Rice afraid to testify after series of lies

If Susan Rice meets you on the street and says "Good morning," she is lying.

Rice is facing growing demands for her to testify under oath, but in order to do that, a fireproof Bible will be needed because it just might go up in flames. 

The former Obama official is accused of ordering the unmasking of Trump officials under surveillance and she has finally admitted it after lying about it in a TV interview. But she said in an interview on MSNBC that she never did it for political purposes. 

"The allegation is that somehow Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes," she said, adding "that is absolutely false."

Translation: it is probably true because she was emphatic when she said it.

She also said that it is sometimes "necessary" for investigative purposes. So why did she originally lie about it?

For the same reason she said the 2012 attack on the Benghazi compound was caused by a video slamming prophet Mohammad. For the same reason she said that alleged deserter and Army puss-bag, Bowe Bergdahl, served with "honor and distinction." The reason is she, like Hillary Clinton, cannot keep themselves from lying. It's how they both roll.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) a member of the Senate Judiciary and Select Committee on Intelligence said in a tweet Tuesday that Rice "needs to testify under oath."

What Cornyn is forgetting is that Rice will probably plead the Fifth Amendment or perhaps be bold enough to lie, as is her wont. Her slogan is: "Oath schmoath. Who cares?"

Cornyn included a link to a Wall Street Journal article "Susan Rice Unmasked." It suggests that she personally sought the name of at least one Trump official in intelligence reports concurrent to when reports on Russia were allegedly being circulated broadly, said a former intelligence official as reported by Fox News.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) also serves on the Judiciary Committee. He told Fox News that while he doesn't know why Rice acted improperly, "when it comes to Susan Rice, you need to verify, not trust."

He's exactly right.  But he also said that he doesn't want to form an opinion just yet. "There's a way to find out," Graham said. "I intend to find out."

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said that Rice "ought to be under subpoena," adding that the stories coming out about her are "actually eerily similar to what Trump accused them of, which is eavesdropping on conversations for political reasons."

He also suggested she needs to be asked whether she communicated with Obama directly about the surveillance information.

So was Rice merely doing her job, or was she doing a job for Obama?

[Please follow me by clicking the link above.]



Tweet