Former Obama Official Describes Last-Minute Rush to Spy on Trump Team, Conceal Intel Sources
A former top Obama administration official made a stunning admission during a panel discussion
on MSNBC's Morning Joe this week.
Evelyn Farkas, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense under Obama, openly admitted that
her colleagues had gathered intelligence on the Trump campaign's alleged ties to Russia
before Donald Trump took office and then tried to hide the sources of that intelligence from
the incoming administration.
"I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill,
it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you
can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration,"
said Farkas.
Note that by "the Hill people," she means congressional Democrats and their staffers.
"I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people
who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy," she said, adding that if "the
Trump folks" found out how they knew what they knew, "they would try to compromise those
sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence."
The comments come as lawmakers on Capitol Hill clash over House Intelligence Committee
Chairman Devin Nunes' claim last week that surveillance operations incidentally collected
Trump team communications during the transition.
Critics have accused Nunes of carrying water for Trump and called on him to recuse himself
from Russia matters, but Nunes and his congressional allies have pushed back.
Aside from questions over whether communications were improperly gathered during the transition
and before, there is speculation over how widely such information was disseminated.
Farkas described a rush to spread the material before Trump took office.
"So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that
there was more.
We have very good intelligence on Russia," she said.
"So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were trying
to also help get information to the Hill."
"That's why you have the leaking," Farkas explained helpfully.
According to Powerline's Scott Johnson, Farkas "all but outed herself as a key source" for
a New York Times story earlier this month that detailed the Obama administration's
efforts to undermine the incoming Trump administration.
The March 1 Times story ran under the headline "Obama administration rushed to preserve
intelligence of Russian election hacking" under the byline of Matthew Rosenberg, Adam
Goldman and Michael Schmidt.
The Times reporters noted that they protected the identity of their sources because, you
know, their cooperation with the Times was criminal or because their actions were otherwise
legally problematic.
The Times reporters put it this way in their March 1 story:
More than a half-dozen current and former officials described various aspects of the
effort to preserve and distribute the intelligence, and some said they were speaking to draw attention
to the material and ensure proper investigation by Congress.
All spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing classified information,
nearly all of which remains secret.
Jordan Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice recently argued on Fox Business
that Barack Obama should be subpoenaed to testify before a closed-door committee hearing
to get to the bottom of the spying allegations.
"He is the one through his associates saying, 'I had nothing to do with this,'" Sekulow
said.
He added that other Obama officials who had that power to "unmask" Americans should also
be subpoenaed.
"Why don't we also bring in some of his top officials like John Brennan, Clapper, Loretta
Lynch -- let's ask them -- Ben Rhodes..." he suggested.
"I believe it's time to put some Obama officials on the spot.
If they refuse to cooperate -- including the president himself -- I think that's telling."
Congressman No, Conservatives Didn't Bring Down AHCA
The presumption upon which much analysis and recrimination has been built since Friday
is that the American Health Care Act lacked support due to the intransigence of the House
Freedom Caucus.
Conservatives, standing their ground in allegiance to principle, brought down the AHCA we have
been told.
Indeed, that notion has been seized upon by the Trump White House to justify opening negotiations
with the Democrats.
One problem: it's not true.
Joining me on "Closing Argument," a local radio show broadcast on Twin Cities News Talk,
Congressman Tom Emmer told listeners Tuesday night that moderates -- not conservatives
-- brought down the AHCA.
He should know.
Emmer serves as a member of the deputy whip team for congressional Republicans.
As such, he personally spoke to members and had access to the actual whip count, something
which no reporter or commentator has seen.
Tom Emmer: ... I get up and I see a headline that says
something like...
"Epic Failure Caused by the Conservative Freedom Caucus..."
[The article] went on to talk about how the Freedom Caucus brought this bill down, and
they go back in history and try to suggest that [the Freedom Caucus is] the reason that
[former Speaker John] Boehner resigned.
... actually, it was the moderates ultimately that brought the bill down.
There were probably ten to fifteen members of the Freedom Caucus that were still a no.
Keep in mind that [the Freedom Caucus] reported their [total] numbers as close to forty.
So you had the vast majority of the Freedom Caucus that was already a yes.
And then you had probably the same number, ten to fifteen, of the Tuesday group -- which
are called the moderates.
They were also a no.
So, really, I think we were within a handful of votes.
But it was pretty evenly split between the most conservative side of our caucus and the
most liberal side of our caucus.
And it just wasn't being reported that way.
Emmer later added:
I won't give you names, because it's not fair.
I'm not going to share private stuff.
But I absolutely can tell you that there were two-thirds to three-quarters of the Freedom
Caucus [who] were yes on this bill.
Now, the reason I think it's not getting reported this way is -- one -- I think it's intentional.
It always has been this way.
You've got to marginalize the conservatives as much as possible.
I think this is done both by liberals on the Left as much as liberals on the Right, Walter.
The more you can marginalize this group, the less influence they can have, right?...
... I don't give the mainstream media this much credit, because I think they're both
ignorant and lazy.
I don't know where they get this information that they've reported as if they've got an
inside track.
I showed [a group of Republican activists] Saturday morning...
I pulled the list out of my pocket.
I had a whip list in my pocket, and I know the people that I talked to directly, and
I can guarantee you that the reporters in the mainstream media did not have the same
conversations that I did.
But I truly believe they have -- one -- they want to marginalize the ultra conservatives.
And two -- what they're doing is, they rationalize the fact that some of these moderates were
a yes until the conservatives started getting things taken out of the bill, the last of
which -- I told you -- was the Obama-titled "essential health benefits."
Those are mandated coverages imposed on insurance companies by Obamacare, which the AHCA initially
maintained.
Emmer contends that the removal of so-called essential health benefits from the AHCA lost
at least as much support from moderates as it gained from conservatives.
Therefore, the dominant media narrative that intransigent conservatives killed the bill
is incorrect.
That narrative has been echoed by the White House and leveraged to justify negotiations
with Democrats.
Emmer warns conservatives to be wary.
They should be very concerned.
First off, Walter, I would say to anybody that's listening; did you really think that
Donald Trump was conservative when he ran for president?
I mean, I don't think that's why he was elected.
He said the right things.
I think he was elected, not because he was loved, but because people across this country
are looking for the biggest baddest whoever that will grab these legislators in the swamp
by the ears and start shaking them around so that they get something done.
He came here to get something done.
And he's told us, those of us that consider ourselves conservatives, "I'm willing to work
with ya.
I'm willing to pass your entire agenda.
But you gotta work with me."
And his threat last week, when he said, "I'm all done negotiating....
I've done everything I can do.
We're done now....
Look if you're not willing to work with me, I'm going across the aisle and I'm going to
start working with Democrats and, by the way, you're not going to like what we do."
So, I guess what I say to Republican voters is, you knew what we were getting [in Donald
Trump].
I knew what we were getting.
But this is our chance... he's telling you that, if you don't start working with him
to get the things that we want, then he's got no choice because he's made these promises
and he's going to keep them, even if he doesn't honor it the way you or I would want it done.
We bought it.
We own it.
That's the bottom line, according to Emmer.
You're not going to get Trump to value conservatism over "getting it done," no matter how misguided
the thing ultimately done is.5-Year-Old Suspended from School for Pretending a Stick Was a Gun
Absurd.
In North Carolina, five-year old Caitlin Miller was playing "Kings and Queens" with her school
friends when she picked up a stick and pretended to "shoot" an intruder who had entered her
"kingdom."
Caitlin was a "guard" in the imaginary kingdom and her job was to protect the royals.
Below, first-person-stick-shooter Caitlin
Things quickly went south.
"Hoke County Schools said Caitlin posed a threat to other students when she made a shooting
motion, thus violating policy 4331."
The school district clowns offered a statement about the suspension: "Hoke County Schools
will not tolerate assaults, threats or harassment from any student.
Any student engaging in such behavior will be removed from the classroom or school environment
for as long as is necessary to provide a safe and orderly environment for learning," the
school system says.
This ABC11 video shows Caitlin describing her "crime."
Really?
ABC11 reports, "Miller says Caitlin was alienated by her friends and teachers as a result of
the suspension.
She hopes that the school will issue some sort of apology to her daughter."
This is terrible.
What sort of idiots are teaching America's children?
A teacher had to decide that Caitlin's pretend behavior was dangerous and a threat to those
in the school and then school administrators had to agree to suspend her.
The anti-gun left has schools so spooked and scared they are punishing 5-year-old girls
for playing.
Shame on them.5-Year-Old Suspended from School for Pretending a Stick Was a Gun
Absurd.
In North Carolina, five-year old Caitlin Miller was playing "Kings and Queens" with her school
friends when she picked up a stick and pretended to "shoot" an intruder who had entered her
"kingdom."
Caitlin was a "guard" in the imaginary kingdom and her job was to protect the royals.
Below, first-person-stick-shooter Caitlin
Things quickly went south.
"Hoke County Schools said Caitlin posed a threat to other students when she made a shooting
motion, thus violating policy 4331."
The school district clowns offered a statement about the suspension: "Hoke County Schools
will not tolerate assaults, threats or harassment from any student.
Any student engaging in such behavior will be removed from the classroom or school environment
for as long as is necessary to provide a safe and orderly environment for learning," the
school system says.
This ABC11 video shows Caitlin describing her "crime."
Really?
ABC11 reports, "Miller says Caitlin was alienated by her friends and teachers as a result of
the suspension.
She hopes that the school will issue some sort of apology to her daughter."
This is terrible.
What sort of idiots are teaching America's children?
A teacher had to decide that Caitlin's pretend behavior was dangerous and a threat to those
in the school and then school administrators had to agree to suspend her.
The anti-gun left has schools so spooked and scared they are punishing 5-year-old girls
for playing.
Shame on them.Judge Nap Is Back and Standing by British Intel Story
Fox News judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano was back on the air as a contributor Wednesday
after a ten-day suspension, standing by his claim that Obama used a British intelligence
organization to spy on then president-elect Trump.
"Yes, I do and the sources stand by it," Napolitano told host Bill Hemmer when asked if he was
sticking to the story.
"And the American public needs to know more about this rather than less because a lot
of the government surveillance authority will expire in the fall and there will be a great
debate about how much authority we want the government to have to surveil us, and the
more the American public knows about this the more informed their and the Congress'
decision will be."
Napolitano later said that "a lot more is going to come" on the issue.
The judge dropped his bombshell on Fox News March 13, saying that "three intelligence
sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command.
He didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he didn't use the FBI, and he didn't use the
Department of Justice."
Instead, Napolitano said, Obama used GCHQ, a British intelligence and security organization
that has 24-7 access to the NSA database.
"There's no American fingerprints on this," Napolitano said.
"What happened to the guy who ordered this?
Resigned three days after Donald Trump was inaugurated."
"He used GCHQ.
What is that?
It's the initials for the British intelligence-finding agency," Napolitano said on Fox.
"So, simply by having two people saying to them president needs transcripts of conversations
involving candidate Trump's conversations, involving President-elect Trump, he's able
to get it and there's no American fingerprints on this."
After White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer repeated Napolitano's claim during a press
briefing, the British government denied having anything to do with spying on Trump, calling
the allegation "off the scale crazy" and "very hard to understand."
National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers also denied Napolitano's assertions.
According to the Daily Mail, Spicer and General McMaster, the U.S. national security adviser,
later apologized for repeating the claims.
Napolitano was temporarily suspended from Fox News soon after that.Wellesley Faculty
Says Free Speech Infringes on Liberty
The left doesn't use fixed definitions, but rather uses propaganda terms that can be twisted
and manipulated into anything they need them to be at any given time.
It's like there isn't a single leftist in the world who owns a dictionary.
The latest example of this is actually a retread of a classic: professors at Wellesley College
are claiming that non-politically correct speech is an abridgment of liberty:
In a faculty listserv message obtained by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education,
the two-year-old Presidential Commission on Race, Ethnicity, and Equity said the recently
invited Laura Kipnis and previous controversial speakers were exhausting students with their
offensiveness.
The six faculty on the women's college commission cited the left-wing historian Jelani Cobb's
theory that certain ideas "impose on the liberty of another" if the person hearing
those ideas is "relatively disempowered":
There is no doubt that the speakers in question impose on the liberty of students, staff,
and faculty at Wellesley.
We are especially concerned with the impact of speakers' presentations on Wellesley
students, who often feel the injury most acutely and invest time and energy in rebutting the
speakers' arguments.
Students object in order to affirm their humanity.
This work is not optional; students feel they would be unable to carry out their responsibilities
as students without standing up for themselves.
Apparently referring to campus reactions to Kipnis -- the subject of a two-month Title
IX "inquisition" at Northwestern University, where she teaches film -- the commission members
said "dozens of students" have told them "they are in distress as a result of a speaker's
words."
What the professors should have done was tell these children to shut up and deal.
Not everyone in life is going to give a flying fig about how they feel about things.
If my words are capable of imposing on someone else's liberty simply because they dislike
them, then I should be able to make the exact same claim, correct?
If it's dehumanizing to claim that someone needs to get a job or should be deported because
they entered the country illegally, then isn't it dehumanizing to compare me to a Nazi?
We're all guaranteed equal protection under the law per the Constitution, and that's because
the Constitution is intended to protect our natural rights.
If mere words can be claimed as an abridgment of liberty, then everyone can make that claim
against everybody, and all free speech is canceled out.
So no more complaints about which pronoun I must use, no more claiming that those who
own guns are violent criminals in waiting, no more accusations of racism based on a policy
disagreement, and so on.
See how that works?
The reality is that when the left makes these claims, they never think about how their ideas
are dead on the drawing board.
They never think about how authoritarian these policies are.
They simply assume they get to be the ones in charge of vetting what can and can't be
said.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét