynn hadn’t been ‘unmasked’ – would Trump have fired him? Would it be better to have ‘masked’ man Flynn running the NSC,” New York Times reporter Glenn Thrush questioned on Twitter, defending the illegally leaked reports to the media that led to Mr. Flynn’s resignation.

Apparently, the criminal act of unmasking Mr. Flynn and then leaking his name to the press is of no concern to Mr. Thrush. Neither are accusations Ms. Rice may have sought and been granted that unmasking.

Read the full story in the Washington Times

 

Susan Rice: Fresh Evidence the Trump-Russia 'Scandal' Is a Team Obama Operation

By The New York 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.

Those leaks have produced a nagging political sore for the new administration — leading to the ouster of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, helping to drive down President Trump’s approval ratings and making it harder for him to push his program through.

Rice certainly wasn’t politically naive about the political uses of intelligence information. She was, after all, the Obama official who famously made the rounds spouting the false our intel says it was about the video line on the Benghazi attack back during the 2012 campaign.

Read the full story at the New York Pos

 

What Is 'Unmasking'?

Published April 04, 2017 FoxNews.com

WASHINGTON – Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice has been named by multiple sources as the Obama administation official who "unmasked" Trump campaign or transition team officials who were caught up in surveillance of other targets.

The development has rocked Washington, as critics say it could be evidence that the outgoing administration used its foreign surveillance powers to spy on the incoming White House team.

The law that allows the federal intelligence community to spy on foreign actors, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, has safeguards in place that are designed to protect Americans who are "incidentally" recorded. One protection is that they must be "masked."

___

WHAT IS "UNMASKING?"

When a U.S. intelligence agency, such as the National Security Agency, conducts surveillance of a foreigner inside the U.S., sometimes that surveillance will include the name of an American that the foreigner is speaking to or about. When this happens, intelligence analysts are obliged to hide or "minimize" the name of the American, unless knowing the American's name is necessary to understanding the foreign intelligence described in the report.

"If, for instance, an intelligence piece were about Russian intelligence assets engaged in an operation to influence political figures, the identity of the political figure would be necessary," said Todd Hinnen, head of the Justice Department's National Security Division during the Obama administration and a National Security Council staff member under George W. Bush. "Unless you know the answer to that question, you can't appreciate the meaning and importance of the intelligence."

WHO CAN UNMASK AN AMERICANS NAME?

The answer varies by U.S. intelligence agency. Last month, National Security Agency director Michael Rogers told lawmakers there are 20 people at the NSA, including himself, who have the authority to reveal the name of an American in a surveillance report.

Read the full story at FoxNews.com

 

Edward Snowden may hold keys into ‘unmasked’ intel requested by Susan Rice

By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Tuesday, April 4, 2017

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The question of what kinds of communications got Donald Trump aides caught up in incidental U.S. wiretaps may be answered by the ultra-leaker on such matters: Edward Snowden.

Mr. Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor, provided The Guardian in 2013 with top secret documents that showed the U.S. wiretaps a wide array of embassies in Washington, friend and foe.

The bugging would be done under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows the NSA to tap electronic communications of virtually any foreign operative. Targets do not have to be suspected spies or terrorists to fetch surveillance. They can simply be foreign agents conducting diplomacy.


Mr. Trump, as the Republican presidential nominee and then as president elect, would have attracted a number of phone calls and emails from Washington diplomats seeking any information they could then relay to their respective capitals about the unpredictable incoming president.

It is likely that these types of communications become part of intelligence reports.

Susan Rice, President Barack Obama’s National Security Adviser, asked for dozens of such reports from intelligence agencies, Bloomberg View reported. She requested that the names of Mr. Trump’s aides be “unmasked,” in other words mentioned by name in the reports instead of being redacted. FISA was written to protect the privacy by masking innocent U.S. citizens incidentally caught up in a wiretap.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/4/susan-rice-edward-snowden-may-hold-key-unmasking-s/

 

Now we know that trump revealed classified information.

 

Here is her statement on the matter as reported by Alan Neuhauser

"I leaked nothing to nobody and never have and never would,"

Looks like a confession to me.

 

From the original source of the Rice story:

The title of this thread is based on spurious noise coming from Bullshit Mountain, as the "supporting" articles show beyond any doubt. Stooges gotta stooge.

 

Liberals are scrambling. This is big-time, even The Sniveling Liar won't show his face.

 

Bullshit mountain indeed. They drink that shit in 24/7. What a bunch of ignorant sluts.

They simply ignore the fact that Flynn was feasting on Putin's dick. Manafort was licking his balls. And Trump was luxuriating in his golden showers. All sick bastards for sure.

 

You have absolutely no class.

 

That means exactly nothing coming from an ignorant dumb asses like you and your ilk. You're so damn stupid that you all sound like a bunch of braying jackasses.

 

WHAT DID OBAMA KNOW AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT???


April 5, 2017

While Susan Rice is defending as routine her requests for the identities of Americans caught up in surveillance of foreign targets, others who’ve served in the intelligence community and at high levels of government say the former national security adviser's requests were quite unusual.

Rice, who served in the Obama administration, is at the heart of allegations of improper surveillance of the Trump team prior to Inauguration Day.

Fox News reported Monday that Rice asked for Trump associates to be identified – or “unmasked” – in intelligence reports and those names were then widely disseminated at the top levels of the government. In an interview Tuesday on MSNBC, Rice largely skirted talking specifically about those allegations, however, she said it was “absolutely false” that Obama officials utilized intelligence “for political purposes.”

Rice’s defenders also have said unmasking requests would be a typical part of her job -- and her authority to make such requests generally is not being questioned. Rice said Tuesday the process helped provide “context” “in order to understand the importance of the report and understand the significance.”

“It is hard to fathom how the demasking of multiple Trump campaign and transition officials was not politically motivated.”

- Fred Fleitz, ex-CIA analyst

Former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau tweeted his coarsely-worded case: "It was her f------ job to know this information! This is utter bulls---."

Her detractors, however, say that’s not the case.

“From my direct experience dealing at this level, that is never done,” retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer told Fox News. Shaffer has experience in intelligence operations focused on foreign actors in which U.S. citizens’ involvement could surface.

“The national security adviser person is a manager position, not an analyst position,” he said. “You have analysts in the intelligence community whose job is to sort through who is doing what with what. Susan Rice is a senior manager looking over the entire intelligence community. She should not have time to be unmasking individuals having conversations. It’s insane. It’s never done.”

Ex-CIA analyst Fred Fleitz agreed in a Fox News op-ed.

“Rice’s denials don’t add up,” Fleitz wrote. “It is hard to fathom how the demasking of multiple Trump campaign and transition officials was not politically motivated.”

Former Ambassador to the United Nations and Fox News contributor John Bolton told “America’s Newsroom” that Rice’s requests may have been improper depending on what reason she gave for wanting the information.

“Now I’m not naïve, a national security adviser’s gonna get her request approved. But she still has to give some reason,” said Bolton, who served under former President George W. Bush. “If she doesn’t even have to give a reason than NSA is really quite negligent. Susan Rice is obviously not gonna say, ‘I want these names unmasked so I can surveil my political opponents.’ And if she said she wanted the names unmasked for national security reasons, that’s a fraud on the intelligence system.”

Shaffer said a U.S. citizen’s interaction with a foreign target is not typically reason enough to unmask an American.

“These techniques, technology and procedures are reserved for potential violations of U.S. laws,” he said, adding of Rice’s alleged actions: “It’s not only legally insufficient, it’s politically insane.”

 

The Sniveling Liar is on defense. His world is crashing in.

 

Calling you morons out is not a defensive posture. It's actually an offensive manuver. Try to keep up Jack-off.

 

No comment on Susan Rice?

 

Subpoena her to testify!!! We must find out the extent of the abuse of this power. Did the abuse extend all the way to the Oval Office? Probably. We need to know if obama used this information against a political opponent. I'd like to know what the Hilderbeast knew about this, too.

On Susan Rice, the Issue Is Abuse of Power, Not Criminality

At her direction, the Obama White House violated the public trust

By Andrew McCarthy, The National Review

April 5, 2017

On Tuesday, in a National Review Online column, I contended that the reported involvement of former national-security adviser Susan Rice in the unmasking of Trump officials appears to be a major scandal — it suggests that the Obama White House, of which she was a high-ranking staffer, abused the power to collect intelligence on foreign targets, by using it to spy on the opposition party and its presidential candidate.

It should come as no surprise that the defense Ms. Rice and Obama apologists are mounting is heavily reliant on a fact that is not in dispute: viz., that the intelligence collection at issue was legal.

I anticipated that line of argument a week ago. The issue is not technical legality, it is monumental abuse of power.

To analogize, if a judge imposed a 20-year jail term on a man for passing a marijuana cigarette to a second man, the sentence would be perfectly legal — a distribution of a Schedule I narcotic drug controlled substance calls for a sentence of up to 20 years’ imprisonment, see 21 U.S.C. §841(b)(1)(C). Nevertheless, the sentence would also be an outrageous abuse of judicial power. A judge who did such a thing would be unfit — worthy of condemnation, if not impeachment.

Abuses of power are offenses against the public trust. They often overlap with a criminal offense, but they are not the same thing as a criminal offense. For example, a politician who accepts money in exchange for political favors commits both the crime of bribery and an impeachable offense of corruption. The jurors in the bribery case need not find that the politician breached his public trust; they need only find an intentional quid pro quo — payoff in exchange for favor. By contrast, the breach of public trust is central to the impeachment case: To remove the pol from office, there would be no need to prove the legal elements of a criminal bribery charge beyond a reasonable doubt, but it would have to be demonstrated that the politician is unfit for office. If it is a petty bribe, a prosecutor might ignore it, but the public should want to throw the bum out.

This is why a “high crime and misdemeanor” — the constitutional standard for impeachment — need not be an indictable criminal offense. It may be a chargeable crime, but it need not be one.

Read the full story in the National Review→

 

Seems to me it is the entire population of Democrats that comprise the party of braying jackasses . . . your foresight is excellent . . . no wonder you're the party of unintended consequences!

 

The totally phony Susan Rice story, explained
The former national security advisor’s surveillance activity is neither illegal or unethical.


National Security Advisor Susan Rice follows President Barack Obama across the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, to board Marine One, Thursday, July 7, 2016. CREDIT: AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

Conservatives are seizing on a report that former national security advisor Susan Rice requested the identity of anonymous people named in intelligence reports, claiming that it provides evidence for President Trump’s false claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped.

Bloomberg’s Eli Lake reported Monday that Rice requested the “unmasking” of third parties whose information is collected during targeted surveillance of other individuals. Conservative media jumped on the claim and reported that it corroborates Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee’s allegation that information about Trump’s transition team had been “incidentally collected” during U.S. government surveillance of foreign officials.

But the reports, which originated from the far-right, fringe corners of the internet, do not reveal any illegal activity or violation of privacy laws. They also provide no support for President Trump’s still entirely-unsubstantiated claim that the Obama administration’s surveillance targeted Trump officials.

Funneled from the far right
Susan Rice’s involvement in the unmasking was first reported by far-right extremist Mike Cernovich, who published a story on Medium Sunday alleging that the mainstream media has been attempting to cover up the revelation.

“This reporter has been informed that Maggie Haberman has had this story about Susan Rice for at least 48 hours, and has chosen to sit on it in an effort to protect the reputation of former President Barack Obama,” Cernovich wrote.

Cernovich, a white nationalist, misogynist, and a key figure in the Pizzagate controversy, has been called the “meme mastermind of the alt-right.”

Less than 24 hours later, Bloomberg’s Eli Lake picked up the same reports on Rice’s activity, citing “U.S. officials familiar with the matter.”


Unlike Cernovich, Lake noted that Rice’s unmasking “does not vindicate Trump’s own tweets from March 4 in which he accused Obama of illegally tapping Trump Tower.” Lake did not allege that Rice’s activity is unlawful, but he did write that her actions “highlight a longstanding concern” about surveillance programs.

“[Rice’s] role in requesting the identities of Trump transition officials adds an important element to the dueling investigations surrounding the Trump White House since the president’s inauguration,” Lake wrote.

Within hours, headlines highlighting Rice’s involvement appeared across the conservative internet on sites including Breitbart News, the Daily Caller, the Washington Times, the Washington Examiner, the New York Post, and Gateway Pundit.

In the Washington Examiner, David Fredosso wrote that “Eli Lake has the story that everybody should be talking about today.”

On Fox News, reporter Adam Housley called the unmasking “unprecedented” and stoked anger by claiming that the “names of Americans who had done nothing wrong was disseminated to all of the NSC, some at DOD, Clapper, Brennan, basically the people at the top.” Shortly after, Trump tweeted about the segment.


But according to national security experts, Rice’s actions are far from unprecedented.

No legal or privacy issue
The names of unidentified Americans are masked in intelligence reports to protect the identity of third-parties. When someone with credentials to request the classified information asks for the names to be revealed solely to them, the process is known as unmasking.

The unmasking of unidentified Americans in intelligence reports is within the scope of the job of a national security advisor like Rice. According to Kate Martin, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, Rice’s actions are likely legal and probably do not even raise privacy concerns if the individuals were part of the Trump transition team. (ThinkProgress is an editorially independent news website housed at the Center for American Progress).

When an American’s identity in a classified intelligence report is unmasked, only those who have a security clearance and the authority to view the classified information may see the unmasked report, Martin said. The information may not be shared with individual members of Congress, let alone outside the government.

Conversations by foreign government officials are routinely surveilled, and those speaking with ambassadors should expect that their conversations may be wiretapped.

Given Russia’s involvement in the U.S. election, it’s not surprising that Rice would look at intelligence reports on Russia, including conversations by Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. If those conversations were with Americans, it follows that Rice would ask for the names to understand more about the conversation.

“There is no legal issue, and if the conversations were by official members of the presidential transition team conducting government business, it is hard to even see what privacy interest those individuals had in such conversations,” Martin said.

On Twitter, Brookings Institution fellow Susan Hennessey expressed a similar skepticism at the validity of the “bombshell” reports on Rice’s unmasking.


Hennessey also wrote that “what we’re seeing here is US officials doing jobs to respond to what had markers of a counterintelligence threat: the Trump campaign.”

Trump still has no support for surveillance claims
Early last month, Trump claimed on Twitter that Obama wiretapped his New York hotel, unleashing weeks of responses, investigations, and allegations.


But Trump and his team have not found any evidence over the last month. In fact, all of the evidence has pointed to the fact that Trump completely made up the claim.

First, FBI Director James Comey asked the Department of Justice to publicly rebut Trump’s allegations. Then James Clapper, former director of national intelligence, rebutted Trump’s claim. And then leaders of the House Intelligence Committee announced they didn’t find any evidence. Senate Intelligence Committee leaders said the same thing.

All of the official reports so far have disputed Trump’s comparison to Watergate and claims that the wiretapping was illegal.

While trying to come up with evidence, however, Nunes has been caught collaborating with Trump officials, raising questions about the legitimacy of his investigation and his relationship with the administration. By now trying to implicate Rice, who is already seen as villainous by many in the GOP,conservatives are searching hard for a distraction.