It Was Susan Rice!

 

In a revelation that surprised nobody thinking logically (who else could it have been?) Bloomberg has been the first (second if you choose to include Mike Cernovich) to admit that they know it was Susan Rice who signed the logs getting her the information that eventually led to the Obama Administration “unmasking” the civilians on the Trump Team who were “unintentionally suveilled” by various security agencies.

In my opinion, this is the biggest story since Watergate about political intrigue, and it is the biggest story not covered by the MSM since Matt Drudge revealed the Bill Clinton – Monica Lewinsky story after it was buried. Like him or not, we owe Cernovich a big “thank you”. From Zero Hedge:

Once again it appears that Trump was right: the conspiracy theory that a close Obama associate worked to “unmask” the Trump team, resulting in the ongoing media spectacle over “collusion” between Trump and the Kremlin, has been confirmed, first by Mike Cernovich, and now by Bloomberg itself.

As noted last night, Journalist and author Mike Cernovich dropped an exclusive bombshell – naming Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice as the official responsible for the ‘unmasking’ of the incoming Trump team during ‘incidental’ surveillance. This was apparently discovered after the White House Counsel’s office reviewed 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.

Upon learning of Rice’s actions, [National Security Advisor] H. R. McMaster dispatched his close aide Derek Harvey to Capitol Hill to brief Chairman Nunes.

There are 68 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    All my knowledge of this type of wire-tapping, surveillance of private citizens comes from the Good Wife.

    I keep hearing how something should be “big” but nothing ever comes of it. Is this an action deserving of jail time? That’s the only thing that would be “big” where these people are concerned.

    • #1
  2. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    The report I read at Bloomberg indicated she sought the names of the individuals but there was no evidence she was the source of the leeks. Is there another piece that has that information?

    • #2
  3. Taras Bulbous Inactive
    Taras Bulbous
    @TarasBulbous

    And a defeaning silence from the MSM.

    • #3
  4. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    You know what they say, dear Susan Rice: What goes around, comes around.

    • #4
  5. outlaws6688 Inactive
    outlaws6688
    @outlaws6688

    First it was Donald Trump lied in his tweet, then it was he is a conspiracy theorist (true he has dabbled in conspiracy theories), then it was prove it, and now its that this doesn’t prove she was the source of the leaks. Next week I’m sure it will be Trump deserved to be spied on. I just think it is funny Conservatives find nothing wrong with surveillance and leaking of information on American citizens as long as that citizen is their enemy.

    • #5
  6. Guruforhire Member
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    Is there a youtube video to blame it on?

    • #6
  7. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    The report I read at Bloomberg indicated she sought the names of the individuals but there was no evidence she was the source of the leeks. Is there another piece that has that information?

    When did Rice start growing leeks?

    • #7
  8. Old Bathos Moderator
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Poor Susan Rice was heroically trying to prevent the Putin takeover of America and now Putin’s puppet GOP henchmen are turning on her because she exposed them and they are trying to criminalize her whistleblowing struggle!  

    If you think this is a really stupid take on events, wait a few days until it becomes PC received wisdom on MSNBC and CNN.

    • #8
  9. Damocles Inactive
    Damocles
    @Damocles

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    there was no evidence she was the source of the leeks.

    The Onion has this information.

    • #9
  10. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    The report I read at Bloomberg indicated she sought the names of the individuals but there was no evidence she was the source of the leeks. Is there another piece that has that information?

    That she sought or obtained the names clearly is circumstantial evidence that she was the source of the leaks. The weight of that evidence depends on other factors, but many potential such factors are merely artifacts of other misconduct by her or others in the Obama administration.

    • #10
  11. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    The report I read at Bloomberg indicated she sought the names of the individuals but there was no evidence she was the source of the leeks. Is there another piece that has that information?

    That she sought or obtained the names clearly is circumstantial evidence that she was the source of the leaks. The weight of that evidence depends on other factors, but many potential such factors are merely artifacts of other misconduct by her or others in the Obama administration.

    Right I’m looking for that evidence, if it comes to light she should go to jail.

    • #11
  12. La Tapada Member
    La Tapada
    @LaTapada

    Can you imagine how the press would be reporting right now if the political parties in this issue were reversed?!

    • #12
  13. JcTPatriot Inactive
    JcTPatriot
    @JcTPatriot

    La Tapada (View Comment):
    Can you imagine how the press would be reporting right now if the political parties in this issue were reversed?!

    It boggles the mind to imagine. If it had been Bush and say, Condoleezza Rice or Stephen Hadley doing it to Obama and his fellow travelers, the NYT would have been calling for a retroactive impeachment, and prison time for his National Security Advisor.

    • #13
  14. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

    Don’t feed the trolls, please, everybody.

    • #14
  15. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

    I predict that:

    1. Unless Trump gets involved specifically with this that nothing will happen.
    2. Either way, Jeff Sessions will drag his feet.
    • #15
  16. Carol Member
    Carol
    @

    Larry Koler (View Comment):
    Either way, Jeff Sessions will drag his feet.

    Can you elaborate on this?

    • #16
  17. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

    Carol (View Comment):

    Larry Koler (View Comment):
    Either way, Jeff Sessions will drag his feet.

    Can you elaborate on this?

    I’m just suspicious of him — he recused himself when he never should have done so. This shows he’s either too cautious or weak.

    Has he done anything of note since he’s been in? One would think that there’s nothing going on that’s really serious or needs serious investigation.

    That’s the extent of my knowledge but it’s based on watching Republicans for many years now.

    • #17
  18. MSJL Thatcher
    MSJL
    @MSJL

    La Tapada (View Comment):
    Can you imagine how the press would be reporting right now if the political parties in this issue were reversed?!

    I believe they called it Plamegate, which continued until they got Lewis Libby’s scalp.

    My sense is that those who were outraged by that will be less zealous about pursuing the truth now.

    • #18
  19. Charles Mark Member
    Charles Mark
    @CharlesMark

    She was promoted after the Benghazi fiasco. No way this goes anywhere.

    • #19
  20. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    The report I read at Bloomberg indicated she sought the names of the individuals but there was no evidence she was the source of the leeks. Is there another piece that has that information?

    That she sought or obtained the names clearly is circumstantial evidence that she was the source of the leaks. The weight of that evidence depends on other factors, but many potential such factors are merely artifacts of other misconduct by her or others in the Obama administration.

    Right I’m looking for that evidence, if it comes to light she should go to jail.

    All she had to do is give it to one other person and she is then guilty. That is dissemination. I know you are sharp enough to see that,

     

    • #20
  21. Duke Powell Coolidge
    Duke Powell
    @AmbulanceDriver

    1) While she was a very “high-up” Obama official, we cannot discount the possibility that she is a “firewall” protecting Lynch, Brennan and Obama.

    2) The Mike Cernovich attribution is much appreciated. However, Eli Lake may (or may not) have been sitting on his story for a good reason. The story has yet to play out….

    3) The last paragraph that referenced Fox News and Adam Housley was new information to me.

    4) I have just listened to the “Commentary” podcast from the Main Feed and found it painful from beginning to end. We, as a Party, are not on the same page. Much work is to be done.

    • #21
  22. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    The report I read at Bloomberg indicated she sought the names of the individuals but there was no evidence she was the source of the leeks. Is there another piece that has that information?

    That she sought or obtained the names clearly is circumstantial evidence that she was the source of the leaks. The weight of that evidence depends on other factors, but many potential such factors are merely artifacts of other misconduct by her or others in the Obama administration.

    Right I’m looking for that evidence, if it comes to light she should go to jail.

    All she had to do is give it to one other person and she is then guilty. That is dissemination. I know you are sharp enough to see that,

    It depends on who she gave it to right? I mean if she gave it to The President then it wasn’t illegal. He has the right to declassify that information as far as I am aware.

    • #22
  23. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    Duke Powell (View Comment):
    1) While she was a very “high-up” Obama official, we cannot discount the possibility that she is a “firewall” protecting Lynch, Brennan and Obama.

     

    She was the administrations ‘designated liar’.  On more than one occasion she was sent out to peddle obvious lies.  And, as mentioned, she was promoted afterwards.

    • #23
  24. jonb60173 Member
    jonb60173
    @jonb60173

    Yeah, well I would be pleasantly surprised if this information ekes past the center-right websites and into the homes of  the average Joe

    • #24
  25. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    The report I read at Bloomberg indicated she sought the names of the individuals but there was no evidence she was the source of the leeks. Is there another piece that has that information?

    That she sought or obtained the names clearly is circumstantial evidence that she was the source of the leaks. The weight of that evidence depends on other factors, but many potential such factors are merely artifacts of other misconduct by her or others in the Obama administration.

    Right I’m looking for that evidence, if it comes to light she should go to jail.

    All she had to do is give it to one other person and she is then guilty. That is dissemination. I know you are sharp enough to see that,

    It depends on who she gave it to right? I mean if she gave it to The President then it wasn’t illegal. He has the right to declassify that information as far as I am aware.

    Did he declassify it? Then we can see it. In either event it makes the ‘essence’ of Trump’s tweet about the President accurate. Somewhere didn’t we see where the White House NSA staff had gone from 40 to 400 under Obama. I’ll bet some who are loyal to Obama are in there making mischief. Trump really needs to clean house.

    • #25
  26. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Anyone here who would like complete background on the corruption within the intelligence agencies should go to raymcgovern.com. He has been working on exposing for almost three decades.

    • #26
  27. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    It depends on who she gave it to right? I mean if she gave it to The President then it wasn’t illegal. He has the right to declassify that information as far as I am aware.

    I think Obama is the only one she could give it to and be legal. As far as we know it has not been declassified. So that leaves Rice or Obama to commit the illegal act.

    • #27
  28. Doug Watt Moderator
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    My money was on Ben Rhodes, the model for Pajama Boy. Oh well, the Sandy Berger story of getting caught stuffing documents down his pants in the Library of Congress is still going to be hard to top.

    • #28
  29. Mike LaRoche Inactive
    Mike LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    Lock her up!

    • #29
  30. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Mike LaRoche (View Comment):
    Lock her up!

    I think so. She signed the log to unmask the prohibited information so the fact that that information was disseminated is on her. This is a case where the circumstantial evidence should be enough.

    • #30

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.