Now that the left has succeeded in the effort to push Republican congressman Devin Nunes out of the ‘Russia’ investigation, the rest of America should be asking questions about Democrats’ point man Adam Schiff (CA).
Did comments Schiff made recently about Susan Rice make him unfit to be involved in investigating a matter raising questions about the lawfulness of actions by Rice? Rice is a long time Washington insider whose work has had a significant impact on lives of people around the globe.
What did Schiff say?
Breitbart featured in a story remarks by Schiff during an interview with Dem-friendlies at CNN. Besides remarks about Rice, Schiff’s comments about a donor to the Trump campaign are very partisan. Here’s the excerpt that should raise serious questions:
“We did have a couple notable developments this week that have been discussed publically[sic]. The first is the accusation against Susan Rice by the Breitbart crowd and people here within this building I think that are tossing around slanderous accusations without evidence.
That disturbs me a lot. I spent two years on the Benghazi Select Committee while they went after Susan Rice for no good reason and that now seems to be resuming.
The second development, of course, was the public report that yet another Trump person, this case, Erik Prince, may have had yet another surreptitious meeting with the Russians.”
The “Breitbart crowd”? Coming from Schiff, whose party has broad media advocacy, including advocacy from outlets whose partisanship is a given, his insult to an established media outlet is noteworthy.
Schiff appeared to want to clear Rice of any wrongdoing although questions are warranted about her actions amid a political campaign comprising the president of the United States, Barack Obama, serving as de facto surrogate for Hillary Clinton. There’s been talk of Rice testifying before Congress.
How is it Schiff can call allegations about her “slanderous” and “without evidence” when we already know Rice contradicted herself in two interviews about ‘unmasking’ names of private citizens whose data appears to have been scooped up by the vast net US government agencies apply to all electronic communications.
Did Rice distribute data not related to Russia? First she claimed to know nothing then she claimed she did know something. It’s that simple.
Rice does not have a good track record when it comes to the truth, and my criticism has nothing to do with the fact her skin color is brown and she’s a female. Rice was a leading actor in the Benghazi deception after she was a leading actor in urging Obama to intervene in Libya, a country that posed no threat whatsoever to the US.
How Schiff can state in public there was “no good reason” to go after Rice on Benghazi suggests he is either being deceptive or he is hopelessly biased. There were very good reasons to drill Rice on that attack and it is tragic no one was held accountable for the destruction of US lives and property in a conflict zone teeming with weapons and volatility.
In an epic insult to every soldier who has served honorably, Rice stood before the American people and called a soldier suspected of desertion in a war zone someone who “served with honor and distinction.”
Besides her misjudgments as part of the Obama team, Rice did her former boss Bill Clinton no favors when she handled Africa policy. Clinton’s inability to grasp or admit what was happening in Rwanda led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. Clinton was the poll president, and in my opinion every action he took was based on politics rather than the wellbeing of our country.
Even Samantha Power, Obama’s ambassador to the UN for awhile, had something to say about Rice, in 2001. Power recounted Rice’s politicization of a crisis in an article for left of center The Atlantic:
“At an interagency teleconference in late April, Susan Rice, a rising star on the NSC who worked under Richard Clarke, stunned a few of the officials present when she asked, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?” Lieutenant Colonel Tony Marley remembers the incredulity of his colleagues at the State Department. “We could believe that people would wonder that,” he says, “but not that they would actually voice it.” Rice does not recall the incident but concedes, “If I said it, it was completely inappropriate, as well as irrelevant.”
Rice aside, Schiff’s remarks about Erik Prince are completely inappropriate. Note how Schiff framed the characterization of Prince—“another Trump person.”Any meeting Prince may have had was conducted as a private citizen—he was not a member of the Trump transition team. Prince was a donor to Trump, just as many influential people donated to the Clintons. It’s a given the Clintons’ donor list might raise eyebrows, but media largely manipulated by Dems have shown little interest in casting a close eye on those matters.
We should be having a “Schiff-storm,” with right of center groups doing what left of center groups did regarding Nunes. We should insist another Democrat take the helm.
Schiff is obviously too partisan and far too biased regarding his premature defense of Rice to continue with the Russia investigation.
As for Ms. Rice, her actions in my personal opinion have damaged US relations around the globe and resulted in numerous deaths of civilians. She has a track record of telling false tales, with her flip-flopping answers on spying on Trump’s team the latest example.
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/April 6, 2017)