Where Was the Senate Foreign Relations Committee When Obama Promised He Would Have More Flexibility After His Re-election | Eastern North Carolina Now

    For example, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn), characterized Trump's approach to diplomacy as a "ready, fire, aim" approach - as if he "wakes up every morning and makes it up as he goes." Pompeo responded that "this administration has been tougher than previous administrations" on Putin and that Trump plays a direct role in taking aggressive actions against Russia.

    At one point he wanted to know why President Obama was never interrogated over his whispered message to Putin: "I'll have more flexibility after the election." [Of course, comparison to Obama only enraged the Committee].

    In giving examples of how Trump and the White House are tough on Russia, Pompeo outlined a variety of measures taken by the Trump administration against Russia, including making lethal defensive weapons available to Ukraine (a move, by the way, that was resisted by the Obama administration), and the expulsion of dozens of Russian operatives from the US following the poisoning of a former agent. He also explained that the US condemns Russia's annexation of Crimea and will never recognize the legitimacy of that annexation. In fact, as he said, there will be no relief of Crimea-related sanctions by the Trump administration until Russia returns control of the Crimean peninsula to the Ukraine.

    Pompeo told the Committee that Trump threatened "severe consequences" for any future Russian meddling in America's elections, even though his posture and words at Helsinki may not have reflected that position. And he reminded its members of President Trump's very public opposition during the NATO talks to the planned Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia to Germany, which he says poses national security risks to European countries by increasing their dependence on Russia.

    Secretary Pompeo wasn't going to be bullied by Sen. Corker, or the Committee: "Senator, I just disagree with most of what you have said. Somehow there is this idea that this administration is free-floating. This is President Trump's administration. Make no mistake who's fully in charge of this, and directing each of these activities that is causing Vladimir Putin to be in a very difficult place today."

    Pompeo was also asked a few questions regarding the status of negotiations with North Korea and the status of plans for denuclearization of the North Korean peninsula. He answered: "We are engaged in patient diplomacy, but we will not let this drag out." And he also admitted, or confirmed, that North Korea continues to produce "fissile material" (needed for nuclear weapons) but would not confirm publicly whether or not Kim Jong Un has decided to continue to advance his country's nuclear program.

    All in all, Secretary Mike Pompeo stood his ground, took on the Senators, strongly defended President Trump and his administration's policies abroad, and emphasized that Trump knows exactly what he is doing and that his approaches have been and continue to be successful for the good of the United States and for the world.

    Now, the question that many are asking is this: Where was that same concern when President Obama was caught, luckily for the American people. on an open microphone, delivering a secret message to Putin - that he would have "more flexibility after the (2012) election" to negotiate with Russia? Where was the grilling on Capitol Hill? Where were the accusations of being soft on Russia?

    We all remember this incident.

    On March 27, 2012, while President Obama was taking part in a global nuclear security summit in South Korea, and he was caught on tape (open mic) asking Russian President (at the time) Dmitry Medvedev for "space." He was leaning over to Medvedev, and appearing to speak more secretly to him, said: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." He wanted this message to be conveyed to Vladimir Putin, which Medvedev assured he would do. His response was: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

    Last year, Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL) was asked by Katy Tur of MSNBC if he thought Trump would be strong enough to stand up to Russia. He said he was and then attempted to remind her of the "open mic" incident. She said she had no idea what he was talking about. He brought her up to speed. As he said to Tur, in his opinion, the message President Obama was conveying was this: "Tell Putin I'll have more flexibility to give him what he wants after the re-election." Roomey further commented: "No one really ever pushed the president on what he meant like that, but I can only imagine for a thug like Putin, that it would embolden him."

    What did President Obama mean when he said "more flexibility"? Was he referring to his ability to deal with missile defense issues? Did he intend to hint that he could negotiate more leniently or favorably to Russia without having to worry about the consequences at election time??

    The language "more flexibility (when election consequences aren't a concern)" should have peaked intense interest with our lawmakers. More than anything Trump said, these words by Obama, to any reasonable person, would imply that he was willing to ignore or surrender US interests.

    Here is a video of President Obama whispering to Medvedev over an open mic:

   

    And where was the concern when President Obama had his private meetings with foreign leaders. The details of those meetings were kept private and were never disclosed?

    President Obama also bowed later that year to Japanese Emperor Akhito and his wife. Dick Cheney, then the recently ex-Vice President, weighed in, in an interview with Politico: "There is no reason for an American president to bow to anyone. Our friends and allies don't expect it, and our enemies see it as a sign of weakness."

    If there was such a significant and noteworthy break in diplomatic protocol, particularly to the leader of a Muslim country and to the leader of a country that once waged relentless and inhumane war against the United States, why didn’t the Senate Foreign Relations Committee follow up with questioning?

    And where was the concern when President Obama had his private meetings with foreign leaders? The details of those meetings were kept private and were never disclosed. Why wasn’t the Senate Foreign Relations Committee even curious as to what this president, with absolutely no proper background for the job, talked about with foreign leaders?

    Also, where is the concern over the revelation, by Putin himself, that an operative (one Putin believes was arranged by the US) was sent to Russia to secretly donate to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

    Putin revealed this information in response to a question by Jeff Mason, a Reuters reporter. Mason asked: "Why should Americans and why should President Trump believe your statement that Russia did not intervene in the 2016 election given the evidence that US Intelligence agencies have provided? Will you consider extraditing the 12 Russian officials that were indicted last week by a US Grand jury?"

    This was Putin's response:

    As to who is to be believed, who is not to be believed: you can trust no one. Where did you get this idea that President Trump trusts me or I trust him? He defends the interests of the United States of America and I do defend the interests of the Russian Federation. We do have interests that are common. We are looking for points of contact.

    There are issues where our postures diverge and we are looking for ways to reconcile our differences, how to make our effort more meaningful. We should not proceed from the immediate political interests that guide certain political powers in our countries. We should be guided by facts. Could you name a single fact that would definitively prove the collusion? This is utter nonsense - just like the president recently mentioned. Yes, the public at large in the United States had a certain perceived opinion of the candidates during the campaign. But there's nothing particularly extraordinary about it. That's usual thing.

    President Trump, when he was a candidate, he mentioned the need to restore the Russia/US relationship and it's clear that certain parts of American society felt sympathetic about it and different people could express their sympathy in different ways. Isn't that natural? Isn't it natural to be sympathetic towards a person who is willing to restore the relationship with our country, who wants to work with us?

    We heard the accusations about it. As far as I know, this company hired American lawyers and the accusations doesn't have a fighting chance in the American courts. There's no evidence when it comes to the actual facts. So we have to be guided by facts, not by rumors.

    Now, let's get back to the issue of this 12 alleged intelligence officers of Russia. I don't know the full extent of the situation. But President Trump mentioned this issue. I will look into it.

    So far, I can say the following. Things that are off the top of my head. We have an existing agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation, an existing treaty that dates back to 1999. The mutual assistance on criminal cases. This treaty is in full effect. It works quite efficiently. On average, we initiate about 100, 150 criminal cases upon request from foreign states.

    For instance, the last year, there was one extradition case upon the request sent by the United States. This treaty has specific legal procedures we can offer. The appropriate commission headed by Special Attorney Mueller, he can use this treaty as a solid foundation and send a formal, official request to us so that we could interrogate, hold questioning of these individuals who he believes are privy to some crimes. Our enforcement are perfectly able to do this questioning and send the appropriate materials to the United States. Moreover, we can meet you halfway. We can make another step. We can actually permit representatives of the United States, including the members of this very commission headed by Mr. Mueller, we can let them into the country. They can be present at the questioning.

    In this case, there's another condition. This kind of effort should be mutual one. Then we would expect that the Americans would reciprocate. They would question officials, including the officers of law enforcement and intelligence services of the United States whom we believe have something to do with illegal actions on the territory of Russia. And we have to request the presence of our law enforcement.

    For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder in this particular case. Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia. They never paid any taxes. Neither in Russia nor in the United States. Yet, the money escapes the country. They were transferred to the United States. They sent huge amount of money, $400 million as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Well, that's their personal case. It might have been legal, the contribution itself. But the way the money was earned was illegal. We have solid reason to believe that some intelligence officers, guided these transactions. So we have an interest of questioning them. That could be a first step. We can extend also it. Options abound. They all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.

    Donald Trump, in everything he has done, with every act as president, with every one of his campaign promises and initiatives, and with every word he speaks as president, seeks to put American first as well as its businesses, its people, and its safety and to Make America Great Again. Obama, clearly was a different president. He often apologized for America, apologized for its people, apologized for our history, undermined our interests, and made enemies out of ordinary American citizens over radical Islamists and other terrorist organizations.

    Yet Congressional leaders refuse to accept his sincerity of purpose and his mastery in getting the job done. Always seeing the glass half empty, they continue to treat him like a school child, a bumbling buffoon.

    Oh, the double standard.

    Trump needs to fail before he earns their approval. He needs to fail before members of Congress will be willing to work with him rather than spend every waking moment resisting him.

    To be fair to this story and to President Trump (after all, no one else is), and for the record, here is a refresher on some of the abuses of the Intelligence agencies under President Obama, Trump's history with the American Intelligence Community and the Deep State entrenched there, and his experience of being set up, framed, and relentlessly persecuted by those who refuse to acknowledge his rightful election to the presidency: [The following is taken from The Daily Caller article written by Sidney Powell, "Trump Has Been Set Up-Framed and Relentlessly Persecuted by the American Intelligence Community," dated July 19, 2018]

    • Former CIA Director John Brennan, appointed by President Obama in 2013, had the CIA spying on members of Congress, and indeed, the entire Senate Intelligence Committee. One wonders if the mentality of J. Edgar Hoover has become firmly entrenched in the FBI, where American Intelligence gathers "information" on members of Congress and even the president and his family, to use as a means of coercion to get those members to conform to what the government expects. Chuck Schumer once described our intelligence community this way: "Cross our intelligence community and they have six ways from Sunday to pay you back." That's not an endorsement of trust, but rather of fear. (Perhaps Schumer knows more about that than he lets on). Brennan, by the way, is - and has been - an intense Trump-hater.

    • Then there's Director of National Intelligence (DNI), James Clapper, the second Trump-hater, who recently departed from his position at the top of our national intelligence community. Clapper is the guy who had the NSA collecting all possible data on all Americans and then lied to Congress about it. Spying on Americans, and collecting their personal and private information is the most egregious use of our intelligence agencies. Mr. Powell refers to these agents as "petty men" who "peep about to find [themselves] dishonorable graves."

    • Even more important, according to Mr. Comey's own memos, which were leaked to the New York Times, combined with Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice's "note to self" within minutes of Trump's inauguration, we know that Brennan, Clapper, Obama, Comey, Rice, counter-terrorism advisor Lisa Monaco, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and Vice President Biden, met in the Oval Office just before Comey went to brief the president-elect. Not only did they decide to limit information about Russia to be shared with the incoming team, they dispatched Comey to set up Mr. Trump for the media explosion of the entire false narrative and Steele dossier.

    • On January 6, 2017, on instructions from Clapper, Comey met one-on-one with Mr. Trump in Trump Tower. Comey "executed the session just as [he] had planned." He dropped the bombshell of only the "salacious" details of the Steele dossier. He ran to his car to write down the details of the conversation, then he reported to Clapper and possibly Brennan, one of whom leaked it to CNN. Comey's briefing provided the very "news hook" they all knew the media wanted to run with the existence of the unverified, Clinton-bought-and-paid-for dossier.

    • That remarkable setup, by the highest members of our "intelligence community" and Obama himself, sparked the media firestorm of the Trump-Russia-collusion lie that has besieged the Trump presidency to this day. Indeed, that was its purpose, if not to trap Trump into action that Democrats could label as "obstruction of justice" and then use that as grounds for impeachment.

    • Don't forget Peter Strzok - the FBI's lead investigator for the "intelligence community"- hardly the epitome of trustworthiness. Strzok is the self-avowed despiser of Trump and any possible Trump supporter. Strzok is the epicenter of the Clinton email "investigation," the Russia narrative, and the Mueller team until last July. Discoveries of his innumerable venomous expressions of hatred for the president "clouded" the Clinton email investigation and compelled his removal from the Special counsel team. Even more egregious conduct compelled his physical removal from the FBI.