Steve King’s Memo Warning: ‘Watch Closely for Barack Obama’s Fingerprints’

[Right_in_Virginia]

Steve King’s Memo Warning: ‘Watch Closely for Barack Obama’s Fingerprints’
Breitbart, Feb 3, 2018, Robert Kraychik

“Watch closely for Barack Obama’s fingerprints,” said Rep. Steve King (R-IA) on Saturday, suggesting the recent alleged partisan weaponization of state surveillance powers could be connected to the 44th president. “[Democrats and their allies] will defend Barack Obama at all costs, and they’ll defend Hillary Clinton almost at all costs unless they have to sacrifice her to protect Barack Obama,” he added.

King offered his remarks during an interview with Breitbart News’s Deputy Political Editor Amanda House on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Saturday.

Against the backdrop of Friday’s released memo from the House Intelligence Committee (HIC), King called for further investigation into what role, if any, Obama and his cabinet officials played in procuring state surveillance of Carter Page and George Papadopoulos (two peripheral operatives of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign) via Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications submitted before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).


More: http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/02/03/steve-kings-memo-warning-watch-closely-for-barack-obamas-fingerprints/

[libertybele]

Steve King’s Memo Warning: ‘Watch Closely for Barack Obama’s Fingerprints’
Breitbart, Feb 3, 2018, Robert Kraychik

“Watch closely for Barack Obama’s fingerprints,” said Rep. Steve King (R-IA) on Saturday, suggesting the recent alleged partisan weaponization of state surveillance powers could be connected to the 44th president. “[Democrats and their allies] will defend Barack Obama at all costs, and they’ll defend Hillary Clinton almost at all costs unless they have to sacrifice her to protect Barack Obama,” he added.

King offered his remarks during an interview with Breitbart News’s Deputy Political Editor Amanda House on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Saturday.

Against the backdrop of Friday’s released memo from the House Intelligence Committee (HIC), King called for further investigation into what role, if any, Obama and his cabinet officials played in procuring state surveillance of Carter Page and George Papadopoulos (two peripheral operatives of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign) via Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications submitted before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).


More: http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/02/03/steve-kings-memo-warning-watch-closely-for-barack-obamas-fingerprints/

This may be the moment we've all been waiting for ... Hillary will become the sacrificial lamb in order to protect Bammy.  The only thing is ... she's not going to go down alone and she'll take a multitude of people with her ... or it could possibly go the other way around ... a lot of people could throw him under the bus.  Who's going to squeal first?   

[Right_in_Virginia]

One of things that happened on election night was a phone call during which Obama told Hillary to concede.

I could not understand why the outgoing democrat President would have anything at all to say about the democrat candidate's concession ... that this was and should have been the campaign's decision.  Not only was it a breach of protocol --- but the Clintonistas obeyed.  This just never sat right with me.

Could it have been the outgoing President and his administration had great confidence in an "insurance policy" to protect their arses?

[Oceander]

Sexual fantasies of Clinton in orange.

[libertybele]

One of things that happened on election night was a phone call during which Obama told Hillary to concede.

I could not understand why the outgoing democrat President would have anything at all to say about the democrat candidate's concession ... that this was and should have been the campaign's decision.  Not only was it a breach of protocol --- but the Clintonistas obeyed.  This just never sat right with me.

Could it have been the outgoing President and his administration had great confidence in an "insurance policy" to protect their arses?

...hmm...I had forgotten about that and really never gave it a second thought till now.  Perhaps he felt confident that they would be able to control Trump and take him down within the first year and certainly didn't think any of this would happen as a lot of his minion are still in play.  However, I still find it very troubling that Trump would appoint Rosenstein in the first place.  Either Trump didn't check his background or he used him.  If so it was a poor choice and extremely risky; nothing is settled yet. No one has been arrested or held responsible yet. 

[skeeter]

...hmm...I had forgotten about that and really never gave it a second thought till now.  Perhaps he felt confident that they would be able to control Trump and take him down within the first year and certainly didn't think any of this would happen as a lot of his minion are still in play.  However, I still find it very troubling that Trump would appoint Rosenstein in the first place.  Either Trump didn't check his background or he used him.  If so it was a poor choice and extremely risky; nothing is settled yet. No one has been arrested or held responsible yet.

Trump inherited him. Rosenstein was Bush's, then Obama's guy and became the central DOJ guy in the Russian Collusion  case when Sessions recused himself.

[libertybele]

Trump inherited him. Rosenstein was Bush's, then Obama's guy and became the central DOJ guy when Sessions recused himself.

Rosenstein still had to be appointed by Trump.  Trump could have very easily replaced him with someone else - he chose not to.  I would think that as an 'outsider' who wasn't thrilled with Bush and even less thrilled with Bammy wouldn't get rid of their minions.  It doesn't make sense.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Sexual fantasies of Clinton in orange.

Sharing last night's dreams with us?

[Oceander]

Sharing last night's dreams with us?

Nope. Describing the fantasies you seem compelled to share with all and sundry here.  It’d be nice if you’d stop splashing your lurid fantasies in public, but I hold out small hope for that. 

[skeeter]

Rosenstein still had to be appointed by Trump.  Trump could have very easily replaced him with someone else - he chose not to.  I would think that as an 'outsider' who wasn't thrilled with Bush and even less thrilled with Bammy wouldn't get rid of their minions.  It doesn't make sense.

Its clear Trump was unprepared for the transition and, like Bush before him (and with far more cause), was taken by surprise by the degree of politicization of the bureaucracy and lengths it would go to to undermine him. He simply didn't have the time and organization to weed out the bad eggs.

[libertybele]

Its clear Trump was unprepared for the transition and, like Bush before him (and with far more cause), was taken by surprise by the degree of politicization of the bureaucracy and lengths it would go to to undermine him. He simply didn't have the time and organization to weed out the bad eggs.

Unprepared for the presidency in general that's a given and I believe that is why the DEMS thought that they were going to be able to take him down easily.  Didn't have time? I disagree.  It would have take him only 5 minutes to realize that Rosenstein was a Bammy hold over ... that's not something that was hidden.  I find it hard to believe it was a mere oversight on his part or made that decision in haste. He made a conscious decision to keep him. Perhaps based on someone else's opinion perhaps, but the decision was his.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Nope. Describing the fantasies you seem compelled to share with all and sundry here.  It’d be nice if you’d stop splashing your lurid fantasies in public, but I hold out small hope for that.

Oh, okay.  I thought your typing the word "sexual" over and over again brought back long gone but still fond memories for you @Oceander  ... 

Carry one.   

[Oceander]

Oh, okay.  I thought your typing the word "sexual" over and over again brought back long gone but still fond memories for you @Oceander  ... 

Carry one.   

No, but apparently it does for you.

[Sanguine]

Oceander, I understand what you are saying, but in this particular case, we don't know how this is going to end.  We don't have any really good historical examples of this sort of thing happening in a once-constitutional republic.  Could be that Hillary will have to be sacrificed to prevent worse (from the swampy point of view).  And, washing off our magic balls doesn't seem to make things any clearer.

[Oceander]

Oceander, I understand what you are saying, but in this particular case, we don't know how this is going to end.  We don't have any really good historical examples of this sort of thing happening in a once-constitutional republic.  Could be that Hillary will have to be sacrificed to prevent worse (from the swampy point of view).  And, washing off our magic balls doesn't seem to make things any clearer.

“Once-Constitutional” simply telegraphs that you’ve already made up your mind, so no future facts are actually needed.  Too bad.  I disagree.  More facts are needed before any of the more lurid suppositions on this forum can bear any weight, and insisting otherwise is not keeping an open mind, it’s being a crack pot. 

[Right_in_Virginia]

Its clear Trump was unprepared for the transition and, like Bush before him (and with far more cause), was taken by surprise by the degree of politicization of the bureaucracy and lengths it would go to to undermine him. He simply didn't have the time and organization to weed out the bad eggs.

Are you suggesting the President should have fired Rosenstein at the start of his term? @skeeter

[Sanguine]

“Once-Constitutional” simply telegraphs that you’ve already made up your mind, so no future facts are actually needed.  Too bad.  I disagree.  More facts are needed before any of the more lurid suppositions on this forum can bear any weight, and insisting otherwise is not keeping an open mind, it’s being a crack pot.

The fact that you read my comment as "telegraphing" says you've already made your mind up.  For clarity, I'm not basing my comment on this situation.  And, the reason I brought it up is because we could find some historical precedents for other forms of society/governments, but a constitutional republic - not so much.

[Oceander]

The fact that you read my comment as "telegraphing" says you've already made your mind up.  For clarity, I'm not basing my comment on this situation.  And, the reason I brought it up is because we could find some historical precedents for other forms of society/governments, but a constitutional republic - not so much.

It says that I’m drawing conclusions about what you’re saying.  It says nothing about my views on where the known facts in the memo might lead.  Conversely, your statement says a lot about where you think that goes. 

[Sanguine]

It says that I’m drawing conclusions about what you’re saying.  It says nothing about my views on where the known facts in the memo might lead.  Conversely, your statement says a lot about where you think that goes.

Yes, I do think the memo can lead to worse revelations.  Do you not agree that it could?   

[Sanguine]

Ah, @Oceander, now I see where you are drawing your conclusions about what I meant:  http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,302463.0/topicseen.html.  I hadn't read that thread yet.

[Oceander]

Yes, I do think the memo can lead to worse revelations.  Do you not agree that it could?   

Of course it could. But the mere chance that it might does not justify the assumption that it will, and does not justify all of the wild accusations being tossed around that all assume that further investigation will necessarily prove out all of the facts these wild accusations are based on. 

Why not just stick to the facts?  They’re bad enough as is. 

[Sanguine]

Of course it could. But the mere chance that it might does not justify the assumption that it will, and does not justify all of the wild accusations being tossed around that all assume that further investigation will necessarily prove out all of the facts these wild accusations are based on. 

Why not just stick to the facts?  They’re bad enough as is.

We agree on your last sentence.  I think you assumed too much about what I was saying, based on what someone else was saying elsewhere.

[Fantom]

Kids kids, get a room. 

Back to topic. It seems that the only intel secrets this memo exposed were the unlawful methods the obama regime used to spy and discredit his political opponents... you know the usual banana republic stuff.

Also the depth of corruption the obama regime has done to our Institutions is exposed for all to see.

[skeeter]

Are you suggesting the President should have fired Rosenstein at the start of his term? @skeeter

In hindsight he clearly should have. But I understand why he didn't.