posted on Apr, 12 2017 @ 03:40 PM
Let me explain to everyone once and for all why this could only be a political witch hunt to discredit Trump.
Proposition 1) There was some reason to believe there was suspicious activity between associates of Trump and Russians who may have ties to the
Russian government or themselves be "spies" or similar unsavory characters.
This suspicion could be used as a pretext or basis for asking the FISA court for a warrant to pursue further surveillance with perhaps wider scope and
more dedicated resources.
NOW, the first question to ask is: HOW, in what manner, and to whom, did whatever information about potential suspicious activity come about?
You cannot assume Rice herself discovered the information, for it is not in her job description to personally conduct or view fresh intercepts, but
rather is the one to whom those under her report. (correct me if im wrong)
Now, so operating under the assumption that a lower level "spy" or intelligence officer acquired the information which seemed suspicious the most
LIKELY chain of custody would be for that information to be brought up the chain of command to Rice who then would review it and make a determination
as to the next course of action (still with me?)
So, no matter how the information was ultimately used to get a FISA court warrant, it is almost certain that Rice was in the loop and made some high
level decisions about how to proceed with whatever information was assembled and presented as a basis for the FISA warrant, which we know was granted.
It is widely known now that Rice began requesting the unmasking of individuals names associated with Trump around July of 2016 after he had won the
Republican nomination. Now, since the FISA warrant investigation is likely to have already been underway for a while prior to this it seems
reasonable that Rice wanted to know more about who was speaking in the intercepts.
So what i just described above is pretty much admitted as fact by most news and media outlets. What they appear to differ on is the interpretation of
Rices actions vis a vis the intercepts. (incidental or otherwise, another semantics can of worms)
Now to the questions we can reasonably ask about the above summary of events.
Question 1. Assuming the FISA warranted investigation into Page was already well underway by the time Rice requested other names be unmasked, it is
reasonable and logical to ask why up to that point, if there had been any actionable or substantial evidence of wrong doing that Page would not have
already been interviewed prior to Rices request of unmasking other names perhaps not even associated with Page at all but definitely associated with
But lets give her the benefit of the doubt, perhaps there was no "slam dunk" evidence of wrong doing and maybe she wanted to see if other members or
associates of Trumps team were involved in similar correspondence with Russians. Fine, sounds perfectly reasonable since there was already a very
legal investigation into Page underway, who we know was talking to Russians.
So Rice sought further contextual understanding of the NATURE of Trump associates communication with Russians and apparently found nothing actionable
because if she had, she would have been duty bound to bring it up immediately to prevent those engaging in known collusion with Russians to either be
associated with Trump, or to be helping Trump become president ostensibly with help from the Russians.
I must stress, for Rice to have damning information on anyone close to Trump involved with his campaign colluding with Russians, and to have not done
something with that information to keep Trump from gaining an unfair advantage with Russian help would be a profound dereliction of duty and
practically speaking aiding and abetting the interference of a foreign State into the electoral process of a US president.
Now, to sum up. We have to assume Susan Rice is a SEASONED PROFESSIONAL who knows her job quite well. Furthermore, we should reasonably assume that
Susan Rice would know what unethical, illegal or otherwise sinister activity would look like with her ability to view raw intelligence surveillance
intercepts. It is reasonable to assume Susan Rice would know what "collusion with foreign State actors" would look like.
Therefore....for Susan Rice to have had access to all the relevant intelligence on Trump and his team at least a full THREE MONTHS before the
Presidential elections, and to have done NOTHING about it can only mean one of two things.
1) There was no actionable or credible information gathered in the surveillance that anyone on Trumps team or associated with Trump was colluding or
working with the Russians in any way to gain an advantage for Trump
2) There was credible information that associates of Trump were colluding with Russians to help Trump gain an advantage over Clinton
Now this is the really important part of this. If you choose number 1 then you have to ask why would anyone in the intelligence community passively
or actively engage in the dissemination or support of a narrative that Trump or his team colluded with Russians to help get him elected when it would
have been KNOWN there was no actual evidence to support that narrative. Would Rice and her subordinates not be profoundly irresponsible in not just
allowing, but perhaps helping propagate a conspiracy theory that had no basis in fact? (thats political motivation by the way, no other way around
If you choose number 2 its even worse because it would mean Rice and others had actual credible information that Trump and or his team was colluding
with Russians and did exactly NOTHING to prevent a potential "Russian puppet" from gaining the highest office in the Nation and the most powerful
position in the "free world".
Proposition 2) is a little easier and less verbose
This alternative explanation says that Rice and or others in the IC, at Obamas behest, actually used legal loopholes to fabricate a basis for
surveillance of associates of Trump to see if there was any dirt they could gather to use against him.
Again, no matter what the motivation was for the intelligence gathering under the FISA warrant you can go back to Questions 1 and 2 for why it doesnt
matter why the spying took place. Either way, whether it was initially conducted properly, or based on a fabricated suspicion that could pass muster
with the FISA court, the outcome of the fishing expedition was the same: ZERO conclusive evidence of any collusion between Trump and the Russians.
Now, any reasonable thinking person would have to conclude, as i showed above, that if there had been no credible evidence of collusion the "collusion
conspiracy" should have never seen the light of day, much less thousands of articles well timed to appear only AFTER Trump won the election.
and furthermore if there WAS credible evidence of collusion then everyone with knowledge would have violated their oaths to "protect from enemies
foreign and domestic" in a manner never seen before. What kind of intelligence professional, especially Susan Rice, with knowledge and evidence of
Trump colluding with Russians, would effectively sit on that information allowing Trump to become president?
And if she wasnt sure about whatever "evidence" they had and what it meant that calls into question her qualifications and expertise for who in her
position would not be able to spot the evidence of collusion after THREE MONTHS?