Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Susan Rice’

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – All O’s Women

All the women involved in the ObamaGate scandal, under oath, and when talking to the media.

All Obama’s WomenPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Yuge Shoes to Fill

Obama, the worst president ever, is now calling Trump incompetent for his job well done on the corona-crisis.

Trump’s Big Shoes to FillPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump.

BREAKING: Grenell Declassifies Full Text of Susan Rice’s January 20, 2017 Email About Secret Oval Office Meeting


Reported By Cristina Laila | Published May 19, 2020 at 1:31pm

Ric Grenell

Acting DNI Richard Grenell is blowing up ObamaGate!

Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-WI) wrote a letter to US Attorney General William Barr on Monday requesting he declassify the remaining portion of Susan Rice’s January 20, 2017 email to herself about the secret Oval Office meeting with the coup cabal.

“I request you review and declassify the remaining portion of Ambassador Rice’s January 20, 2017, email and provide it to my office,” Johnson wrote.

Recall, Senator Grassley uncovered a bizarre, partially declassified email former NatSec Advisor to Barack Obama, Susan Rice sent herself on January 20th 2017–Donald Trump’s inauguration day.

Grenell declassified the entire email, however it has not been released to the public yet.


KIMBERLY STRASSEL: Sources say acting DNI Richard Grenell has declassified full text of the January 20, 2017 Susan Rice “email to self.” Part of the email had been released, but part remained redacted. It has been sent to DOJ; let’s hope Congress gets ahold and releases it soon.

Kimberley Strassel

@KimStrassel

BREAKING: Sources say acting DNI Richard Grenell has declassified full text of the January 20, 2017 Susan Rice “email to self.” Part of the email had been released, but part remained redacted. It has been sent to DOJ; let’s hope Congress gets ahold and releases it soon.

14.6K people are talking about this


Here’s the backstory:

In February 2018, Chuck Grassley (R-IA) posted to his official Senate website:

Ambassador Rice appears to have used this email to document a January 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting between President Obama, former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates regarding Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election.  In particular, Ambassador Rice wrote:

“President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book’.  The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective.  He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.”

Grassley doubted the FBI, DOJ or State Department proceeded ‘by the book.’

Grassley said in a letter to Susan Rice:

“It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia investigation. In addition, despite your claim that President Obama repeatedly told Mr. Comey to proceed ‘by the book,’ substantial questions have arisen about whether officials at the FBI, as well as at the Justice Department and the State Department, actually did proceed ‘by the book.’”

Senator Johnson wanted the remaining portion of Susan Rice’s letter declassified so the American people know what happened in the secret Oval Office meeting shortly before Donald Trump was sworn in as US President.

Report: Acting DNI Grenell Declassifies List of Obama Officials Involved in Flynn ‘Unmasking’


Reported by JOSHUA CAPLAN | 

URL of the originating web site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/12/report-acting-dni-grenell-declassifies-list-of-obama-officials-involved-in-flynn-unmasking/

President Barack Obama confers with Samantha Power, left, Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs, and Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, before they attended a wreath laying ceremony at the memorial for United Nations staff killed in Iraq at the U.N. Headquarters in New York, N.Y., on … / White House Photo / Pete Souza

Grenell brought the list of officials to the Department of Justice last week, an unnamed official told the news outlet. No further details of the intelligence official’s visit to the Justice Department are known.

In 2017, former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice reportedly told the House Intelligence Committee she “unmasked” several Trump associates to find out why United Arab Emirates’ crown prince, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, visited New York without notifying the Obama administration.

Samantha Power, Obama-era U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (UN), is also believed to have made up to 260 requests to “unmask” U.S. citizens tied into surveillance of non-U.S. citizens, according to Fox News. She reportedly requested information seen in the days leading up to Trump’s inauguration. Then-Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) later revealed Power testified that a portion of the “unmasking” requests made in her name were made by others.

ABC News’ report comes after the Justice Department dropped its criminal case against Flynn, who plead guilty to making false statements to the FBI regarding his contacts with Kislyak. The decision to drop its case comes after handwritten notes compiled by FBI officials questioned whether the “goal” was “to get [the Trump official] to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”

Ahead of the filing’s release, prosecutor Brandon Van Grack moved to withdraw from the case.

In an interview with CBS News, Attorney General William Barr defended the decision, saying he was “doing the law’s bidding.”

“A crime cannot be established here. They did not have a basis for a counterintelligence investigation against Flynn at that stage,” Barr said in reference to the FBI.

“People sometimes plead to things that turn out not to be crimes,” he added.

Newly released documents reveal Obama was aware of the details of Flynn’s intercepted December 2016 telephone calls with Kislyak, which purportedly surprised top DOJ officials such as then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.

Breitbart News reported:

The documents from the government’s motion to dismiss their case against Flynn show, however, that at a January 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting with then-Vice President Joe Biden, then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, then-FBI Director James Comey, then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, Obama had asked Comey and Yates to “stay behind.”

Obama told them he had “learned of the information about Flynn” and his conversation with Kislyak, where they discussed sanctions his administration had levied against Russia. (A memo penned by then-National Security Adviser Susan Rice also showed that Biden stayed behind as well.)

Obama “specified he did not want any additional information on the matter, but was seeking information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently, given the information.”

In a leaked Friday call, Obama said the DOJ’s decision to drop its case against Flynn puts the “rule of law is at risk.”

“The news over the last 24 hours I think has been somewhat downplayed — about the Justice Department dropping charges against Michael Flynn,” Obama said during a virtual discussion with members of the Obama Alumni Association, according to an audio call obtained by Yahoo News.

“The fact that there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.”

On Sunday, President Trump posted several messages stating Obama had been “caught” surveilling him and signaled the matter could be investigated.

“He got caught, OBAMAGATE!” the president tweeted.


Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

He got caught, OBAMAGATE! https://twitter.com/mikandynothem/status/1259556010408075264 

Michael Nöthem@mikandynothem

Barack Hussain Obama is the first Ex-President to ever speak against his successor, which was long tradition of decorum and decency.
Should anyone really be surprised?#TrumpsJealousOfObama? I SERIOUSLY doubt it…#ObamaGate #MAGA#KAG #FoxNews

View image on Twitter
105K people are talking about this


“The biggest political crime in American history, by far!” he wrote in another message.

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

The biggest political crime in American history, by far! https://twitter.com/bucksexton/status/1259241405274341383 

Buck Sexton

@BuckSexton

If you read a news story about some European country where, after a fair election, the outgoing president used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration, you’d be appalled

It happened here, and half the country thinks it was fine

33.4K people are talking about this


John Bolton Admits Last-Minute Impeachment Leak Was A Publicity Stunt


Posted By

URL of the original posting site: https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/20/john-bolton-admits-last-minute-impeachment-leak-was-a-publicity-stunt/

John Bolton Admits Last-Minute Impeachment Leak Was A Publicity Stunt

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton admitted Wednesday that his testimony in President Donald Trump’s recent impeachment proceedings involving Ukraine would have had no impact on the trial’s outcome even after sections of his upcoming book leaked attempting to convict the president in its final days.

“People can argue about what I should have said and what I should have done,” Bolton said at Vanderbilt University Wednesday night during a forum with his predecessor Susan Rice, according to ABC News. “I will bet you a dollar right here and now my testimony would have made no difference to the ultimate outcome.”

“I sleep at night because I have followed my conscience,” Bolton added.

Rice challenged Bolton’s decision to remain silent throughout the process despite not ever being subpoenaed by the House or Senate in the proceedings.

“It’s inconceivable to me that if I had firsthand knowledge of a gross abuse of presidential power, that I would withhold my testimony,” Rice said. “I would feel like I was shamefully violating my oath that I took to support and defend the Constitution.”

Bolton argued that the House botched the process and condemned House Democrats for having committed “impeachment malpractice.”

“The process drove Republicans who might have voted for impeachment away from the president because it was so partisan,” Bolton claimed.

Bolton’s new book, “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,” is slated to be released next month is expected to reveal what Bolton might have said had he been forced to testify before lawmakers in the impeachment proceedings. Republicans in the Senate defeated Democrats’ efforts to bring Bolton before the upper chamber before the final vote with only Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine voting in favor of the measure.

In the final days of the trial however, sections of Bolton’s upcoming book were leaked to the New York Times, featuring Bolton accusing Trump of tying the nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine with politically motivated investigations as Democrats alleged. The leak happened to come on the same day the book became available for online pre-order revealing the move as nothing more than a publicity stunt.

On Monday, Bolton accused the White House of trying to suppress details in the book in his first public remarks since the president’s exoneration at Duke University.

Tristan Justice is a staff writer at The Federalist focusing on the 2020 presidential campaigns. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Alleged ‘Whistleblower’ Eric Ciaramella Worked Closely with Anti-Trump Dossier Hoaxer


Reported by Aaron Klein | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/06/alleged-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-worked-closely-with-anti-trump-dossier-hoaxers/

WASHINGTON, DC – JUNE 20: Former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland testifies during a hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee June 20, 2018 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The committee held a hearing on “Policy Response to Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. … Alex Wong/Getty Images

Eric Ciaramella, whom Real Clear Investigations suggests is the likely so-called whistleblower, was part of an Obama administration email chain celebrating the eventual signing of a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee to Ukraine.

That and other emails show Ciaramella interfaced about Ukraine with individuals who played key roles in facilitating the infamous anti-Trump dossier produced by Fusion GPS and reportedly financed by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. One of those individuals, then-Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland (pictured), received updates on Ukraine issues from dossier author Christopher Steele in addition to Nuland’s direct role in the dossier controversy.

Also part of the email chains was Christopher J. Anderson, who was a special adviser to former special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker. Anderson testified to the Democrat-led House committees running the impeachment inquiry.

Ciaramella’s name comes up in six Obama-era government emails that were released by the State Department as part of two previous Freedom of Information Act requests.  At the time of the exchanges, Ciaramella served as the Director for Baltic and Eastern European Affairs for the Obama-era National Security Council, where he worked on Ukraine policy.  He is now an analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency.

One email, titled, “Loan Guarantee,” involved Nuland, who was reportedly a key champion of the Ukraine loan guarantee policy.

“Hurray,” a celebratory Nuland wrote in response to a translated Ukrainian government announcement about the signing of the $1 billion loan guarantee.  The announcement singles out Joe Biden as being present for the conclusion of an agreement leading to the loan guarantee.

Ciaramella was one of several people CC’d in the email, which was sent from the U.S. ambassador at the time, Geoffrey Pyatt, who was another key champion of the loan guarantee to Ukraine along with Nuland.

The email is one of several that shows Ciaramella in the loop with top officials such as Nuland working on Ukraine policy under the Obama administration.

The loan guarantee was pushed through after Ukraine agreed to several reforms, especially the firing of the nation’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. This at a time that Shokin was reportedly investigating Burisma, the Ukranian natural gas company paying Hunter Biden.  Joe Biden infamously boasted on video about personally threatening to withhold loan guarantees from Ukraine unless Shokin was removed.

Another released email shows Ciaramella himself sending a message to Nuland and others. Most of the contents are blocked out, including the email’s subject line. One non-classified section of that email shows a reply stating, “Embassy Kyiv — coordinated with our USAID mission folks — will have detailed input tomorrow.”

One email involving Nuland was sent two days before the loan guarantee was signed on June 3, 2016. “Can you confirm who will be doing the actual signing for each side?” the exchange asked.

Nuland has come under repeated fire for her various roles in the anti-Trump dossier controversy.

FBI notes also cite career Justice Department official Bruce Ohr as saying that Nuland was in touch with Fusion GPS co-founder and dossier producer Glenn Simpson.

Sen. John McCain, who infamously delivered the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey, reportedly first dispatched an aide, David J. Kramer, to inquire with Nuland about the dossier claims.

In their book, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump, authors and reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn write that Nuland gave the green light for the FBI to first meet with Steele regarding his dossier’s claims. It was at that meeting that Steele initially reported his dossier charges to the FBI, the book relates.

Meanwhile, looped into email chains with Ciaramella was then-Secretary of State John Kerry’s chief of staff at the State Department, John Finer.

An extensive New Yorker profile of Steele named Finer as obtaining the contents of a two-page summary of the dossier and eventually deciding to share the questionable document with Kerry.

Finer reportedly received the dossier summary from Jonathan M. Winer, the Obama State Department official who acknowledged regularly interfacing and exchanging information with Steele, according to the report. Winer previously conceded that he shared the dossier summary with Nuland.

After his name surfaced in news media reports related to probes by House Republicans into the dossier, Winer authored a Washington Post oped in which he conceded that while he was working at the State Department he exchanged documents and information with Steele.

Winer further acknowledged that while at the State Department, he shared anti-Trump material with Steele passed to him by longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, whom Winer described as an “old friend.” Winer wrote that the material from Blumenthal – which Winer in turn gave to Steele – originated with Cody Shearer, who is a controversial figure long tied to various Clinton scandals.

In testimony last year, Nuland made statements about a meeting at the State Department in October 2016 between State officials and Steele, but said that she didn’t participate.

At a June 2018 hearing, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) revealed contents of the State Department’s visitor logs while he was grilling Nuland.

At the hearing, Burr asked: “I know you talked extensively with our staff relative to Mr. Steele. Based upon our review of the visitor logs of the State Department, Mr. Steele visited the State Department briefing officials on the dossier in October of 2016. Did you have any role in that briefing?”

“I did not,” Nuland replied. “I actively chose not to be part of that briefing.”

“But were you aware of that briefing?” Burr asked.

“I was not aware of it until afterwards,” Nuland retorted.

Nuland did not explain how she can actively chose not to be part of Steele’s briefing, as she claimed, yet say she was unaware of the briefing until after it occurred. Nuland was not asked about the discrepancy during the public section of the testimony, which was reviewed in full by Breitbart News.

Nuland previously served as chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott under Bill Clinton’s administration, and then served as deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs.

Nuland faced confirmation questions prior to her most recent appointment as assistant secretary of state over her reported role in revising controversial Obama administration talking points about the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks. Her reported changes sought to protect Hillary Clinton’s State Department from accusations that it failed to adequately secure the woefully unprotected U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi.

Likely ‘whistleblower’

A RealClearInvestigations report by investigative journalist and author Paul Sperry named Ciaramella as best fitting the description of the so-called whistleblower. Officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings say Ciaramella’s name has been raised in private in impeachment depositions and during at least one House open hearing that was not part of the formal impeachment proceedings.

Federal documents show Ciaramella also worked closely with Joe Biden and worked under Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser. He also worked with former CIA Director John Brennan, an anti-Trump advocate who has faced controversy for his role in fueling the questionable Russia collusion investigation.  Rice participated in Russia collusion probe meetings and reportedly unmasked senior members of Trump’s presidential campaign.

Sperry cites former White House officials saying Ciaramella worked for Biden on Ukrainian policy issues in 2015 and 2016, encompassing the time period for which Biden has been facing possible conflict questions for leading Ukraine policy in light of Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma.

Mark Zaid and Andrew Bakaj, the activist attorneys representing the so-called whistleblower, refused to confirm on deny that their secretive client is indeed Ciaramella.

“We neither confirm nor deny the identity of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower,” the lawyers told the Washington Examiner in response to an inquiry about Ciaramella.

Zaid and Bakaj added, “Our client is legally entitled to anonymity. Disclosure of the name of any person who may be suspected to be the whistleblower places that individual and their family in great physical danger. Any physical harm the individual and/or their family suffers as a result of disclosure means that the individuals and publications reporting such names will be personally liable for that harm. Such behavior is at the pinnacle of irresponsibility and is intentionally reckless.”

On Sunday, Trump responded to press reports naming Ciaramella, calling him a “radical” known for his close ties to Brennan and Rice.

“Well, I’ll tell you what. There have been stories written about a certain individual, a male, and they say he’s the whistleblower,” Trump told reporters. “If he’s the whistleblower, he has no credibility because he’s a Brennan guy, he’s a Susan Rice guy, he’s an Obama guy.”

Trump added, “And he hates Trump. And he’s a radical. Now, maybe it’s not him. But if it’s him, you guys ought to release the information.”

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

Joshua Klein contributed research to this article.

Media Refuses to Support Iran Uprising, So Haley Takes Matters Into Own Hands


Reported By V Saxena | January 3, 2018 at 8:14am

The mainstream media, which seems to have sided with Iran’s oppressive regime and against the crowds of protesters seeking to overthrow it, received some bad news Tuesday when U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley called on the United Nations to hold emergency sessions in support of the protesters.

“Dozens have already been killed, hundreds have been arrested,” she said during a news briefing, according to RealClearPolitics. “If the Iranian dictatorship’s history is any guide, we can expect more outrageous abuses in the coming days. The U.N. must speak out.

“In the days ahead, we will be calling for an emergency session both here in New York and at the Human Rights Council in Geneva,” she added. “We must not be silent. The people of Iran are crying out for freedom.”

Listen to some of the speech below:

Dovetailing back to the first paragraph, it would admittedly be disingenuous to claim everybody in the mainstream media supports Iran’s oppressive regime. But it would not be wrong to say some certainly do.

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro took notice, taking The New York Times to task this week for defending Iran’s oppressive government. Not only did Times’ reporter Thomas Erdbrink falsely describe Iranian President Hassan Rouhani as a moderate (he’s not), Erdbrink and the rest of the leftists at the Times appeared to suggest the protesters were to blame for any violence they faced from the Iranian regime:

Notice how the Times framed what’s been happening in Iran.

“Yes, it’s the fault of the demonstrators, who have somehow merely refused to heed the decent calls for calm from the Iranian mullahs,” Shapiro sarcastically wrote at The Daily Wire.

But it’s not just the media that have acted improperly in response to the protests in Iran. A number of former Obama administration officials, including former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, have begged President Donald Trump to “be quiet” and not involve himself in the protests.

Yes, of course, because allowing the protesters in Iran to be trampled by their government just as they were during the Green Movement demonstrations in 2009 makes perfect sense.

“(I)n 2009 when the Green Movement demonstrators were marching through the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities, demanding freedom from the mullahs … (t)he students and others marching in the streets to overthrow these tyrants desperately wanted America’s help, specifically the support of our ‘oh-so-liberal-progressive’ president,” notes Roger L. Simon for PJ Media.

How did Obama respond? He was silent. But not Trump, nor Haley. Never that:

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what real leadership looks like.

H/T The

Susan Rice Drops NK Bombshell… This Is What Obama Planned


Reported 

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/susan-rice-drops-nk-bombshell/

Advertisement – story continues below

If you want to know how the world has managed to become so royally screwed-up that North Korea now possesses the capability to fire a miniaturized nuclear warhead at us, you need to look to the past — namely, to the Obama administration.

Take former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, for instance, who penned a column for The New York Times Thursday begging President Donald Trump to stop standing up to North Korea.

“History shows that we can, if we must, tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea — the same way we tolerated the far greater threat of thousands of Soviet nuclear weapons during the Cold War,” she wrote. “It will require being pragmatic.”

What she conveniently neglected to mention is that her definition of pragmatism is in fact the same sort of Chamberlain-esque appeasement that allowed Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler to gain an upper hand prior to the start of World War II. In fact, her whole career has been a testament to this sort of appeasement, as noted by Joel Pollak of Breitbart.

“In her long and disastrous career, Rice has advocated inaction when intervention would have saved lives,” he explained in a column published after the former adviser’s column hit the Web. “During the Rwandan genocide, she counseled President Bill Clinton to avoid using that term, and helped stop the U.S. from responding.”

“In Benghazi, the Obama administration failed to make any effort to save U.S. diplomats and security personnel — and then Rice lied shamelessly to the American people, blaming a YouTube video for the attack.”

Likewise, the policy of “Strategic Patience concocted by her and former President Barack Obama to curb the rogue regime’s nuclear ambitions has failed — and will continue failing, according to retired special agent and former U.S. Navy Capt. John M. DeMaggio.

“North Korea has seen many international diplomatic threats and actions come to nothing,” he explained in a recent column for The Hill. “They will in all likelihood ignore future actions, fully expecting the international coalition to follow historical precedent and crumble.”

Trump and his staff recognize that we need a new strategy, but clearly, Rice would prefer that we remain bound to the path set forth by her former boss, Obama, i.e., the same path that led North Korea into gaining this technology in the first place.

I guess it’s true that some people never learn.

H/T Breitbart

National Security Council Unable to Release Susan Rice Documents Because They’re in Obama’s…


Judicial Watch announced that the National Security Council (NSC) informed them via letter that materials regarding the unmasking by Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice of “the identities of any U.S. citizens associated with the Trump presidential campaign or transition team” were no longer in their possession.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxlpmHuhLh9xQVhQdEJOR09mZzQ/preview

They weren’t in any government entity’s possession. They had been moved to the Obama Library. What does that mean?

Via Judicial Watch:

The NSC will not fulfill an April 4 Judicial Watch request for records regarding information relating to people “who were identified pursuant to intelligence collection activities.”

The agency also informed Judicial Watch that it would not turn over communications with any Intelligence Community member or agency concerning the alleged Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election; the hacking of DNC computers; or the suspected communications between Russia and Trump campaign/transition officials. Specifically, the NSC told Judicial Watch:

Documents from the Obama administration have been transferred to the Barack Obama Presidential Library.  You may send your request to the Obama Library.  However, you should be aware that under the Presidential Records Act, Presidential records remain closed to the public for five years after an administration has left office.

The president of the watch-dog group, Tom Fitton, said in a statement regarding the news:

“Prosecutors, Congress, and the public will want to know when the National Security Council shipped off the records about potential intelligence abuses by the Susan Rice and others in the Obama White House to the memory hole of the Obama Presidential Library. We are considering our legal options but we hope that the Special Counsel and Congress also consider their options and get these records.” 

While everyone is pointing their fingers at Trump, screaming about obstruction of  justice, what is being said about Obama? What is being said about this? Nothing. Not one word…

Susan Rice: the “Typhoid Mary” of the Obama Administration


Reported By Onan Coca |  April 4, 2017

URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/susan-rice-typhoid-mary-obama-administration/

Susan Rice Typhoid Mary

Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) had some very tough words for former National Security Advisor Susan Rice when he appeared on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show Tuesday morning.

Their conversation focused solely on Cotton’s work on the Senate Intelligence Committee and the current storm swirling around Susan Rice, the Obama administration, and President Trump. Many of Hewitt’s early questions set the stage to really understand what is “normal” when it comes to the government’s ability to “unmask” American citizens and why that might happen. Cotton explained that the situation is highly unorthodox and that in his capacity on the Intelligence Committee he’s never seen anything like it. He then outline 3 major issue areas that the Senate is interested in getting to the bottom of:

  1. What role did Russia play in interfering in our electoral process?
  2. Getting to the bottom of the conspiracy theories attempting to connect President Trump to the Russian government.
  3. Potential wrong doing by Obama administration officials in the handling of classified information and unmasking US citizens without proper grounds.

Cotton also pointed out that the only crime that has thus far been uncovered is connected to the 3rd issue, Michael Flynn’s unmasking and the leaking of his name to the media is the only crime that we KNOW FOR SURE has happened.

Cotton then had a very harsh observation to make about Susan Rice herself.

“Susan Rice is the Typhoid Mary of the Obama administration foreign policy. Every time something went wrong, she seemed to turn up in the middle of it, whether it was these allegations of improper unmasking, intentional or improper surveillance, whether it’s Benghazi or the other fiascos over the eight years of the Obama administration.”

The junior Senator from Arkansas also intimated that Rice was likely lying about her involvement in this story, “If Eli Lake’s reporting is correct, it is hard to square what Susan Rice said in that PBS interview.”

 ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Onan Coca

Onan is the Editor-in-Chief at Liberty Alliance media group. He’s also the managing editor at Eaglerising.com, Constitution.com and the managing partner at iPatriot.com. Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in Atlanta with his wife and their three wonderful children. You can find his writing all over the web.

Former US Attorney: Susan Rice Ordered Spy Agencies To Produce ‘Detailed Spreadsheets’ Involving Trump


Reported by Photo of Richard Pollock Richard Pollock | Reporter | 10:08 PM 04/03/2017

Update: In response to a question Tuesday from NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell,  former Obama White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice denied that she “prepared” spreadsheets of surveilled telephone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides. The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group, however, reported that Rice “ordered” the spreadsheets to be produced.

In addition, former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova, one of TheDCNF’s sources, said Tuesday in response to Rice that her denial “would come as quite a surprise to the government officials who have reviewed dozens of those spreadsheets.” 

Former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova.

“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”

Other official sources with direct knowledge and who requested anonymity confirmed to TheDCNF diGenova’s description of surveillance reports Rice ordered one year before the 2016 presidential election.

Also on Monday, Fox News and Bloomberg News, citing multiple sources reported that Rice had requested the intelligence information that was produced in a highly organized operation. Fox said the unmasked names of Trump aides were given to officials at the National Security Council (NSC), the Department of Defense, James Clapper, President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, and John Brennan, Obama’s CIA Director. Joining Rice in the alleged White House operations was her deputy Ben Rhodes, according to Fox.

Critics of the atmosphere prevailing throughout the Obama administration’s last year in office point to former Obama Deputy Defense Secretary Evelyn Farkas who admitted in a March 2 television interview on MSNBC that she “was urging my former colleagues,” to “get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration.”

Farkas sought to walk back her comments in the weeks following: “I didn’t give anybody anything except advice.”

Col. (Ret.) James Waurishuk, an NSC veteran and former deputy director for intelligence at the U.S. Central Command, told TheDCNF that many hands had to be involved throughout the Obama administration to launch such a political spying program.

“The surveillance initially is the responsibility of the National Security Agency,” Waurishuk said. “They have to abide by this guidance when one of the other agencies says, ‘we’re looking at this particular person which we would like to unmask.’”

“The lawyers and counsel at the NSA surely would be talking to the lawyers and members of counsel at CIA, or at the National Security Council or at the Director of National Intelligence or at the FBI,” he said. “It’s unbelievable of the level and degree of the administration to look for information on Donald Trump and his associates, his campaign team and his transition team. This is really, really serious stuff.”

Michael Doran, former NSC senior director, told TheDCNF Monday that “somebody blew a hole in the wall between national security secrets and partisan politics.” This “was a stream of information that was supposed to be hermetically sealed from politics and the Obama administration found a way to blow a hole in that wall,” he said.

Doran charged that potential serious crimes were undertaken because “this is a leaking of signal intelligence.”

“That’s a felony,” he told TheDCNF. “And you can get 10 years for that. It is a tremendous abuse of the system. We’re not supposed to be monitoring American citizens. Bigger than the crime, is the breach of public trust.”

Waurishuk said he was most dismayed that “this is now using national intelligence assets and capabilities to spy on the elected, yet-to-be-seated president.”

“We’re looking at a potential constitutional crisis from the standpoint that we used an extremely strong capability that’s supposed to be used to safeguard and protect the country,” he said. “And we used it for political purposes by a sitting president. That takes on a new precedent.”

Follow Richard on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Rice denies Obama administration inappropriately unmasked Trump team


Reported

Former national security adviser Susan Rice on Tuesday categorically denied that the Obama administration inappropriately spied on President Trump or members of his transition team.

“The allegation is that somehow, Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes,” Rice told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “That’s absolutely false.”

Rice had requested that at least one Trump transition team member be “unmasked,” Bloomberg View reported Monday, leading to claims that the Obama White House had intended to use that intelligence to damage Trump’s transition. While Rice did not deny making any such requests — declining to comment on specific reports — she denied that her actions went outside the scope of her job.

“It was not uncommon, it was necessary at times to make those requests,” she said. “I don’t have a particular recollection of doing that more frequently after the election.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“The notion, which some people are trying to suggest, that by asking for the identity of the American person is the same is leaking it — that’s completely false,” Rice said.

Rice also flatly denied exposing Trump’s own former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who was forced to resign in February after media reports revealed that he misled Vice President Pence about the contents of his discussions with the Russian ambassador.

“I leaked nothing to nobody,” she said.

Two anonymous U.S. officials told Bloomberg’s Eli Lake that the former Obama national security adviser was the one who requested unmasking Trump administration officials in raw intelligence files since viewed by Reps. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the heads of the House Intel Committee.

Trump immediately exhorted the press to “start talking about the Obama SURVEILLANCE SCANDAL” — but intelligence experts caution that the reports don’t mean that Obama or even Rice surveilled Trump officials.

Normally, when government officials receive intelligence reports, the names of American citizens are redacted to protect their privacy. But officials can request that names — listed as “U.S. Person 1,” for example — be “unmasked” internally in order to give context about the potential value of the intelligence. The national security adviser has the authority to request the unmasking names if there is a compelling national security reason to do so.

“I don’t solicit reports,” Rice said Tuesday. “They’re giving it to me, if I read it, and I think that in order for me to understand, is it significant or not so significant, I need to know who the ‘U.S. Person’ is, I can make that request.”

Nothing in the Bloomberg report, Rice emphasized, backs up President Trump’s claim that the former President Obama “wiretapped” Trump Tower.

“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,” Rice said.

Republicans have treated the revelation that Rice requested names be unmasked as proof that the Obama White House was inappropriately surveilling the Trump transition team.

“Smoking gun found! Obama pal and noted dissembler Susan Rice said to have been spying on Trump campaign,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) tweeted, citing the Bloomberg report.

Republicans have called for Rice to testify under oath, a request she sidestepped on Tuesday.

“Let’s see what comes,” she told Mitchell, when asked if she would testify on the matter. “I’m not going to sit here and prejudge.

Citing the multiple “very important and very serious” investigations into Russian interference in the U.S. election,  Rice said, “As a formal U.S. official, I would want to be helpful in that process if I could.”

The House and Senate Intelligence Committees, as well as the FBI, are all conducting probes into Russian interference. While the Senate investigation has continued apace, largely behind closed doors, the House probe has been bogged down in partisan fighting over Nunes’ discovery of the documents he says reveal inappropriate unmasking of transition team names. Onlookers have suggested that the exposure of Rice’s actions explains Nunes’ mysterious decision to view the documents at the White House, rather than the House Intelligence Committee’s secure location — because they belonged to the National Security Council. Nunes raced back to the White House the day after viewing the documents there to brief the president on his findings, which were reportedly brought to his attention by White House staffers.

Democrats have accused the White House of “laundering” intelligence through the committee in order to provide justification for the president’s wiretapping claims.

 —Ben Kamisar contributed. Updated at 1:02 p.m.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


Unmasked

President Trump is fully vindicated now that it’s been revealed Susan Rice, of the Obama administration, unmasked aids during surveillance.

Susan Rice Unmasked

Susan Rice Unmasked / Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

More A.F. Branco Cartoons at Net Right Daily.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Emails reportedly show confidant told Clinton Benghazi attack planned by fighters tied to Al Qaeda


Published May 21, 2015, FoxNews.com

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/21/emails-reportedly-show-confidant-told-clinton-benghazi-attack-planned-by-aq/

A longtime Clinton confidant reportedly advised then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton two days after the 2012 Benghazi terror attack that an Al Qaeda-tied group had planned the deadly assault and used a protest as cover — but despite this warning, Clinton’s U.N. ambassador went on to publicly claim the attack was “spontaneous.”

The guidance from ex-Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal was contained in a memo sent Sept. 13, according to The New York Times. It is the latest documentation effectively contradicting the administration’s early narrative that the attack was driven by protests over an anti-Islam Internet video — and raising questions over why officials stuck to that story for days.  According to the Times, Blumenthal initially blamed “demonstrators” angry over that video for the attacks. But the next day, he sent Clinton a very different memo. According to the Times, Blumenthal told Clinton the attack was driven by Al Qaeda-tied Ansar al-Shariah members who had planned it for a month and used a protest as cover. He cited “sensitive sources.”

“We should get this around asap,” Clinton reportedly told an adviser in response. Yet, despite this guidance, then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice would go on several television programs Sept. 16 to claim the attacks were “spontaneous,” and not premeditated, and link them to protests over the anti-Islam video.

The State Department would later admit there was no protest on the ground in Benghazi that day. The role of the video continues to be debated to this day, but a mounting body of evidence has emerged showing multiple assessments that the attack was to some degree planned.  Fox News reported earlier this week that a Defense Intelligence Agency report from Sept. 12 also said there were indicators the attack was planned and meant as retaliation for a drone strike that killed an Al Qaeda strategist.

The memo, obtained through a federal lawsuit by conservative watchdog Judicial Watch, said: “The attack was planned ten or more days prior to approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for the US killing of Aboyahiye (Alaliby) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center buildings.” Additional memos surfaced last year indicating Rice — now the national security adviser — was prepped before those Sept. 16 Sunday shows. One email from a top administration adviser specifically drew attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere in the region which were over the video.

The email listed the following goal, among others: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” 

A congressional committee is probing the handling of the Benghazi attacks, and the administration’s Internet-video narrative is sure to be just one of many aspects investigated. The emails reported by the Times were part of a batch given to that committee. The Times reported that Blumenthal, who has been subpoenaed by the committee, sent at least 25 memos on Libya to Clinton, including several on the 2012 attacks.

The Times earlier reported that while he was sending memos, Blumenthal also was advising business associates who were hoping to win contracts from Libya’s transitional post-Qaddafi government. The Times report did not make clear what, if anything, Clinton and the State Department knew of Blumenthal’s involvement in any potential business projects in Libya. The Times also reported Thursday that the former secretary of state’s emails reflected she had “sensitive but unclassified” information in her account — operated on a personal email address.

This reportedly included information on travel plans of U.S. officials in Libya.

VIEW THE FOX NEWS CHANNEL REPORT BELOW:

foxnews

freedom combo 2

CNN’s Candy Crowley Grills Susan Rice: ‘Point Blank, Did The US Negotiate With Terrorists?’


http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/01/cnns-candy-crowley-grills-susan-rice-point-blank-did-the-us-negotiate-with-terrorists/#ixzz33VmguU5p

Reported by Brendan Bordelon

CNN host Candy Crowley pressed White House national security adviser Susan Rice on the Taliban prisoner swap conducted Saturday, asking “point blank, did the US negotiate with terrorists” in violation of its long-held policy?

Crowley spoke with Rice on Sunday about the exchange of five high-ranking Taliban detainees — two of which are accused of the mass murder of religious minorities in Afghanistan — for Army Sgt. Bowe Berghdahl, whom many claim was captured after deserting his post and walking into the Afghan wilderness in 2009.

Berghdahl was captured by the Haqqani network, a close ally of the Taliban and an acknowledged terrorist organization according to the State Department.BS WARNING BS ALERT

“Point blank, did the US negotiate with terrorists for his release?” Crowley asked.

“Candy, what we did was ensure that, as always, the United States doesn’t leave a man or woman on the battlefield,” Rice replied. “It’s very important for folks to understand, if we got into a situation where we said because of who has captured an American soldier on the battlefield, we will leave that person behind.”

“We would be in a whole new era for the safety of our personnel and for the nature of our commitment to our men and women in uniform,” she continued, “because it was the Taliban that had him did not mean that we had any less of an obligation to bring him back.”

Crowley pointed out that it was actually the Haqqani network who captured and helped hold Berghdahl.

Propaganda Alert

“We actually negotiated with the government of Qatar, to whom we owe a great debt,” Rice replied.

See the interview below:

cnady

Wake up AmericaVOTE 02
 

Obama Admin’s Declaration that Al Qaeda is no Longer a Threat to the US Causes US Intelligence Officials to Revolt


http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/obama-admins-declaration-al-qaeda-longer-threat-us-causes-us-intelligence-officials-revolt/#p6mHYvhIW77HMiiX.99

Reported by May 22, 2014

This should come as no surprise from an administration that sets up Muslim Brotherhood members in top positions in the federal government, aids the avowed enemies of the US, and has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Members of the Obama administration, including National Security Adviser Susan Rice and White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough apparently met with senators from both sides of the aisle late Tuesday. According to several of those senators, the meeting was focused on foreign policy and was supposed to be secret, but Yahoo News received comment from some of those senators.

Sen. Bob Corker, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, alluded to the meeting on Wednesday, as the panel held a hearing on whether and how to overhaul the signature law of the global war on terrorism.

“I know several of us were involved in a very bizarre discussion last night. This continues a very bizarre discussion,” Corker said at another point.

The Tennessee Republican did not say where or with whom the meeting took place (or why it was bizarre).

The White House later confirmed the meeting. National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said McDonough hosted “an informal discussion on national security issues,” and that Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken attended.

Is Hillary to blameNow, consider that this is the administration really has no desire to hurt their fellow Muslim jihadists in the least. In fact, McDonough was intimately involved in the Benghazi coverup.

However, in one of the most curious places for the truth to come out, The Daily Beast reported:

…the White House has softened its earlier position, concluding that al Qaeda and its affiliates still represented a serious threat. But the tension between the White House and many top military and intelligence officials fighting the long war remain.

In interviews with many of them, a common theme is sounded: The threat from al Qaeda is rising, but the White House is looking to ratchet down the war against these Islamic extremists. As a result, intelligence gathered on these threats remain shrouded from the public and, in many cases, from senior government officials. And now Congress and the White House are beginning to consider modifying—and possibly revoking—the very authority to find, fix and finish those terrorists who pose the threat today.

Now, clearly we are not talking “Islamic extremists,” but rather we are speaking of devout Muslims who are simply following the Qur’an, just as the founder of Islam did when he formed the political ideology. Also, keep in mind that it was the Obama administration that was claiming that al-Qaeda was on the run and that Osama bin Laden was dead.

Again, it should come as no surprise seeing we have an administration involved in open treason, in which an impotent Congress will not impeach him.

One senior U.S. intelligence official told The Daily Beast the frustration was that there is pressure from the White House to downplay the threat from some al Qaeda affiliates. “It comes from the top, it’s the message that al Qaeda is all these small franchise groups and they are not coordinated and threatening,” this official said. “It’s the whole idea of getting us out to place resources against something that they don’t think is a problem. It’s not their war, it’s not our conflict.”

This week, this internal struggle over the response to al Qaeda is reaching a crucial moment. The Senate Foreign Relations Obama defending muslimsCommittee on Wednesday will hold a nearly unprecedented hearing on the 2001 law that authorizes a long, global war against al Qaeda and its allies.

At the same time, U.S. intelligence officers say, there is deep division within their ranks–and with the White House—about the strength of al Qaeda in the place where that war began: Afghanistan. The current estimate of the terror group’s presence there says that al Qaeda has a little more than 100 fighters in the country’s province of Kunar. That, these intelligence officers contend, is wildly out of date. “Al Qaeda has a presence all over Afghanistan today,” a senior U.S. intelligence official told The Daily Beast. “This is the conversation that no one wants to have. What are they going to do after 2014 when most of our troops will be gone?”

“It comes from the top, it’s the message that al Qaeda is all these small franchise groups and they are not coordinated and threatening. It’s not their war, it’s not our conflict.”

“I find it hard to believe that President Obama is naïve. I also do not believe that he is stupid. I do believe that he is delusional, and is working hard to protect Islamist Extremist. I believe that he wants America to believe something that is not true in order to do something; What that Something is, requires more speculation than I am comfortable with. All I know is that President Obama cares more about protecting his Muslim buddies than Americans.” JB

Hillary ClintonTake a moment and consider that this administration’s former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, failed to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist group. They have also failed to call the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group, even when Egypt did so. They have claimed Al-Qaeda is on the run, yet covered up the fact that jihadists tied to Al-Qaeda were the very ones who attacked Americans in Benghazi. Why did they cover it up? I believe part of the reason was that Obama and Joe Biden were proudly declaring Al-Qaeda was on the run.

However, as one senior U.S. intelligence official said, “Take this ‘al Qaeda is on the run’ message, it’s something you’ve seen in the last couple of years. If they are on the run, they are on the run to the United States.”

Pamela Geller summed up exactly what is taking place concerning the Obama administration’s willful ignorance of what Islam and jihadists are engaging in and who will feel the brunt of what they are doing. She wrote, “As the global jihad rages across Africa, the Middle East, Europe and Asia, Obama continues to indulge his ROP fantasies to our great peril.”

At least there are still some who recognize the threat and are willing to stand up and be counted.

 

 

About Tim Brown

Husband to my wife. Father of 10. Jack of All Trades. Christian and lover of liberty. Residing in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina.
Wake up AmericaVOTE 02

Read more at

 

 

 

Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ explanation


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/29/benghazi-emails-suggest-white-house-aide-involved-in-prepping-rice-for-video/?intcmp=HPBucket

More than 100 pages of documents were released to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Among them was a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.

The Rhodes email, with the subject line: “RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET,” was sent to a dozen members of the administration’s inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Press Secretary Jay Carney.

In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere.

The email lists the following two goals, among others:

“To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

“To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”

The email goes on to state that the U.S. government rejected the message of the Internet video. “We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence,” the email stated.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the documents read like a PR strategy, not an effort to provide the best available intelligence to the American people.

“The goal of the White House was to do one thing primarily, which was to make the president look good. Blame it on the video and not [the] president’s policies,” he said.

The Rhodes email was not part of the 100 pages of emails released by the administration last May — after Republicans refused to move forward with the confirmation of John Brennan as CIA director until the so-called “talking points” emails were made public.

The email is also significant because in congressional testimony in early April, former deputy CIA director Michael Morell told lawmakers it was Rice, in her Sunday show appearances, who linked the video to the Benghazi attack. Morell said the video was not part of the CIA analysis.

“My reaction was two-fold,” Morell told members of the House Intelligence Committee, regarding her appearances. “One was that what she said about the attacks evolving spontaneously from a protest was exactly what the talking points said, and it was exactly what the intelligence community analysts believed. When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that’s not something that the analysts have attributed this attack to.”

Incidentally, three leading Republicans on Monday night sent letters to the House and Senate foreign affairs committees asking them to compel the administration to explain who briefed Rice in advance of the Sunday talk shows and whether State Department or White House personnel were involved.

“How could former Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, during the five Sunday talk shows on September 16, 2012, claim that the attacks on our compounds were caused by a hateful video when Mr. Morell testified that the CIA never mentioned the video as a causal factor,” said the letter, from Sens. Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina; Kelly Ayotte, of New Hampshire; and John McCain, of Arizona.

The Sept. 14 Rhodes email does not indicate whether there was a “prep call” for Rice, as it suggests. If the call went ahead, it does not indicate who briefed her.

National Security Council spokesperson Bernadette Meehan played down the Rhodes email, telling Fox News in a statement: “There were protests taking place across the region in reaction to an offensive internet video, so that’s what these points addressed. There were known protests in Cairo, Sanaa, Khartoum, and Tunis as well as early reports of similar protests in Benghazi, which contributed to questions of how the attack began…. These documents only serve to reinforce what we have long been saying: that in the days after September 11, 2012, we were concerned by unrest occurring across the region and that we provided our best assessment of what was happening at the time.”

The statement did not address Fox News’ specific questions asking whether White House personnel, particularly Rhodes, briefed Rice before the Sunday shows, and what intelligence Rhodes relied on when he referred to the video.

The newly released emails also show that on Sept. 27, 2012 a Fox News report — titled “US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm” — was circulated at the most senior levels of the administration. This included going to then-deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough; then-White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan; Morell; and Rhodes, among others, but the comments were redacted, citing “personal privacy information.”

Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

 

CIA officer confirmed no protests before misleading Benghazi account given


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/31/cia-ignored-station-chief-in-libya-when-creating-t/##ixzz2xfbeLh4x

Information on ground rejects protest account

By Guy Taylor

The attack was “not an escalation of protests,” the station chief wrote to then-Deputy CIA Director Michael J. Morell in an email dated Sept. 15, 2012 — a full day before the White House sent Susan E. Rice to several Sunday talk shows to disseminate talking points claiming that the Benghazi attack began as a protest over an anti-Islam video.

That the talking points used by Mrs. Rice, who was then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, were written by a CIA that ignored the assessment by its own station chief inside Libya, has emerged as one of the major bones of contention in the nearly two years of political fireworks and congressional investigations into the Benghazi attack.

What has never been made public is whether Mr. Morell and others at the CIA explicitly shared the station chief’s assessment with the White House or State Department.

Two former intelligence officials have told The Washington Times that this question likely will be answered at a Wednesday hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during which Mr. Morell is scheduled to give his public testimony.

Mr. Morell, who has since left the CIA, declined to comment on the matter Monday. He now works at Beacon Global Strategies, a Washington insider strategic communications firm.

One former intelligence official close to Mr. Morell told The Times on the condition of anonymity that “the whole question of communication with the station chief will be addressed in his testimony.”

“We’re confident that it will clarify the situation in the minds of many who are asking,” the former official said.

Another former intelligence official told The Times that Mr. Morell did tell the White House and the State Department that the CIA station chief in Libya had concluded that there was no protest but senior Obama administration and CIA officials in Washington ignored the assessment.

Why they ignored it remains a topic of heated debate within the wider intelligence community.

A third source told The Times on Monday that Mr. Morell and other CIA officials in Washington were weighing several pieces of “conflicting information” streaming in about the Benghazi attack as the talking points were being crafted.

“That’s why they ultimately came up with the analysis that they did,” the source said. “The piece that was coming out of Tripoli was important, but it was one piece amid several streams of information.”

One of the former intelligence officials said the Libya station chief’s assessment was being weighed against media reports from the ground in Benghazi that quoted witnesses as saying there had been a protest. Analysts at the CIA, the source said, also were weighing it against reporting by other intelligence divisions, including the National Security Agency.

“The chief of station in Tripoli who was 600 or 700 miles away from the attacks wouldn’t necessarily have the only view of what actually went on in Benghazi,” that former official said.

U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack.

While the testimony is expected to focus on Benghazi, the hearing arrives at a time of growing tensions between Congress and the CIA over such matters as the Bush administration’s interrogation rules and mutual charges of spying and illegality between the Senate intelligence committee and the agency.

Lawmakers are likely to press Mr. Morell for a reaction to reports this week that a classified Senate intelligence report has concluded that harsh interrogation methods used in the years after Sept. 11 provided no key evidence in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and that the CIA misled Congress on the matter.

The CIA disputes that conclusion. The Senate panel is expected to vote Thursday on sending the Obama administration a 400-page executive summary of the “enhanced interrogation” report to start a monthslong declassification process.

One of the key issues likely to come up during the House hearing involves what was said during a series of secure teleconferences between CIA officials in Washington and Libya from the time of the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, to the completion of Mrs. Rice’s talking points for dissemination on the Sunday talk shows Sept. 16.

Multiple sources confirmed to The Times on Monday that the station chief’s email to Mr. Morell was written after one of the teleconferences during which senior CIA officials in Washington — Mr. Morell among them — made clear to the Tripoli station chief that they were examining alternative information that suggested there was a protest before the attack.

After the exchange, Mr. Morell signed off on the CIA talking points given to Mrs. Rice promoting what turned out to be the false narrative of a protest. The development ultimately triggered an angry reaction from Republicans, who have long claimed that the Obama administration, with an eye on the November elections, was downplaying the role of terrorists in order to protect the president’s record on counterterrorism.

Documents since released by the White House show that administration officials boasted in internal emails at the time about Mr. Morell’s personal role in editing and rewriting the talking points.

Morell noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy editing hand to them,” an Obama administration official wrote Mrs. Rice on the morning of Sept. 15.

What is not clear is whether the email was in any way referring to the conflicting intelligence streams about a protest in Benghazi.

Alternatively, the email notes that Mr. Morell was uncomfortable with an initial draft of the talking points batted back and forth between White House and CIA officials “because they seemed to encourage the reader to infer incorrectly that the CIA had warned about a specific attack” in Benghazi.

During interviews with The Times, several former senior intelligence officials have lamented the whole “talking points” issue, saying the CIA was caught in the middle of the White House, Congress and the reality on the ground in Benghazi while crafting the points.

The reason the CIA ended up taking the lead on the talking points was because, as news of the attack was breaking around the world, lawmakers on the House intelligence committee were seeking guidance from the agency on how to respond to media questions without revealing classified information.

Specifically, Rep. Mike Rogers, Michigan Republican and the committee chairman, and ranking Democrat C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland asked for the guidance.

One former senior intelligence official told The Times that as word circulated through the inner circles of the intelligence community that the CIA was working on the talking points, officials within the Obama administration steered the mission toward crafting something Mrs. Rice could say on national talk shows.

“In essence, the talking points got repurposed,” the former official said. “What it turned into — and I don’t think Michael ever knew this, it’s something to watch for in his testimony this week — was, ‘Let’s hand this thing to the U.N. ambassador and make it what she should say.’”

“That’s a big deal,” the former official said. “It’s one thing to prepare something for lawmakers so they don’t make a mistake or say something inaccurate. It’s quite another matter to have that feed the administration’s then-current, definitive account of what had actually happened in Benghazi.”

“There are a lot of twists and turns in this,” added another former intelligence official. “A lot of it hangs on the fact that the agency thought they were crafting these talking points for Dutch Ruppersberger and Mike Rogers, not the White House.”

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: