Maybe Don Lemon could explain it since he’s unwilling to ‘insult’ us by reporting this story.
The Susan Rice story is merely a distraction, is it? She was just ‘doing her job’ was she? ‘Leaked nothing to nobody’? Very well.
Rand Paul has some follow-up questions. Questions like ‘why wasn’t the FBI involved’?
The White House is to be a CONSUMER of intelligence, not an investigator nor a generator of intelligence. As Andrew C. McCarthy of National Review rightly reminds us:
Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies.
The national-security adviser is not an investigator. She is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic-party interests.
The FBI, CIA, and NSA generate or collect the intelligence in, essentially, three ways: conducting surveillance on suspected agents of foreign powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and carrying out more-sweeping collections under two other authorities — a different provision of FISA, and a Reagan-era executive order that has been amended several times over the ensuing decades, EO 12,333.
Back to Rand Paul’s questions.
After commenting that she didn’t actually ANSWER Andrea Mitchell’s original question, he offered some other questions.
If it wasn’t for political reasons and she was really seeking the information for foreign intelligence reasons, Paul wondered, then why wasn’t the FBI involved?
“Did the president direct you to eavesdrop and sift through intelligence?” Paul asked, wondering if President Obama was behind the privacy breach.
Paul, who is known as a champion for Americans’ privacy, said the situation raises too many constitutional alarm bells. —TownHall
Those are good questions. And considering Rice’s Strained relationship with the truth, one best answered under oath.