Kristina Wong, for example, wrote @breitbart.com yesterday about a Wall Street Journal editorial over the weekend saying that “Democrats are trying to squelch the story of Susan Rice’s unmasking of Trump campaign officials, and the House and Senate Intelligence committees should investigate the former national security adviser.”
The article referenced an April 28th piece noting that in 2005: “Then Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd kicked up a fuss that, as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, [John] Bolton had 10 times over four years asked for the names of American officials who were swept up in National Security Agency monitoring.”
“The Wall Street Journal editorial also pointed out that while Rice and Democrats have defended her actions as “not uncommon,” Democrats and the media in 2005 characterized it as unusual.
“At that time, Dodd claimed unmasking was “rarely requested” and “infrequently” by “political appointees such as Mr. Bolton.” The New York Times also reported that requests to unmask “are not common, particularly from policy makers.”
Most importantly: “The editorial also argued that there was no apparent reason for Rice to have requested the unmasking of Trump campaign officials’ names, contrary to her explanations.
“Ms. Rice had no direct intelligence duties in her NSC post, and no Democrat has provided a valid reason that Ms. Rice might have needed to unmask anyone associated with the Trump presidential campaign,” the editorial said.
While Rice has denied doing anything “untoward” with the intelligence she received, as did Bolton, “Democrats had drawn up a list of 36 individuals that he clashed with and called on National Intelligence Director John Negroponte to rule out they were the target of Bolton’s unmasking.”
Furthermore, while House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) stepped aside from his committee’s Russia probe after complaints from left-wing activist groups that he discussed unmasking in public, Democrats in 2005 “couldn’t stop talking to the press,” the piece said.
“The piece also pointed out that names unmasked by Bolton have still never made it out to the public, in contrast with the illegal leaking in February of phone conversations held by former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
“Twelve years on, not one of the 10 individuals unmasked by Mr. Bolton has had his or her identity leaked. By contrast, the Washington Post reports that no fewer than nine Obama appointees or career officials leaked or confirmed the identity and conversations of unmasked former Trump adviser Michael Flynn.
“If John Bolton’s unmasking was questionable, then Mrs. Rice’s was more so. The House and Senate Intelligence committees should investigate what she did and why.”
At the same time, Paul Heintz @sevendaysvt.com/vermont via Drudge, wrote about Ron Leavitt one of five people formerly associated with Burlington College who have confirmed to Seven Days that they were contacted, interviewed and, in some cases, subpoenaed by federal authorities over the past 15 months.
Leavitt was asked by two Federal Bureau of Investigation agents about a $30,000 donation he had made to the school.
“While much about the inquiry remains shrouded in mystery, documents and interviews suggest that it is a serious criminal investigation focused on a $6.5 million bank loan application the college made in 2010 to pay for a $10 million lakeside campus.”
The woman who signed the application in question is former Burlington College president Jane O'Meara Sanders, wife of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders.
While the first two items above suggest major problems still brewing for those at the top of the Democrat party, the next one’s included because it reflects the knowledge and awareness of today’s typical voters regarding what takes place around them. And it’s quite obvious, not much goes by them any more.
According to Ian Hanchett @breitbart.com via a Facebook link: “During an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Tuesday, former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton stated, “I was on the way to winning, until the combination of Jim Comey’s letter on October 28th, and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me, but got scared off.”
The rest of the article is a repetition of tired excuses offered by Clinton as she continues to whine that the election loss was everyone on the planets fault, but certainly not hers.
Reader's however, had a quite different take which can be seen in the list below copied in order directly from the website posting.
Karen Chapman Gardiner commented: “Keep those excuses coming, but we all know why you lost and it had nothing to do with those two explanations. Americans don't forget when other Americans are left behind to die and that was done on your watch as Secretary of State.”
1,559 others clicked “Like.”
Lon Davison wrote: “But what everyone is missing - especially Hillary - is that the WikiLeaks had published TRUTH! And Comey was actually SOFT on her! So basically, Hilary Clinton is why Hillary Clinton failed! (BTW, I would not have voted for her period.)"
1,128 “Likes” were recorded.
Sam Tramontana wrote: “No because your corrupt lying self did it all to yourself and it will happen again... She deserves to be in prison, not on TV or the White House."
867 more “Likes” followed this one.
Christy Nelson Greninger wrote: “Um no, the Comey letter didn't influence my vote, the Russians didn't influence my vote and I support strong women. My vote was influenced by your pattern of lying, bullying, and your complete and total lack of integrity."
650 “Liked” this one.
Jon Ellefson wrote: “I would have won too, had it not been for those melding little kids that exposed my corruption and the 7 Top Secret e-mail chains on my private server I had built in my unsecured private residence that would have put anyone else in jail and ended their career."
693 “Liked” it.
Brenda Swarts commented: “It's like an episode of Scooby Doo...."I'd have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling Russians!"
“I'm grateful every morning I wake up and she's NOT the President.”
478 “Likes” followed.
Georgia Ann Hart Lemoine wrote: “You were on the way to winning until emails surfaced that you were transmitting matters of national security over an unprotected server, that showed you were selling political access through the Clinton foundation, and that you considered most American...See More”
469 “likes” for this one.
Dan Snow wrote: “You stupid, egotistical narcissistic idiot, YOU scared off your voters. You, all on your own. You are a crook, you lied to the American people and you made deals for personal gain with our enemies. THAT, and your psychotic hatred of President Trump and American values is why you lost. Please, get over yourself and go away.”
370 “Likes” were recorded here.
Pj Trapani wrote: “Tell Pennsylvania that. And then think of what u said to their faces. I'm shutting down the coal. .... you r an idiot for saying that. Why didn't u lie to them like on everything else."
"Still ignorant. Blame everyone else not your incompetence and lack of honesty.”
364 “Likes” here.
Kristi Ciolli Fleming wrote: “You didn't win because you were exposed for exactly what you are and what you stand for.? I thank God every day that you weren't elected President, the United States would have become unrecognizable and somewhere I wouldn't want my grandchildren to be raised! You should be charged with treason for your actions against this country and constitution!"
316 “Liked” this one.
Paul L. Grimala wrote: “This dumb ass still doesn't get it. You lost because you were the worst candidate the democraps could possibly put on the ticket. Let's not forget the clown you choose as your VP! We did not want another 3 years of obummers policies."
264 more “Liked” the comment.
And then, John Price was the last of the group writing: “If Trump thought he needed the popular vote and not just the electoral college he would have campaigned different, he played by the rules and won, you can't change the rules after the game, In my opinion the electoral college is very important or else states like NY and Cali could decide the fate of the whole country.”
256 “Likes” for this one.
So, here we have 12 readers reflecting their thoughts about a failed presidential contender’s attempts to deflect personal blame to others for her loss. And 7,414 more agreeing with those readers contentions that the problem rested with the candidate herself.
Which means that today’s items indicate not only major public dissatisfaction among voters with Democrat leadership, but the same kind of unease from the Editors of the left-leaning Wall Street Journal. Not an easy situation to recover from.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment