[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

what a freakin' insane asylum

Sorry, CNN, We're Not Going to Stop Talking About the Russian Collusion Hoax

"No Autopsy Can Restore the Democratic Party’s Viability"

RIP Ozzy

"Trump floats 'restriction' for Commanders if they fail to ditch nickname in favor of Redskins return"

"Virginia Governor’s Race Heats Up As Republican Winsome Sears Does a Hard Reboot of Her Campaign"

"We Hate Communism!!"

"Mamdani and the Democratic Schism"

"The 2nd Impeachment: Trump’s Popularity Still Scares Them to Death"

"President Badass"

"Jasmine Crockett's Train Wreck Interview Was a Disaster"

"How Israel Used Spies, Smuggled Drones and AI to Stun and Hobble Iran"

There hasn’T been ... a single updaTe To This siTe --- since I joined.

"This Is Not What Authoritarianism Looks Like"

America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets

AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996]

Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment?

Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit

"The Addled Activist Mind"

"Don’t Stop with Harvard"

"Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?"

"Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF"

"'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal"

Freepers Still Love war

Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump

"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"

"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"

"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’

Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"

"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"

"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"

"Ending EPA Overreach"

Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built

Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew

The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!

Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!

Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?

Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)

"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"

Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent

"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Rand Paul: We Know For Sure Obama Administration Spied On Mike Flynn
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi ... ation_spied_on_mike_flynn.html
Published: Mar 20, 2017
Author: Tim Hains
Post Date: 2017-03-20 20:42:13 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 4424
Comments: 32

On this week's edition of 'This Week With George Stephanopoulos,' Sen. Rand Paul discussed the president's accusation that his campaign was spied on by the Obama administration:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, sir, you're also a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. WE see the president standing by that claim about President Obama. It's caused a rift now with British intelligence over the weekend. How big a problem is this for the president's credibility? How does he fix it?

PAUL: I think that we know one thing for sure, that the Obama administration did spy on Flynn. Now, whether it was direct or indirect, somebody was reading and taking -- a transcript of his phone calls and then they released it.

It is very, very important that whoever released that go to jail, because you cannot have members of the intelligence community listening to the most private and highly classified information and then releasing that to The New York Times.

There can only be a certain handful of people who did that. I would bring them all in. They would have to take lie detector tests. And I would say, including the political people, because some political people knew about this as well.

But we need to get to the bottom of who is releasing these highly classified conversations. And if the president was surveilled, he probably wasn't the target. I don't know that he was or wasn't. But if he was, they probably targeted someone in a foreign government, but then they listened to the conversation with Americans.

But our government's talking to foreigners all the time. We can't allow people in the intelligence committee to release the contents of that informing to the media.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you don't believe...

PAUL: You will get a deep state. You will have an intelligence community that has enormous power if that happens.

STEPHANOPOULOS; You don't believe President Obama ordered an illegal wiretap of President Trump?

PAUL: Well, what happens is it's different than that. We target foreigners all the time, but they talk to Americans. They talk to the president. They talk to the national security advisers. And they're supposed to be masked.

But there was something alarming the other day. General Hayden admitted that people all the way down to some of the lowest analysts can unmask who the American is. So, someone unmasked General Flynn and they're a low-level analyst, we need to be looking at their computer and find out if they unmasked that conversation and if they spoke with The New York Times you have got to put those people in jail, because you cannot allow this to happen, or we will have presidents being blackmailed or national security advisers being blackmailed.

This is a huge, huge problem, bigger than anything else that's being discussed is the fact that private conversations from the intelligence community's perspective are being leaked to the press. That's not like a leak that says, oh, the president watches TV in his bathrobe, this is important to national security, you can't let it happen.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 26.

#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)

Rand is going well out of his way to defend Trump and give him cover in the media.

I think he's trying to stay in Trump's good graces even if Rand is leading the opposition to RyanCare which Trump is backing (so far).

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-03-20   21:42:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Tooconservative (#1)

"even if Rand is leading the opposition to RyanCare"

The House will be voting on Part I, and I've heard that Trump has already made some changes to it.

What in Part I does Rand oppose?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-03-21   12:37:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: misterwhite, Gatlin (#10)

What in Part I does Rand oppose?

Well, among other things I expect Rand objects to the whole idea of a Part I and II and III. It sounds like some ring cycle opera and you know those never have a happy ending.

Tom Cotton says the same thing, there will never be a Part II or Part III to TrumpCare. This alone spells its defeat or major modification in the Senate because Cotton/Lee/Cruz/Paul leaves you with a max of 48 votes in the Senate.

Rand is from KY, one of five states where the impact of TrumpCare will hit hardest, especially among those aged 55-65. So you can't expect Rand to take one for the team if he knows his older voters will get the shaft if Part I is the only part of TrumpCare that ever gets passed.

Beyond that, Rand was just re-elected to a 6-year term. So he can play hard to get. Rand has no great confidence that TrumpCare will turn out well and he does know that Trump only has until 2020 to get re-elected and Rand has until 2022. Politics.

Cruz, OTOH, faces the Texas voters in 2018 and has to live down his semi-non-endorsement of Trump at the 2016 GOP convention. Cruz is far more vulnerable, far more likely to cave.

Lee won't be up until 2020, I think. And Cotton just got elected and has, like Rand, until 2022.

And this is before you get to fair-weather GOP senators like Murkowski and Snowe.

I think Trump will get his bill through the House. I'm trying to see how he gets it through the Senate and it looks very very dicey to me.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-03-21   13:20:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Tooconservative (#13)

"where the impact of TrumpCare will hit hardest, especially among those aged 55-65."

If those aged 55-65 are forced to buy standard Obamacare-type health insurance and don't have other choices, yeah, they will be hit hardest.

But Part III offers them those choices -- Medical Savings Accounts, buying across state lines, customized plans, group insurance, etc.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-03-21   14:43:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: misterwhite (#15)

Even passing Part I will be extremely difficult and will end up as convoluted as how the Dems passed ObamaCare.

The idea that any Part II or Part III will surface at the end of this year before we enter the 2018 election cycle seems like a daydream, something that will never happen. I think Cotton and the others are right.

Closing the bill to any further amendments in the House but leaving the bill wide-open for the Senate to make a lot of amendments (like increasing subsidy ammounts for the 55-65 age group, extending the Medicaid expansion into 2020 or beyond) doesn't help them much. By the time you do that, you're getting very close to re-enacting ObamaCare itself.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-03-21   14:49:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Tooconservative (#16)

"Even passing Part I will be extremely difficult ..."

If you believe that, then I hope you weren't one of those calling for an immediate repeal and replace, forcing the need for 60 votes from the get-go.

"like increasing subsidy amounts for the 55-65 age group"

And what kind of subsidy was a middle-class individual, 55-65, going to get under Obamacare? Zero. Obama's subsidies were based on income, not age.

"extending the Medicaid expansion into 2020 or beyond"

Spoken like someone who ignores the fact that we're $20 trillion in debt. Let the states expand Medicaid and pay the additional money.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-03-21   17:17:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: misterwhite (#17) (Edited)

If you believe that, then I hope you weren't one of those calling for an immediate repeal and replace, forcing the need for 60 votes from the get-go.

I recall 6 years of constant "repeal" talk and a 2016 campaign by the GOP and by Trump where you heard "repeal" 90% of the time, and "repeal and replace" maybe 10% of the time. It was only after the election was over and Trump won that we heard a constant daily-talking-points adherence to the phrase "repeal and replace".

It surprises me that people never seem to notice the magical mutations that happen in policy in every administration. The campaign pledges suddenly become something else entirely.

And what kind of subsidy was a middle-class individual, 55-65, going to get under Obamacare? Zero. Obama's subsidies were based on income, not age.

You're kind of missing the point. ObamaCare was intended mostly to provide medical care for an older sicker population at the expense of a younger healthier population. That has been its prime failing in fact.

Spoken like someone who ignores the fact that we're $20 trillion in debt. Let the states expand Medicaid and pay the additional money.

I agree. But it looks like that's what they're shaping up with using amendments in the Senate version. That big Medicaid expansion was due to sunset this year. Now they're talking about yet another 3 years of federal subsidy of the Medicaid expansion. It is completely irresponsible, given the liabilities for entitlement spending they've already incurred.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-03-21   17:30:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Tooconservative (#18)

"I recall 6 years of constant "repeal" talk"

Did you hear, "Repeal all of it and replace all of it on day one"? Perhaps you simply assumed that. That's not my fault.

Do you think it's a smart political move to kick 20 million people off expanded Medicaid on day one?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-03-21   17:40:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: misterwhite (#19)

Do you think it's a smart political move to kick 20 million people off expanded Medicaid on day one?

A Dem talking point. You should be ashamed.

ObamaCare and its vast freebie Medicaid expansion lasted through 2017. So it would be a year before anything like that could happen.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-03-21   17:43:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Tooconservative (#21)

"So it would be a year before anything like that could happen."

An immediate repeal of Obamacare -- what you want -- would terminate the Medicaid expansion program. Immediately.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-03-21   17:48:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: misterwhite (#23)

An immediate repeal of Obamacare -- what you want -- would terminate the Medicaid expansion program. Immediately.

0bamaCare remains in place through 2017. Trump said it, congressional leaders say it.

Not immediately. No one ever said that.

However, 0bamaCare was due to slow the federal subsidy of the state Medicaid expansions.

The federal government initially paid for 100% of the expansion (through 2016). The subsidy tapered to 90% by 2020 and continued to shrink thereafter.

So we've had a big Medicaid party at the expense of an exploding federal deficit. And the states want the Medicaid goodies to keep rolling. And plenty of GOP pols are willing to go along, creating a TrumpCare that doesn't differ much from 0bamaCare.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-03-21   18:43:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Tooconservative (#25)

"Not immediately. No one ever said that."

Then why are you whining?

"creating a TrumpCare that doesn't differ much from 0bamaCare."

Oh, please.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-03-22   10:32:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 26.

#27. To: misterwhite (#26)

Scoff as you like.

The Freedom Caucus is saying today that they have 25 "hard" no votes and at least two strongly leaning no votes.

This was a quick rebound since only a few days ago, as Trump was going to the Capitol to woo the Freedom Caucus and they pre-announced a policy of neutrality on this vote (as scored within the caucus where you have to stick with the caucus on key votes on particular policy issues). So the Freedom Caucus, having ducked a major Trumplosion during his visit to his House harem, is now still very much in opposition.

There were 237 GOP seats in the House with 4 GOP members now appointed to other positions (and 1 Dem who became CA's A.G.).

If the Freedom Caucus really does have 25 hell-no votes, TrumpCare is dead. Unless Ryan backs down and lets them offer more amendments before the vote.

TheHill: Freedom Caucus Opposes AHCA Barring Changes by Wednesday

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-03-22 13:36:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 26.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com