What exactly did Susan Rice do? Here’s what it’s called:
Code § 2384


Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Debbie Wasserman Shultz, involved thousands of their top level employees to “do the dirty work” for them in order to engineer their desired political results while keeping their own hands clean.

Everything would have been fine “if” Hillary won – and no one would have been the wiser. What they never counted on, and many have not yet wrapped themselves around, is that President Donald J. Trump won the Office of the United States Presidency.

By using their underlings, Clinton, Obama and Wasserman Shultz utilized all of the United States’ government’s investigative departments to engage in numerous crimes against the United States. What they did has a name – its legal name is seditious conspiracy and it carries a 20 year federal penalty, a fine or both.

The list of actual participant names in these federal crimes carried out against President Trump is too long to list here…

Donna Brazile was a troublemaker back in 1988

And she’s still a troublemaker in 2017

Crimes were clearly committed

In a TV appearance, Susan Rice remains adamant that the Obama administration didn’t spy on the incoming Trump administration. Really? A growing body of evidence suggests just the opposite, and that a crime was likely committed.

“The allegation is that somehow, Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes,” Rice told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “That’s absolutely false. … There was no such collection or surveillance on Trump Tower or Trump individuals, it is important to understand, directed by the White House or targeted at Trump individuals.”

As denials go that’s pretty categorical, but it falls apart on even superficial scrutiny.

Let’s start with the wording. As we’ve noted before, this is clever, lawyerly evasion, not truth-telling. She’s right, in one sense: They designed this intel operation so that “Trump individuals” wouldn’t be targets, but “incidental” to gathering information about foreigners.

But what suggests that the Trump team members caught in this spy web weren’t merely “incidental,” but were actually the targets of the operation, is that Rice reportedly ordered spreadsheets “prepared” of the phone calls involving Trump, his aides and transition officials. This suggests that, contrary to Rice’s assertion, they were being targeted. It’s evidence of intent, basically.

It was bad enough, as we noted on Monday, when sources revealed that Rice had repeatedly “unmasked” the identities of Trump aides and officials in intelligence intercepts. When intelligence is collected on a foreign official speaking with a U.S. citizen, the U.S. citizen is supposed to be protected — or “masked” in the parlance.

That Rice repeatedly “unmasked” Trump officials suggests a purpose to use the data for something other than intelligence.

As we have known all along, the intercepts were distributed to others, including some in the media, such as Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who broke the story about Gen. Michael Flynn’s discussions with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak. Flynn subsequently resigned from Trump’s administration.

As Fox News’ Adam Housley reported: “The unmasked names of people associated with Donald Trump were then sent to all those at the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan — essentially, the officials at the top, including former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes.”

Yet Rice, who has lied repeatedly in public before — Benghazi is a clear example of this — now suggests that it was all done out of a desire to find out about Russian meddling in our election. It would be legal, if true.

But, in fact, the unmasking of intelligence involving Trump people appears to be part of a campaign by the Obama administration that started late last year to delegitimize Trump and to render his presidency null and void. Why else would this information be so widely distributed? This is political espionage, using the U.S. intelligence apparatus to do the spying on someone who had just won the presidency.

Sorry, but this looks like a crime. At bare minimum, it is an abuse of power, which Wikipedia defines as “the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties.” That pretty much sums it up.

The only question now is did President Obama know that unlawful acts against his political foe were being committed in his name? And did he actually approve them? If so, Obama, the former University of Chicago lecturer in constitutional law, may soon find out that even a president isn’t above the law, but is subject to it just as the rest of us are.

Only a congressional investigation can get to the bottom of this, just as during Watergate. Let’s get going.



Facebook Comments