Replies

So that's the new talking point. It's not going to work. See you in court.

Reminded me of what Andrew McCarthy said on Levin last night, that Rice escalated the unmasking prior to and after the election and his gut told him this wasn't the first time this happened. Rice had the system down in that she would call or email NSA, if she had any trouble, would do a Hillary fit, talk to the higher ups, and get what he wanted. I think it was McCarthy or his other guest that said it appeared that this was a well oiled process.

Who else were they following? Who else was unmasked?

In case you missed them, two good articles by McCarythy:

Susan Rice’s White House Unmasking: A Watergate-style Scandal

On Susan Rice, the Issue Is Abuse of Power, Not Criminality

He pretty much nails it. Waiting for the investigation and congressional hearings to start. Go Trey Gowdy! Go Jeff Sessions!

[[I think it was McCarthy or his other guest that said it appeared that this was a well oiled process.]]

And that’s the problem here- the left are very sneaky people- they know how to do underhanded things and not be found guilty- they know how to exploit loopholes- and work the system-

I disagree with Mcarthy’s article in the first link for the reasons pointed out in my previous post- His second article you point to claism she ‘abused her power’ but did she? She may have exploited her position, but kept things ‘legal’ technically- she may have been ‘within her legal right to order unmasking’ even though government protocol may not be followed- Was what she did unethical? You betcha- Was it a felony? —Probably not— unfotunately-

His stateemnt below brings up a very itneresting point- one I’ll have to read over in a little while- as it could possibly go to show that a SPECIFIC crime need not be comitted in order for someone to be tried and possibly convicted- There is also the idea of esponage, which also i believe is less specific, and can rely on circumstantial evidence, and showing collusion to railroad citizens, more so that a felony indictment might need regarding specific objective laws be broken in order to bring the charge- I think i agree with napolitano on the espionage claim-

[[This is why a “high crime and misdemeanor” — the constitutional standard for impeachment — need not be an indictable criminal offense. It may be a chargeable crime, but it need not be one.

Another important point to consider is what McCarthy pointed out- in which a govenrment official

[[”has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purpose[s] of these agencies.”]]

It however will have to be proved that constitutional rights were violated- not an easy thing to prove when one party- the government, claims they had to order the unmasking ‘for security reason’

The burden then falls on the prosecutors to prove that there was no actual pressing need to order unmaskings-

This whole issue is goign to be very messy- but very interesting-

Here’s the problem- McCarthy says

[[Her current stress on the lawfulness of the intelligence collection is a straw man. No credible commentator is claiming (based on what we currently know) that the intelligence-collection activities of the FBI, CIA, and NSA were illegal.

and then goes on to say:

[[The allegation against Rice and the Obama administration is that the unmasking of Trump-campaign and transition officials appears — cumulatively, and probably in many specific instances of it — to have run afoul of minimization instructions.]]

notice the words ‘probably’ and ‘run afoul’

There is, as far as i know, no specific objective law that was broken irrefutably by any party (yet- the issue of leaking is another totally separate issue which may actually be what they can link someone specifically to and show it was indeed a violation of an objective law)

He goes on to say:

[[Violating minimization instructions applicable to electronic surveillance is not a crime.]]

Exactly- and that is the problem legally-

[[The criminal law is not for judgment calls.]]

Bingo-

[[The question is abuse of power.]]

I’m gonna have to study his argument on this specific claim later- he may have a point, but right now I’m thinking it’s gonna be hard to prove abuse of power- maybe not htough- we’ll see what he says- but too tired right now to noodle it over