The customary stalling, obfuscation, half truths and lies that the Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Hussein Obama, Jihadi Jeh Johnson and even Susan Rice have, in the past, used so effectively to avoid accountability for their actions may have lost some of their magic. If Senator Rand Paul has his way, Rice will have to answer some key questions regarding her likely criminal espionage activities.
In an interview with Brian Kilmeade, Paul points out in no uncertain terms, “I don’t think she answered the question, did she unmask people in the Trump administration. She says, ‘Well, maybe I did but I didn’t do it for political reasons.'”
“I think it’s incumbent upon her to try to prove to the American people why it wouldn’t have been a political reason,” says Paul. “If someone were investigating the Trump administration, it would be the FBI, not political people in the White House. She’s a political appointee that reports directly to the ‘president.'”
Senator Paul contends, “The real question we need to ask Susan Rice is, ‘Did the ‘president’ direct you to eavesdrop and sift through all of the mountains of intelligence we have. Do you know that over a million Americans’ phone calls are listened to without a warrant? We need to protect American privacy and use the Constitution. We can’t let political partisans like Susan Rice search through databases, unmask people. And she may not have leaked it, but what if one of her staff leaked it? What if somebody else she talked to leaked it? We can’t allow intelligence to be used for political purposes.”
Kilmeade asks a question even a child of four could answer, “Would you consider the Obama administration capable of going out of their way to try to make the first months of the Trump campaign [presidency?] so rocky by putting this out there?”
He responds saying, “Well, there’s eventually, I think, going to be a log produced, that will have Susan Rice, how many times she logged in and whose information she looked for. And this takes a while. It’s so classified I can’t look at it, the White House can look at it and so can the intelligence committees.”
“But here’s the thing,” says Paul, “should legislators have their phone calls listened to? If I am talking to an ambassador [of another] country and I have a different opinion than the president, should the president get to listen to my phone call in order to counteract me politically? That’s a separation of powers issue and the media’s been kind of missing this thing, ‘oh, it’s incidental.’ No it isn’t. If it’s your conversation it’s not exactly incidental. It could be very important to you to keep your [privacy].
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.