Obama Aide Squeals Live On MSNBC: ‘I Helped Spy On Trump’

I apologize for the long post--good read for some.

The Russian Farce

Obama’s Entreaty to the Russians

In March 2012, in a meeting with President Dimitri Medvedev of Russia, President Barack Obama thought his microphone was either off or could not pick up the eerie assurances that he gave the Russian president:

“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him [Vladimir Putin] to give me space.”

Medvedev answered: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you . . . ”

Obama agreed and elaborated, “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”

Medvedev finished the hot-mic conversation with, “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.”

A fair interpretation of this stealthy conversation would run as follows:

‘I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.’ — Medvedev to Obama, March 2012

Barack Obama naturally wanted to continue a fourth year of his reset and outreach to Vladimir Putin, the same way that he was reaching out to other former American enemies such as the Iranians and the Cubans. Yet Obama was uneasy that his opponent, Mitt Romney, might attack him during his reelection campaign as an appeaser of Putin. Thus, to preempt any such attack, Obama might be forced to appear less flexible (offer less “space”) toward Putin than he otherwise would be in a non-election year. In other words, he couldn’t publicly assure Putin that he would be “flexible” about implementing missile defense in Eastern Europe (“all these issues”) until after he was reelected.

An apprehensive Obama, in his hot-mic moment, was signaling that after his anticipated victory, he would revert to his earlier reset with Putin. And most significantly, Obama wished Putin to appreciate in advance the motives for Obama’s campaign-year behavior. Or he at least hoped that Putin would not embarrass him by making international moves that would reflect poorly on Obama’s reset policy.

Furthermore, Obama did not want his implicit quid pro quo proposal to become part of the public record. Had it been public, it might have been interpreted as a message to Putin that he should empathize with Obama’s plight — and that he should interfere with the American election by behaving in a way that would empower Obama’s candidacy rather than detract from it.

In the present hysterical climate, substitute the name Trump for Obama, and we would be hearing Democratic demands for impeachment on grounds that Trump was caught secretly whispering to the Russians about compromising vital national-security issues in a quid pro quo meant to affect the outcome of the 2012 election.

The Architects of Russian Outreach

The Obama administration came up with a reset–soft-glove approach to Vladimir’s Russia, characterized by Secretary Hillary Clinton’s heralded pushing of the red plastic button on March 6, 2009, in Geneva. Reset was couched in overt criticism of George W. Bush, who had supposedly alienated Putin by reacting too harshly (like a typical cowboy) to Russia’s aggression in Georgia.

Over the next few years, the reset policy consisted of, among other things, backtracking on previously agreed-on missile-defense plans in Eastern Europe. In the second presidential debate of 2012, Obama portrayed Romney as being too tough on Russia, to the point of delusion:

A few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not al-Qaeda. You said Russia. In the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.

The Obama administration invited Russia into the Middle East for the first time in nearly a half-century to help Obama back off from his own redline threats to attack Syria if evidence of WMD usage appeared. Moreover, after the Crimea and eastern Ukraine aggressions, the perception in most of the Western world was that the U.S. was not sufficiently tough with Putin, largely because of its commitment to a prior (though failed) outreach.

So what ended this one-sided reset in 2016?

The estrangement certainly did not coincide entirely with Putin’s aggressions on Russia’s borders. Nor were Democrats inordinately angry with Putin when he bombed non-al-Qaeda Syrian resistance fighters.

Rather, Democrats’ split with Putin grew from the perception that hackers had easily entered the porous e-mail account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign guru John Podesta and released his messages to WikiLeaks. This led to general embarrassment for Hillary and the Democrats — and they floated the theory that WikiLeaks and Julian Assange were taking orders from Putin or at least operating with the encouragement of the Kremlin’s intelligence services.

Hating Hillary?

After the WikiLeaks mess, the image of Putin was reset again, and now he was said to have ordered the hacking because he hated Hillary Clinton and indeed the Obama administration in general.

That was a bizarre indictment. If Putin were really a conniving realist, he would have much preferred Hillary in the 2016 election — given his success in manipulating the Obama-era reset.

Unlike Trump, Clinton would probably have kept the radical Obama defense cuts and perpetuated the restrictions on domestic energy development that were helping Russia. She probably would have likewise continued Obama’s therapeutic approach to foreign policy.

From Russia’s point of view, considering their strategic and economic interests, a pliable Obama 2.0 would have been far better than Trump, with his pro-oil-and-gas domestic agenda, his promised defense buildup, and his unpredictable Jacksonian promises to help friends and hurt enemies.

Squaring the Surveillance Circle

The entire Trump-collusion-with-Russia narrative has now descended into incoherence.

For five months, dating back to the heated final stretch of the 2016 election, mainstream media — in particular Obama-administration pet reporters at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the BBC — ran creepy and occasionally near-obscene stories about “collusion” between the Trump campaign and the Russians. These published rumors were based on “unnamed sources” often identified generically as American intelligence officers inside the FBI, CIA, and NSA.

Soon that narrative went from ominous to hysterical — but only once Hillary inexplicably lost the election. The anonymous allegations of collusion were used to convict the Trump circle of a veritable pre-election partnership with the Russians. The collusion was to be followed, the story went, with a new reset with Putin — this time born not out of naïveté but of lucre and near treason.

We forget that the Democrats’ narratives of the purported Trump collusion also radically changed to meet changing circumstances.

Before the election, a sure and poor-loser Trump was pathetically cheating with the Russians to stop the fated winner Clinton.

Then, in the post-election shock and transition, the Russian-interference storyline was repackaged as an excuse for the poorly conducted Clinton campaign that had blown a supposedly big lead and sure victory. “The Russians did it” was preferable to blaming Hillary for not visiting Wisconsin once.

Finally, Trump’s Russian connection served as a useful tool to delegitimize an abhorrent incoming Trump administration. And the delegitimizing was made easier by Obama’s eleventh-hour order, days before his departure, to expand the list of federal officials who would have access to sensitive intelligence and surveillance transcripts.

But all such accusations of Trump-Russian complicity, based on admitted leaks from intelligence agencies, required some sort of hard evidence: leaked transcripts of Trump officials clearly outlining shared strategies with the Russians, hard proof of Russian electronic tampering in key swing states, doctored e-mails planted in the Podesta WikiLeaks trove, travel records of Trump people in clandestine meetings with Russian counterparts, or bank records showing cash payoffs.

Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation had as many financial dealings with pro-Russian interests as did Trump people.

Yet a hostile media, in collusion with intelligence-agency leakers, has so far provided no such proof. John Podesta had as much invested in Russian profiteering as did former Trump aides. Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation had as many financial dealings with pro-Russian interests as did Trump people. The ubiquitous Russian ambassador had met as many Democratic grandees as he had Trump associates

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...steria-diverts-attention-surveillance-scandal

 

What damaging information about Russia (and particularly damaging to Putin) are you claiming Assange released?

 

WikiLeaks cables condemn Russia as 'mafia state'

Russia is a corrupt, autocratic kleptocracy centred on the leadership of Vladimir Putin, in which officials, oligarchs and organised crime are bound together to create a "virtual mafia state", according to leaked secret diplomatic cables that provide a damning American assessment of its erstwhile rival superpower.


• Russian spies use senior mafia bosses to carry out criminal operations such as arms trafficking.

• Law enforcement agencies such as the police, spy agencies and the prosecutor's office operate a de facto protection racket for criminal networks.

• Rampant bribery acts like a parallel tax system for the personal enrichment of police, officials and the KGB's successor, the federal security service (FSB).

• Investigators looking into Russian mafia links to Spain have compiled a list of Russian prosecutors, military officers and politicians who have dealings with organised crime networks.

• Putin is accused of amassing "illicit proceeds" from his time in office, which various sources allege are hidden overseas.

The allegations come hours before Putin was due to address Fifa's executive committee in Zurich in support of Russia's bid to host the 2018 World Cup. Putin last night abruptly cancelled his trip, complaining of a smear campaign to "discredit" Fifa members. In an angry interview with CNN's Larry King Live, recorded before the latest disclosures, Putin also denounced the cables and warned the US not to stick its nose in Russia's affairs.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-russia-mafia-kleptocracy

 

Right.

So we have an FBI investigation initiated for no known reason initiated by someone in the Obama administration for something that could not have been performed by the target of the investigation.

I'll let you get back to your tin foil.

 

Turn them over to who?

 

The earth being flat has to do with every thing that happens on earth.

So, I'd like to know what the flat earth society says. You're the resident expert.

The information is sent via satellite communications, but the flat earth society doesn't thinks satellites exist. Explain that one.

 

Yeah, I caught that, too. Also, watch the Farkas woman as she begins to explain what happened. She starts stutter a bit, and looks nervously at somebody off camera a couple times (maybe somebody was not reacting well to her confession on live TV). You can hear the tension in her voice, like a teenager trying to explain why she took her parents car without permission. Then, at then end, you can see her sigh a bit, like she just released a great weight. She is guilty as hell.

 

That's a leaked American assessment. No names mentioned. Nothing exposed except how the American government views Russia.
Nearly the opposite of what you claimed.

 

Regardless of your take on her facial expressions...her WORDS don't say anything close to what you claim they do

 

You should know the history from the OP is to post fake news threads. Several times a day.
It's my guess, he/she is paid to post these false threads.

 

I agree with the William Casey statement, yet you are as I claimed prepared to use the use of Russian salad dressing as a point of proof that Trump is lying?

 

We have a word for "getting as much information as they could before Obama left".

It's called spying.

 

In politician speak, her words translate to that. She's not gonna go on TV and say "Yes, we illegally spied on Trump." It's absurd to expect that. She is attempting to give justification for her actions that, in her heart, she knows were illegal. And Mika realizes it, too. I only briefly saw the faces of the other guests, but they knew it too. They all realize what just happened.

 

Did you forget what you asked for?

 

"Getting information" ISN'T wiretapping or anything like it

People "get information" all the time for all sorts of reasons.

This is a stupid thread and a ridiculous claim

 

So how did that damage Russia or Putin?

Did it expose names of these corrupt officials? Give details? No?

Anyone "surprised" about Putin himself being corrupt is a fool so that's not news.

 

Maybe she's secretly meeting with Russians too.

 

So you're "translating" for us and you admit she said no such thing.

Thank you

 

Speaking of "fake news", could you please identify the exact time period in your OP video where Evelyn Farkas states: "I Helped Spy On Trump" as you claimed?

Not that I'd think you'd make stuff up or promote fake news or anything. But I didn't see where she said that in the video.

I asked you this question before but you didn't answer. Maybe you missed it.

Thank you.

 

If it was just "getting information" she would not have been so scared. She was trying to castle.

 

That would be like saying Obama was "translating" when he said you can keep your plan. But because he is a Democrat, conservatives call that a "lie."

But when another conservatives does it, now it's not lying, it's just "translating".

It's a lot easier to be conservative when you get to employ blatant double standards.

 

Regardless...she didn't "admit" what was claimed in the OP.

Not even close

 

Apparently I have to. But that's ok, things will become more explicit in time. Tic toc.

 

This hurts Obama so of course she is not all over the News. MSNBC did not dig deep into her story either. Some are confused by claiming tracking Russia, they snagged Trump. Trouble is the FBI made it clear there is no collusion.

 

Obama's comments from 5 years ago have nothing to do with this and whatever you're trying to claim means nothing.

This thread is based on a lie and I think in a backhanded way you just admitted that