Drip, Drip ... Drip

Every day, more and more unpleasant revelations are uncovered about what some are calling Obamagate. There is clear and irrefutable evidence that the Obama administration and one of it's most senior officials, Susan Rice, countenenced the unmasking and broad distribution of incidental intelligence gathered on Donald Trump and his people.

The Democrats' trained hamsters in the media are working overtime to: (1) ignore the story; (2) change the subject;* (3) downplay the significance of a Watergate-level scandal, and (4) demonize those who want to bring the truth to light. That's the media's SOP over the past eight years, the only difference is there's a new proverbial sheriff in town and his justice department couldn't possibly be as corrupt as the Obama DoJ. So,

Drip, drip ... drip.

George Neumayr comments:

In other words, no one is supposed to notice that one government did interfere in the U.S. election — ours. For months and months, the Obama administration was spying on Trump and leaking hints of its investigation to the press in the hopes of helping Hillary, who, by the way, colluded in the effort. Yet even the ruthless partisan Adam Schiff can’t “definitively” cite a single proof of collusion on Trump’s part, as he reluctantly acknowledged on Sunday. Given all the spying and leaking on Trump, wouldn’t we know by now if they had any evidence of collusion?

To say that Trump in this matter is more sinned against than sinning is an understatement. He was the blatant victim of political espionage and criminal leaking by the Obama administration, then when he complained about it, he was smeared anew. Two questions have swirled around this story: Did the Obama administration spy on Trump? Did Trump collude with the Russians? The answers are yes and no. The media wanted the answers to be no and yes. So now their game is to pretend like they didn’t ask the questions or that the “real story” is Trump’s imprecise tweeting. Notice that almost every story on the Rice revelation begins with throat-clearing about how it doesn’t “vindicate Trump’s tweet,” as if grading him on a tweet, in which he was clearly using wire-tapping as a synonym for spying and investigating, is the most pressing concern here.

Notice also that liberal reporters, who used to quote Michael Kinsley’s dictum that the scandal is “what’s legal” in Washington, rush to defend the legality of Rice’s unmasking, as if that should end all discussion.

At the Atlantic, David Graham asks, “Did Susan Rice Do Anything Wrong By Asking to ‘Unmask’ Trump Officials?” Graham informs us that “many experts” say that Rice’s behavior “does not imply anything improper or unusual.” Right. What could possibly be unusual or improper about spying on a political opponent? To paraphrase Richard Nixon, if a liberal president conducts espionage, it can’t be wrong.

In Washington, there's an old axiom, It's not the scandal that will sink you, it's the cover-up.

In this case, it could be both.

UPDATE:
--------------------
The Dems and their trained hamsters in the media are scrambling in their attempt to try to bury/minimize/confuse the implications of an Obama White House spying on an incoming President elect, not to mention the fact that Trump's "dishonest, ridiculous, insane" wiretapping tweet has now been proven to have merit. There is something big going on because the Democrat protective meme seems to be changing on a daily basis.

This, from Ann Althouse:

"I hope Susan Rice was keeping tabs on Trump’s Russia ties."
by Michelle Goldberg at Slate.

I love the way the messaging turns on a dime.

One minute it's ridiculous to think that the Obama administration was doing surveillance on the Trump campaign. The next minute the Obama administration was doing the right thing if it did surveillance on the Trump campaign.

It's obvious, but just imagine for a moment if a high ranking official in the Bush administration had spied on president-elect Barack Obama and was found out. The media would truly go nuclear, the high ranking official would be pilloried, and almost certainly would be indicted. Let's see whether the DoJ under Jeff Sessions moves on Rice. I hope so, but I doubt they will.

FOOTNOTE:
-------------------------
* This morning, a chemical attack in Syria and the launch of a NoKo missile lead the news on most media sources. Undoubtedly, these are important stories and should be covered prominently, but it is odd that that stories about Syria and NoKo disappeared when Trump was accused of lying after the "wire-tapping" tweet. At that time, the media seemed to focus on the tweet 24-7 (calling Trump deranged, a liar and worse) to the exclusion of most international news. Now, when the Rice story emerges, the trained hamsters pivot away from it . Heh.  BTW, there's no mention of Obama administration decisions that have led to both Syria and Noko prominence in the news.