Since her awkward March speech in which Hillary vowed she was “ready to come out of the woods,” the world has been anxiously waiting for the two time failed presidential candidate to announce her next move. In the absence of facts, rumors have swirled that she might consider a run for Mayor of New York, start working on a 2020 presidential bid or just return to the Clinton Foundation.
Now, courtesy of The Hill, it seems we can at least knock a return to the Clinton Foundation off the list of possible future careers.
“She’s taking a look at her life and wants to try some different things,” said one ally who has spoken to Clinton in recent weeks. “She’s not tying herself to something that’s always been an option. She wants to figure out what she wants to do.”
Still, those familiar with Clinton’s immediate future say that just because she won’t take an active role in the organization doesn’t mean she won’t give occasional foundation-related speeches or participate in its programs.
“Everyone knows they’ll have access to her whenever they need her,” the confidant said. “This has really become President Clinton and Chelsea’s thing.”
Perhaps the true catalyst is that with prospects for a “Clinton” being the next president no longer imminent – unless of course Hillary or Chelsea confirm their plans to run again – former donors such as Norway and Australia have quietly stopped handing over their cash?
Of course, with the various pay-to-play allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation during her last presidential campaign, including that time she was offered $12 million for a “meeting” in Morocco, it’s not terribly surprising that Hillary would look to distance herself from the organization if she’s considering a return to public life.
Clinton took an active role in the family’s foundation after leaving the State Department in 2013, working on early childhood development and other issues involving women and girls.
“I am thrilled to fully join this remarkable organization that [former President] Bill [Clinton] started a dozen years ago, and to call it my home for the work I will be doing,” she said in remarks at the Clinton Global Initiative in 2013.
At the same time, in 2013, the foundation changed its name to the Bill, -Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, though it changed back to the Clinton Foundation in 2015.
And while we still don’t know Hillary’s ultimate ambitions, The Hill notes that she’s hard at work making more money and playing with her grandchildren.
For now, Hillary Clinton is focused on her upcoming book, which she is writing with two campaign speechwriters: Dan Schwerin — who also helped write the former secretary of State’s 2014 book, “Hard Choices” — and Megan Rooney.
She is also scheduled for several speeches, including a commencement speech in May at her alma mater, Wellesley College.
In an interview Tuesday on “CBS This Morning,” Chelsea Clinton was asked what her mother’s plans might look like in the coming months.
“She’s focused, thankfully, on her grandchildren,” the former first daughter said. “She’s focused on what she can do to help support work that she’s been engaged in for longer than I’ve been alive, around children, around women, around families.”
Have we seen the end of Hillary’s campaigning days or does she have one more tour of duty in her? A 2020 rematch could be good fun
We’ve covered the hidden story of manipulation within Syria quite extensively. And in the example today of Chemical Weapons being used against the Syrian People, all indications do not point toward Bashir Assad doing it.
The entire event looks like an horrific operation by anti-Assad forces trying to create assistance for their regime change efforts by killing their own people. Yes, they are that desperate; and yes, there are vested interests in the U.S., including the CIA, who would support such an objective.
Remember, as a direct outcome of the Obama/Kerry U.S. policy we have been arming the anti-Assad Syrian elements for several years. This is not hidden.
With President Obama out of office; with President Trump not supportive of foreign policy based on regime change; and with Trump’s Secretary of State Tillerson saying just a few days ago that “Syrians will determine the future of Syria” the anti-Assad Syrians are now desperate.
There is ZERO motive for President Bashir Assad to weaponize chemical weapons against his people. Assad’s forces are winning the war, Syria is more stable now than ever in the past six years, Assad has nothing to fear from a Trump administration, and using chemical weapons just doesn’t serve his interests.
However, in their desperation, there is ample motive for the anti-Assad elements to give the appearance of ‘war-crimes’ in an effort to try and gain some desperate positioning in their remaining moments. Additionally, there is more than ample evidence the perpetual war machine, the Deep State and their alignment with global ideologues, would trigger such an optic.
It is not accidental this happens right after Secretary Tillerson’s statement.
So lets go back and review what we already know as fact – Beyond the U.S. policy change, we must remember that Secretary John Kerry essentially told the anti-Assad forces they would need to pull off this type of a ruse.
♦ In August of 2014 President Obama (wearing a tan business suit) gave a press conference where he stated he “did not have a strategy” against ISIS. –Video Link–
♦ Two months later, in October of 2014, Josh Earnest gave a press conference where he stated: “Our ISIS strategy is dependent on something that does not yet exist” –Video Link–
However, on September 30th 2016 the New York Times quietly released a leaked audio recording of Secretary John Kerry meeting with multiple factions associated within Syria.
When you listen to the audio recording (embed below) it becomes immediately obvious what was going on when both of those 2014 statements were made by the White House. In addition, you discover why this jaw-dropping 2016 leak/story was buried by the U.S. media and how it connects to over 5 years of perplexing U.S. mid-east policy.
This evidence within this single story would/should forever remove any credibility toward the U.S. foreign policy under President Obama. It also destroys the credibility of a large number of well known republicans. What the recording reveals is substantive:
♦ First, only regime change, the removal of Bashir Assad, in Syria was the goal for President Obama. This is admitted and outlined by Secretary John Kerry.
♦ Secondly, in order to accomplish this primary goal, the White House was willing to watch the rise of ISIS by placing their bet that ISIS’s success would force Syrian President Bashir Assad to acquiesce toward Obama’s terms and step down.
♦ Thirdly, in order to facilitate the two objectives, Obama and Kerry intentionally gave arms to ISIS and even, arguably, attacked a Syrian government military convoy to stop a strategic attack upon the Islamic extremists killing 80 Syrian soldiers.
Pause for a moment and consider those three points carefully before continuing. Because this audio (below), along with accompanying research now surfacing, not only exposes these three points as truth – but also provides the specific evidence toward them.
The problem in the Obama/Kerry’s secret strategy became clear when ISIS grew in sufficient strength to give the White House optimism for the scheme – however, instead of capitulation Assad then turned to Russia for help.
When Russia came to aid Bashir Assad the Syrian Government began being able to defeat ISIS and the Islamic Extremist elements within Syria. For the hidden plan of Obama/Kerry (and also McCain, Graham, et al), Russia defeating ISIS, al-Qaeda and al-Nusra, upended their objective.
The revelations within this leaked audio are simply astounding. The 40-minute discussion took place on the sidelines of a United Nations General Assembly in New York. The meeting took place at the Dutch Mission to the United Nations on Sept. 22nd 2016:
[…] Kerry’s off-record conversation was apparently with two dozen ‘Syrian civilians’, all from US backed opposition-linked NGO’s in education and medical groups supposedly working in ‘rebel-held’ (aka terrorist-held) areas in Syria.
This opposition conclave also included ‘rescue workers’ which can only be ambassadors from the White Helmets, a pseudo NGO which serves as Washington and London’s primary PR front in pursuit of a “No Fly Zone’ in Syria, and it’s being bankrolled by the US, UK, EU and other coalition states to the tune of well over $100 million (so far). (link)
Listen to the audio.
Key Kerry moments at 02:00, and again at approximately 18:30 forward.
The discussion from 18:30 through to 29:00 are exceptionally revealing and should be listened to by anyone who has wondered what was going on in Syria. Kerry even makes mention of the “Responsibility to Protect, or R2P” principle:
@18:30 Secretary John Kerry:
[…] Well, the problem is the Russians do not care about law, and we do. And, we don’t have a basis -our lawyers tell us- unless we have a U.N. Security Council resolution, which the Russians can veto and Chinese, OR unless we are under attack from the folks there, or unless we are invited in. Russia was invited in by the legitimate regime, well, it’s illegitimate in our mind, by the regime. And so, they were invited in and we’re not invited in.
We’re flying in airspace there, where they can turn on the air defense and we have a very different scene. The only reason they’re letting us fly is because we’re going after ISIS. If we were going after Assad, those air defenses, we’d have to take out all those air defenses, uh, and we don’t have a legal justification, frankly, for doing that unless we stretch it way beyond the law on a humanitarian basis, which some people argue we should – by the way.
Uh, but so far American legal theory has not gone into these so called “right to protect”, uh, and we don’t even have what we had in Kosovo where we had an, you know, an existing resolution and so forth. Uh, even though we went alone.
And so it’s complicated, it’s not easy. And we’ve been fighting. How many wars have we been fighting? We’ve been fighting in Afghanistan, we’ve been fighting in Iraq, we’ve fighting -you know- in the region for fourteen years. And a lot of Americans don’t believe that we should be fighting and sending young Americans over to die in another country. That’s the problem.
The congress won’t vote to do it. And you can be mad at us, but what we’re trying to do is help Syrians fight for their own country; and we’ve been spending a lot of money, a lot of effort to try and help do this. So, there’s an opposition there; the opposition is doing very well. Russia came in, and that’s a problem I know, because, uh, y’ know, uh, we don’t behave like Russians, it’s just a different standard.
So we are trying to see if we can test whether Russia, you see, is serious about a political solution. And if they are not serious, then we will help the opposition more. But I don’t think that’s particularly good for Syrians in the end because it will mean more fighting.
Secretary Kerry is then questioned by an obvious sympathizer to ISIS (calls pro-assad Sunni faction “Sunni Jews”) about why the U.S. fights the extremist Sunni (ISIS), but not the extremist Shia (Hezbollah). Kerry’s response:
Well, they’re [Hezbollah] a terrorist organization, we’ve designated them a terrorist organization. The reason for [airstrikes against the Sunni Extremists] is because they have basically declared war on us; and are plotting against us, and Hezbollah is not plotting against us; Hezbollah is exclusively focused on Israel, they’re not attacking now, and on Syria where they are attacking in support of the, uh, in support of Assad.
So it a, uh, it’s…
[Interrupted]
Question: But how to make the majority of the Syrian people accept this approach, that because Hezbollah or the Iraqi or Iranian groups are not attacking the U.S. now when they are attacking against the terrorism in Syria?
Kerry: Well, they, they are targeted by the opposition who we are arming and training.
The interview continues with anti-Assad Syrians expressing their frustration that multiple social media and social justice type efforts (the Pallywood type scripted activity targeting the United Nations to take action) have yielded no positive results in the international community stepping in to take down Bashir Assad directly.
Against the backdrop of this recording we can reconcile so many historic issues. We already know of a Second Presidential Finding Memo authorizing additional CIA covert action in 2012, this time in Syria. However, unlike the 2011 Libyan operation we do not know the operational name of the second action in 2012 Syria.
2012:WASHINGTON, Aug 1 (Reuters) – President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, U.S. sources familiar with the matter said.
Obama’s order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence “finding,” broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad. (link)
Further consider how this Kerry audio tape, and the now transparent Obama policy toward Syria, absolutely confirms our previous research as it is contained with the Benghazi Brief surrounding Syria:
(JULY 2012) As they stood outside the commandeered government building in the town of Mohassen, it was hard to distinguish Abu Khuder’s men from any other brigade in the Syrian civil war, in their combat fatigues, T-shirts and beards.
But these were not average members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba’a, or “strangers”, after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden’s time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year.
They try to hide their presence. “Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags,” said Abu Khuder. “They fear America will come and fight us. So we fight in secret. Why give Bashar and the west a pretext?” But their existence is common knowledge in Mohassen. Even passers-by joke with the men about car bombs and IEDs.
According to Abu Khuder, his men are working closely with the military council that commands the Free Syrian Army brigades in the region. “We meet almost every day,” he said. “We have clear instructions from our [al-Qaida] leadership that if the FSA need our help we should give it. We help them with IEDs and car bombs. Our main talent is in the bombing operations.” Abu Khuder’s men had a lot of experience in bomb-making from Iraq and elsewhere, he added.
[…] Abu Khuder split with the FSA and pledged allegiance to al-Qaida’s organisation in Syria, the Jabhat al Nusra or Solidarity Front. He let his beard grow and adopted the religious rhetoric of a jihadi, becoming a commander of one their battalions.
“The Free Syrian Army has no rules and no military or religious order. Everything happens chaotically,” he said. “Al-Qaida has a law that no one, not even the emir, can break.
“The FSA lacks the ability to plan and lacks military experience. That is what [al-Qaida] can bring. They have an organisation that all countries have acknowledged.
“In the beginning there were very few. Now, mashallah, there are immigrants joining us and bringing their experience,” he told the gathered people. “Men from Yemen, Saudi, Iraq and Jordan. Yemenis are the best in their religion and discipline and the Iraqis are the worst in everything – even in religion.”
At this, one man in the room – an activist in his mid-30s who did not want to be named – said: “So what are you trying to do, Abu Khuder? Are you going to start cutting off hands and make us like Saudi? Is this why we are fighting a revolution?”
“[Al-Qaida’s] goal is establishing an Islamic state and not a Syrian state,” he replied. “Those who fear the organisation fear the implementation of Allah’s jurisdiction. If you don’t commit sins there is nothing to fear.” (link – more)
al-Qaeda’s goal was to establish the Islamic State, that’s the origin of ISIS. Against the backdrop of ISIS formation in Syria, and understanding the Obama objectives were regime change first and foremost, we can now reconcile all of Obama’s foreign policy surrounding Syria.
President Obama, Secretary Clinton and later Secretary Kerry, together with John McCain, and the CIA tentacled team within the Republican party, were willing to support ISIS (under all factional names) in order to overthrow Bashir Assad…
Representative Adam Kinzinger, Senator John McCain, candidate Evan McMullin
What you are about to read is specifically how the Muslim Brotherhood, and ISIS, connect to the Republicans outlined above – and how their individual behaviors within the 2016 election begin to make sense. And how their continuing behavior in 2017 reconciles against the backdrop of their interventionist, deep state, foreign policy objectives.
Perhaps, like us, you will have an ah-ha moment.
The “Never Trump” coalition has always consisted of a few noisy and indecent politicians within Washington DC. Senator John McCain, Senator Ben Sasse, Senator Jeff Flake and House Representative Adam Kinzinger the most noteworthy and vitriolic.
However, whenever CNN, or for that matter any media, want a republican voice to argue against Donald Trump, in the “current days’ outrage du jour”, they call upon Kinzinger first and foremost.
Kinzinger loves the spotlight as much as he enjoys promoting himself on social media. In essence, he was a proud #NeverTrumper and continues to be a useful media mouthpiece when they need an anti-Trump opinion embedded using a Republican.
We’ll come back to Kinzinger and McMullin in a moment. But first we must place the second set of puzzle pieces on the table.
When we did all the exhaustive research into the Benghazi Brief three years ago, one of the pictures that continued to draw our interest was this one:
The picture above was taken during a time when Senator John McCain visited Syria, and the Western media were proclaiming there were “moderates” in the opposition to Bashir Assad. Senator McCain proclaimed this 2012 visit to be meeting with the “Free Syrian Army”. [Coincidentally, this was on the same trip where he met Ambassador Chris Stevens at the Benghazi courthouse in Libya for the last time].
However, at the same time McCain was trying to convince the world of moderate Syrian resistance, multiple voices within non-traditional journalism, and a large number of people doing independent research, reached the conclusion that al-qaeda and al-Nusra extremists had completely infiltrated the Syrian resistance groups, and a new militant Islamic network was forming.
“2012 NO ISLAM WITHOUT JIHAD” – members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba’a, or “strangers”, after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden’s time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year.
They try to hide their presence. “Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags,” said Abu Khuder. “They fear America will come and fight us. So we fight in secret. Why give Bashar and the west a pretext?” But their existence is common knowledge in Mohassen. Even passers-by joke with the men about car bombs and IEDs.
That network ultimately evidenced and defined itself as the Islamic State, or ISIS.
In 2013 and 2014, even though ISIS initially did not have a name, as the hardline extremists in Syria became more openly visible, eventually the western media accepted Raqqa and Aleppo had become the de-facto center of Syrian ISIS operations. In August of 2014 President Obama finally admitted the problem and stated his administration was caught off guard and did not have a strategy to combat them.
Back To The Photograph – The importance of the McCain photograph became increasingly interesting because ISIS as an extremist force became increasingly visible. As a direct consequence we were able to identify the ideology of the people in the picture:
There has been some skepticism as to #2 being al-Baghdadi himself, and Senator John McCain has strongly refuted this claim. However, there is more evidence to prove it is Baghdadi than to refute it’s not Baghdadi. Person #2 looks just like him:
In addition, one of the important bits of evidence to prove #2 is indeed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is actually found in #1 Abu Mosa (ISIS Press Officer).
Abu Mosa was killed in August 2014. In 2012, during organization, Baghdadi would have a man with this level of importance to the Islamic State around him at the time this picture was taken.
However, lets look at #5 – “Mouaz Moustafa”, because he is the current person that should be of interest to everyone in the 2016 presidential discussion. Moustafa is the connective tissue per se’. In the photograph, he’s also Senator McCain’s intermediary:
Fast forward two intense years later and look where #5, Mouaz Moustafa shows up in 2014. And more specifically the two faces that show up with him:
Well lookie there. During a trip to Turkey in 2014 to discuss arming Syrian rebel groups, under the auspices of fighting ISIS, you see Representative Adam Kinzinger appear. Oh yeah, and who’s that other fellow circled in the meeting? ….why that’s our anti-Trump candidate Evan McMullin.
Huh, fancy that.
Spotting Evan McMullin conspicuously standing there in the picture made us want to go back to the CNN file footage from the time and see if he was actually visible in the report they filed from Turkey. Yup, he’s there alright.
Watch and spot him in the background during quite a bit of the footage:
Long before anyone heard about Evan McMullin running for President, there he is paling around with #NeverTrump Adam Kinzinger in Turkey chatting with the Muslim Brotherhood affiliates (guise SETF) who are essentially the political arm of ISIS under a differing name.
The declared purpose of the meeting was to discuss who and how to arm the entities within Syria. However, just like in 2012/2013 these same Brotherhood voices in 2014 are simply trying to present themselves as one thing, only to gain the goal of another.
That reality is ultimately the story behind the arms deals within The Benghazi Brief. That’s the lesson that should have been learned if the truth contained within the brief were ever to have larger public interest.
Additionally, all that said – it’s connections like these that make other things, like the opposition to Donald Trump, make much more sense.
Just step back and look at the landscape from the elevated position. Who are the Washington DC politicians most invested in, and public about, the removal of Bashir Assad?
There’s some seriously sketchy activity here, and it is not recent. Activity that carries solid and visible connective tissue to a much larger objective. There’s just no doubt Senator McCain is leading a foreign policy that continues to be his own construct.
Every nation McCain has involved himself within, has resulted in chaos or civil war as a direct result of his engagement. Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen and now Ukraine and the Baltic states.
Who is paying these characters.
My God, dozens -perhaps hundreds- of Syrians were killed toward the objective of getting rid of Bashir Assad. Who are these Deep State creeps?
QUESTION: You once said you could fix the mess in 30 days or less but they would assassinate you. How can you ever make our politicians responsible? My second question is, why are the really smart people not running government?
KW
ANSWER: The term limits are mandatory, but you have to cut off the incentive as well. No pension or salary after one term. People want to run for Congress and you are taken care of for life if you served even just one day. As for taking a cabinet position like Secretary of the Treasury, well you have to sell all your stock in whatever bank you are leaving and because you MUST do this, you get to sell everything tax free. They have rules to exempt themselves from everything.
Eliminate all special perks. Social Security should be for all as should the healthcare. Why should they get benefits we cannot even buy? If you limit the terms to one-time-and-out, eliminate pensions, and you subject everyone to the same benefits even while in office, then you will see things shape up. Drug Companies lobby the most. Politicians need money for re-election. If you make it one-term-and-out, you eliminate the lobbying since there is no re-election and you subject them to the same healthcare we have. Then they will not vote for things that will deprive themselves.
This is basic human nature.
As to why really smart people are not in government? That is simple. Knowledge comes from ONLY experience. I was asked if I would take the position as Chief Economic Advisor in the Bush, Jr. White House. I laughed. First, I had a real company. I could not put that in some blind trust. Then, could you image a confirmation hearing in the Senate? I would have been accused by the Democrats or helping the Japanese and German auto manufactures against GM. They would have had a field day turning that into some sort of treason. On top of that, the only way to gain experience is doing something and that means we must make mistakes in order to learn. Do you keep putting your wet finger in a light socket assuming one time you will not get socked if you just keep it up?
Nobody I know who would be qualified to do anything in banking or the economy would EVER take such a job. Who needs that sort of magnification of every aspect of your entire life? There are only two types of people who will take such jobs. Either you do it for the perks, or you do it because you want to be remembered. You are better off with someone like Trump on that score for he cannot be bribed with money. They either have it and do it for the ego or they do it to get money and status like the Clintons. There really seems to be no in between these days.
With a general set of narrative ‘talking points’ in hand President Obama’s Former National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, appeared this morning on MSNBC for an interview with Andrea Mitchell. This is the ‘We-Have-To-Respond-phase‘, which necessitates the optic.
Andrea Mitchell is considered a trustworthy ally of the Clinton/Obama political networks; as such, it is not a surprise to see Mitchell selected as the interviewer. Mitchell’s use of wording carefully guides Susan Rice through the narrow path of self-incrimination by providing plausible deniability for verbal missteps.
You already know the routine. MSNBC is the favorable proprietary venue. Mitchell plays the role of media-legal-adviser, her client is Susan Rice. Live interviews are always the greatest risk (see: Evelyn Farkas) The full interview is below:
However, that said, there are some interesting aspects to the interview:
Susan Rice @00:51 – …”Let me explain how this works. I was a National Security Adviser, my job is to protect the American people and the security of our country. That’s the same as the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and CIA Director.; and every morning, to enable us to do that, we receive – from the intelligence community – a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us –on a daily basis– to give us the best information as to what’s going on around the world.”
[Note, Susan Rice is describing the PDB]
“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to. Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.
And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and asses it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”
OK, so right there, in the very beginning of the forward narrative, Susan Rice is confirming the “unmasking” request(s) which can be pinned upon her, are directly related to her need to understand -on behalf of President Obama- intelligence for the President’s Daily Briefing (the PDB). This was a previous question now answered.
Remember, the President’s Daily Brief under President Obama went to almost everyone at top levels in his administration. Regarding the Obama PDB:
[…] But while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.
In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers.
By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments. (link)
If you know how concentric circle political safety is constructed, you will notice that Susan Rice is now hugging the security of the Presidency. No space. To take Rice down, means to take down President Obama – safe play on her part.
Reverse the safety. No-one in media or congress is going to allow President Obama to be taken down; ergo, everyone will protect Susan Rice. They have no choice.
[Also note how when shifting from rehearsed talking point (script) to cognitive explanation of Rices’ point , the noun shifts from “U.S. Person” to “U.S. Official”.]
“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to. Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.
And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and asses it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”
It’s subtle (like a Freudian slip), but Rice accidentally outlines her filter, her psychological trigger, for when to request the unmasking. She’s looking for the politics behind the intelligence. She’s looking for “U.S. Officials” in masked intelligence reports.
Mrs. Rice then follows up with a “hypothetical example” that is ridiculous as she describes. The example provided (a sketchy dude in mom’s basement) would NEVER reach the level of PDB; it would be pre-filtered, researched and reviewed for value. The PDB NEVER contains such banal information as Rice describes.
The interview goes much further. There is a lot of news in this interview. There is also a tremendous amount of double-speak and self-contradiction; in some cases between sentences that follow each other.
Notice how Susan Rice contradicts herself about what the intelligence community puts into the PDB. Remember, Rice considers the PDB intel community to be very specific: James Clapper (DNI), John Brennan (CIA) and Defense Department (which would be the Pentagon and NSA Mike Rogers). And she states they would never send the President innocuous things unworthy of review….
If former National Security Advisor Susan Rice though she could get away from the current furore over the Trump “unmasking” scandal with just one MSNBC interview in which Andrea Mitchell did not even ask her why she lied two weeks ago to PBS, she will be disappointed as moments ago Dow Jones reported that the House Intelligence Panel has asked Susan Rice to testify, supposedly under oath.
HOUSE INTELLIGENCE PANEL ASKS SUSAN RICE TO TESTIFY, DJ SAYS
The next question on everyone’s lips: will she plead the Fifth?
As a reminder, earlier in the day, the MSNBC anchor asked Susan Rice if she would testify before congress as Rand Paul requested, Rice responded by changing the subject to Russia.
“Rand Paul is suggesting that you be subpoenaed to testify. Would you be willing to go to Capitol Hill?” Mitchell aske
“You know, Andrea, let’s, let’s… see what comes,” she said. “Umm, I’m not going, ahh, you know, sit here and prejudge, but what I will say is that the investigations that are underway as to the Russian involvement in our electoral process are very important and they’re very serious. Every American ought to have an interest in those investigations going wherever the evidence indicates they should.”
Things are going to get interesting. Of course mainstream media will say this brewing scandal is fake news. Nevertheless, my sources have been talking about this for months now. The Daily Caller now is reporting that former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova is talking saying that Susan Rice ordered the spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of all legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president. This is likely to be a new Watergate and it seems to fit with our computer forecasts and (1) 2015.75 was the peak in government and from that point onward, it would be all downhill. Yet (2), that the Democratic Party appears to have reached the tipping point. They lost more than 1,000 seats nationwide. They knew they were in serious trouble and thus unleashed the NSA head to go after Trump pretending this had to do with Russians. This is why it may have been the reason Clapper resigned rather than work for Trump.
Joseph diGenova told the Daily Caller: “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.”
This is going to get real nasty going forward. You can easily see that the combined Senate-House seats as a percentage reflect that the Democrats are in a serious downward spiral. Since the Great Depression, the Democrats have been making lower highs and lower lows. That is the definition of a bear market. This is why we are looking at Obamagate unfolding – desperate times call for desperate measures.
Since the Republicans have effectively been taken-over by an outsider, even their politics has not been as usual. Things are going to change in a very big way moving forward and this scandal is just feeding into the trend. What this will expose is how corrupt the press is as they desperately try to hide the truth and defend the Democrats at all costs.
Tucker Carlson tackled the subject of Susan Rice and privacy this evening — drawing a red line in the sand — proclaiming that ‘our laws provided no serious protections from being spied on for political reasons.’
Can anyone make an argument proving this to be a false statement?
All too often, lazy thinkers conclude that it is the right of government to spy on its citizens. Perhaps that is the case in Saudi Arabia or Canada, but it’s not supposed to be that way here. Either the promotional propaganda that lauds America’s democracy as being the ideal for representative forms of government are true or they aren’t. Providing the latter prevails, as it is now, no one will ever believe in the dream that was democracy — thanks to a cadre of corrupt mountebanks who’ve abused the goodwill of the American people and its systems for purposes of self-aggrandizement and a prevailing bias that wantonly eschews the liberty of its citizens — superseded only by a craven and insatiable appetite for power.
Just over a week after the Republicans’ embarrassing failure to repeal Obamacare as a result of infighting with both conservative and moderate factions, on Monday White House officials led by the vice president met the same opposing Republicans in the House of Representatives, in an aggressive effort to revive the passage of the Republican Obamacare deal, potentially voting as soon as the end of the this week.
As Reported by Reuters and other newswires, members of the Trump administration led by Vice President Mike Pence, invited a group of moderate Republicans known as the “Tuesday Group” to the White House. Pence then went to Capitol Hill to meet the Freedom Caucus, who have recently clashed with Trump over their insistence to block the bill in its current format. The revised deal as presented by Pence had two key components:
Granting a waver to States from some, if not all, Obamacare insurance rules including the minimum benefits, the amount of medical expenses that insurers have to cover, and the rule preventing insurers from charging higher rates to sick people, per Axios.
A $115 billion “stability fund” for the states would be narrowed to be spent specifically on high-risk pools, which many Republicans think is a better way to cover people with pre-existing conditions.
The Freedom caucus had a favorable first reaction: Pence and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus laid out the administration’s revised healthcare plan during a 40-minute meeting with Freedom Caucus members, said Congressman Mark Meadows, the leader of the conservative group. Meadows said he was “intrigued” by the new plan, which would allow states to opt out of some of Obamacare’s mandates, possibly by obtaining waivers.
“We’re encouraged … but would certainly need a whole lot more information before we can take any action either in support or in opposition,” Meadows told reporters. He expected to see a detailed draft of the proposal within 24 hours, he said.
Meanwhile, the moderates also were pleasantly surprised: in an earlier meeting with the moderate Tuesday Group, Pence said the new plan would preserve Obamacare’s essential health benefits clause, or services and care that insurers must cover, but states could apply for a waiver if they could show it would improve coverage and reduce costs, according to Collins. Trump aides also discussed directing funds from the $115 billion stability fund for states into high-risk pools for people with pre-existing health conditions to better ensure insurance premiums come down in cost.
What is most notable about the recent attempt to reach out is the timing: the White House would like to see a revised bill come up for a vote as early as week’s end, before the House breaks for a spring recess, and the text of the new proposal could be ready some time on Tuesday, lawmakers said.
“It was clear the president would be very happy come Friday to have this passed,” said U.S. Representative Chris Collins, a member of the Tuesday Group and a Trump ally and added that “It’s an acknowledgement that they were chasing votes with the Freedom Caucus and the Far Right and then ended up losing votes with those of us who are typically the most reliable votes.”
The clincher may have been Trump’s weekend golf game with Rand Paul: after golfing with the president on Sunday, Reuters reports that the Republican Senator, a sharp critic of the Republicans’ previous healthcare bill, also expressed renewed hope the healthcare bill could be revised in a way that picked up support from the conservative and moderate factions of the Republican Party.
Paul told reporters he was “very optimistic that we are getting closer and closer to an agreement repealing Obamacare.”
“This could move fairly quickly,” Collins said.
If so, it would provide a much needed victory for Trump whose series of political missteps in recent weeks have seen his approval rating tumble even with Republicans, dropping to the lowest on record for a new president according to various polls.
Once again it appears that Trump was right: the conspiracy theory that a close Obama associate worked to “unmask” the Trump team, resulting in the ongoing media spectacle over “collusion” between Trump and the Kremlin, has been confirmed, first by Mike Cernovich, and now by Bloomberg itself.
As noted last night, Journalist and author Mike Cernovich dropped an exclusive bombshell – naming Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice as the official responsible for the ‘unmasking’ of the incoming Trump team during ‘incidental’ surveillance. This was apparently discovered after the White House Counsel’s office reviewed Rice’s document log requests:
The reports Rice requested to see are kept under tightly-controlled conditions. Each person must log her name before being granted access to them.
Upon learning of Rice’s actions, [National Security Advisor] H. R. McMaster dispatched his close aide Derek Harvey to Capitol Hill to brief Chairman Nunes.
Cernovich pointed out, as revealed in an article by Circa, that President Obama began loosening the rules regarding “incidental intercepts” starting in 2011 – making it easier for the US Government to spy on individuals who are not the primary target(s) of a surveillance operation.
As his presidency drew to a close, Barack Obama’s top aides routinely reviewed intelligence reports gleaned from the National Security Agency’s incidental intercepts of Americans abroad, taking advantage of rules their boss relaxed starting in 2011 to help the government better fight terrorism, espionage by foreign enemies and hacking threats
And guess who had authorization to unmask individuals who were ‘incidentally’ surveilled? Former CIA Director John Brennan, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and Obama’s National Security advisor Susan Rice. Also of note is the claim that New York Times journalist Maggie Haberman has been sitting on the Susan Rice story for at least two days:
This reporter has been informed that Maggie Haberman has had this story about Susan Rice for at least 48 hours, and has chosen to sit on it in an effort to protect the reputation of former President Barack Obama.
Fox News anchor Adam Housley tweeted on Friday that the surveillance that led to the unmasking began before Trump was the GOP nominee, and that the person who did the unmasking is a “very senior” and “very well known” person in the surveillance community – and not someone in the FBI. As ZeroPointNow noted, “this of course begs the question of whether or not President Obama would have ordered Rice to perform the unmasking.”
* * *
Until this morning, the Cernovich report was unconfirmed, with many in the “legacy media” accusing Cernovich, who recently was profiled on 60 Minutes for being a prominent member of the “fake news” dissemination team for being – what else – fake news. However, moments ago Bloomberg’s Eli Lake confirmed that it was indeed Susan Rice who was responsible for the repeatedly “unmasking” multiple members of the Trump team, in what may be dubbed yet another “conspiracy” to delegitimize the current US president.
White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
The pattern of Rice’s requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government’s policy on “unmasking” the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like “U.S. Person One.”
As Lake adds, the National Security Council’s senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting the review, according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice’s multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel’s office, who reviewed more of Rice’s requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.
The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations — primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.
Rice has not yet responded to a Bloomberg email seeking comment on Monday morning. Her role in requesting the identities of Trump transition officials adds an important element to the dueling investigations surrounding the Trump White House since the president’s inauguration.
Making matters worse, Rice appears to have lied: while she has not spoken directly on the issue of unmasking, last month when she was asked on the “PBS NewsHour” about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were swept up in incidental intelligence collection, Rice said: “I know nothing about this,” adding, “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today.”
Ironically, it’s the same Susan Rice who two weeks ago tweeted the following:
Lies aside, according to the Bloomberg reports, “Rice’s multiple requests to learn the identities of Trump officials discussed in intelligence reports during the transition period does highlight a longstanding concern for civil liberties advocates about U.S. surveillance programs. The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice’s unmasking requests were likely within the law.”
Perhaps, but they also served a key political purpose: to create a media firestorm of controversy involving the Trump team, and to delegitimize Donald Trump as much as possible.
Furthermore, the news about Rice also may explain what Bloomberg dubs the “strange behavior of Nunes in the last two weeks.”
It emerged last week that he traveled to the White House last month, the night before he made an explosive allegation about Trump transition officials caught up in incidental surveillance. At the time he said he needed to go to the White House because the reports were only on a database for the executive branch. It now appears that he needed to view computer systems within the National Security Council that would include the logs of Rice’s requests to unmask U.S. persons.
The ranking Democrat on the committee Nunes chairs, Representative Adam Schiff, viewed these reports on Friday. In comments to the press over the weekend he declined to discuss the contents of these reports, but also said it was highly unusual for the reports to be shown only to Nunes and not himself and other members of the committee.
In a tacit admission by Lake that Rice may have crossed numerous boundaries, the Bloomberg reporter adds “much about this is highly unusual: if not how the surveillance was collected, then certainly how and why it was disseminated.”
However the real question goes back to square one: did Obama order the unmasking, and if so, to what political purpose?
Ever since Mike Cernovich dropped the bombshell report over the weekend outing Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, as the person behind the unmasking of the identity of various members of Trump’s team who were ‘incidentally’ surveilled during the 2016 campaign (see “Confirmed: Susan Rice “Unmasked” Trump Team“), a report which was subsequently confirmed by Eli Lake of Bloomberg earlier this morning, everyone has been wondering who within the Trump White House or the intelligence community supplied him with such a massive scoop.
But, as it turns out, Cernovich didn’t need a ‘deep throat’ within the NSA or CIA for his blockbuster scoop, all he needed was some well-placed sources inside of a couple of America’s corrupt mainstream media outlets. As Cernovich explains below, his sources for the Susan Rice story were actually folks working at Bloomberg and the New York Times who revealed that both Eli Lake (Bloomberg) and Maggie Haberman (NYT) were sitting on the Susan Rice story in order to protect the Obama administration.
“Maggie Haberman had it. She will not run any articles that are critical of the Obama administration.”
“Eli Lake had it. He didn’t want to run it and Bloomberg didn’t want to run it because it vindicates Trump’s claim that he had been spied upon. And Eli Lake is a ‘never Trumper.’ Bloomberg was a ‘never Trump’ publication.”
“I’m showing you the politics of ‘real journalism’. ‘Real journalism’ is that Bloomberg had it and the New York Times had it but they wouldn’t run it because they don’t want to run any stories that would make Obama look bad or that will vindicate Trump. They only want to run stories that make Trump look bad so that’s why they sat on it.”
“So where did I get the story? I didn’t get it from the intelligence community. Everybody’s trying to figure out where I got it from. I got it from somebody who works in one of those media companies. I have spies in every media organization. I got people in news rooms. I got it from a source within the news room who said ‘Cernovich, they’re sitting on this story, they’re not going to run it, so you can run it’.”
“If you’re at Bloomberg, I have people in there. If you’re at the New York Times, I have people in there. LA Times, Washington Post, you name it, I have my people in there. I got IT people in every major news room in this country. The IT people see every email so that’s how I knew it.”
And while this could certainly be interpreted as a clever ploy to protect his real sources, Cernovich’s video comments seem to be validated by both his tweet from yesterday afternoon…
…and the fact that Eli Lake of Bloomberg was able to conveniently confirm Cernovich’s story with his own article this morning.
All of which just begs the question of what other stories the mainstream media is sitting on in an effort to protect their chosen candidate
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
!["NO ISLAM WITHOUT JIHAD" - members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba'a, or "strangers", after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden's time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year. They try to hide their presence. "Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags," said Abu Khuder. "They fear America will come and fight us. So we fight in secret. Why give Bashar and the west a pretext?" But their existence is common knowledge in Mohassen. Even passers-by joke with the men about car bombs and IEDs.](https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/no-islam-without-jihad.jpg)
As to why really smart people are not in government? That is simple. Knowledge comes from ONLY experience. I was asked if I would take the position as Chief Economic Advisor in the Bush, Jr. White House. I laughed. First, I had a real company. I could not put that in some blind trust. Then, could you image a confirmation hearing in the Senate? I would have been accused by the Democrats or helping the Japanese and German auto manufactures against GM. They would have had a field day turning that into some sort of treason. On top of that, the only way to gain experience is doing something and that means we must make mistakes in order to learn. Do you keep putting your wet finger in a light socket assuming one time you will not get socked if you just keep it up?
Centinel2012 