Tucker Carlson tackled the subject of Susan Rice and privacy this evening -- drawing a red line in the sand -- proclaiming that 'our laws provided no serious protections from being spied on for political reasons.'
Can anyone make an argument proving this to be a false statement?
After it emerged courtesy of Mike Cernovich that former National Security Advisor Susan Rice had made numerous requests to “unmask” the identities of Americans associated with President Trump in intelligence reports, senator Rand Paul who in recent days has been on increasingly better terms with the president and even went golfing with him this weekend, said Rice should testify under oath about her involvment in a potentially illegal scandal that she herself denied she had any knowledge of as recently as 2 weeks ago.
Ever since Mike Cernovich dropped the bombshell report over the weekend outing Obama's National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, as the person behind the unmasking of the identity of various members of Trump's team who were 'incidentally' surveilled during the 2016 campaign (see "Confirmed: Susan Rice "Unmasked" Trump Team"), a report which was subsequently confirmed by Eli Lake of Bloomberg earlier this morning, everyone has been wondering who within the Trump White House or the intelligence community supplied him with such a massive scoop.
As U.S. equity markets continue their march back toward all-time highs, courtesy of the latest BTFD binge trade, at least one 'small' segment of the U.S. economy does not seem to be participating in the rally as 9 brick-and-mortar retailers have already filed for bankruptcy protection in 1Q 2017 alone. That volume of filings matches the total number of retail bankruptcies for all of 2016 and puts the industry on pace to exceed even the 'great recession' highs. Per CNBC: