Putting Together ‘Pieces of the Puzzle’ After Susan Rice Revealed as Source Who Requested Unmasking

It is being reported that the Obama administration’s favorite “fall gal” Susan Rice, requested unmasking of names from President Trump’s transition team.

You may recall that it was also Rice, then ambassador to the United Nations, who stood before the cameras and lied about what happened concerning Benghazi. She was tapped by the Obama administration to push this false narrative.

Prior to taking “one for the administration,” she had been in line for the coveted position of Secretary of State. However, after she continued to stick to the story about an offensive Internet video that caused Benghazi’s fatal attacks, Rice lost her “crown” to Hillary Clinton.

What was in it for her? Was she again promised a new position, this time in a Hillary Clinton presidency? Is that why she was willing to stick her neck out and take the risk?

Already the commentators on the left are no doubt perfecting their “spin” on what should have been an earth shattering revelation about Rice’s latest ploy. And yet, the report has received very little fanfare from mainstream media and others on the left.

Instead, the left will no doubt focus on the fact that then President-elect Trump, his campaign team and his family members were just part of “incidental electronic surveillance” due to any unmasking that may have taken place for “official” government business. It happens, right?

What it does is prove Trump’s beliefs early on that Obama had “wiretapped” him and his administration.

And don’t be surprised if the left tries to convince Americans that Rice was just doing her job in protecting the country from a Washington outsider who needed to be watched because of his “possible connections to Russia and a plan to steal the election.”

To date, there has been no proof that Trump colluded with Russia in any way to impact the election. However, when do facts matter to those on the left with an agenda?

It’s clear that the “Russian election interference” narrative has been a distraction to cover up what the Obama administration was doing prior to the election and their desire to go to great lengths to remain in control after the election.

In order to be successful, however, people must be surveilled, exposed or unmasked and then “eliminated” from “the game.”

How would this be accomplished?

Let’s back up and look at what Obama did right before he left office in order to continue to have access to information about Trump and his administration, should he win the election.

There was a rule change made by the Obama administration which went into effect and was signed off by James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence on December 15. Then U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch later signed off on the change on January 3. Their signatures essentially changed the way intelligence information had been handled since President Ronald Reagan’s administration.

The “new” way of processing information allowed for “raw data” to be disseminated to 16 intelligence agencies that had never received this type of unfiltered information in the past. Prior to the change, names and other sensitive information was redacted to protect the privacy of those not directly involved.

At the time, the liberal media spun it as a way to ensure that the NSA didn’t overlook information other intelligence agencies might find pertinent to their investigations.

The NSA would no longer act as the filter for other intelligence agencies.

As a result, as we are now learning, the privacy of individuals like former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was compromised when what was learned about him when he was a private citizen, was unmasked and used against him.

It was no coincidence that Flynn was targeted.

In 2015, then Lt. General Flynn and director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, became an outspoken critic of the Obama administration’s handling of ISIS in Syria.

Flynn claimed that Obama ignored the rise of ISIS in 2011 and 2012 because it wasn’t good for a re-election “narrative.”

Flynn further indicated in a 2012 intelligence report from Flynn’s agency that the report didn’t support Obama’s claim that the U.S. was beating ISIS.’

Shortly after Flynn’s statement, Obama told America and the world that ISIS was a “JV team.” This was in direct contrast to Flynn’s warning that the threat of ISIS was not shrinking.

What better way to “repay” a “disloyal” public servant than to unmask him and ruin his reputation?

In addition, the left may have hoped that Flynn’s “shamed” resignation would leave a black mark on the Trump administration sufficient enough to put them one step closer to ousting Trump from the White House.