Susan Rice Ordered Spy Agencies To Produce ‘Detailed Spreadsheets’ Involving Trump

Definitely

 

So, as everyone knew from the start, it turns out this was another fake story pushed by the Trump propagandists at the Daily Caller.

Same old same old. The crazies have been screaming for over 8 years now that Obama/Clinton/everyone is going to jail now, and this time isn't like every other bogus failed prediction, this time it will really happen!

Except no, it was just another bogus story, just like the last hundred times.

For some reason, the crazies never figure out that they're being played by their masters, who constantly feed them such fake stories to keep them hysterical and obedient.

 

So true.

At this point the RW Fever Swamp is so brainwashed that they would believe that Bigfoot died on the Cross if Breitbart told them to.

 

Or option 3, laugh at Rw delusion

 

She changed her story in an interview on April 4.

 

Most definetly somebody is being brainwashed, your side now thinks it's ok to spy on a political opponent for more than a year. Great thing for you lefties the federal government always has a trail and there will be proof for you to go running around in the street yelling and screaming like 5 year olds. Botttomline your idiots in charge honestly thought they could discredit the trump administration out of the gate by leaking inundo and you band of brothers fell for it hook line and sinker. As usually is for your side is no matter how much you cry Americans still want the proof and it's stacking up against you pretty damn quick. So enjoy your daily talking points praying Americans are dumb. Your media will not save you, you went to far as again. The good news for America is that the right will insure this crap from neonazi partisan hacks will not happen again.

 

Enjoying your view...?

 

Sometimes I really wish the Republicans were half as vicious as these Leftists are because what you described really does need to happen.

 

Just recycle a name for propaganda sake from the non-scandal Benghazi days and the Trumpanzees go ape ****.

 

That is so accurate his legit hilarious.

 

Eventually we will have the actual transcripts of every conversation Trump's campaign team members had with not just the Russian ambassador, but also with each other and with Trump himself. Rice's detailed spreadsheet connecting each of the team members, the sequence in their contacts, conclusions drawn by the skilled analysts of the intelligence community who were tasked with their surveillance as well as regularly updated reports on this to the relevant actors overseeing their work.

From Nunes' comments on what he had seen of this, I got the impression it included private information relating to the travels of Trump's family and details Nunes was alarmed because they seemed too personal.

I wonder about how this surveillance proceeded. I presume that in the course of routine monitoring of the Russian ambassador's communications they came across one or more contacts with Trump team members. This would be an important development during an electoral campaign which featured allegations of Trump's collusion with Russians. Since the ambassador's calls are going to be continuously monitored, it makes no difference if those contacts with Trump's team were innocuous and offered no evidence of such collusion, but the intelligence community opted, as it could, to expand surveillance and we will see how as contacts were made new team members were monitored and then the people they dealt with as well.

We know the intelligence community concluded long ago, there was no evidence of collusion with the Russians to manipulate the election, this is already on the record. It makes sense too since they would have needed to take some action otherwise. Yet there could be something suspicious since we also know Obama himself ordered the documentation of all this surveillance to preserve the record because he feared Trump would cover up any evidence of wrongdoing. What evidence did the intelligence analysts uncover that both allowed their supervisors to assert they found nothing showing collusion and justified Obama's concerns over documentation?

It will be fascinating to review the conversations monitored and contemplate the considerations and motives of those responsible as they expanded their surveillance. I expect we will find initial contacts leading to nothing, tenuous suggestions followed fruitlessly for months as a wealth of intelligence is gathered relating to Trump's campaign strategy, his appearances, scheduled events, finances, reactions to Hillary's campaign developments, internal jockeying among team members. Maybe we will see conclusions and reports on all of this, perhaps some of it will be troublingly related to the conduct of Hillary's campaign.

Another interesting consideration is the evidently mutually adverse regard between Trump and the intelligence community in general. Will the investigation show this distrust is based on the evidence surveillance uncovered or is due to the predicament of that community as they document their wrongdoing?

Could the intelligence community have real evidence of collusion with the Russians and refrain from any action, could Obama sensibly decide it would be preferable to just preserve the record of this collusion and not make it public -even after the election of Trump?

 

Pretty Damning against dirty Rice...
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...aign-members-obama-administration-fbi-cia-nsa

 

The long legs of this Rice bombshell:

Evidently Trump and his supporters think Rice's motivation was more than just "partly" political, after all the top figures in the intelligence community already testified they didn't find evidence of Russian collusion.

As the brilliant article from National Review US Conservative just posted notes:

Read the National Review article, it is a cogent and intelligent explanation of what likely went down, this investigation will offer us an interesting insight into the perfidy of Democrats, Obama's reputation will be irreparably harmed and we will be amazed at Hillary's reach.

What do you think Obama may have been trying to preserve?

 

Its ideological. Obama never thought Trump would win, and once it became clear he might-he tried to throw a wrench in the gears-and failed.

A huckster, and the worst of chicago politics.

Think back to the IRS scandal, Benghazi, his politicized doj, etc-he surrounded himself with true believers who never
needed to be told what to do. He maintained deniability while his minions played dirty.

This is blowing up on the dems, and I suspect it will only get worse for them. To be clear, lefties don't care-but enough Americans will/do.

 

I hope it is as simple as that, what intrigues me is what Obama found in all this surveillance that he felt needed to be documented.

Rice's unmasking and the intentional dissemination of the names of Trump's team members surveilled through her and Obama's actions, the one unmasking and the other loosening restrictions on the dissemination of their names seem aimed at inducing the leaks we are getting, but there must be more to this.

It would be senseless for Obama to document the political use of the intelligence community, he would realize this wouldn't make him look good. Maybe he expects to pass on blame to overzealous minions claiming uninvolvement in these details, but there's that incongruous effort to preserve a record.

Likely Obama didn't imagine Trump could be elected, this would have made him incautious with the surveillance and as the election drew closer he may have urged more of it in the hope of finding that silver bullet. I suspect there is something, that it is "inconsequential" but enough to sustain some inuendo and hold a cloud over Trump and his Administration, this could be what Obama opted for having failed to find that collusion.

Whether Trump's presidency labors stymied under that cloud of suspicion depends on whether the length and breadth of the political use of intelligence resources is more outrageous than the inconsequential contacts the intelligence community has testified they found.

 

That's just it I have and I don't see the conflicting statements.

 

Stop it with the comedy.

 

You may joke about this now, the investigation just started. So far no smoking gun showing Trump's malfeasance, one might think that given enough time and resources something will eventually turn up, but keep in mind they've been investigating Trump's ties to Russia for about a year and we can be sure if there was anything of consequence we would know by now with all these leaks (not to mention the clear animus in the intelligence community).

Trump and his team know the truth, if any of them colluded with the Russians to manipulate the election they would be doing damage control. I think they realized they were under surveillance long ago and know exactly what "inconsequential" Russian contacts can be shown, they evidently are not worried.

Trump will go along with this until it is convenient, perhaps near the midterms if he feels the need to strengthen his hand or maybe later if he has second term ambitions. Then, with over a year of harassment from Democrats, and a litany of revelations showing the ineffective waste of intelligence resources in malicious pursuit of anything to suggest his wrongdoing, Trump will ask us all if we want the authors of such perfidy to lead any further -and the people will choose.

 

Is that why the FBI started investigating the Trump campaign in July?

Yes, I can think back to the IRS "scandal" and Benghazi.

Both of them were manufacured by the right wing noise machine, too.

In fact, Joe DiGenova was the public relations guy for Daryll Issa's witchunt, too. Just as he is the guy who made up this Susan Rice thing.

 

He "made it up"? But she's already admitted it's true!

 

What Susan Rice has already confirmed solidifies the allegations leveled against the former administration. What we know, is that the NSA intercepted, recorded, reviewed, and then redacted, every "piece of evidence" currently in play. We also know, the NSA did not after reviewing, and redacting those intercepts, approach either the FBI, nor the Obama administration with any suspicions of collusion. Susan Rice, for reasons unknown, approached the NSA and requested they provide any, and all Trump related intecepts, UNredacted. While I say Rices reasons for that request are unknown, it is very likely due to Mr Steeles dossier surfacing. There's a high probability Obama knew from the onset, Crowdstrike had been retained by the DNC, to enlist the aid of Steeles FSB assets to covertly surveil, or provide previously collected Russian intel, on Trump. Nearly $2 million was paid to Steele, and his FSB colleagues. There's your collusion. Obama then used that dossier as a premise to begin his own surveillance.

 

Now this right here is call "spin", please apply for a WH position

Why not let's wait and see how this all plays out, Nunes himself said that he saw nothing "illegal" and the collection was "incidental" and he likely saw the actual "evidence".

 

Are you actually suggesting that Sessions and his DOJ are covering for Clinton and Obama and therefore refusing to prosecute these heinous crimes? That's really a hoot! Maybe Sessions is secretly meeting with Bill Clinton on airport tarmacs too....lol

 

First, welcome to the forum. Second, I don't allege the NSA collection was improper. Nunes only saw the documents, and was at the time unaware of who subsequently requested them. Nunes therefore couldn't assert impropriety, nor speculate on motivation. It's conspicuos that you don't refute the chain of events. Do I detect integrity, possibly objectivity ... or are you just warming up?

 

dont hold your breath for those "detailed spreadsheets".