XPost: alt.politics.radical-left, alt.politics.trump, alt.education
XPost: can.politics
From: apes@splcenter.org

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

On the heels of a bombshell report that Susan Rice – former
President Barack Obama’s right hand woman – asked dozens of
times for intelligence agencies to unmask the names of Trump
associates, the mainstream media is predictably, providing her
cover.

Instead of investigating the report, which was first broken by
Bloomberg News on Monday, the press corps is calling it a
“distraction” from the real story of potential Trump
administration collusion with Russia.

Let’s be clear. There are two stories worth pursuing. One is the
FBI’s investigation into any collusion between the Trump
administration and Russia. So far, no evidence has been provided
that there was any. The second is why did Ms. Rice seek this
unmasking and was it done for political purposes – in other
words, did the Obama administration actively seek to spy on the
incoming Trump administration?

The second story doesn’t interest the mainstream media – which
instead of investigating, immediately aimed to discredit.

“If victim [Lt. Gen Michael] Flynn hadn’t been ‘unmasked’ –
would Trump have fired him? Would it be better to have ‘masked’
man Flynn running the NSC,” New York Times reporter Glenn Thrush
questioned on Twitter, defending the illegally leaked reports to
the media that led to Mr. Flynn’s resignation.

Apparently, the criminal act of unmasking Mr. Flynn and then
leaking his name to the press is of no concern to Mr. Thrush.
Neither are accusations Ms. Rice may have sought and been
granted that unmasking.

Katy Tur of NBC News was equally nonplussed at the news
implicating Ms. Rice in a potential spying scandal.

After hearing the news she retweeted a Tweet from Atlantic
editor David Frum (and Never Trumper): “Imagine the National
Security Adviser wanting to know who was clandestinely
collaborating with an espionage attack on the nation’s security.”

So, not only did she deflect from the news of the day, she and
Mr. Frum also managed to bring the Russia/collusion story back
into the equation.

CNN’s Don Lemon was more outright in his disgust of the Rice
revelations, saying he wouldn’t “aid and abet people” pushing
the Susan Rice “diversion.”

Mr. Lemon’s CNN colleague Jim Sciutto – who before joining CNN
as their chief national security correspondent was a political
appointee of Mr. Obama working on foreign policy – said he
reached out to a source close to Ms. Rice and there was nothing
to see here.

“The idea that Ambassador Rice improperly sought the identities
of Americans is false,” he reported, citing an unnamed person
close to Ms. Rice. “There is nothing unusual about making these
requests when serving as a Sr. national security official,
whether Dem or GOP.”

Interesting.

Ms. Rice categorically denied last month on PBS that she knew
anything about the unmasking of U.S. citizens, but now, she’s
saying she did – she just did nothing wrong. As for Mr.
Sciutto’s source? Well, it takes a few minutes searching Google
to realize Mr. Sciutto was once an ABC News colleague with Ms.
Rice’s husband, Ian Officer Cameron. Add that to his Obama
administration chops, and I think you may have a winner.

Heidi Przyblyla at USA Today was equally happy to throw water on
the potentially explosive story.

“Conservative media going nuts. Unmasking to small circle of
Intel experts routine to understand/interpret intel. And diff
from ‘leaking,’” she wrote on Twitter. Maybe so, but is it not
even worth looking into?

The Wall Street Journal confirmed Bloomberg News’ report on
Tuesday, adding: “Unmasking does occur, but it is typically done
by intelligence or law-enforcement officials engaged in anti-
terror or espionage investigations. Ms. Rice would have had no
obvious need to unmask Trump campaign officials other than
political curiosity. We’re told by a source who has seen the
unmasked documents that they included political information
about the Trump transition team’s meetings and policy
intentions.”

Last but not least, the New York Times was quick to come to the
defense of the Obama administration. The lead of their story was
that the Trump administration “sought to turn attention away
from the Russia investigation” by saying the “real story” was
what President Donald Trump called “a crooked scheme against us.”

Never mind the news reports collaborating Mr. Trump’s
allegations. The Times looked to discredit those reports saying
they came from “conservative news media outlets.”

Really? Since when is Bloomberg View conservative? When did the
Wall Street Journal – whose pages are filled with anti-Trump
columnists – become a full-fledged conservative news outlet?

The Times wanted to assure its readers that its unnamed sources
said these unmasking requests were “normal” and “justified.”
So, nothing to see here folks. The Obama administration may have
been actively spying on the Trump administration using third-
world police-state tactics, but it’s no big deal. You’re being
distracted from the larger Russia collusion story, which even
ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff
had to admit this weekend there was no evidence of.

So while the media goes out and chases that mythical story, the
truth will slowly be revealed. And that truth will unmask the
press corps as the bias, conspiracy theorists they have become.
Completely unhinged.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/4/susan-rice-media- providing-cover-obama-administrat/
 

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)