Posted on 04/03/2017 8:38:58 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee
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 knowledgeable 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. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
That’s the truth! You either cower and change with the wind or you generate the wind.
Did not John Kennedy have his Ted Sorenson?
Does not every president have speech writer and a press spokesman?
Look in the mirror and learn who is absurd.
Even though there has been much heat it has been a good thread. Thank you.
Hopefully a little light as well.
You are so sweet. I think Trump is sharper and more apt than any speech writer. My post was meant to say its absurd to think that someone else would have surer instincts.
I saw a Star Trek once with Picard where Picard thought he could do much better with the decisions of his youth by redoing the decisions as his more mature, wiser self. It was a miserable fail. His brashness was what won him the command, as a cautious ensign he wound up being passed over and relegated to bookkeeping. The qualities you are faulting are those that allowed Trump to become President.
You have a habit of saying things that elicit visceral responses. Surely you are used to that now and do not take it personally. It was an absurd idea to me and still is. Totally antithetical to Trump the man. Its like saying he could do better if he were someone else and listened to what more mature people said.
Here the points to be made would be: Is it appropriate after 75 days to decide his justice department will not pursue Hillary & are not gathering the documentation?
Would the optics not be terrible to focus front and center on that and get derailed on things that are so much more essential to the Nation as a whole?
Do you really feel we are getting the whole story about Trump's plan for working through RINO care to the healthcare plan he has promised?
The point may have been to start & to shape once the process began. He said he would veto any bill that came to his desk if it did not contain the things he had promised to the American Peole. At that point and in the Senate there was time for leverage.
Thank you, that’s an interesting thread. Actually. I listened to Sean Spicer at that conference (I listen to each of them). He was not willing to say it would be a course correction though he was pressed multiple times. He said “Its about Math. We want to work with the people who will work with us to get the numbers.”
President Trump is a negotiator. He “takes the lumps out.” He leaves himself room to work. Thus far his actual acts and accomplishments have been right on.
Some people believe in confrontation. Trump seems to prefer to suggest ...we have much in common, I think we are going to be fair to everyone... and then when its actually time for the final product he has achieved all the things that he thought were essential in keeping his promises and taking care of America. What other President has told his cabinet to make a list of all the promises that were made and set to keeping each one?
If that's true, then you should consider the possibility that such accusations are leveled based on an impression which you create. You did, during the election cycle, repeatedly state your belief that Donald Trump was a fraud, charlatan, and con man, and other words to that effect.
Have those beliefs changed at all? Have you ever expressed regret for those smears, or even acknowledged that they might not have been entirely accurate? It would be easy enough to dispel such impressions with a positive statement to the contrary.
You never fail to express the most negative interpretation possible regarding anything Donald Trump does. If you didn't despise the man, then on occasion you'd give him the benefit of the doubt. But whenever there's any opportunity to criticize, you seem to indulge it to the greatest degree possible. At least that's the way it seems to this layman. Oh, it's all presented with a veneer of objectivity, but the lack of goodwill invariably shines through.
You cite "truth" as your motivation, as if you are the only arbiter thereof. But other people are equally (or perhaps even more) capable of discovering and revealing "truth"—albeit with less eloquence, of course.
You should consider the possibility that you're serving the cause of the Enemy by constantly engaging in commentary which tends to undermine morale. In times of war, it's generally better to err on the side of caution when dealing with such questions. You seem to entirely discount that factor.
IMHO, you've really do have an anti-Trump bias. Whether it's bona fide hatred is an academic debate, I suppose, but it's certainly de facto animosity.
It's not as if we don't have an energetic Enemy intent upon undermining the President at every opportunity—an Enemy that really doesn't need any assistance in proclaiming the "truth" about all things Trump.
I'm not trying to engage in a personal attack—accusing you of being off your meds or eschewing therapy, for instance, as you have done to me (while simultaneously decrying personal attacks)—I'm merely expressing my heartfelt assessment that you're bias is against Donald Trump—a bias which was well-documented during the campaign cycle, and which I've seen no evidence of having been changed.
If you're guilty of nothing else, you're certainly guilty of grossly underestimating Donald Trump, including the man's character.
I'll admit to assuming the role of "cheerleader"; that has occurred as a result of everything I've seen and heard from Donald J. Trump during this incredible period of American history.
Any comments which are made with the intent to undermine this Presidency are out of line, IMHO, and I've concluded—rightly or wrongly—that you, if only subconsciously, often speak from that motivation.
There's a right way and a wrong way to do such things in time of war. People like Jim Robinson, for instance, are able to express disagreement with the President without going on the attack. Others seem less able, or inclined, to do so...
Well the usual Wizards of Smart® are saying the unmasking was not illegal.
But some are admitting that it was illegal to disseminat the intelligence, with the unmasked, identities.
And so, of course, was the final step in the Obama administration's scheme:
Leaking the unmasked/disseminated documents to the MSM.
There were probably at least a few cut-outs along this line connecting Susan Rice and the MSM (such that Rice could claim plausible deniability of knowledge of persons taking the clearly criminal steps).
[. . .the unmasking was not illegal.]
On the face of it the “unmasking” may not have been illegal but when done repeatedly in a pattern suggesting the White House used the NSA apparatus to eavesdrop on domestic political opponents to affect a U.S. election it then could become a criminal conspiracy.
Unless I’m misreading the stories, IF this is true, that ought to provide evidence of malfeasance. There’s no rational way to reconcile compilation of communications and “incidental” collection of data. Once compiled, the information is no longer incidental.
Are we going to be reliving the definition of sex? “Incidental” means “accompanying but not a major part of something.” If a compilation is made, the communications become the major part of something, the compilation.
Yes it is.....tentacles everywhere.
Rush said today Susan Rice, asked about unmasking by Andrea Mitchell, responded that unmasking is not the same as leaking. What does that mean? Why did she volunteer that info?
Farkas said in a speech by that Trump “will be impeached” quickly “and someone else would take over”. I believe she meant there will be a coup and Trump would be “removed” one way or the other.
She’s separating herself from the activity that’s unavoidably illegal. She believes she can defend herself against unmasking. The whole thing was a conspiracy, though, right down to relaxing rules as far as sharing intel between agencies authorized by Obama shortly before leaving office.
Off with her head!
Susan and Lois must die for their crimes against the Republic
I think that, unless she shuts her mouth and lawyers-up real soon, she's going to let her butt override her bellybutton and she's going to be nose-deep in the septic tank ...
Now you’ve gone and done it, given Natalie Bedwetter a case of the vapors.
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.