Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice is in hot water again.
Her credibility was shot when she publicly claimed the attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi was spurred by a poorly-produced anti-Islam movie. Rice said the attack was “spontaneous,” despite having intelligence that it was a coordinated terrorist attack.
Now Rice is part of a much more serious cover-up.
In the Democrats’ hysteria to uncover collusion between Trump and Russia, they’re willfully ignoring an actual scandal.
Short-lived Trump appointee Michael Flynn was forced to resign after leaks proved he was untruthful about disclosing communication with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
The communication was not illegal (Kislyak met with several Democrats in his capacity as a foreign diplomat), but the leaks most certainly were.
Not long after Flynn’s resignation, former Obama staffer Evelyn Farkas admitted to encouraging her former colleagues to seize and spread information.
It’s true that it has not yet been proven that either Trump or any other private American citizens in his orbit were subjects or targets of these surveillance efforts. Ostensibly, foreigners, specifically, Russians, were the subjects. But it is equally true that arrangements were made by those within Obama’s government—the so-called “Deep State”—to illegally unmask and leak public information regarding those private citizens that allegedly got swept up in these spying operations.
For those still not convinced by this, Evelyn Farkas should remove all doubt.
Under Obama, Farkas was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for “Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia,” according to the website for the U.S. Department of Defense. She left her position in 2015 to become an adviser to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Earlier in March, she appeared on MSNBC and made the following comments on Morning Joe:
“I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, people on the Hill…[to] get as much information as you can, as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration.”
Farkas admitted that she “had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people [from the Obama administration] who left.” She feared that it would disappear into the abyss of “the bureaucracy,” and “that the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about…the Trump staff’s dealing with Russia, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods.”
Around the same time of Farkas’ admission, Rice denied knowing anything about surveillance of Trump associates or their identities being disclosed. Then it was discovered that Rice herself asked for the unmasking of Trump associates tangentially caught up in surveillance of Russian actors.
Rice went on CNN and MSNBC and answered softball questions, denying there were any political motives behind the targeting of Trump officials. Yet Rice refuses to testify on the matter.
The Blaze reported:
Former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice told Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in a letter from her lawyer Wednesday that she would not be testifying before Congress in their investigation into alleged Russian hacking.
Rice said she would not testify because the request was made from Graham without bipartisan support, a fact she discovered when told by a Democratic member of the committee reaching out to her about the request.
“Senator [Sheldon] Whitehouse [D-R.I.] has informed us by letter that he did not agree to Chairman Graham’s invitation to Ambassador Rice,” the letter read, “a significant departure from the bipartisan invitations extended to other witnesses. Under these circumstances, Ambassador Rice respectfully declines Senator Graham’s invitation to testify.”
CNN spoke with Whitehouse to ask why he discouraged Rice from testifying.
“With the exception of that invitation, Senator Graham and I have agreed on all witnesses that have been invited to this hearing,” he said. “I don’t believe that Dr. Rice’s participation is germane to the topic of this hearing, and I believe her presence would be a distraction from the critical issues at hand. I fully support her decision not to testify.”
Rice was set to testify before the Senate Committee in a hearing entitled, “Russian Interference in the 2016 United States Election,” on May 8, 2017.
Rice had no problem going on television and answering questions, but now suddenly her role in the ordeal is not “germane.”
Despite Rice’s stonewalling, she could still be compelled to testify. South Carolina Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy said:
“There are other ways to invite people other than via a letter…There are things called subpoenas. You shouldn’t have to use them with a former national security advisor, but if you do, you do…Members of Congress don’t pick the witnesses, lawyers don’t pick witnesses. Facts pick the witnesses.”
An actual federal crime was committed by a government official. Someone illegally leaked the information on Michael Flynn. If there were more damning evidence out there, surely it would’ve leaked by now.
The words and actions of Obama associates Rice and Farkas suggest Rice should at least answer questions on the matter of the leak.
At some point, the focus needs to shift from the hypothetical crime to the empirical one.