Reflecting on how different the leftist propaganda media’s posture and conduct would be if it had been President Trump spying on Obama coming in, she understates it as “Watergate times ten. There would be people staked out at the Brookings Institution, where Susan Rice has a cushy job, they’d be at her house, they’d find her. If the shoe was on the other foot there wouldn’t be this appalling lack of curiosity on the part of the mainstream media about what was going on here.”
Ingraham asks, “Who directed her to do this? This was just a random thing she was thinking because, uh, Donald Trump’s name was mentioned in some intercept? I mean, Donald Trump’s name would have been mentioned in hundreds, if not thousands of foreign intercepts. So she just happened to choose these ones? The whole thing stinks to high heaven.”
Hannity asks her, as a lawyer, if there’s any situation in which Susan Rice would need to unmask a Trump transition team member or either candidate Trump or President-elect Trump. She thinks it would only be if there were some type of imminent threat to the United States of America. A direct tie or a close tie to a terrorist organization (Republican Party excluded), a terrorist entity, someone with known connections to terror, maybe under those circumstances.”
She details having just gotten off the phone with two former CIA officials right before she came on the program,” and both of them, they don’t even know each other, both of them said that her comment that, ‘well, when I see something interesting, basically I ask for more information. Both of them said that’s just not how it works. You have to have a specific reason for pulling the identity of an American that’s caught up in one of these webs.”
Ingraham says, “She gave that scenario of the bomb maker, the American bomb maker, well that’s obviously not what was going on here. That was a red herring that she threw out.” Hannity notes that everything has to be recorded and “there will be a record of every single time she ever asked to unmask anybody in raw intelligence, correct? So if she only did it in the case of Trump, wouldn’t that basically be case closed, you’re only doing it for political reasons?”
“It’s hard to believe that Susan Rice was acting alone here,” says Ingraham. “She wasn’t acting alone when she went out and sold that story after Benghazi and it’s hard to believe she’s acting alone here. It all smells, and we know that if the shoe were on the other foot the Democrats would be screaming for full accountability, immediate testimony on Capitol Hill.”
Hannity asks if she gets the sense that this is orchestrated sabotage of either an opposition party candidate and a President-elect. Ingraham points out that Rice “initially denied it and then in her response today to Andrea Mitchell gave a double negative, saying she ‘leaked nothing to nobody.’ Ingraham says, “She went to Harvard, she knows that’s a double negative, so that means the affirmative. I’m knit-picking here but you have to parse the words really carefully.
Thank you for reading and sharing my work – Please look for me, Rick Wells, at http://www.facebook.com/RickRWells/ , http://www.gab.ai/RickRWells , https://mewe.com/profile/rick.wells.1 , https://seen.life/21990861rick-wells/profile, https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RickwellsUs and on my website http://RickWells.US – Please SUBSCRIBE in the right sidebar at RickWells.US – not dot com. I’m also at Stop The Takeover, https://www.facebook.com/StopTheTakeover/ and please follow me on Twitter @RickRWells.