Posted on 04/03/2017 5:33:23 PM PDT by RoosterRedux
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) told reporters Monday afternoon that former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice “ought to testify under oath” after Bloomberg News’s Eli Lake revealed that, during the presidential transition, she deliberately sought to “unmask” President Donald Trump’s associates from intelligence surveillance.
Paul called the reports that Rice made dozens of requests to learn more about the identities of anonymous people thought to be close to the Trump transition team, inadvertently caught on tape during investigations into foreign persons of intelligence interest, “enormous news.”
“If it is allowed, we shouldn’t be allowing it. I don’t think we should discount how big a deal it is that Susan rice was looking at these,” Paul told the assembled reporters.
The Kentucky Senator then cut to the heart of the growing political fight behind what President Trump has called “wiretapping.”
“She needs to be asked, ‘did President Obama ask her to do this?’ I think she ought to testify under oath on this,” Paul opined.
Paul also tried to tie Monday’s revelations about Rice to the slew of leaks on the topic around the time of the handover of the White House. “I think she should be asked under oath, did she reveal it to the Washington Post?” he asked.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
And the MSM is irrelevant and around 30% of Americans at most believe it.
“Did President Obama know you were doing this” is also a key question. Loyal political hatchet men like Susan Rice are perfectly capable of doing what the boss wants done without being ordered.
“What did the president know and when did he know it” once again becomes an important question in a political scandal.
Good point.
I don’t know...Trump just pulled all US funding from UN overseas abortion and birth control. I’m sure a lot of people are running around saying “that’s not done. He can’t do that.”
There’s a recent photo of Diane feinstien and some old liberal senator looking at some paper or computer screen. Horrified. Wish I’d saved it. Like three week ago. It is ominous. I
She won’t live that long ....
IMO, there is quite a large role for Congress here: Not so much in seeking justice -- that's up to Sessions and his people.
However, while some areas seem fairly clear, there are multiple questions about the legalities of various aspects of all this. Some of these areas are discussed on other FR threads. It appears to me that Congress needs to write some very clear legislation with real teeth in it, to better protect our liberties.
“She needs to be asked, ‘did President Obama ask her to do this?’ I think she ought to testify under oath on this,” Paul opined. >>>>>>>>>
Which is why Obama is on the other side of the world in French Polynesia on a private island , beyond Congressional subpoena process. (Or better still, no one really knows where Obama is.)
Rice will be subpoenaed. Congress also now has enough to subpoena the entire upper echelon of the White House staff, including Valerie Jarret.
President Trump is indeed draining the swamp.He had dinner with Rand Paul a day ago.
would this do...Feinstein and Leaky
I believe you'll find yourself "wrong" on that.
BOTH Trump and Sessions know that someone must be nailed to the cross as a grim reminder to future offenders.
My point: If you're a REAL gunslinger you have to shoot someone in order to create believers.. otherwise you're just another minor character passin' through.
Which means that Trump and his team were “reversed targeted” by spooks who used foreigners as primary targets so they could backdoor access Trump and his team.
The spook term is “reverse targeting.”>>>>>>>>>>>>
So Judge Napolitano was correct? The Brits were involved?
It’s that third one the last photo.
You get enough regular people and then have Breitbart interview them for wtf responses, you've got a narrative to demand Obama testify.
And then Rand gets to say this to Bobo's face: "You've done enough sir, at long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
Any "teeth" in the law requires a prosecutor with the will to enforce it. FISA and its predecessors have been debated ad nauseum.
As for the questions about legality, all of that is context dependent. The debate right now is in a fact vacuum, not a law vacuum.
Somehow we've gotten to a point where Congressional hearings substitute for enforcing the law, when it comes to big shots.
Seriously, what good would it do. She would lie or refuse to answer questions. The media and Democrats would cover for her and Obama. It would just be another wasted political circus.
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.