What you are Not Being Told about the Susan Rice “unmasking” Story: It Wasn’t Incidental Collection Damn It

by Scott Creighton

UPDATE: Don Lemon on CNN last night told his viewers to “ignore” the stories about Susan Rice spying. As if we expected anything different from that sycophantic asshat.

UPDATE:Rice’s interest in the intelligence docs accelerated after Trump’s election in November, lasting through January.”

Today on Morning Joe (that callus echo chamber of neoliberal “centrist” apologists who openly admit their job is to control what you think) all the angry declarations of Trump “lying” about being “wiretapped’ are gone. Not a word of “mea culpa”. Not a single apology. Not a moment of reflection about how they jumped to conclusions and ran with an assumption because it suited their personal ideologies and those of their owners. None of that took place.

But they did have to admit that Susan Rice behaved in a potentially illegal manner and they did say it was “troubling” that an administration would use the powers given to them in such a manner because of course, in the future, Trump himself might do it.

They spoke about Rice’s unmasking and dissemination of classified data with the somber tones one would expect from a group of people who just had to admit they were completely wrong for the past month and then, like a light turning on in a dark basement, they all turned gleeful when they started talking about Eric Prince meeting with some Arab someplace because, according to the thought controllers, that means Trump works for Putin.

And all was right again the world of Morning Joe.

I am so sick of people couching the discussions about “unmasked” American Citizen One’s communications in terms of the collection of that private information being justified because it was “incidental collection”

It was not.

We know that Clapper and Brennan have already gone on record saying there is, to their knowledge, no evidence of Russia colluding with Trump officials before or after the election. We also know the BS dossier put together by that British spook has already been proven to be factually inaccurate as well as patently ridiculous and paid for by Clinton campaign officials.

We know that there is not one scintilla of evidence published so far that proves the Russians interfered with our election process in 2016 apart from the ridiculous statements made about RT covering legitimate news during the campaign.

We know Russia is NOT RESPONSIBLE for Hillary Clinton’s loss. They did not hack Podesta’s emails, they did not release scores of Hillary’s hidden emails and they did not hack the DNC servers to expose the corruption there either. That was a leak from an insider… a guy who ended up shot twice in the head in D.C. in a “robbery gone bad”… meaning there was no robbery and it was a hit.

The DNC knew there was no Russian hacking. That’s why they didn’t let the FBI examine their servers. They hired a corrupt private company to fabricate “evidence” of Russian hacking instead.

We as consumers of real news know all of this and we knew it then as well.  We knew about Guccifer. We knew about Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks and Wikipedia and Hillary’s illegal server and her lying about it constantly. We knew about James Comey giving Hillary a pass on her criminality and lying and we know he eventually gave her an even bigger pass when Anthony Weiner handed over her back-up laptop in order to keep himself out of prison.

We knew all of this stuff as it unfolded. Do you think the intelligence services didn’t know?

Of course they knew.

So … why was this “Russian hacking our election” investigation still going on?

In order to understand an event you have to look at the context of the time in which it happened.

What was going on right after the election in the early days of the Trump transition that everyone AND I MEAN EVERYONE is forgetting?

John Podesta was running a multi-pronged effort to de-legitimize the election results so that Hillary Clinton would end up being declared the winner. That’s why they got California’s state attorney general to pad the numbers of Clinton votes so that they could say she won the popular vote. That’s why he basically hired Jill Stein to challenge the election results in only 3 states so they could do a partial recount in those key states with the hope they could negate their Electoral College votes, which would ultimately cost Trump the election.

In the end, the Clinton people were BEGGING Electoral College voters to WITHHOLD their votes from Trump on Dec. 19, 2016 when the election results became official.

Remember, at that time they were doing everything they could to discredit the election results as well as the candidate who won. They were desperate to change the results before they became official.

And THAT is the climate that Susan Rice was working under when this “incidental collection” took place. That is the climate during which the unmasking of Trump campaign and transition officials occurred.

They were literally looking for anything they could use to sway Electoral College voters from casting their votes for the winning candidate. Looking for anything they could find to help turn the population against him and his team so that they could do it without causing too many riots across the nation.

It was not incidental collection. They knew damn well there were no Russian boogie-men hacking our election process. That’s a myth spoon-fed to simpletons for political purposes.

Stop tolerating the repetition of this foundational lie when you hear it. They were illegally using the tools of the surveillance state in hopes they could change the course of American history and install Hillary Clinton in the White House as the masters of the universe had wanted all along. They found nothing of consequence to use to that end and now they are being exposed for having done it.

Please help keep AE up and running if you can.

Speaking truth ABOUT power since 2007

Thank you all so much

(For my mailing address, please email me at RSCdesigns@tampabay.rr.com)


36 Responses

  1. “There was no robbery and it was a hit.” ~ S.C.

    Yes, Seth Rich, who worked at the DNC headquarters, was shot several times in Washington DC, but his wallet and watch were not taken. That was on 10 July 2016, fifteen days before the DNC convention. Three days before the convention came the WikiLeaks email dump of DNC files. When Assange was asked if Rich was the source of the emails, Assange responded that Wikileaks does not reveal its sources. On a different topic, if I had to designate one person as national ringleader of the “Russian hacking” nonsense, I would point at John Podesta.

    • also around that time is it coming out that Susan Rice started snooping on team Trump. I would agree that Podesta is behind it.

      • I fingered Podesta because of his supremely powerful connections in Washington. In many ways, Podesta >IS< the DNC. Corporate media outlets get their scripts from Podesta when they want to attack Trump, and praise the DNC. Podesta was a political genius, but I think that his failure with Hillary will ultimately prove to be a career-ending error.

        • Podesta is also big because of the lobbying firm he runs and believe it or not… The Center for American Progress (“center” as in “centrist” and “progress” as in “fake left reactionary right”) and Think Progress which is a powerful tool they use to not only steer “progressives” (young mainly) in a centrist direction.. but also as a live online focus group providing them with insight into just how far they can push their right wing agenda before the real left turns on them. It was quite brilliant to set it up and I’m sure provides them will all sorts of valuable info.

        • As I skimmed thru the Podesta emails, I got the impression he is the power behind the throne, the man behind the curtain.

          • Podesta had once been brilliant in terms of political strategy-making. He visited the Obama White House more often than did anyone else in Washington DC, and he practically slept in the Lincoln Bedroom. But Podesta got careless with Hillary, being certain that Hillary was a shoe-in for the throne. Trump had gone everywhere. Trump even visited the Mexican president in Mexico. Hillary went almost nowhere. Podesta told her she didn’t need to. Nor did Hillary need to offer anything to the masses except to call them “deplorable” if they didn’t cheer her coronation. After all, it was “her turn.” This was a disastrous error that Podesta has been trying (and failing) to recover from ever since.

  2. Paul Craig Roberts asks, “Why hasn’t the Trump administration had the Secret Service arrest Comey, Brennan, Schiff, the DNC and Hillary for trying to overthrow the President of the United States?”

    My answer: Because Trump and they are all neoliberals. The endless Trump-bashing and Russia-bashing is mere window dressing to distract the masses from this truth. The media outlets attack Trump, while they and Trump hang out together and laugh at us. What’s sad is that some people actually believe that Democrats are “better” than Trump, while others believe that Trump is better than Democrats. All are neoliberals.

    • exactly. look at how they freaked out when Trump simply said the Obama administration spied on him. big no-no. uncouth don’t ya know. The President’s Book of Secrets isn’t about a record of the truth, it’s a list of all the crimes previous presidents got away with and the lesson is… you will to… if you shut your damn mouth. Of course, PCR knows that. So why ask?

      • I suspect that Roberts is a latent racist, and that this makes him have an inflated view of Trump. Below, Roberts decries the US invasion of Syria, but Roberts do not decry Trump. Roberts refers to a blog post about the Syrian invasion by Tony Cartalucci, but Cartalucci does not decry Trump either. For me, neoliberals are evil. Black, white, Asian, Jew, Muslim, male, female, human, Martian, Trump supports and Trump bashers – for me it makes no difference. All neoliberals are evil.

        • BY THE WAY: I know it rankles people when I say the U.S. government creates and destroys money via ledger entries (all monetarily sovereign governments do this) but my sole intention in doing so is to attack neoliberal lies — e.g. “We must privatize Social Security to save it.”

        • If I see confirmation of the theory with my eyes, I’ll unsubscribe from Roberts’ emailing list for good.

          • With respect, theories don’t need to be confirmed, since theories consist of confirmed facts. There is the theory of aerodynamics, for example, and thermodynamics, and hydrodynamics, and so on. Which theory are you referring to?

            • PCR as possibly a closet racist?

              • Oh. That was a hypothesis, not a theory, meaning it has not been proven. It was a guess, based on my observation that PCR is going easier on Trump than he did on Obama, even though their foreign policies are the same.

                I agree with some things that PCR says, but not all. For example, PCR participates in the “national debt crisis” hoax. The reality is that private debt, such as student loans, is disastrous, but public debt (the so-called “national debt”) is not.

                  • I emphasize the word “guess,” meaning I could be totally in error about PCR. And while I may not agree with everything that PCR writes, I certainly read everything he writes. What bugs me is not PCR, but economist Michael Hudson, because I agree with Hudson so strongly on so many things — but then Hudson goofs. When we agree with someone 99%, we regard the other 1% with an attitude of “Huh? WTF?” Maybe I’ll wrote a blog post about this.

    • Yes, of course. This should be obvious to anybody by now. As to PRC, as Reagan’s Secretary of Treasury and economic advisor, he would certainly have known at the time that the entire neoliberal agenda was set in motion by Margaret Thatcher, who considered Hayek’s works her ‘bible’. She admired the Mont Pelerin Society, and actually understood that it was deeply opposed to labor rights, as was Reagan (although it could be argued that he didn’t understand much of anything). If, as an economist, Roberts did NOT read Hayek at the time, then he was naive at best or simply not as well-read as he thought he was.

      I don’t have a problem with PRC’s standpoint that the Russia-bashing needs to stop – because it is incredibly dangerous and foolish. Then again, Russia is no longer communist and Putin is fine with capitalism, as long as his country also gets a piece of the pie, instead of having it stolen by US dominated debt service.

      So, yes, as long as the world economy is dominated by the US dollar as THE reserve currency, no other country, nor block of countries, has any economic sovereignty at all. Needless to say, the other power blocks may be just as ruthless as our form of neoliberalism (which originated amongst European Elites), but it would at least provide some competition, which is, of course, the LAST thing the US Empire is willing to tolerate. These are the things that wars are fought over, and unfortunately neoliberalsm is deeply entrenched amongst all the global elites, for the time being.

      The much darker outlook longterm, if these global policies are NOT curtailed, is the destruction of entire planet, because the resource wars in the coming decades will make WW2 look like a minor hick-up by comparison. Basically, any policy which relies on continued growth, will eventually implode, with terrible consequences for much of the human species as well as other species. This just on a more philosophical note. Over-consumption of ANYTHING needs to stop, otherwise we are doomed.

      • “As long as the world economy is dominated by the US dollar as THE reserve currency, no other country, nor block of countries, has any economic sovereignty at all. ~ Ella

        It’s a question of degree. All national governments with monetary sovereignty (MS) create their own national currencies out of thin air. (Euro-zone nations surrendered their MS to the bankers, and therefore cannot create euros out of thin air. Unless those nations have trade surpluses, they must borrow all their euros from the bankers.) The more widely exchanged a nation’s currency is (or the more self-reliant a nation is) the less a nation needs foreign currencies with which to buy imports. The USA needs no foreign currencies at all, since the US dollars are accepted worldwide. Russia, by contrast, needs foreign currencies to buy imports, since the ruble is not widely exchanged outside Russia.

      • Response eaten by WordPress (144 words).

      • To hell with mother nature, if it won’t let us be comfortable. Screw her and the horse she rode in on. This is why I soured on environmentalism. It exasperates me how both mainstream and alternative media have become so sycophantic to this inhuman ideology. Scott and Penny are among the very few non-libertarians who have bravely questioned its nostrums.

        • Without extensive clarification, I will interpret you to mean, “Who needs an inhabitable planet? Screw survival!”

          • Do you know which countries have the strictest environmental laws? The wealthiest ones! Why? Because when you can put bread on the table, when an infrastructure is there to support you in a time of need, when you have become educated and gainfully employed, society and nature become less abstract, more relatable concerns. A Brazilian illegal logger probably thinks “My family is starving, so I must sell this wood on the black market to support us, when I haven’t found legal employment.” By contrast, although requiring intellectual effort, a Swedish academic’s book on recycling or water conservation can net him/her thousands or even millions of euros (depending on sales) and afford him a living in a lawful manner, and with less backbreaking labor. This hypothetical “Olaf” fellow can live a generally more pleasant life than Joao because he grew up in an industrialized nation that pursued social policies from the early XX century until the advent of neoliberalism.

            • So on one hand it’s “we must protect the environment from neoliberalism,” and on the other it’s “screw the environment anyway.”
              This sounds to me like, “More Fukishimas? More oil spills? More pollution and deforestation? More cancerous radioactive ‘downwinders’? Why not? Environmental concerns are a scam.”

            • What Ella suggested, in the current climate, would only exacerbate neofeudalism and third-world living conditions. Do you think Bill Gates will share his fortune with the hungriest humans on the planet if most governments decided to turn their backs on all economic growth? If you care to look for it, a list of writers including Austin Williams, Webster Tarpley (before he sold out to Obama), James Heartfield, William Engdahl, Alexander Cockburn (in obscure parts of his CounterPunch pieces) and members of the Australian political party “Citizens’ Electoral Council” have all observed a distinct elitist, plutocratic undercurrent in modern ecology- some have even denounce the fact that middle classes exist as a drain on Gaia. Rodrigo Duterte, Mahathir Mohammad and other developing country statesmen have said out loud that Copenhagen 2009, Paris 2015 and similar agreements are lopsided in favor of parties that already reached high levels of human development and some economic affluence. “The balance of nature” is a very convenient justification for keeping the riffraff in a pauperized state. Need I point out that the Al Gores and Richard Bransons live in extreme luxury while telling us to grovel before their ideas of “green living”?

              • Organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund were established by the very same interests (in this case, the British Crown) who have polluted the world the most, and profited from it. Scott himself has established that “green memorandums” with the Global South are about controlling their markets, labor, resources and industries. Last year’s coup in Brazil was aided by Greenpeace types convinced by the American propaganda that Dilma Rousseff was on a jihad against the Amazon and indigenous tribes, who demonstrated against her presidency starting in 2013.
                Fukushima and Chernobyl do not represent all nuclear power plants. The rate of accidents for over 400 facilities worldwide is very low.

                • You support nuclear plants? You minimize Fukushima and Chernobyl? Yikes! We don’t have the space here to adequately treat this topic.

                  • It’s the most abundant and constant source of energy (besides water and geothermal generation) with low carbon emissions. Coal plants can emit as much or more radiation in a typical day without an accident, with less workplace. The are pro facts and con facts.

                    • Coal plants emit radiation? You mean there are even more potential Fukishimas? Lovely. Fortunately with nuclear power we only have to worry about millions and millions of tons of nuclear waste, which only remain deadly for a million years or so. Most of it is sitting on the grounds of nuclear plants, and it includes spent plutonium, the deadliest substance known But hey, since we’re all going to die anyway, why worry about the agony of cancer? Like I said, we can’t accomplish much in this short space.

                    • France is already recycling spent fuel. If my opinions (based on my own reading) and some of the facts mentioned offend you, sorry. We can’t agree on everything.

                    • I am not offended. Perhaps you are projecting your own feelings onto others.

                    • In this case, it’s you who hasn’t wanted to listen to facts. You just respond with “Yikes!” and “you want to kill nature!” End of story.

      • “As long as the world economy is dominated by the US dollar as THE reserve currency, no other country, nor block of countries, has any economic sovereignty at all. ~ Ella

        It’s a question of degree. All national governments with monetary sovereignty (MS) create their own national currencies out of thin air. (Euro-zone nations surrendered their MS to the bankers, and therefore cannot create euros out of thin air. Unless those nations have trade surpluses, they must borrow all their euros from the bankers.) The more widely exchanged a nation’s currency is (or the more self-reliant a nation is) the less a nation needs foreign currencies with which to buy imports. The USA needs no foreign currencies at all, since the US dollars are accepted worldwide. Russia, by contrast, needs foreign currencies to buy imports, since the ruble is not widely exchanged outside Russia.

  3. Sorry, I’m not convinced. It looks to me that these “revelations” are just planned leaks designed to give Trump some street cred with the Alex Jones kool-aid drinkers especially: Trump “our hero”, “our savior” “attacked”!!! Give me a break. And Obama–a puppet, placed in office by the money power, thinks he could influence the election with some spying—does that make any real, true sense, when in reality he would know that the choice of president was not his and cannot be influenced by him. Elections are rigged, Scott, the money power decides, not puppets like Obama. This Obama information looks, to me, like the setting up (in 2016) for the coming up of the Russian collusion narrative they–the “deep state” started this year, and by deep state, I don’t mean sore CIA and democrats who wanted Hillary in the WH, I mean those who are pushing an agenda that has nothing to do with the false reason that Trump is some kind of threat to the establishment–he isn’t, he’s a selected puppet, there to carry out the narrative of Russian suspicion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: