« "Carolina in the Mornin'" by the turcopolier | Main | Ghouta redux? Was this attack real? »

03 April 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Eric Newhill

Except that
1. NSA testified that nothing tying Trump to Russians attempts to influence the election had been found. I believe that NSA said "There is no evidence" when directly asked. Do you really think that something will surface at this point?
2. We are being told that this unmasking of so called incidental surveillance had nothing to do with the investigation into Russian election interference.

I use the phrase "so called" because I do not believe that the surveillance was totally "incidental". Rather, I have a hunch that surveillance was pointed at individuals know to communicate with Trump and Trump associates such that incidental surveillance wasn't exactly so incidental and was - in fact - a bit more purposeful. That's what I would do if I was an ethically challenged Borg assimilate and/or a believer in Obama's great revolution.

Priam's Crazy Daughter

I was just reading that the WaPo, another one of those Democratic Pravdas, has just reported a Blackwater scheme providing Trump a connection to Putin in the Seychelles.

I'm trying to did into that now, but thought others with more understanding would like to know.


I suspect a great deal of this would have come out had the election polls been closer. Dirt seemed to come out the most during those times Trump was closing in on Clinton. I think pretty much the entire DC establishment simply didn't believe Trump had any chance of being elected. They probably didn't know anyone that supported Trump - or at least admitted it.

I doubt the Russians expected Trump to win either but were looking forward to a bit of chaos given how passionate his supporters were. Rigged election and such.

Keith Harbaugh

A possibly better account of the Rice story is:

That report includes the following reprise of old news:

As the Obama administration left office, it also approved new rules that gave the NSA much broader powers by relaxing the rules about sharing intercepted personal communications and the ability to share those with 16 other intelligence agencies.
Boy, does that raise questions (and perhaps odors).
Just WHY was it suddenly necessary to relax those rules?
And just WHO in the Obama administration had the power to change those rules?
Is it not the case that such rules go out over the president's signature,
meaning that they cannot be changed without his explicit concurrence?
So Obama cannot blame this on his aides.
TTG, do you have comments on this?
Also, has this been addressed somewhere else at SST?
If so, where?
Please forgive me for not knowing everything about SST.


"Everybody must get stoned..."
nothing new here, or even meaningful.
simply a matter of who's side you are on when blood is let.
for those who think it's more (or less) than whose side you happen to like, get a grip.
or not... embrace your poison, don't argue from fact... so passe.
oh, go ahead... rationalize it. twisted logic entertains.


I presume the next step (if something potentially illegal was uncovered by the unmasking) would be to ask for a warrant from the FISA Court.

To be honest, if that's what happened I would tend to say Rice probably acted appropriately.


Well the next obvious question is what did Obama know and when did he know it.



As OM suggest perhaps they thought they had the election won. Another possibility is that Obama hates the Clintons more than he hates Trump. Perhaps both.

Virginia Slim

The Dossier is problematic. Quite apart from the veracity (or lack thereof) of its contents, it suffers from a provenance that belies its intended purpose: to torpedo Trump, or, more plainly, to sway the election in HRC's favor. We know this how? Because Mr. Steele's confessor, Paul Wood of the BBC, tells us so in his article of 30 MAR. To wit:

Several sources have told me that late last year Steele himself grew increasingly disillusioned with the FBI's progress.

"He really thought that what he had would sway the election," said one.

So in October, pages from his reports were seen by a few journalists, including me.

Most news organisations that got this material decided it was not solid enough to publish.

In early December, the whole thing, 35 pages, was sent to Senator John McCain, who pressed the FBI director to investigate exhaustively.

If a CIA SSO compiled such a Dossier and planted it in the hands of the internal security service of a foreign nation with the expectation that it would impact the election, we'd call it just what it was: Political Action.


I thought after Trump smashed Borg Grandma we had moved further away from a civil war with RWDS but the arrogance of the Left and their insistence on "muh right side of history" makes me think they're going to push us right over the line into a bloodbath.


Thank You colonel, yes I thought without a court order, no one including NSA can unravel or access individual US citizen names in those intelligence reports, nevertheless loosely pass them around, as allegedly Susan Rice did, IMO laws, "like contracts" come with never read paid attention to fine prints.


IMHO This is the beginning of a ‘Watergate in reverse” – how Pres. Trump knew (maybe from early on) that he and his people were under surveillance and kept quiet, maybe he was hoping to leave ‘golden bridges” for his adversaries, but these bridges were not used and he was forced to use what he found out.
Now it is only a matter of time to find out who will be declared the sacrificial lamb – the Black woman, maybe? And the scandal may be removed from the front pages of our pravdas and isviestijas – for a price which the Great Negotiator will ask.
One commenter in another thread mentioned a book by Grant about roman empire and current situation - it is frightening to see the similarities, so true.
Judith Miller comes to mind also, from the behavior of NYT.


This is very interesting. Apparently the NY Times and Bloomberg knew it was Susan Rice but sat on the story to protect the Obama administration.



Apparently Bloomberg didn't want to run the story, Cernovich forced their hand:


Richard Armstrong


You don't seem to know much about the history of the fiercely abolishionist Free State of Kansas.


Perhaps the following linked piece by Paul Craig Roberts and Michael Hudson is the complementary flip side of the excellent Mercouris article ?


robt willmann

The other part of the equation that Susan Rice asked that the names of U.S. persons be unmasked on "dozens of occasions" is the issue of who unmasked the names in the reports before forwarding them on to Susan Rice or whomever. The cited NY Daily News and linked Bloomberg articles do not try to touch that issue with a 10 foot pole.

I am absolutely shocked to hear that the communications of U.S. persons were "incidentally collected" (ROFL) and that intelligence reports about the communications included their names (unmasked) and the reports were circulated to unnamed parts unknown--


I have not been in a position to follow this very much, but I think that FBI Director James Comey talked about who can do the unmasking of names during the appearance with NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers before the House Select Intelligence Committee on 20 March 2017. However, it is useful to listen carefully to what Comey says to check and see if he is doing the vocabulary game.

Furthermore we are not just talking about "intelligence reports" with unmasked names. Early on, the New York Times and others spoke of transcripts of conversations of Michael Flynn. The NY Times used both transcript and transcripts (plural) (you have to turn on 'cookies' to display the Times article)--



There were "transcripts" of Michael Flynn's conversations floating around but only "intelligence reports" containing the names of others?


Cernovich Explains How He Learned About Susan Rice http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-03/cernovich-explains-how-he-learned-about-susan-rice
But, as it turns out, Cernovich didn't need a 'deep throat' within the NSA or CIA for his blockbuster scoop, all he needed was some well-placed sources inside of a couple of America's corrupt mainstream media outlets. As Cernovich explains below, his sources for the Susan Rice story were actually folks working at Bloomberg and the New York Times who revealed that both Eli Lake (Bloomberg) and Maggie Haberman (NYT) were sitting on the Susan Rice story in order to protect the Obama administration.

[Cernovich] "Maggie Haberman had it. She will not run any articles that are critical of the Obama administration."

"Eli Lake had it. He didn't want to run it and Bloomberg didn't want to run it because it vindicates Trump's claim that he had been spied upon. And Eli Lake is a 'never Trumper.' Bloomberg was a 'never Trump' publication."

"I'm showing you the politics of 'real journalism'. 'Real journalism' is that Bloomberg had it and the New York Times had it but they wouldn't run it because they don't want to run any stories that would make Obama look bad or that will vindicate Trump. They only want to run stories that make Trump look bad so that's why they sat on it."

"So where did I get the story? I didn't get it from the intelligence community. Everybody's trying to figure out where I got it from. I got it from somebody who works in one of those media companies. I have spies in every media organization. I got people in news rooms. I got it from a source within the news room who said 'Cernovich, they're sitting on this story, they're not going to run it, so you can run it'."


Sadly, I don't think much will come of this unless we see someone do something that we haven't seen in a great long while in Washington. At some point, someone is going to have go full rat and expose the higher ups in congressional testimony. I can't recall the last time Washington had a scandal where a subordinate didn't obfuscate or outright lie to protect the crown and/or his/her own ass. Can someone inform me of the last such occurrence in American politics, where a person who was intimately involved in the skullduggery turned coat and cooperated with an investigation which resulted in bringing full accountability to the people who crossed the lines of legality and constitutionality at the highest levels? I can't think of one for the life of me. At what point does someone involved in this disgrace face a consequence they can't bear and instead throw their superiors under the bus?

Is Rice that person in this instance? If she didn't break the law, the obvious answer is no. She will take the ethical stain of "abuse of power", all the way to Palo Alto and the Stanford board room. In the circles in which these people run, such charges carry no weight anyway. However, if she was found to have leaked the names of USPs to the media or disseminated them throughout the government (or more likely, directed those things to occur), and such an act carries criminal charges, can Republicans in Congress compel her to testify and will she fully cooperate? Moreover, if she did leak the names or direct the leaks, how can a congressional investigation prove this without someone beneath her cooperating against the higher-ups? Again, I think it will require a canary chorus to get the truth in front of Congress and the public, but I don't see that happening. Somehow, it appears that despite all the ass-hat shenanigans surrounding the Clintonistas and Obamanites, they show solid rank discipline in their loyalty to their overlords.


New York Times: Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT, MARK MAZZETTI and MATT APUZZO FEB. 14, 2017

"WASHINGTON — Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election."

So the NYT apparently believed they had access to some sort in inside information from anon sources. They could have been making it up out of whole cloth, wouldn't be the first time, but various other new outlets were remarkably coordinated on the same points.


"Furthermore, I am deeply concemed that these press reports may contain unauthorized disclosures of both classifled IC information and the contents of closed intelligence committee proceedings. Additionally) if true, reports of conflicting IC assessments call into question the effectiveness of the IC's analytic coordination process regarding this crucial issue"

Nunes also believed there were leaks.

So does Trump himself. Clapper resigned rather than provide the details that Nunes requested.

And this...


And this...


And heaps more if you do even cursory searching.


Just published:

Cernovich Explains How He Learned About Susan Rice

Ever since Mike Cernovich dropped the bombshell report over the weekend outing Obama's National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, as the person behind the unmasking of the identity of various members of Trump's team who were 'incidentally' surveilled during the 2016 campaign (see "Confirmed: Susan Rice "Unmasked" Trump Team"), a report which was subsequently confirmed by Eli Lake of Bloomberg earlier this morning, everyone has been wondering who within the Trump White House or the intelligence community supplied him with such a massive scoop.

But, as it turns out, Cernovich didn't need a 'deep throat' within the NSA or CIA for his blockbuster scoop, all he needed was some well-placed sources inside of a couple of America's corrupt mainstream media outlets. As Cernovich explains below, his sources for the Susan Rice story were actually folks working at Bloomberg and the New York Times who revealed that both Eli Lake (Bloomberg) and Maggie Haberman (NYT) were sitting on the Susan Rice story in order to protect the Obama administration. [I didn’t include the emphasis in the report.]

Read his account at the link. Kind of a riot. :-)

English Outsider

Off Topic. "Syria conflict: 'Chemical attack' in Idlib kills 58"


"At least 58 people have been killed and dozens wounded in a suspected chemical attack on a rebel-held town in north-western Syria, a monitoring group says.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that strikes on Khan Sheikhoun by Syrian government or Russian jets had caused many people to choke.
Later, aircraft fired rockets at local clinics treating some of the survivors, medics and opposition activists said."

The "White Helmets" and the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" still seem to be credible sources.


English Outsider

"The "White Helmets" and the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" still seem to be credible sources." Why would you think that? the White Helmets have been thoroughly de-bunked as a propaganda group. pl


I wish someone would commit some journalism. Is it common for members of a campaign team to start communicating with foreign governments before they are elected? Before they take office? My guess is that it would be uncommon during a campaign, but would start to occur during the transition, but kept fairly quiet as a rule so as not to create conflicts.




Is it illegal for Americans to talk to Russians? If so why isn't Hilary's husband Bill in jail for that $500,000 speech?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad