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.

HYPOCRITE: Barack Obama Raking in the Money from Wall Street Speeches, $400K Per Speech

OBAMA’S DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO AGENDA … I THOUGHT HE CONSIDERED WALL STREET EVIL?

What a fraud and hypocrite. Former president Barack Obama, the man who railed against the evils of Wall Street, now is accepting speaking appearances and the fees are ridiculous. Even as Obama is facing criticism for getting $400,000 for a speech to a Wall Street bank Cantor Fitzgerald, he pocketed the same amount of money for a second speech, with an A&E event. What a joke. Oh yeah, Obama is for the little guy and against the big banks and Wall Street firms. Sure he is. Hey Dems, how do you like your Obama now? He has decimated your party, resided over the loss of both the House, Senate, governorships and thousands of politicians in State Houses and now as a private citizen, does the very thing he said was evil. What happened to all that class warfare and the have and have-nots?

Even as President Obama faced criticism for getting $400,000 for a speech to a Wall Street bank, he pocketed the same amount of money for a second speech, The Post has learned.

Obama made another $400,000 on Thursday when he appeared at the A&E Networks advertising upfront at The Pierre Hotel. He was interviewed over 90 minutes at the Midtown Manhattan event by presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin in front of the cable network’s advertisers.

Obama says Show me the money!!!

Far left Sen Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) says she is troubled by Barack Obama’s decision to accept $400,000 from a Wall Street firm to speak at a health care conference this fall.

“I was troubled by that,” she said.

That was the extent of her comments aimed directly at Obama. She quickly launched into a broader discussion of her views of the corrupting influence of money in Washington.

“I describe it as a snake that slithers through Washington. And that it shows up in so many different ways here in Washington,” she said, referencing her just-published book, “This Fight Is Our Fight: The Battle to Save America’s Middle Class.”

“The influence of dollars on this place is what scares me,” she continued. “I think it ultimately threatens democracy.”

While Warren’s critique was a far cry from the withering criticism some on the left have leveled at Obama, it’s rougher than anything she said during the 2016 campaign about former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s acceptance of hefty speaking fees from Wall Street firms.

President Trump Accuses Barack Obama of Organizing Protests Against Him … ‘I Think He is Behind It’

WHAT A SURPRISE, WHAT ELSE WOULD A COMMUNITY AGITATOR DO WHO CARES MORE ABOUT HIS LEGACY THAN THE US?

In an interview with Fox & Friends released Monday night, President Donald Trump accused former President Barack Obama of being behind and responsible for some of the recent protests against him and Republicans. President Trump responded when asked whether Obama was responsible for organizing some of the recent political protests against him and other Republicans … “No, I think he is behind it. I also think it’s politics — that’s the way it is.” Would it really come as a surprise that behind the scenes Obama made every effort to derail the Trump presidency so to maintain any type of legacy? This is what Obama is, a community agitator.

So much for the peaceful transition of power and a former president giving the current one a chance to govern

President Donald Trump delivered a scathing accusation against former President Barack Obama in an interview released Monday night.

Trump was asked whether Obama was responsible for organizing some of the recent political protests against him and other Republicans — including the widely publicized demonstrations at GOP town-hall meetings.

“No, I think he is behind it,” Trump said in a preview of an interview with “Fox and Friends” released Monday night. “I also think it’s politics — that’s the way it is.”

“You never know what’s exactly happening behind the scenes,” Trump said. “You never know.”

Here is more of Trump’s quote on the question of protesters gathering around the US:

“No, I think that President Obama’s behind it because his people are certainly behind it. And some of the leaks … possibly come from that group … But I also understand that’s politics, and in terms of him being behind things, that’s politics, and it will probably continue.”

Fake Oscar: ‘La La Land’ Declared Best Picture in Major Acadamy Award Screw Up … ‘Moonlight’ Later Declared Winner

ITS CALLED KARMA BABY:  MAYBE THE OSCARS SHOULD HAVE WORRIED MORE ABOUT GETTING THEIR SHOW CORRECT, RATHER THAN JUST BASHING TRUMP …

And the Academy award for Best Picture goes to La La Land. Oops, I mean Moonlight. In what can only be described as the biggest screw up in Oscar’s history, The Academy Awards actually announced the wrong winner for the biggest award of the night. UNREAL. I have said for years, how do so many people put merit in a profession where all the individuals do is read off a dummy card and some one else’s work? In this case, they couldn’t even do that.  Thus, for this colossal gaffe, the 89th Academy Awards will not be remembered for all of the anti-Trump liberal gibberish, it will be forever remembered for presenters Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway declaring that “La La Land” had won during the evening’s final presentation, even though it had not.

And we are supposed to listen to this fools give us political advice and lecture us when they can’t even read a card or get something as simple as providing an envelop to some one properly? Hey lefty Hollywood, maybe the Russians switched the envelops.

In a moment that will go down as one of the strangest and most shocking in Oscar history, “Moonlight” was named Oscar winner for best picture only after “La La Land” was announced first.

The room was in disarray as they sorted out the error.

Here’s how it went down:

Co-presenters Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway were on stage to present the award. After listing the nominated films. Beatty opened the envelope and then paused for longer than usual. He looked around and over at Dunaway, who then announced “La La Land” had won.

Producers and cast members from “La La Land,” the candy-colored big-screen romantic musical about two artists striving to fulfill their dreams, made their way to the stage to celebrate. They had begun their thank yous when the mistake was caught.

“La La Land” producer Jordan Horowitz interrupted the celebration, calling attention to the discrepancy on the winners card in his hand.

UPDATE I: Oh my f—king God, it’s not La La Land, it’s Moonlight!

Before walking onstage to present the final award of the night, Faye Dunaway had a last-minute hair touch-up and Warren Beatty was in great spirits.

The atmosphere backstage was electric, and everything was going so well.

Until it wasn’t.

Within moments of Dunaway announcing La La Land as the Best Picture winner, it was clear something was awry.

“Oh my god, it’s Moonlight!” a stage manager said aloud, and into a headset, while starting to pace. “Oh my god! Oh my god!” As the seconds passed and the La La Land producers, Oscars aloft, were well into their acceptance speeches, the low-level confusion backstage turned into jaw-dropping disbelief.

“Oh my f—king God, it’s not La La Land, it’s Moonlight! He’s got the wrong envelope!” said someone from the production crew, hands on head in shock.  “They read the wrong envelope!”