The Real Crimes That were Committed: Obama Aides Umasked Hundreds of Identities During Election Without Justification

AND NOW FOR SOME POLITICAL CORRUPTION, OBAMA STYLE …

From The Hill comes the following bombshell. Why wouldn’t anyone believe that Obama and his minions did such a thing? Following the 2010 midterm election loses, the Obama administration used the IRS against his enemies in The Tea Party. This just shows the lengths of corruption and political overreach that the Obama administration used to maintain power. Some one needs to go to prison for these acts against the American people.

Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), in a letter to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, said the requests were made without specific justifications on why the information was needed.

“We have found evidence that current and former government officials had easy access to U.S. person information and that it is possible that they used this information to achieve partisan political purposes, including the selective, anonymous leaking of such information,” Nunes wrote in the letter to Coats.

The letter was provided to The Hill from a source in the intelligence community.

In March, Nunes disclosed that he had seen data suggesting Trump campaign and transition officials were having their names unmasked by departing officials in the Obama White House.

National Security Adviser Susan Rice and CIA Director John Brennan have acknowledged making such requests though they insisted the requests were for legitimate work reasons.

Nunes recused himself from his committee’s work on its investigation over Russia’s meddling in the 2016 campaign after a controversy over his charges about Obama-era unmasking.

The chairman had reviewed intelligence reports on White House grounds that he said showed unmasking of Trump officials by Obama aides. Democrats accused him of working with the White House to make the disclosures.

In Thursday’s letter, Nunes said the total requests for Americans’ names by Obama political aides numbered in the hundreds during Obama’s last year in office and often lacked a specific intelligence community justification. He called the lack of proper justifications a “serious deficiency.”

Former United Nations ambassador, Samantha Power has been identified as a key ‘unmasking’ within the previous administration.

From The Liar in Chief: Barack Obama urges ‘Political Courage’ to save Un-Affordable Care Act & His Legacy

THE AUDACITY OF A LIAR!!!

Last night, Barack Obama called for members of Congress not to repeal his dismal and failed legacy as he called on them to exercise “political courage.” REALLY, political courage? You mean the political courage it took Obama to lie to the American people to get his failed healthcare law passed? You all remember that you would be able to keep your doctor and health insurance coverage if you wanted to. You remember that it would lower insurance premiums. How did that work our for you America? You mean it takes political courage to lie? Because America, that is what Obama and Democrats did to pass Obamacare. Don’t buy the lies. Obamacare is doomed to failure and would collapse upon itself had nothing been done.

Politifact Lie of the Year: ‘If you like your health care plan, you can keep it’

OBAMA LIES … IF YOU LIKE YOUR HEALTHCARE PLAN YOU CAN KEEP IT

Barack Obama on Sunday night called on members of Congress to exercise the “political courage” to not repeal Obamacare — his first public comments about the law since the House voted to repeal it on Thursday, and a rare entry into the current political debate since leaving office.

“I hope they understand that courage means not simply doing what’s politically expedient, but doing what, deep in our hearts, we know is right,” Obama said, in a speech here at the John F. Kennedy Library accepting the Profiles in Courage award in honor of what would have been Kennedy’s 100th birthday.

“I expect to be busy, if not with a second career, at least a second act,” Obama said, promising more involvement.

Citing those who lost their seats after voting for the healthcare law in 2010, Obama described his “fervent hope” that current members “recognize it takes little courage to aid those who are already powerful, already comfortable, already influential — but it takes some courage to champion the vulnerable and the sick and the infirm, those who often have no access to the corridors of power.”

Obama: We will lower your premiums $2500 per family per year

Now the Democrat talking point lie is that Obamacare gave 21 million people healthcare coverage. Hmm, how many of those people had insurance coverage they liked and were forced off it and forced on to Obamacare?

WAKE THE HELL UP AMERICA.

Former Obama Administration National Security Adviser Susan Rice Declines to Testify Before Senate Subcommittee

OF COURSE SUSAN RICE HAD NO PROBLEM GOING ON CNN AND DISCUSSING THE ISSUES …

As reported at Politico, Former Obama administration National Security Adviser Susan Rice on Wednesday declined a request to testify next week before a Senate subcommittee, citing separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches and the fact that the invitation was not bipartisan. SERIOUSLY? If the allegation is that somehow Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes is absolutely false, then why is former Obama administration National Security Adviser Susan Rice ducking the U.S. Senate subcommittee? Me thinks you have much to hide. Honestly, how does Susan Rice think that declining the request to testify on Russian hacking not make her look guilty as sin? So much for the most transparent administration ever.

Former Obama administration National Security Adviser Susan Rice on Wednesday declined a request to testify next week before a Senate subcommittee, citing separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches and the fact that the invitation was not bipartisan.

Rice’s decision to decline the invitation to testify on Russia’s election meddling came in a letter from her lawyer, Kathryn Ruemmler, to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

The letter, first reported by CNN, notes that the invitation to testify came only from Graham and that Whitehouse “has informed us by letter that he did not agree to” the request, which Ruemmler calls “a significant departure from the bipartisan invitations extended to other witnesses.”

“Moreover,” Ruemmler writes, “Chairman Graham’s invitation was extended only after the hearing was noticed, less than two weeks before the hearing was scheduled to occur, and without consultation with Ambassador Rice, a professional courtesy that would customarily be extended to any witness.”

The Judiciary subcommittee is holding a hearing next Monday that will feature testimony from former acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

Former Obama Administration National Security Adviser Susan Rice had no prob;em going on the lap dog media to discuss the issues but then declines to testify for a Senate subcommittee on Russian hacking. Watch the video below of the liberal MSM trying to defend the unmasking of names. So it is ok to go on the friendly bias MSM, but hell no to Senate where she would be sworn in.

Obama’s Post Presidency $400,000 Speech Could Prompt Congress to Go after His Pension

MY PERSONAL BELIEF IS THAT ALL GOVERNMENT PENSIONS EXCEPT THOSE IN MILITARY SHOULD BE DONE AWAY WITH, INCLUDING CONGRESS …

Following Barack Obama’s $400,000 speech, Congress may pass legislation to cap presidential pensions. A bill like this had been previously introduced in 2016 in the House by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and in the Senate by Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa. However, with no opposition last year in the Senate or House or threat of presidential veto, at the last minute Obama vetoed the bill. Imagine that. Talk about self-serving. Why would Obama have vetoed such a bill? Hopefully this will pass the Congress once again and President Trump will sign it. If not, the American tax payers will be providing a pension to a billionaire by law.

Of course Congress should pass a similar bill on themselves as well.

And I am still bleeding the tax payer …

Last year, then-president Barack Obama vetoed a bill that would have curbed the pensions of former presidents if they took outside income of $400,000 or more.

So now that former president Barack Obama has decided to accept $400,000 for an upcoming Wall Street speech, the sponsors of that bill say they’ll reintroduce that bill in hopes that President Trump will sign it.

“The Obama hypocrisy on this issue is revealing,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and sponsor of the 2016 bill. “His veto was very self-serving.”

Chaffetz and Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, the sponsor of the companion Senate bill, say they will re-introduce the Presidential Allowance Modernization Act this month. The bill would cap presidential pensions at $200,000, with another $200,000 for expenses. But those payments would be reduced dollar-for-dollar once their outside income exceeds $400,000.

The issue isn’t a partisan one — or at least, it wasn’t last year. The bill passed both the House and Senate with no opposition, and no veto threat had come from the White House.

So when Obama’s veto came one Friday night last July — on the last day for him to sign or veto the legislation — it took lawmakers by surprise. It was the 11th of Obama’s 12 vetoes.

My personal belief is that all pensions should be done away with, except for the men and woman of our military. It is a means of payment that is long since obsolete. If presidents want to go on the speaking tour and some company is ignorant enough to pay $400K, so be it. However, the American people should never have to foot the bill of a pension of millionaires. That goes for Congress also. These positions were never intended to be a full time job forever. That is never what The Founders envisioned.

“The basic premise here is, if they want to go fishing in Utah for the rest of their lives, they can do that. They will be well compensated for the rest of their lives,” Chaffetz said. “If they’re going to make millions of dollars, the taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize them.”

Why are the American people paying pensions to millionaires? Who honestly thinks this makes any sense, no matter what political party the former president belongs to. Who thinks the Bush’s are hurting for money? How about the Clinton’s?

Under the Former Presidents Act, the nation’s five living former presidents — Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama — get a pension equal to the salary of a current cabinet secretary: $207,800 in 2017. They also get $150,000 to pay staff, and “suitable office space, appropriately furnished and equipped.”

In 2015, the entire benefit package ranged from $430,000 for Carter to $1.1 million for George W. Bush.

With Obama joining the club as of Jan. 20, the 2017 spending bill approved by the House Wednesday contained nearly $3.9 million for all the former presidents through Sept. 30 — a $588,000 annual increase.

FBI Monitored Former Trump Campaign Adviser Carter Page on Russia

FBI MONITORED FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISOR …

Via CNN.

The revelation confirms for the first time that a federal surveillance warrant, known as a FISA warrant, was issued for a member of the Trump campaign as part of a federal investigation of potential ties between the Republican’s associates and the Russian government. Hmm, so now we do know that the Obama admin did in fact call for surveillance on Trump campaign team members, contrary to the denials.

The FBI obtained a warrant to monitor President Donald Trump’s former campaign adviser, Carter Page, last summer on suspicions he knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of Moscow, The Washington Post is reporting.

The FBI and Justice Department obtained a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to monitor the communications of Page, who has called himself a junior member of Trump’s foreign policy advisory team, as part of their investigation into possible ties between Trump’s campaign and Russia, the newspaper says, citing unnamed law enforcement and other US officials.

The FBI and Justice Department obtained the warrant after convincing a FISA judge there was probable cause to believe Page was acting as an agent of a foreign government (Russia), the report says. The warrant presents the strongest information to date that the FBI had reason to believe a Trump adviser was in touch with Moscow and met with foreign operatives during Trump’s presidential campaign.

FBI Director James Comey has acknowledged that an investigation was opened last year into Russia’s efforts to influence the election and the question of whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Kremlin. But Comey stopped short of naming anyone working for the campaign who may have been involved.

CNN is working to confirm The Washington Post’s story.

Page, however, called the FISA warrant “unjustified” in a statement to CNN’s Manu Raju.

So what was this really? I tend to go along with Hot Air’s premise that this was a back door method of surveiling Trump’s campaign team. If there had been anything, and I mean anything, wouldn’t we know at this point and a crime would have been charged? What we now know is that the Obana administration did surveil Trump’s campaign.

Actually, that’s not quite true. It’s evidence that the Department of Justice sought to surveil Trump campaign figures using intel resources, but not necessarily that they had real evidence and/or a legitimate “reason to believe” that Trump campaign officials were in touch with Russian agents. It’s extremely easy for the government to get approvals for FISA warrants, as we have discovered in the debates over renewals of Section 702 of the PATRIOT Act. That’s actually the crux of the issue: did certain Trump campaign officials knowingly collude with Russian intelligence — or did the Obama administration spy on political rivals in order to impact the election outcome? Both? Neither?