The major story of the morning is that Susan Rice, Obama’s former national security adviser was behind the “unmasking”, or revealing the identities of Trump associates who were identified in incidental intelligence gathering operations.

What’s important to note is that Rice didn’t break the law unless she also leaked any information.  That hasn’t been shown and likely won’t be.  What is more significant is that this offers further insight into the Obama Administration performing surveillance of the Trump campaign and transition team.

Now you may suggest, as many on the Left already are, that the fact that the Obama Administration felt compelled to investigate Trump’s Russia ties was because it learned of possible illegal activity in the course of analyzing foreign intercepts.  “Ha, ha,” they say.  “This proves that something is there!”

Well, what exactly?  If Adam Housely is correct, the surveillance started before Trump was even the GOP nominee.  This means that it started well before the DNC or Podesta hacks and subsequent Wikileaks releases.  What were the intelligence agencies looking at?  It had nothing to do with colluding with Russia to plant #fakenews stories or hack machines or release Podesta’s thoughts on space aliens to the world, did it?

The Russiagate narrative has been crumbling since Trump’s tweet in which he accused Obama of wiretapping him.  Even though I don’t believe Obama ordered it, it is becoming more and more obvious that one or more senior officials within his White House were absolutely digging for intelligence against Team Trump, making identities discovered within incidental collection widely available within the intelligence community, and then waiting for the information to be leaked in hopes that it would damage the incoming Trump Administration.

Here’s the biggest problem the Russiagate proponents have: Obama’s people in his former staff and within the intelligence community have had months to gather, share, and leak any information they have that proves collusion.  They’ve turned up nothing.  The best they have gotten for all of it is Flynn’s resignation, but it still isn’t clear that he committed any sort of crime.

Sure, you have Rachel Maddow showing you all the dots and frantically trying to connect them each night, but remember that every week that goes by that Democrats fail to provide any proof of collusion with Russia or a crime on Trump’s part is just another nail in the coffin for the story.

On the other hand, Obamagate is much easier.  Crimes have been committed.  The leaks are the crime.  The fact that specific intelligence information was made available and used criminally, apparently with the political motive of damaging an incoming administration, guarantees that the scandal will to continue gaining strength as Russiagate crumbles for lack of proof.  With Russiagate, you need to work pretty hard to demonstrate what wrongdoing was in place.  Obamagate is much more straightforward.

Please, by all means, let’s continue investigating Trump’s connections to Russia.  I maintain that if anything was there, it would have turned up by now.  In the meantime, let’s also get Rice and some more officials up to testify and explain why they were unmasking political opponents and allowing that information to be leaked.

I’d love for this information to come out during the investigation.  Let’s find out once and for all what the Obama Administration was looking for, why it was looking for it, and what it found.  It won’t be good for Democrats.

newest oldest
Notify of

About the only thing for certain seems to be that Mike Flynn got improper payments from Russia. Also that Hillary had access to classified info long after she left the State Department.

This is the problem with the Left’s Russian obsession-an investigation can cut both ways.


That’s not the major story on this side 🙂

Also, what are the odds that the St. Petersburg metro bombing is not a false flag after two straight weeks of protests?


The great irony is that if Putin had worked to get Trump elected so he could get sanctions eased, it didn’t work. Impossible to see how Trump could do it now without political fallout.

[…] In the interest of balance, I guess, I’ll also throw out a quick post on Erik Prince’s alleged meeting with Russian officials in the Seychelles as a companion post to my earlier one on Susan Rice. […]

Of course its a false flag, everything is a false flag. There isnt no Islamic terrorism, the Russians did it…
btw, they missed their target of that class of Young Pioneers.


There haven’t been any Young Pioneers since 1991. But do tell me more about Russia

Just so you know Ezra Cohen-Watnick is a name that’s come up on the left a couple of times before this as being a little dodgy. Not making a point here, more a bit of context to how this story might play out on the left….

guess you missed that reference…Маскировка


I know what camouflage is, but I still have no idea what you are referring to


Carter Page is old news, circa Manafort. Did you miss Boris Epshteyn’s abrupt job change last week?
If Obama had half this much smoke, the GOP would have already started impeachment proceedings.


Another week with nothing on a Benghazi investigation didn’t bring with it any nails. Don’t you just end it and start another when it gets a little stale?


Sure, but Susan Rice doing her actual job and unmasking names of Trump employees talking to the Russian ambassadors (before taking office) and promising to let them keep Crimea, lift sanctions and resume the Rosneft deal, that’s a real smoking gun!
Your bias is showing again.


And why on earth did she blatantly lie about it in an interview a month before this all hit the fan? All part of the job after the Benghazi lies that went on for weeks?


Ok, first of all, I am still on ‘Nobody was wiretapping Trump!’ Because that’s a true statement. They were wiretapping Russians, which is not new news. The names of some of the Americans who spoke to these Russians were unmasked. Which is legal. They were later leaked. Which is illegal. That does not mean that the person who unmasked them did the leaking. Btw, the difference between Rice saying that she doesn’t know what exactly Nunes was talking about in a TV interview and Flynn and Sessions lying on official forms and under oath is stark. Rice is choosing not… Read more »


Btw, the difference between Rice saying that she doesn’t know what exactly Nunes was talking about in a TV interview and Flynn and Sessions lying on official forms and under oath is stark. Rice is choosing not to comment on classified information on a TV show. Had she answered the question, you would be all over her for ‘smearing’ Flynn, Sessions, Kushner, and whoever else is swept up in this. That’s flat out bullshit, there mashav, no other word for it. There is a massive difference between “I know nothing about this” referring to the unmasking of Americans which is… Read more »


I am not going to go down the rabbit hole of discussing Benghazi with you, so you might as well stop it.
Rice saying ‘no comment’ is the same as admitting the story is true. Comey explained that over and over again during the hearings.
She was on a TV show, not testifying under oath.
I would love for you to explain why she is a lying liar and Sessions saying ‘did not have communications with the Russians” is totally ok.


I would love for you to explain why she is a lying liar and Sessions saying ‘did not have communications with the Russians” is totally ok.

You want me to defend something I’ve never said I think “is totally ok”? Rice is a lying liar, and you denying or obfuscating that is more partisan showing than anything Thrill has said. Continuing to deny or ignore that is ignorance at best.

There was a fairly popular novel, written in the early 80’s, wherein the plot’The Soviet leadership conducted a false flag attack on a Moscow building, where Young Pioneers were killed in the blast. in a effort to give them a excuse to wage war against Germany, Маскировка, obscuring, inthe literal sense.

Calling every attack a false flag has become very fashionable amount thetruther, leftist crowd.


First of all, I posted one article. I am not sure what you mean when you say I keep doing it. I believe that there is a difference between ‘Trump was wiretapped’ and ‘Trump people were heard on or discussed in our wiretaps of Russian agents.’ Those are not the same thing and you are smart enough to know that. You say that I know nothing about what Rice saw. Meanwhile, the original article which started this little tantrum says ”One US official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom… Read more »


Was this a Russian novel or an American one? I have literally never heard of it.
What I have heard of is an actual apartment building bombing which was a false flag blamed on the Chechens in very similar politics circumstances-
More here -


Sigh. I posted one article, one, with the disclaimer that the news on the left did not look like the news on the right. You looked it up, chose to write a post about it, dismissed it as a waste of time. If you asked me what it was supposed to mean, it was not in this thread. You keep saying that no new names have been added to the scandal since Flynn. I pointed out that new names are added all the time. I’ve agreed over and over again that nothing has been proven, all I want is a… Read more »

%d bloggers like this: