Home » The Susan Rice unmasking timeline and motives

Comments

The Susan Rice unmasking timeline and motives — 10 Comments

  1. Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy’s AmeriKa is a land in which women have killed 50+ million children, blacks will never be satisfied, police can only use deadly force upon white criminals, schoolchildren are indoctrinated into demonstrably insane ideas, indecent writers and artists are celebrated, and the Federal courts regularly violate the Constitution…

    Thank God they stopped Bork’s America…

  2. This strikes me as wrong. In considering which comes first, the chicken or the egg. it’s important to remember that a FISA warrant to spy on Trump was rejected in June 2016. There have only ever been about a dozen ever turned down which tells you how little merit it had. The linking of Trump with Russia it seems to me was a backdoor way to get the warrant since they would never say no to a request that was put forth as a “national security” issue. No one ever suspect collusion between Trump and Russia. That’s rubbish. That’s the Wizard of Oz to distract people from the man behind the curtain.

  3. Evelyn Farkas said this about the Obama administration delving into a possible Trump/Russia connection:

    “If they found out how we knew what we knew about their, the staff, the Trump staff’s dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence,” Farkas told MSNBC. “So I became very worried, because not enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more.”
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/donald-trump-elaine-farkas-intelligence-obama/

    Since she left the Defense Department in 2015 when Trump was a long shot candidate, the implication is that they, possibly or probably including Rice, were focused on Trump early on. This is the reason I assumed Rice was doing it from 2015. What other intelligence gathering were they doing besides unmasking Trump and his associates? And was it only Trump? Surely other Republican candidates or their advisors had conversations with the Russian ambassador.

    Neo says:

    These contacts were initially uncovered through surveillance of the Russians, so at the beginning it seems that nothing was suspected about Trump or his operatives and their possible connection to the Russians. Certainly that was not the reason for the eavesdropping.

    That is contradicted by Evelyn Farkas statement quoted above. She indicates they were interested very early on.

  4. The Other Chuck:

    I didn’t say that the Obama administration didn’t suspect anything about Trump. Indications are, however, that the surveillance of the Russians was separate from that suspicion and relatively standard.

    In other words, when have we ever NOT eavesdropped on the Russians? This was business as usual. But the Trump people were caught up in that, and then that fact was used by the Obama people for political reasons.

  5. “(2) to let the names filter down to other people so that they could be leaked to the press”

    “But the Trump people were caught up in that, and then that fact was used by the Obama people for political reasons.

    Maybe, maybe not. A very fine line to draw that conclusion.

    It is easy enough to imagine and then perhaps assume so, given our political world view.

    BUT, do we have proof for these assertions?

    What is the “normal” standard for “unmasking” an American citizen who was incidentally observed in a regular operation?

    What are “normal” “further action of some sort”?
    .

    I’m definitely not a rice fan, and do think it very possible she behaved as assumed.

    On the other hand, trump’s and team’s behavior around all things “Russia” have been rather strange themselves. Might be nothing, or might be something about one or more individuals.

    Of course we could assume the worst of both sides, and declare them “guilty” of whatever we want before we have sufficient facts.

    In any case, worthy of investigating all this to its unsatisfactory end, as there will be a taint over the whole with these assumptions / narratives persisting, seeking validation from scraps of facts and factoids.

  6. Big Maq does it again, biting into a slur and passing it on without a scintilla of evidence except for Flynn and Sessions meeting with a Russkie ambassador, which he calls “all”, as in his ” trump’s and team’s behavior around all things “Russia” have been rather strange themselves.”
    Too much time with the NYT perhaps.

  7. Of course we could assume the worst of both sides, and declare them “guilty” of whatever we want before we have sufficient facts.

    That is precisely what Neo is NOT doing here, and why she went to the trouble of answering a couple of questions I raised. It is also NOT what the MSM is about these days. Here is Jonathan Turley pointing out how they are running cover for Rice:
    https://jonathanturley.org/2017/04/04/i-know-nothing-about-this-rice-accused-of-ordering-unmasking-of-trump-aides-and-then-lying-about-her-knowledge/comment-page-3/

  8. It’s early days yet for this spying scandal, but the reporting is clearly under way. It sounds like the Obama administration routinely abused its intelligence gathering for political purposes. They spied on Congress during the Iran so-called deal, remember? Here’s a good piece that connects the dots (includes both facts and speculation): http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/229062/did-the-obama-administrations-abuse-of-foreign-intelligence-collection-start-before-trump

  9. @Other Chuck – as I said, it is a very fine line to draw the (her) conclusion.

    I don’t know how much is obama’s people taking political advantage of the scenario, or how much is a “reasonable” suspicion and action.

    Bottom line is that there is a whole lot of speculation going on to fill the gaps between the few things that we do know (which is not much).
    .

    Neo lamented in a few of her posts about the difficulty in finding the “truth”, particularly in these times where media coverage is often very tinged with their own team’s spin / narrative.

    We are enablers of this to the extent we buy into what they are telling us, when the facts don’t conclusively support it.

    Since 2008, 2012, and, especially, 2016, IMHO, we’ve as much reason to be skeptical of “conservative” media almost as much as the msm (though I do like McCarthy’s column).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>