Conspiracy Theories / Wild Predictions

[Maximus]

Fresh evidence the Russia ‘scandal’ is a Team Obama operation
By Post Editorial Board

April 3, 2017 | 8:29pm | Updated


Modal TriggerView attachment 1269
Susan RiceGetty Images/Nicholas Kamm
SEE ALSO
View attachment 1270
Susan Rice tried to ‘unmask’ Trump associates in intelligence reports

Do you suspect that the noise over Trump campaign contacts with the Russians is just a political hit arranged by Obama insiders before they left? You got fresh evidence of that Monday, with news that then-national security adviser Susan Rice was behind the “unmasking” of Trumpites in transcripts of calls with Russian officials.

Again, nothing on the public record so far shows that anyone on Team Trump said anything improper on those calls.

It’s no surprise that US spooks intercept foreign officials’ calls. But intelligence community reports don’t disclose the names of US citizens on the other end. To get that info, a high official must (but rarely does) push to “unmask” the Americans’ names.

Bloomberg’s Eli Lake now reports that Rice started doing just that last year.

That was perfectly legal. But we also know that the Obama administration later changed the classification of the “unmasked” transcripts, and other similar material, in order to spread the information as widely as possible within the government.

The motive for that was (supposedly) to prevent Team Trump from burying it all once it took over. But the result was that it made it relatively safe for someone (or someones) to leak the info to the press.

Which made it likely somebody would leak. So Team Obama’s “spread the info” initiative certainly broke the spirit of the laws.

Those leaks have produced a nagging political sore for the new administration — leading to the ouster of national security adviser Michael Flynn, helping to drive down President Trump’s approval ratings and making it harder for him to push his program through.

Rice certainly wasn’t politically naive about the political uses of intelligence information. She was, after all, the Obama official who famously made the rounds spouting the false “Our intel says it was about the video” line on the Benghazi attack back during the 2012 campaign.

All of this puts the actions of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes in clearer perspective. After viewing the Rice requests at the White House, he disclosed that Trump officials had been caught up in incidental surveillance.

All of which is a reminder that two issues are in play here: Russian meddling in the election, about which the nation already knows plenty — and the Obama team’s efforts to sabotage Team Trump.


Former US Attorney: Susan Rice Ordered Spy Agencies To Produce ‘Detailed Spreadsheets’ Involving Trump

RICHARD POLLOCK
Reporter


10:08 PM 04/03/2017
3407
10346



Former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova.

“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”

Other official sources with direct knowledge and who requested anonymity confirmed to TheDCNF diGenova’s description of surveillance reports Rice ordered one year before the 2016 presidential election.

Also on Monday, Fox News and Bloomberg News, citing multiple sources reported that Rice had requested the intelligence information that was produced in a highly organized operation. Fox said the unmasked names of Trump aides were given to officials at the National Security Council (NSC), the Department of Defense, James Clapper, President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, and John Brennan, Obama’s CIA Director.

Joining Rice in the alleged White House operations was her deputy Ben Rhodes, according to Fox.

Critics of the atmosphere prevailing throughout the Obama administration’s last year in office point to former Obama Deputy Defense Secretary Evelyn Farkas who admitted in a March 2 television interview on MSNBC that she “was urging my former colleagues,” to “get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration.”

Farkas sought to walk back her comments in the weeks following: “I didn’t give anybody anything except advice.”

Col. (Ret.) James Waurishuk, an NSC veteran and former deputy director for intelligence at the U.S. Central Command, told TheDCNF that many hands had to be involved throughout the Obama administration to launch such a political spying program.

“The surveillance initially is the responsibility of the National Security Agency,” Waurishuk said. “They have to abide by this guidance when one of the other agencies says, ‘we’re looking at this particular person which we would like to unmask.'”

“The lawyers and counsel at the NSA surely would be talking to the lawyers and members of counsel at CIA, or at the National Security Council or at the Director of National Intelligence or at the FBI,” he said. “It’s unbelievable of the level and degree of the administration to look for information on Donald Trump and his associates, his campaign team and his transition team. This is really, really serious stuff.”

Michael Doran, former NSC senior director, told TheDCNF Monday that “somebody blew a hole in the wall between national security secrets and partisan politics.” This “was a stream of information that was supposed to be hermetically sealed from politics and the Obama administration found a way to blow a hole in that wall,” he said.

Doran charged that potential serious crimes were undertaken because “this is a leaking of signal intelligence.”

“That’s a felony,” he told TheDCNF. “And you can get 10 years for that. It is a tremendous abuse of the system. We’re not supposed to be monitoring American citizens. Bigger than the crime, is the breach of public trust.”

Waurishuk said he was most dismayed that “this is now using national intelligence assets and capabilities to spy on the elected, yet-to-be-seated president.”

“We’re looking at a potential constitutional crisis from the standpoint that we used an extremely strong capability that’s supposed to be used to safeguard and protect the country,” he said. “And we used it for political purposes by a sitting president. That takes on a new precedent.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/s...d-spreadsheets-involving-trump/#ixzz4dI9xVPnz

 

[-Akronite-]

The investigation into the Russian contacts has been going on for nearly a year, most of which was under the Obama Administration. This is not like Hillary's emails, where emails were withheld, court orders setting forth lengthy release schedules, etc., were in place. If illegal communications happened between Trump and Russia, the feds already have them, and had them while Obama was still President.

Which really begs the question why we haven't seen a smoking gun. Obama's DNI Clapper, who absolutely hates Trump and would be in a better position to know about collusion than just about anyone, flatly said "we have no evidence of such collusion."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article136600203.html

buzzfeed -- which is anti-Trump as well -- reports that Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee are nervous about the "wildly inflated" expectations their base has about what will be found. They don't expect to find any actual collusion either.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkin...ection-worry?utm_term=.rhqMWqD68B#.tuy63GYeXD

I suppose it's possible. I just don't see a good explanation for why these folks are downplaying expectations, and why there hasn't been any evidence of actual collusions leaked.

While I doubt it will come down to the pee tape being released and Trump being hauled away in shackles like so many fantasize about, we keep getting more information. If the investigation isn't complete, I don't see why the FBI would release any smoking guns. As it is, it's just way too many connections to be purely coincidence.

As for the surveillance...we'll see.

At this point, illegal leaks seem a certainty. What we do not yet know is if anyone directed additional, non-incidental surveillance of private American citizens for an illegal purpose.

But didn't we? You're basically going along with the assertion that Obama coordinated the leaks that are going on even though there is nothing to back that claim up. It's essentially a wild prediction, a conspiracy theory. Are they investigated Obama and his administration on this?

ETA: The failure to pass a fast ObamaCare repeal shouldn't have surprised anyone. The lack of GOP Congressional agreement on an ObamaCare replacement has been obviously since 2015.

It surprised me only because I didn't realize that GOP still had the ability to recognize when a piece of legislation is pure shit. I thought they would have rammed it through like Trump tried to and then laughably pretended not to. It's comical how worthless the Republicans in congress are that they couldn't even come up with a plan in 7 years (Not to mention, what was their plan back when Obamacare was getting pushed? Oh, nothing as well?).

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

While I doubt it will come down to the pee tape being released and Trump being hauled away in shackles like so many fantasize about, we keep getting more information. If the investigation isn't complete, I don't see why the FBI would release any smoking guns.

Forget about what is being publicly released -- we already know stuff was deliberately leaked to the media. So if there was evidence of collusion, why wouldn't that have been leaked? And like I said, you've got Clapper saying that there is no such evidence, and that dude absolutely hates Trump.

You're basically going along with the assertion that Obama coordinated the leaks that are going on even though there is nothing to back that claim up. It's essentially a wild prediction, a conspiracy theory. Are they investigated Obama and his administration on this?

No, I'm not "going along" with any assertion that Obama himself coordinated this. That investigation, unlike the one into Russia, has only been going on for a couple of months at most, and Trump's team isn't even fully in place yet so a lot of important positions are still occupied by supporters of the last Administration/opponents of this one. We know that classified information was illegally leaked. We do not yet know who ordered it gathered, who disseminated it, and who leaked it to the press. It's simply unknown at this point although clearly those actions were committed by someone within the Obama Administration.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Fresh evidence the Russia ‘scandal’ is a Team Obama operation
By Post Editorial Board

April 3, 2017 | 8:29pm | Updated


Modal TriggerView attachment 1269
Susan RiceGetty Images/Nicholas Kamm
SEE ALSO
View attachment 1270
Susan Rice tried to ‘unmask’ Trump associates in intelligence reports

Do you suspect that the noise over Trump campaign contacts with the Russians is just a political hit arranged by Obama insiders before they left? You got fresh evidence of that Monday, with news that then-national security adviser Susan Rice was behind the “unmasking” of Trumpites in transcripts of calls with Russian officials.

Again, nothing on the public record so far shows that anyone on Team Trump said anything improper on those calls.

It’s no surprise that US spooks intercept foreign officials’ calls. But intelligence community reports don’t disclose the names of US citizens on the other end. To get that info, a high official must (but rarely does) push to “unmask” the Americans’ names.

Bloomberg’s Eli Lake now reports that Rice started doing just that last year.

That was perfectly legal. But we also know that the Obama administration later changed the classification of the “unmasked” transcripts, and other similar material, in order to spread the information as widely as possible within the government.

The motive for that was (supposedly) to prevent Team Trump from burying it all once it took over. But the result was that it made it relatively safe for someone (or someones) to leak the info to the press.

Which made it likely somebody would leak. So Team Obama’s “spread the info” initiative certainly broke the spirit of the laws.

Those leaks have produced a nagging political sore for the new administration — leading to the ouster of national security adviser Michael Flynn, helping to drive down President Trump’s approval ratings and making it harder for him to push his program through.

Rice certainly wasn’t politically naive about the political uses of intelligence information. She was, after all, the Obama official who famously made the rounds spouting the false “Our intel says it was about the video” line on the Benghazi attack back during the 2012 campaign.

All of this puts the actions of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes in clearer perspective. After viewing the Rice requests at the White House, he disclosed that Trump officials had been caught up in incidental surveillance.

All of which is a reminder that two issues are in play here: Russian meddling in the election, about which the nation already knows plenty — and the Obama team’s efforts to sabotage Team Trump.


Former US Attorney: Susan Rice Ordered Spy Agencies To Produce ‘Detailed Spreadsheets’ Involving Trump

RICHARD POLLOCK
Reporter


10:08 PM 04/03/2017
3407
10346



Former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova.

“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”

Other official sources with direct knowledge and who requested anonymity confirmed to TheDCNF diGenova’s description of surveillance reports Rice ordered one year before the 2016 presidential election.

Also on Monday, Fox News and Bloomberg News, citing multiple sources reported that Rice had requested the intelligence information that was produced in a highly organized operation. Fox said the unmasked names of Trump aides were given to officials at the National Security Council (NSC), the Department of Defense, James Clapper, President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, and John Brennan, Obama’s CIA Director.

Joining Rice in the alleged White House operations was her deputy Ben Rhodes, according to Fox.

Critics of the atmosphere prevailing throughout the Obama administration’s last year in office point to former Obama Deputy Defense Secretary Evelyn Farkas who admitted in a March 2 television interview on MSNBC that she “was urging my former colleagues,” to “get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration.”

Farkas sought to walk back her comments in the weeks following: “I didn’t give anybody anything except advice.”

Col. (Ret.) James Waurishuk, an NSC veteran and former deputy director for intelligence at the U.S. Central Command, told TheDCNF that many hands had to be involved throughout the Obama administration to launch such a political spying program.

“The surveillance initially is the responsibility of the National Security Agency,” Waurishuk said. “They have to abide by this guidance when one of the other agencies says, ‘we’re looking at this particular person which we would like to unmask.'”

“The lawyers and counsel at the NSA surely would be talking to the lawyers and members of counsel at CIA, or at the National Security Council or at the Director of National Intelligence or at the FBI,” he said. “It’s unbelievable of the level and degree of the administration to look for information on Donald Trump and his associates, his campaign team and his transition team. This is really, really serious stuff.”

Michael Doran, former NSC senior director, told TheDCNF Monday that “somebody blew a hole in the wall between national security secrets and partisan politics.” This “was a stream of information that was supposed to be hermetically sealed from politics and the Obama administration found a way to blow a hole in that wall,” he said.

Doran charged that potential serious crimes were undertaken because “this is a leaking of signal intelligence.”

“That’s a felony,” he told TheDCNF. “And you can get 10 years for that. It is a tremendous abuse of the system. We’re not supposed to be monitoring American citizens. Bigger than the crime, is the breach of public trust.”

Waurishuk said he was most dismayed that “this is now using national intelligence assets and capabilities to spy on the elected, yet-to-be-seated president.”

“We’re looking at a potential constitutional crisis from the standpoint that we used an extremely strong capability that’s supposed to be used to safeguard and protect the country,” he said. “And we used it for political purposes by a sitting president. That takes on a new precedent.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/s...d-spreadsheets-involving-trump/#ixzz4dI9xVPnz

Maybe it's just me, but I'm much less concerned about Russia trying to influence American public opinion than I am about our own government abusing intelligence powers for domestic political purposes. You expect your enemies to screw with you. They're not bound by our laws or Constitution. But our own government is.

I really think that what happened -- at least to some extent -- is that some of these people were so convinced that Trump was bad for the country that they honestly believed doing things like this to prevent him from becoming President was justified.

 

[-Akronite-]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm much less concerned about Russia trying to influence American public opinion than I am about our own government abusing intelligence powers for domestic political purposes. You expect your enemies to screw with you. They're not bound by our laws or Constitution. But our own government is.

1) Both are problems. Again, I don't see why one needs to be ignored. In this case, the actions don't seem to be illegal or unprecedented, which is also a problem. EDIT: Leaks would be illegal if linked to anyone specific, but again we should be able to take care of both illegal leaks AND the information therein. The Russia leaks mattered because of both the source and the information revealed. Acting like only one matters makes no sense. We disagree on what is a bigger concern, which in this case I'd say the possibility of Russian collusion is fucking monumental.

2) It's one thing for your "enemies" (Can we even say that at this point with Trump being so buddy buddy?) to TRY to screw with you, it's another for them to succeed. And while I'm concerned with Russia, I'm more concerned with an administration that seems to have so many goddamn connections to them.

I really think that what happened -- at least to some extent -- is that some of these people were so convinced that Trump was bad for the country that they honestly believed doing things like this to prevent him from becoming President was justified.

They wouldn't really be wrong, he's fucking garbage, though that doesn't make every action okay.

Anyway, I believe someone DID bring up shiny objects...

 

[buzzdog]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm much less concerned about Russia trying to influence American public opinion than I am about our own government abusing intelligence powers for domestic political purposes. You expect your enemies to screw with you. They're not bound by our laws or Constitution. But our own government is.

Considering that Trump himself regularly re-tweeted fake news that was put out by RS and Sputnik, and even repeated this BS in stump speeches, this isn't something that concerns you? You aren't concerned that Trump himself is probably influenced in his own opinions by whatever bullshit inflammatory wedge hit pieces there are that might his his twitter feed, and his twitter feed is targeted by the Russian network?

"People are saying".....

 

[Cavatt]

Again, that doesn't make sense. The problem for the Democrats -- and really, the core problem with the whole idea that Russians trying to influence the electorate delegitimized his election -- was that a lot of people cared more about the substance of the DNC leaks than their source. And people were entitled to make that judgment regardless of whether or not the media or the Democrat thought that was right.

The "it was the Russians" finger-point was made way back in July by Hillary and the DNC, pretty much as soon as the story leaked. It just didn't appear to stick -- at least if you buy the argument that the entire thing helped Trump.

So for the Democrats no one cares about how they were leaked, it was the substance.

For Trump, the leak is the big crime we need to be concerned with?

Wow impressive points.

 

[caf]

So for the Democrats no one cares about how they were leaked, it was the substance.

For Trump, the leak is the big crime we need to be concerned with?

Wow impressive points.

QTIP has been VERY vocal against all leakers. Period. End stop.

So I'm not sure why you are putting words in his mouth that he never said.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Considering that Trump himself regularly re-tweeted fake news that was put out by RS and Sputnik, and even repeated this BS in stump speeches, this isn't something that concerns you?

I didn't say it didn't concern me. I said that it concerned me less than our own government interfering in our own elections. After all, we routinely try to impact public opinion in other countries so as to affect their political views.

You aren't concerned that Trump himself is probably influenced in his own opinions by whatever bullshit inflammatory wedge hit pieces there are that might his his twitter feed, and his twitter feed is targeted by the Russian network?

"People are saying".....

No, not really. I think he says a lot of stuff off the cuff that is pretty much forgotten once it is said.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

So for the Democrats no one cares about how they were leaked, it was the substance.

First, they both matter.

Whether the substance matters more than the source is going to depend on the substance, on the source, and on the views of the people making that determination. My point is that if you buy the narrative that WikiLeaks swung the election, then you must conclude that voters put more emphasis on the substance than the source. You may agree or disagree as to whether that was the right thing to do, but the fact that they did it is inherent in the belief that the WikiLeaks documents swung the election.

Personally, I think the revelation that the media sent debate questions to one side in a debate is huge. For candidates to place any faith at all in journalistic integrity when it comes to debates is simply foolish.

For Trump, the leak is the big crime we need to be concerned with? Wow impressive points.

If it turned out that Trump colluded with the Russians, then I think the substance would be more important than the source. But I don't think that's the case, which is why I think the source is more important than the substance.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Anyway, I believe someone DID bring up shiny objects...

I'm not understanding the shiny objects reference.

 

[AZ_]

First, they both matter.

Whether the substance matters more than the source is going to depend on the substance, on the source, and on the views of the people making that determination. My point is that if you buy the narrative that WikiLeaks swung the election, then you must conclude that voters put more emphasis on the substance than the source. You may agree or disagree as to whether that was the right thing to do, but the fact that they did it is inherent in the belief that the WikiLeaks documents swung the election.

Personally, I think the revelation that the media sent debate questions to one side in a debate is huge. For candidates to place any faith at all in journalistic integrity when it comes to debates is simply foolish.



If it turned out that Trump colluded with the Russians, then I think the substance would be more important than the source. But I don't think that's the case, which is why I think the source is more important than the substance.

You're still dismissing these as coincidences, after they were caught lying about their communication?

Their Charmin-soft position on Russia?


At the very least, we should have a grand jury to determine this, given the seemingly endless lies the Administration has told on this issue.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

You're still dismissing these as coincidences, after they were caught lying about their communication?Their Charmin-soft position on Russia?

I honestly don't know what you're talking about here.

There is no question that Trump believed that Obama's foreign policy with respect to Russia and/or Syria was completely screwed up. He was vocal about that. But so did a lot of people, and for good reason. And there's no question that the Russians didn't like that policy either. So the idea that the Russians would prefer Trump to Obama isn't something that requires conspiracy or collusion at all.

Moreover, Obama himself had urged a "reset" in relations with the Russians way back in his first term. He failed.

https://www.thenation.com/article/obamas-russia-reset-another-lost-opportunity/

Then there was the infamous meeting at which Obama was caught on an open mike telling the Russian President that he would have "more flexibility" after the election to make a deal.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-summit-obama-medvedev-idUSBRE82P0JI20120326

So there you had a U.S. President trying to reset relations with Russia, and then promising to be "more flexible" after the election. Why not investigate that "soft as Charmin" position with a grand jury?

Look...presidential candidates very often take a different position from their opponents/predecessors with respect to foreign policy, and those changes usually are celebrated by some countries, and condemned by others. In 2008, Obama promised to reset relations with much of the Muslim world, etc., and with Europe. At that time, many of those countries supported what they thought that meant. Does that mean we should investigate to see if Muslim groups were illegally funneling money to his campaign? Does that mean that European leaders who supported that "interfered" with our election?

Candidates are permitted to advocate foreign policy changes that are more favorable to some countries than to others. That is not a crime, evidence of conspiracy, or evidence of collusion.

At the very least, we should have a grand jury to determine this, given the seemingly endless lies the Administration has told on this issue.

A grand jury for...what? A grand jury is impanelled to investigate criminal activity. What is the criminal activity that occurred that you're asking them to investigate for prosecution?

 

[AZ_]

So there you had a U.S. President trying to reset relations with Russia, and then promising to be "more flexible" after the election. Why not investigate that "soft as Charmin" position with a grand jury?

Because the US Government has the power to set foreign policy with Russia.

The Trump campaign does not have the authority to work to overturn those policies prior to being elected to anything.

This becomes even murkier when Russia was actively trying to influence the outcome of the election.

Look...presidential candidates very often take a different position from their opponents/predecessors with respect to foreign policy, and those changes usually are celebrated by some countries, and condemned by others. In 2008, Obama promised to reset relations with much of the Muslim world, etc., and with Europe. At that time, many of those countries supported what they thought that meant. Does that mean we should investigate to see if Muslim groups were illegally funneling money to his campaign? Does that mean that European leaders who supported that "interfered" with our election?

Was he communicating with foreign officials while doing it? Did members of his eventual Cabinet lie about these communications, sometimes under oath (as Jeff Sessions did)?

Were those governments actively trying to influence the election with leaked documents obtained by outlets backed by their government?

Were those they communicated these intentions under surveillance by the US Government?

If those things were true, I'd imagine you'd have a bit greater concern.

Candidates are permitted to advocate foreign policy changes that are more favorable to some countries than to others. That is not a crime, evidence of conspiracy, or evidence of collusion.

A grand jury for...what? A grand jury is impanelled to investigate criminal activity. What is the criminal activity that occurred that you're asking them to investigate for prosecution?

Communicating directly with foreign officials, then lying about it, leaving many questions unanswered about the extent to which they were dealing behind the back of the US Government.

Your comparisons here seem to be apples to oranges, equating foreign policy speeches by then candidate Barack Obama to the Trump team actively seeking out foreign officials under surveillance by the US Government to deal in opposition to the current Administration.


That's not the same thing, and you know.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Because the US Government has the power to set foreign policy with Russia. The Trump campaign does not have the authority to work to overturn those policies prior to being elected to anything.

Exactly. Trump and his campaign didn't have the power to set foreign policy with Russia. So, by definition, it could not have done so.

However, Trump, along with every other American, had every right to be as publicly critical of the foreign policy of Obama as it wanted to be, included advocated different deals and an improved relationship with other nations/entities, including Russia. Just as candidate Obama did before being elected in 2008.

This becomes even murkier when Russia was actively trying to influence the outcome of the election.

How so? Again, there is absolutely nothing improper/illegal about a candidate saying "it is my intent to improve relations with country x/take a tougher stand against country if I am elected." Foreign nations, including our own nation, routinely urge such changes to be made in other countries during their elections.

Now, to the extent the Russians engaged in illegal hacking activities to support a candidate they preferred, that is an area of concern and we should investigate that, and retaliate against the Russians for the hacking if appropriate. I have absolutely zero problem with that, although I'd point out that the Obama Administration took an incredibly passive approach on much more severe hacking conducted by foreign governments against our government, on multiple occasions.

Was he communicating with foreign officials while doing it?

Clapper says there is no evidence of collusion. In fact, nobody has said there is any evidence of collusion.

Communicating directly with foreign officials, then lying about it, leaving many questions unanswered about the extent to which they were dealing behind the back of the US Government.

The reason "questions are unanswered" is because we in the general public are not part of the investigation. Likewise, if there was a grand jury, those proceedings would be secret as well. But what we do know is that the Obama-controlled DOJ and CIA who were conducting this surveillance before and after the election have, as of yet, found no evidence of collusion, and that even on the Democrats on the intelligence committee who are investigating this have seen no evidence of collusion.

Communicating with Russians is not illegal, so the mere existence of communications doesn't prove squat. It is the content of those communications that matters, and the people who have access to that content, including many who detest Trump, are downplaying expectations for what that evidence shows.

I don't have any problem with a continued investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Let them investigate away, and if someone is found to have done something illegal, they can refer it to the DOJ for prosecution.