Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

The Ghost Of White Houses Past

With apologies to Charles Dickens and his immortal A Christmas Carol.

Click directly on the graphic to enlarge it:


From Susan Rice’s White House Unmasking: A Watergate-style Scandal by Andrew C. McCarthy (National Review on April 4, 2017):
Her interest was not in national security but to advance the political interests of the Democratic party.

The thing to bear in mind is that the White House does not do investigations. Not criminal investigations, not intelligence investigations.

Remember that.


Why is that so important in the context of explosive revelations that Susan Rice, President Obama’s national-security adviser, confidant, and chief dissembler, called for the “unmasking” of Trump campaign and transition officials whose identities and communications were captured in the collection of U.S. intelligence on foreign targets?

Because we’ve been told for weeks that any unmasking of people in Trump’s circle that may have occurred had two innocent explanations: (1) the FBI’s investigation of Russian meddling in the election and (2) the need to know, for purposes of understanding the communications of foreign intelligence targets, the identities of Americans incidentally intercepted or mentioned. The unmasking, Obama apologists insist, had nothing to do with targeting Trump or his people.

That won’t wash....
Read the rest HERE.

As expected, many Democrats and the mainstream media are saying, in effect, "Nothing to see here. Move right along."

On the other hand, we have this, which aired on MSNBC on April 4, 2017:


Infidel Bloggers Alliance informs us:
There was another video from this morning, of Scarborough calling out the "paper of record", the New York Times, for ignoring the story.

Here, you can see that MSNBC has asked Youtube to block this video.

Plenty of other videos exist of Scarborough talking about many other subjects. But this one MSNBC pulled from Youtube on "copyright grounds."
Orwell's Ministry of Truth?

47 comments:

  1. Maybe Joe Scarborough finally got religion after hanging around with all those gay blades at Morning Joe.

    It was good to see a nervous chuckle from CFR chieftain, Richard Haass. Maybe he'll be pulling the plug on Joe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I___N___V___T___A___T___I___O___N

      THE TOPIC of TODAY'S POST at MY BLOG:

      What could be objectionable about Republicans using
      The NUCLEAR OPTION, when it has ALREADY been USED by the
      DEMOCRATS?



      Delete
    2. When someone tells you that the nuclear option to confirm Neil Gorsuch is historic or "unprecedented", remind them that:
      It is unprecedented to filibuster a Supreme Court Nomination.
      Never been done before.
      Until democrats did it.

      Delete
  2. Looking at "Lulu" Brzezinski's face during Joe Scarborough's surprisingly admirable interrogative tells us even more about the true nature of our political-ideological enemies than anything else in this video clip.

    If one isn't capable of being sensitive to nuances in tone, facial exoression and body language –– subtle and otherwise ––, and if one can't "read between the lines," and thus divine the true meaning of what one sees, one is not qualified even to HAVE an opinion much less STATE one.

    As Einstein famously said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

    That means that "FACTS" have no value whatsoever unless ine has both the wit and the perception to understand what those facts mean, and what they imply.

    Knowledge is dead, unless it is applied, and whether or not it applied to good and useful purposes is entirely dependent on CHARACTER and MORALITY.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FT,
      Looking at "Lulu" Brzezinski's face during Joe Scarborough's surprisingly admirable interrogative tells us even more about the true nature of our political-ideological enemies than anything else in this video clip.

      YES!

      I deliberately didn't mention Mika Brezinski's body language and facial expressions to see if anyone else might pick up on the cues. She looks deflated, doesn't she?

      Delete
    2. Angry, Wary and Unhappy would be more like it, AOW.

      Delete
  3. Jared Kushner may be playing the ventriloquist to Joe Scarborough according to Roger Stone and Alex Jones. Using Alex Jones here should at least please the Beantown Flatulator. I think Alex Jones is right more often than he's wrong on most topics but he's a bit hard on the ears with too many interruptions of his guests.

    Anyway, Roger Stone does say that Jared Kushner is feeding Joe Scarborough inside info in an effort to undermine Steve Bannon.

    Looks like Joe Scarborough is just another "Gullible Goy".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gullible Goy? Odd expression to use.
      I can't imagine anyone but FreeThinke using it in that context.

      FreeThinke, you actually listen to Alex Jones?
      Wha's he saying about controlling the public with chem trails these days?

      Delete
    2. TO A FOOLISH FOUL FOWL

      You have nothing to gain
      With your claim to be sane.
      It is arrantly bogus,
      And designed to befog us.
      What you claim to know
      Proves your mind didn't grow
      Past the primitive stage
      Of infantile rage,
      So you haven't the brain
      To stay out of the rain!


      ~ Anne Animus

      Delete
  4. AND BANNON IS REMOVED FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL as of this morning.
    I'm no fan, but I doubt Kushner would use that flunky Joe Scarborough for anything...as if anybody really listens to that show, or believes him, anyway.

    Odd that 22 advertisers are pulling ads from O'Reilly's show due to sexual harassment suits that aren't proven, huh? True indignation or POLITICS?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When Kushner has the Secretary of State as a flunky why would he need a low level mouth breather like Scarborough.

      Too bad about O'Really. Nasty man. Maybe he won't be the one to turn out the lights at Faux Snooze after all.

      Delete
    2. Z,
      AND BANNON IS REMOVED FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL as of this morning.

      What's up with that?

      Delete
    3. Duck,
      Is everyone with whose political views you disagree a low level mouth breather?

      Delete
    4. The explanation given today for Bannon's being ON the National Sec. Council at all(which seemed odd to me at the time) was his organizational skills....which makes sense. He apparently can move on now and do whatever else he does. But, of course, CNN is laughable in its big jumps to their own conclusions.
      I have NEVER in my LIFE seen news given like CNN's the last year and it's far worse this year...absolutely a joke. THEY KNOW BETTER, FOLKS....just tune in, tune out and obey CNN! :-)
      Thank GOD their ratings are low.

      Delete
    5. Z,
      I just read that Bannon wasn't removed from the NSC, only from the NSC principals committee and that he still has his security clearance. I think that I read this over at Hot Air.

      As for CNN, they need to change their call letters to HVNN: the Hyper Ventilating News Network.

      Or maybe BSNN: the Breaking Speculation News Network.

      That last set of call letters has quite a ring to it, IMO.

      Delete
  5. Replies
    1. So... President Trump used an intermediary to establish a "back channel" to Russia, eh?

      Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................

      If indeed that is true, if blows to flinders the DemonCrap lie that Trump was in bed with Putin.

      This DemonCrap Propaganda Operation has the staying power of cardboard in the rain because they can't keep their multifarious stories straight.

      Delete
    2. Maybe, if you admitted that you never know what's going on.

      Delete
  6. From RealClear Politics:

    ...We also know, from the questioning of FBI Director James Comey at last month’s hearing, that “unmasking” the names of the Americans who were involved in conversations with foreign persons is a felony, punishable by 10 years in prison....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not for members of the National Security Apparatus and Intelligence Community, as Susan Rice was. We may not know why she made the request, or what she did with the information [if anything]....but we certainly know that she had the authority to make the request of the NSA.

      Delete
    2. CI said:
      "but we certainly know that she had the authority to make the request of the NSA."

      Did she?

      And why would she (the National Security Adviser) be investigating things under the purview of the FBI and CIA. This wouldn't be a common criminal matter this would be investigation(s) of espionage and Rice was a political appointee not an investigator.

      Why were the names of Americans unmasked, if there was no evidence of criminal conduct, and spread around 17 agencies (and heaven knows who) in the last days of the Obama administration?

      Where is there 'any' evidence of collusion?

      Delete
    3. Did she?

      She absolutely did. Any member of the IC [which for this argument certainly includes senior national security members of any Administration] can file a request for unmasking, provided that it meets the criteria of being necessary to understand the intelligence value the report is designed to generate, and identity of the U.S. Person is integral to understanding the crime or offense that was committed. The identities of U.S. persons are included in raw and finished intelligence all the time, under the auspices of ODNIs Intelligence Oversight protocols; it's not uncommon. NSA intercepts are treated with more scrutiny, due to the sensitivity of the sources and methods used for collection.

      Now, typically [actually always] this sort of request isn't going to be directly submitted by Joe Blow the All Source Analyst...but rather the appropriate IO office of a particular agency, but in theory, it can happen. These requests of the NSA [National Security Agency] can obviously be denied, but when made by the NSA [National Security Advisor] or the ODNI and other alphabet agencies, they are generally granted. If criminality is possible or suspected, these issues are turned over to the DOJ/FBI, by the IC....which can include recommendations by the NSC. None of this absolves Rice [or others] if information was leaked by them...but there's really no case to be made - other than rhetorically, that a request was made for partisan political purposes....it's simply not actionable save for a confession.

      The same deference given by the right towards allegations of improper Trump-Russian ties, allowing investigatory procedures to substantiate or dismiss said allegations should logically be granted to the Rice situation, no?

      - CI

      Delete
    4. What does the paper trail show?

      IS there a paper trail on Rice's doings?

      Delete
    5. Beats me, I have a good familiarity with the processes and authorities....but I don't run in those circles. The request would be classified.

      - CI

      Delete
  7. " ... they do it [i.e. protect the privacy of Americans caught in the dragnet spread out by government spies and monitoring agencies] under “minimization” standards that FBI Director James Comey, in recent congressional testimony, described as “obsessive” in their determination to protect the identities and privacy of Americans."

    How could anyone of even modest intelligence believe ANYTHING said by James Comey after the Holy Show of Irrationality and Self-Contradiction he's put on over the past year? Comey is surely one of the LEAST CREDIBLE figures in the disreputable assemblage peopling the District of Columbia Swamp.

    A "LOOSE CANNON" would be the most charitable description of Mr. Comey that I could publish in decent circles.

    ReplyDelete
  8. " ... in publishing the illegally leaked classified information about former national-security adviser Michael Flynn’s communications with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, the New York Times informs us that “Obama advisers” and “Obama officials” were up to their eyeballs in the investigation ..."

    Yes, but at this point shouldn't the full, unexpurgated CONTENT of Mike Flynn's communications with the Russian Ambassador be divulged.

    Perhaps they were only comparing golf scores or discussing the merits of their grandchildren? But wouldn't it be helpful to KNOW that for sure?

    And IF there really WERE any nefarious dealings between them, shouldn't THAT be exposed as well?

    In instincitovely like Mike Flynn, felt great cinfidence in him as a no-baloney man of courage and individuality, was very glad he was appointed by President Trump, and tend to feel General Flynn has been a victim of circumstances.

    BUT, at this point I'd like to know for SURE if he was in fact guilty of any wrongdoing, wouldn't you?

    This whole Flynn Affair doesn't pass the smell test, but who could know the source of the foul odor the way things have been presented to us, the Amerian public?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "... Evelyn Farkas made in her now-infamous MSNBC interview was the throw-away line at the end: “That’s why you have all the leaking.” Put this in context: Farkas had left the Obama administration in 2015, subsequently joining the presidential campaign of, yes, Hillary Clinton — Trump’s opponent. She told MSNBC that she had been encouraging her former Obama-administration colleagues and members of Congress to seek “as much information as you can” from the intelligence community.

    Of course, but THE most suspicious development in this sorry business came with President Obama's eleventh-hour decision to open lines of communication among ALL members of the Intelligence Community in order to permit the free exchange and unfettered sharing of information –– a practice formerly proscribed.

    Now WHY would President Obama order that JUST before his departure?

    It mjght have made better sense had he done this in order to aid and spped investigations at home and abroad ofthe machinations of ISLAMANIACS, Obama did everything he could to FAVOR and PROTECT THEM.

    Again we have a puzzling development that doesn't pass the famous smell test.


    ReplyDelete
  10. I just heard a liberal talking head say that Susan Rice is being mistreated because she's a black woman.

    Really? Really?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Silly
      Hypocritical
      Inane
      Tarradiddle

      That's what THAT is. };^}>

      Delete
  11. Waylon Jennings BrainApril 5, 2017 at 9:17:00 PM EDT

    We knew this phony baloney Russia conspiracy would unravel, didn't we? Conspirators can't keep their mouths shut. Thank you, Madame Farkus.

    It is coming clear now. A year ago, diabolical minds deep in the bowels of Grand Mufti Obama's politburo cooked up a pretext to begin government surveillance of Trump and his team: Suspected collusion between Trump's campaign and the Rooskies.

    That pretext opened the door to turn the federal spying apparatus against Trump. All government actions that followed would ipso facto be legitimate.

    Madame Farkus blew it, talking as she did of classified information, when she had been out of government and working for Hillary for over a year. She has no need to know and it was against the law for her to have access to such information.

    There there is Susan "Dirty" Rice's penchant for intel porn. She couldn't let the conspiracy do it's job. She had to get her dirty claws on it herself, unmask some names, then spread it around. Of course she didn't leak anything; she's too fat a toad for that. You get underlings to do that dirty work.

    So far, the only lawbreaking we have are by as yet unnamed Obama lackeys leaking classified information to willing Demoncrat party propagandists in the press.

    Sit back and get comfy, folks. This is going to get very entertaining. President Trump will have plenty of comedy material when he runs for reelection in 2020.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jaime Crapper, Former Stasi KommisarApril 5, 2017 at 9:27:00 PM EDT

      Don't forget to add in that trafficking in raw intelligence is outside the purview of the National Security Council, which Susan Rice headed up.

      The NSC is a policy arm and administrative coordination body. There is no reason for anyone on that council to see unmasked names. There are professional analysts at CIA, FBI and NSA who track down such connections.

      Susan Rice is criminally-minded incompetent who should spend the rest of her born days in jail.

      She eulogized a Stalinist Ethiopian potentate.

      She wrecked Libya and then lied about our Ambassador's death and the deaths of good Americans.

      She played politics as the Rwandan butchers carried out their genocide.

      Susan Rice is a foreign policy boob. She is the grand totem to tragic US Foreign Policy incompetence.

      Delete
  12. You were caught Red Handed this time Rice and Obama.And you WILL pay the price for it.. But for right now I offer this assessment of what the Dems did and the price they will pay for it... So I leave you with this:
    Revenge is sweet.
    Life is a bitch.
    What goes around comes around.
    Lie down with the dogs and you awake with fleas.
    Time to pay the Tiller.
    You Reap what you sow.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You forgot to add:

    PAYBACK is HELL!

    §;^D=

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And shouldn't it be

      TIME to PAY the PIPER

      At least that's the way I've always heard it.

      Delete
    2. Tea for the Tillerman

      Delete
  14. I have gone into comment moderation until (1) this bad weather passes and (2) my face quits hurting so badly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hope you feel better......and wow, was that a doozy of a storm.

      Delete
    2. CI,
      I was on my way home from work when the hail arrived. Fortunately, I was able to pull over in a 7-11 parking lot to wait out the worst of the storm.

      Delete
  15. House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes is now himself under investigation by the House Ethics Committee.
    The panel is looking into claims that the Republican disclosed classified intelligence.
    Mr Nunes called the charges "entirely false" and "politically motivated".

    ---------
    More Republican naughtiness.

    In a small saucepan over medium heat, melt butter. Add garlic and cook 1 minute, stirring, then remove saucepan from heat and set aside to cool slightly.

    Warm vegetable oil in a large, deep pot with a tight-fitting lid over high heat. When oil is hot, add unpopped popcorn, cover pot, and cook 1 minute. Vigorously slide pot back and forth over burner until popcorn begins to pop. Continue cooking and shaking pot until popping subsides, about 5 minutes. Remove pot from heat and transfer popcorn to large serving bowl.

    Pour butter-garlic mixture over popcorn, sprinkle with Parmesan and cayenne and toss to coat. Season with salt and serve.


    Best served with a brown ale (Pepsi, are you insane?)
    Try:
    Dogfish Indian Brown Ale
    Alesmith Nut Brown
    Bone Shaker Brown Ale

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's plenty of naughtiness to go around -- both sides of the aisle.

      Popcorn is off limits for me for a while. So are laughing and crying -- mouth trauma, facial trauma.

      I'm allergic to hops.

      Delete
    2. Duck,
      Apparently, Trey Gowdy is stepping in.

      Delete
    3. Duckman. of course the "ethics" charges against Rep Nunes are bogus. Fear and smear is all the left knows how to do. They are dirty, so they mudball every body around them to try to drag them down in the sewer the leftwing marinates in 24/7.

      This Obamanista Scam is blown. I notice you didn't answer people above refuting you. Duck and Cover should be your screen name.

      The crash and burn from the hyperpartisan leftwing cotton candy sugar high will be frightening. There is no Russia connection, but there is spying and leaking by Obama apparatchiks.

      Delete
    4. House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes is now himself under investigation by the House Ethics Committee.

      As well he should be. He's abrogated his position to be nothing more than a shill for the orange buffoon. But while we're at it, let's bring Susan Rice in for some questioning by the House committee.

      As much as there's a sordid history between Trump, his sycophants.....and Russia, there's little doubt that the last Administration has clean hands from the election.

      Delete
    5. CI,
      I'm not so sure about Nunes's being a shill. Frankly, I know little about Nunes, who has never been on my radar.

      You know how political loyalties are. Integrity and politics, particularly during this days of hyper-partisanship, are often mutually exclusive. Both sides of the aisle.

      BTW, I stumbled across this today, but I don't know where:

      Adam Schiff: There Is No "Definitive" Proof Of Any Trump-Russia Connection. I don't recall hearing much about that! Maybe I missed it because I was hurtin' for certain on that date (April 2).

      If Susan Rice is called to testify before the House committee, I expect her to take the 5th or rely upon executive privilege.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective