Posted on 05/20/2018 7:42:13 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
Considering how non savvy the dems seem to be when it comes to computers I wouldn’t bet on them being that smart
No at the time it was Comey
Don’t jump the gun Huber and the IG are still builders no cas s
Supposedly, Crowd Strike imaged the server(s) and networked comluters, and gave the image(s) to the FIB.
Supposedly.
And as the a$$hole in CA proved, images can be tampered with. Though (apparantly) that leaves a trail.
Biggest question is, who at the FIB is investigating, is he being supoorted or hinderdd, and can he be trusted?
Or did beuford give it to the IG, as usual?
And where the hell is Sessions?
I think it goes much deeper than that. Simply our whole system is at present set up in such a way that the Left really can get away with murder.
Remember: back in the day the “serious charge” that Tip O’Neil demanded deserved an investigation was one that was patently rediculous ... but with Democrats when they are accused it often is that no charge is serious enough.
Leftist who will agree with that are everywhere in government. They have no problem destroying people who disagree with them but their potential victims, namely folks like us, want to get along, think they can be friends.
Our side doesn’t want to destroy them, and they know it and how they can manipulate it.
The Left is an implacable enemy. Far more than just Sessions don’t realize it.
What difference would it have made? FBI is corrupt, too.
There’s a Clinton In cahoots,
Brooklyn’s bussing in more votes,
There’s AntiFa blocking traffic,
It’s blocked up to Jackson Heights,
There’s a pizza party that’s short a child,
And ChiCom influence runs wild,
AG Jeff Sessions where are you?
What about Xavier Becerra handing over a fake, copied House Dem server instead of the real one?
Unfortunately the lefty idiot voters in California will ignore his crimes and elect him as their AG to commit more crimes at a higher level.
Wasn’t our worthless AG at that time, Ms Lynch?
Trump knows he Deep State CAN be extinguished.......b/c really, they’re not that smart. Susan Rice proved that in one memo. If they were as smart as they think they are, “sure-thing” Hillary would have won.
Obama’s after-the-fact ex/order contains some unusual language particularly the convoluted language WRT “The Strategic Delay of Section 2.3 of Obama’s Executive Order 12333”:
NOTE WELL: Prior to the formal signing of Section 2.3, greater latitude existed within the White House in regards to collection of information – especially in relation to the Trump Campaign. However, once signed, Section 2.3 granted broad latitude to inter-agency sharing of information.
But by the time Obama’s new executive order was signed on January 3, 2017, all that information was already in the possession of Obama White House.
Thus, Susan Rice’s email to herself takes on an even greater significance b/c no one was ever supposed to know
about the REAL meaning of Obama’s retroactive CYA.....until Rice stupidly laid it all out in an official email.
When Susan Rice stupidly wrote a CYA memo to herself, she inadvertently confessed to a series of crimes that added the time line and inferences about what the outgoing Obama administration illegally concealed from incoming President Trump and his aides.
CYA memos are rarely a good idea. Most often, they reveal things the author never intended——ala Susan Rice’s now-infamous email to herself.
powerlineblog.com
WHY SUSAN RICE WROTE AN EMAIL TO HERSELF........the extraordinary email Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice wrote to herself at 12:15 on January 20, 2017........within minutes of President Trump’s inauguration must have been her last act, more or less, before she vacated the White House. So obviously the email was important to her. But why would it be important to send an email to herself (the only person copied was one of her aides)?
If you read the email, along with Senator Grassley’s letter to Rice, it is obvious that it is a CYA memo. But the question is, whose A is being C’d?
Most attention, so far, has focused on the first two paragraphs of the email, which describe a meeting that occurred around two weeks earlier.
The participants included
<><>Barack Obama,
<><>Joe Biden,
<><>James Comey,
<><> Sally Yates–who turns up like a bad penny whenever skulduggery is afoot–
<><>and Rice:
Rice made sure to underscore that Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book”. Rice writes Obama stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.
This is pure boilerplate.
It represents, obviously, the company line. But Rice did not write her email to cover Barack Obama’s rear end. If she or
anyone else had wanted to document the claim that Obama said to proceed “by the book,” the appropriate course would have been an official memo that copied others who were present and would have gone into the file. (My guess is that such a memo was written, but we haven’t seen it.)
The important part of the email is not the paragraph that purports to exonerate Obama, but the paragraphs that follow: “From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.”
The next paragraph of the email remains classified and has been redacted. The email concludes:
The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.
CONCLUSION Why did Susan Rice send herself an email purporting to document this part of the meeting? Because she was C’ing her own A. Rice was nervous about the fact that, at the president’s direction, she had failed to “share information fully as it relates to Russia” with President Trump’s incoming national security team.
Her actions violated longstanding American tradition. Outgoing administrations have always cooperated in the transition to a new administration, whether of the same or the opposing party, especially on matters relating to national security.
Susan Rice is far from the brightest bulb on the tree, but she was well aware that by concealing facts ostensibly relating to national security from her counterpart in the new administration–General Michael Flynn–she was, at a minimum, violating longstanding civic norms.
If she actually lied to Flynn, she could have been accused of much worse. So Rice wanted to be able to retrieve her email, if she found herself in a sticky situation, and tell the world that she hid relevant facts about Russia from the
new administration on Barack Obama’s orders.
What were the secrets that Obama wanted to keep from the new administration? We can easily surmise that the fact that the Steele memo was paid for by the Democratic Party; that the FBI had to some degree collaborated with Steele; that the Clinton campaign had fed some of the fake news in the dossier to Steele; and that Comey’s FBI had used Steele’s fabrications as the basis for FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign were among the facts that Obama and his minions didn’t want Michael Flynn and Donald Trump to know. Susan Rice, we can infer, was told to keep these secrets, and if anyone ever asked why she had failed to disclose them to Michael Flynn and others on Trump’s team, or even lied to those people, she would have the defense that President Obama ordered her to do it.
There may be more to it than this. The redacted paragraph likely contains more information about what it was that Rice wasn’t supposed to tell the Trump team. One of these days, we will learn what was blacked out.
The fact that Michael Flynn was Susan Rice’s counterpart in the incoming administration may also be significant. We know that the FBI agents who interviewed General Flynn–even Peter Strzok!–reported that they didn’t think he had lied about anything.
And yet, Obama’s DOJ and Bob Mueller’s “investigation”–basically a continuation of Obama’s corrupt Department of Justice under another, less accountable name–persecuted Flynn to the point where he finally pled guilty to a single count of lying to the FBI in order, as he says, to end the madness and the financial drain.
Why were the Democrats so determined to discredit General Flynn? Perhaps because they wanted to pre-empt any outrage that may otherwise have followed on revelations that the Obama administration’s National Security Advisor hid important facts from her successor during the transition, and may have lied to him about those facts, in violation of all American tradition.
This is the KEY question.
How can there be a claim the “Russians did it” If the FBI never took custody of the server?
Seth Rich died over this.
Mueller, Coney, Lynch, and the Clintons all go way back together. All filthy.
“Wasn’t our worthless AG at that time, Ms Lynch?”
But Jeff could still revive it if statutes of limitations haven’t run out.
Because their inverted IT was the real source of the information. Not a Russian hacker.
I wonder what kind of info they had about the Trump camp on that server. lol
Yup
Yeah comey was head of FBI
Sorry
What do you suppose would have happened if this FBI had gotten that server? What would we have been told?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.