Fry her!
Posted on 04/04/2017 8:48:19 AM PDT by Helicondelta
Sen. Rand Paul followed a bomb-blaster of a tweet about Susan Rice’s supposed “spying on [the] Trump campaign” with a call for her to come to Capitol Hill, take the oath and testify.
“I don’t think we should discount how big a deal it was that Susan Rice was looking at these, and she needs to be asked, did President Obama ask her to do this? Was this a directive from President Obama? I think she ought to testify under oath on this,” Paul said to reporters, The Hill noted. “I think she should be asked under oath, did she reveal it to the Washington Post.”
And here’s the kicker; Paul put it bluntly.
“I think they were illegally basically using an espionage tool to eavesdrop or wiretap — if you want to use the word generally — on the Trump campaign,” he said.
That’s an astonishing accusation — but an even more astonishing action, if true. And Rice holds it within her power to clarify.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
FReeper contest - How many times will she take the 5th?
Will she appear “Pretty in Pink”?
“I’m sorry, I can’t recall”...
I refuse to answer on the grounds that this may incriminate me.
CC
Fry her!
Being under oath doesn’t mean a thing to people like Rice. Others have lied under oath as well: Hilly, Clapper & I think Comey lied recently & “knowing” Brennan, he likely has as well, plus others. They’ll continue to lie whether they’ve raised a right hand or not. The issue is that when Congress KNOWS they’re lying under oath & can prove it, they should DO something about it - there should be serious consequences. Until that happens, “under oath” is a nothing burger.
She won’t take the 5th. She’ll just lie. Unless there is iron clad proof that she is lying, she will just lie. And nothing will happen.
On Flopping Aces today, DrJohn has absolutelt the best take on this story. He convincingly goes beyond Rice to Ben Rhodes. And that is where Congress should go as well.
The oath of office required for representatives of "the People" was intended to be sacred and binding, because that oath is a vow before the "Sovereign" of the Universe, and its violation carries penalities both human and Divine. President George Washington described it in this manner:
"Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths?"
For an amazing history lesson and sermon by the Rev. Benjamin W. Arnett, readers might want to visit the Library of Congress and read the entire text of his Centennial Thanksgiving Sermon, paying special note to the excerpts below which discuss and describe the nature of the oath:
From the Library of Congress: African American Perspectives: Pamphlets from the Daniel A.P.Murray Collection, 1818-1907
Centennial Thanksgiving sermon,: delivered by Rev. B.W. Arnett, B.D., at St. Paul A.M.E. Church, Urbana, Ohio
Excerpt from P. 31, in which he is discussing the Declaration of Independence:
"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare: That these United Colonies are and of right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as Free and Independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, and in a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor." - JOHN HANCOCK.
Arnett continues:
"And the names of the whole Congress followed. You see that there is Divinity in this immortal document. Can we find in the "Articles of Confederation" anything to support the position that the founders of this government intended that it should be a nation for God, and that his religion should have a place in this land. It says: "Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual union." Thus we find this assembly thanking the Governor of the world for inclining the hearts of men. Who can move the hearts of men but God? But we find them in reverence bowing to the Governor of men.
"We now call your attention to the Constitution of the Nation and let us examine that instrument in the light of the men who formed it, and we will see that this was intended to be a Nation founded in Righteousness and Justice. What does the instrument say on this subject:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
"Article VI says: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall be required as a Qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
On Page 37, Rev. Arnett described the nature of "oaths and affirmations" as follows:
"Oaths and affirmations are appeals to God, by him who makes them, that what he has said, or what he shall say, is the truth. It is the most solemn form under which one can assert or pronounce anything, and its violation is a crime of the darkest hue; one which God has declared he will punish; one that is made infamous and punishable by fine and imprisonment, by the laws of the land. Thus Christian obligation is required of every officer of the general Government, who fills any position of trust, honor or emolument. Many reports are required in the form and shape of affidavits."
Sure wish we had a special prosecutor investigating espionage that mis-used national intelligence resources and personnel against Americans. I demand indictments for what has happened. Obama himself should go to prison. Rice too unless she turns evidence.
She'll just lie and give the MSM more "proof" that nothing happened.
If she committed felonies, which it sure seems she did, simply charge her and let her testify at her criminal trial if she so chooses.
There's nothing to be gained by holding dog and pony shows in Congress.
She cannot justify their illegal eavesdropping a whole year before the election, Russians or no Russians................
Hillary was using her ‘connections’ to spy on all her opponents in the DEM PRIMARY, and OBAMA/JARRETT/DNC were using their ‘connections’ to spy on all the REPUBLICAN opponents in the Presidential ELECTION.
The DEMS were illegally ‘spying’ on anyone who was in their way of keeping a DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED WHITE HOUSE. It is likely that they even killed their own (Seth Rich for example) to ensure they could keep their power.
The only difference between TRUMP and everyone else they were spying on is that THEY NEVER FOUND ANYTHING they could BLACKMAIL Trump with.
First make sure they have rock solid evidence and then definitely call her up to Congress under oath. Forces the lamestreams to cover it too.
I am curious to learn whom she shared the Trump intel with. Did the President see any of it or hear summaries of it? Was he aware of its existence?
there has to be a video around somewhere she can blame....
Thank you for reminding us all!
The most important question that she must answer is what was passed onto the Clinton campaign. That is the smoking gun of spying for political gain.
Rice is not the only spider who spun the web. Nail the others involved too so as to spread out the focus as its not just her.
DESERVES A REPEAT: The most important question that Rice must answer is what was passed on to the Clinton campaign.
That is the smoking gun of spying for political gain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.