What Are They Trying to Hide?

    

Has anyone else noticed a change in the Democratic Pundits since Monday? Every one I have seen on every network seems angry. Well much more angry than usual. Have you noticed the Mainstream Media's reaction to the news about Susan Rice?

Something big is behind the unmasking and leaking. Something that will make Watergate look minuscule. I don't know what, but I know Democratic politicians, Democratic pundits, and the MSM wouldn't be working so hard to cover it up if not.

From Don Lemon at CNN:

"There is no evidence whatsoever that the Trump team was spied on illegally," Lemon said on "CNN Tonight." "There is no evidence that backs up the president’s original claim."

"And on this program tonight, we will not insult your intelligence by pretending otherwise, nor will we aid and abet the people who are trying to misinform you, the American people, by creating a diversion," he added.

Mr. Lemon, your job is to report the news. Susan Rice unmasking of American citizens, then lying about it on PBS is news. It isn't fake news, it isn't a diversion, it is real news.

It was the day after Bloomberg News broke the story about Susan Rice before ABC and NBC reported on it. CBS did that night but to defend Mrs. Rice.

Some of what has been in the MSM:

ABC:

Transcript for Susan Rice faces accusations of 'unmasking' Trump officials

Now we'll dig into that story about Obama national security adviser Susan rice and the questions over how and why she unmasked trump administration officials. That term unmasking is new for most of us. When the U.S. Spies on a foreign target an American may get caught up in the surveillance. Those names are not revealed. John Smith becomes U.S. Person. But national security officials can ask for the names to be unmasked if they feel it's necessary to understand the intellige intelligence. Unmasking is legal. Leaking ab unmasked name to the press is not legal. Cecilia Vega is covering the story from the white house. Good morning, Cecilia. Reporter: Good morning and there is a strong denial from Susan rice. She said she did not leak any of those names and did nothing illegal but Democrats and Republicans see this very differently. The left sees Susan rice as a scapegoat. The right sees her as the smoking gun that proves the president's wiretapping claims. This morning, allies of president trump joining in a chorus of anger. Three Republican members of congress sending this letter to senate and house intelligence committees demanding president Obama's former national security adviser be called to testify saying that Susan rice's behavior appears negligent at best and criminal at worst. To them she could be the smoking gun that proves president Obama wiretapped president trump but from rice a firm denial. I leaked nothing to nobody. And never have and never would. Reporter: She does admit she asked to un-marv the identities of Americans picked up by surveillance. But she says it was all part of her job. This is not anything political has been alleged. That's absolutely Faust. We can't be passive consumers of this information and not -- and do our jobs effectively to protect the American people. Reporter: Rice would not "The name of god is mercy"s but sources tell ABC news that as the intelligence community investigated Russia's election meddling in some cases trump campaign and transition officials were caught up in surveillance. Rice requesting their identities. Republican lawmakers outraged. So if this is what the people are saying it is, this is totally unusual and I think totally wrong and inappropriate. Reporter: And senator Rand Paul tweeting, smoking gun found. But rice says there was nothing illegal and there was no wiretapping. The intelligence community, the director of the FBI has made that very clear. There was no such collection, surveillance on trump tower or trump individuals. Reporter: So adamant denial. Another Republican calls rice the typhoid Mary of the Obama administration. Surprisingly the white house has been pretty restrained on this one, George. Sean spicer calling these reports about rice and unmasking troubling. Okay, Cecilia, thanks very much. Let's bring in John avlon of "The daily beast" and author of "Washington's farewell." Thanks for coming in. Let's try to unpack this whole unmasking controversy if it is, indeed, a controversy. As Cecilia said in the piece unmasking legal, proper, routine for national security officials. If that information were leaked it would be a problem. That's right but there's no evidence at this point and goes to the intent of an unmasking. What'shaing is the politicization of national security in order to deflect from the focus of much of the point on capitol hill which the FBI investigation about possible Russian contact with the trump transition and campaign. But this is being pumped up by partisan media by something equivalent to validate the president's claims. It has nothing to do with the president's claims about wiretap. Nothing to do with wiretapping at all but that distinction is not -- is without a difference to most hard-core partisans who are trying to defend the president or deflect away from the main investigation

NBC:

It doesn't have the ring of "Benghazi," or "Whitewater," but Republicans are seizing upon what they see as a new scandal: "Improper unmasking."

The issue: Did President Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, do something wrong when she requested that the identities of some Trump aides be "unmasked," or revealed to a small group of cleared government officials, after those names turned up in surveillance reports of foreigners in the waning days of the last administration?

"Now we know that someone in the Obama administration was eavesdropping and specifically searching a databank looking for the Trump (people)," Sen. Rand Paul proclaimed Tuesday on MSNBC's Morning Joe.

Senior Obama administration officials don't dispute that Rice requested the "unmasking" of certain Americans whose names appeared in intelligence reports resulting from eavesdropping on foreigners — meaning the foreigners were discussing the Americans or talking to them. Usually, those names are blacked out. But the blackout can be lifted if doing so is necessary to help understand the intelligence.

Requesting that is a routine thing for national security advisers to do, according to former senior officials, including Keith Alexander, who directed the National Security Agency.

Related: What Does It Mean That Trump May Have Been Incidentally Surveilled?

Rice didn't and couldn't "order" the unmasking of any American, current and former officials say. The agencies that hold the raw surveillance transcripts — usually the NSA or the FBI — make that decision. It's a process subject to rules and reviewed by lawyers, and it has to be justified by an intelligence purpose

Rice's role was first discussed by Mike Cernovich, who is also known for promoting a false story that a Washington, D.C. pizza parlor was a nest of pedophiles connected to Hillary Clinton. Unmasking was then the subject of a story by Eli Lake, a conservative columnist for Bloomberg View.

Related: Nunes Backs Down From Assertion Trump Was Monitored

It's hard to imagine FBI Director James Comey or NSA Director Mike Rogers participating with Obama officials in "political" surveillance of the Trump transition, which is the allegation some Republicans are making. Rogers, after all, has acknowledged that he met with Trump about a job in his administration. Comey has been criticized for how he handled the Hillary Clinton email investigation, and for actions that polls show helped Trump.

Alexander told NBC News he routinely turned down requests for unmasking by senior officials in the Bush and Obama administrations.

At the end of the Obama administration, the FBI and the NSA were sifting through intelligence reports on Russian hacking. One goal of their investigation, FBI Director James Comey has made clear, was to learn whether any Trump associates colluded with the Russian effort to interfere in the election on Trump's behalf.

If Russians under surveillance were talking about or to Trump associates, the names of those people would have been relevant.

Related: Trump's Communications Possibly Picked Up By 'Incidental' Surveillance, Intel Chair Says

Likewise, if two Chinese officials were talking about business relationships with an incoming government official, that person's identity also might be relevant.

These are hypotheticals. That's all we have at the moment, because all the surveillance reports are classified and nobody is talking in detail about them.

That brings up another point: "unmasked" does not equal made public. The surveillance reports containing the names of Trump and his aides were still highly classified and viewable by a limited number of cleared individuals.

CBS:

We learned more today about the President's allegation that he and his aides were caught up in Obama-era surveillance,” Anchor Scott Pelley said, teeing up reporter Margaret Brennan on CBS’s “Evening News.” Strangely, Pelley stayed away from flinging the fiery insults which drew him much praise from the left. Instead of calling Trump’s claims ‘baseless’ he kept it neutral, only referring to them as “allegations.” He also described what the concern was as “Obama-era surveillance,” something he had not done in the past.

Brennan played defense for Rice, stating, “Well, Scott, as national security adviser to the president, Susan Rice could and did request the names of individuals who were picked up during legal surveillance of foreign nationals.” She then cited unnamed sources who told her there was nothing wrong with what Rice did:

Now, according to a former national security official, Trump associates were not the sole focus of Rice's request, but they may have been revealed when she asked to understand why they were appearing in intelligence reports. However, Rice did not spread the information according to this former official, who insisted that there was nothing improper or political involved.

Hey Politicians We Are Angry. Grow Up Or We WILL Fire You!

    

Senator Rand Paul, what in the devil were you thinking? Getting a camera crew and a Lady with a cart pulling a printer behind you looking for a healthcare bill?  Is this kind of camera op our tax money pays you for? This was one of the more childish things I've seen a politician do, and we have all seen a lot of childish stunts from our politicians. There is no bill yet Senator Paul, only a draft. Period.

Healthcare Reform is difficult enough without your grandstanding.

All you Democrats who dressed in white for President Trumps Address to the Joint Houses of Congress. Really? Really? You people are supposed to be mature adults. How do you think it looked to our children to see people they are supposed to be taught to respect booing, hissing, groaning, doing the thumbs down sign during a Presidential Address? Do you even care? You acted like spoiled kids who didn't get their way.

How do you think it made our country look to the rest of the world? Do you care?

Our Country has tremendous problems. We need you all to get busy trying to fix these problems or get the heck out of the way and let someone else try.  

The Hypocrisy From the Left On Trump's So-Called "Muslim Ban"

If it wasn't so serious it would almost be comical at the outrage and hypocrisy from the left. I wonder where the outrage was in 2011 when then President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton banned all Iraqi refugees for 6 months? Where was the outrage when President Carter banned refugees from Iran and even deported many who were already here?

These protests are nothing more than an attempt to try and take President Trump down. The same with the faux outrage from the media who didn't short circuit with Democrats who did basically the same thing.

From ABC News:

An ABC News investigation of the flawed U.S. refugee screening system, which was overhauled two years ago, showed that Alwan was mistakenly allowed into the U.S. and resettled in the leafy southern town of Bowling Green, Kentucky, a city of 60,000 which is home to Western Kentucky University and near the Army's Fort Knox and Fort Campbell. Alwan and another Iraqi refugee, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, 26, were resettled in Bowling Green even though both had been detained during the war by Iraqi authorities, according to federal prosecutors.

As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets. One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said. In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show.

No moral outrage then. No protests. Why the difference?

The other big outcry is President Trump said we would do whatever we can to help persecuted Christians get into the country under refugee status. Again, selective outrage. Where was the outrage over only 3% of the Syrian Refugees admitted to the USA being either Christian or Yazidi?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/17/us-unintentionally-discriminates-against-christian/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426419/christian-refugees-syria-religious-minorities-united-states-resettlement-policy

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/syrian-christians-are-greatest-peril-least-likely-be-admitted

Below is the actual transcript of President Carter banning Iranians:

"Ever since Iranian terrorists imprisoned American Embassy personnel in Tehran early in November, these 50 men and women—their safety, their health, and their future—have been our central concern. We've made every effort to obtain their release on honorable, peaceful, and humanitarian terms, but the Iranians have refused to release them or even to improve the inhumane conditions under which these Americans are being held captive.
The events of the last few days have revealed a new and significant dimension in this matter. The militants controlling the Embassy have stated they are willing to turn the hostages over to the Government of Iran, but the Government has refused to take custody of the American hostages. This lays bare the full responsibility of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Revolutionary Council for the continued illegal and outrageous holding of the innocent hostages. The Iranian Government can no longer escape full responsibility by hiding behind the militants at the Embassy.
It must be made clear that the failure to release the hostages will involve increasingly heavy costs to Iran and to its interests. I have today ordered the following steps.
First, the United States of America is breaking diplomatic relations with the Government of Iran. The Secretary of State has informed the Government of Iran that its Embassy and consulates in the United States are to be closed immediately. All Iranian diplomatic and consular officials have been declared persona non grata and must leave this country by midnight tomorrow.
Second, the Secretary of the Treasury will put into effect official sanctions prohibiting exports from the United States to Iran, in accordance with the sanctions approved by 10 members of the United Nations Security Council on January 13 in the resolution which was vetoed by the Soviet Union. Although shipment of food and medicine were not included in the U.N. Security Council vote, it is expected that exports even of these items to Iran will be minimal or nonexistent.
Third, the Secretary of Treasury will make a formal inventory of the assets of the Iranian Government, which were frozen by my previous order, and also will make a census or an inventory of the outstanding claims of American citizens and corporations against the Government of Iran. This accounting of claims will aid in designing a program against Iran for the hostages, for the hostage families, and other U.S. claimants. We are now preparing legislation, which will be introduced in the Congress, to facilitate processing and paying of these claims.
Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.
In order to minimize injury to the hostages, the United States has acted at all times with exceptional patience and restraint in this crisis. We have supported Secretary-General Waldheim's activities under the U.N. Security Council mandate to work for a peaceful solution. We will continue to consult with our allies and other friendly governments on the steps we are now taking and on additional measures which may be required.
I am committed to resolving this crisis. I am committed to the safe return of the American hostages and to the preservation of our national honor. The hostages and their families, indeed all of us in America, have lived with the reality and the anguish of their captivity for 5 months. The steps I have ordered today are those that are necessary now. Other action may become necessary if these steps do not produce the prompt release of the hostages.
Thank you very much."

Sounds a lot like President Trump's restrictions to me.

While we are on selective outrage, where was the outrage from the left when an American Jew, who was a member of the Whitehouse Press Pool was denied entry to Saudi Arabia because he was Jewish? He was an American Citizen. Did not have dual American and Israeli Citizenship and in fact had never even been to Israel! No protests. No outrage from the left. Nothing.

Source here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/saudis-deny-visa-jewish-reporter-covering-obama-obama-still-going

So if you want to protest, fine. Just do your homework. If you are going to protest the actions of a politician on one side of the aisle for doing basically the same thing a politician from the other side of the aisle did and you said nothing, you might be a hypocrite.