Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vanity: By the Book
Vanity | 5 June 2018 | FtrPilot

Posted on 06/05/2018 7:17:51 AM PDT by FtrPilot

On January 5, 2017, Obama met with Susan Rice, James Comey, and Sally Yates. From the Susan Rice Memo for Record:

“President 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’."

Here's what President Trump should do:

Convene a meeting with Sessions, Rosenstein, and Wray. Tell them that he wants everything done 'by the book'.

Book 1: 18 U.S. Code § 1621 - Perjury generally.

Perjury is a crime that can be punished by fine or imprisonment for not more than 5 years or both. Any referral from DOJ/IG for perjury or "lack of candor", whether under oath or not, shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Any referral from Congress for perjury, or any other federal crime, shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Book 2: 28 CFR 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

"The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted"

Mr. Rosenstein, there is no provision in current federal law or Code of Federal Regulations for appointment of Special Counsel to conduct a counter-intelligence investigation. Therefore, you have 48 hours to bring the current Special Counsel investigation into full compiance with 28 CFR 600.1.

All data/information that was gathered as part of Crossfire Hurricane shall be removed from the Special Counsel and preserved for DOJ/IG use. All data/information created by the Special Counsel based on Crossfire Hurricane data shall also be removed from Special Counsel and preserved for DOJ/IG use.

All personnel assigned to the Special Counsel shall be debriefed on Crossfire Hurricane. They shall also be debriefed on all Intelligence Community (IC) Special Access Programs.

Mr. Rosenstein, if the Special Counsel investigation is not in full compliance within 48 hours, you will be fired for cause.

Mr. Sessions, Mr. Rosenstein, and Mr. Wray...the Constitution gives oversight responsibility to Congress. All Congressional subpoenas shall be complied with. Failure to adequately respond to a Congressional subpoena shall result in disciplinary action up to and including firing.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS:
Yes, I know this is not going to happen, but I sure wish it would
1 posted on 06/05/2018 7:17:51 AM PDT by FtrPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FtrPilot

They need to have the book thrown at them!......................


2 posted on 06/05/2018 7:20:19 AM PDT by Red Badger (When Obama and VJ go to prison for treason, will Roseanne get her show back?...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FtrPilot

FtrPilot wrote: “All Congressional subpoenas shall be complied with. Failure to adequately respond to a Congressional subpoena shall result in disciplinary action up to and including firing.”

to which I would add “ ... prosecution to the full extent of the law.”


3 posted on 06/05/2018 7:22:47 AM PDT by agave (Jesus: Bigger Than the Beatles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FtrPilot

Belated CYA by Susan Rice. IT IS WELL PAST TIME THAT THESE CRIMINALS BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.


4 posted on 06/05/2018 7:24:17 AM PDT by originalbuckeye ('In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act'- George Orwell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FtrPilot

When Democrats say they want things done “by the book” it means that they will do whatever they want. But, because they claim to be doing it “by the book” they can no longer be criticized.

If Republicans pay close attention to the law and ensure that all of their actions are correct and literally done “by the book” they will be destroyed by the media for violating the Constitution. Threats to impeach will follow, led by Trey Gowdy.


5 posted on 06/05/2018 7:26:41 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FtrPilot

Why convene a meeting? Announce it on Twitter.


6 posted on 06/05/2018 7:44:21 AM PDT by The people have spoken (Proud member of Hillary's basket of deplorables)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FtrPilot

On January 5, 2017, Obama met with Susan Rice, James Comey, and Sally Yates. From the Susan Rice Memo for Record:

“President 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’.”

Lol, if anyone here believes this was said spontaneously (or said at all), I have some ocean front property in Arkansas I will sell you cheap.


7 posted on 06/05/2018 7:44:39 AM PDT by billyboy15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

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.

Rice’s 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.


8 posted on 06/05/2018 7:50:30 AM PDT by Liz ( (Our side has 8 trillion bullets;the other side doesn't know which bathroom to use.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Why were the Democrats so determined to discredit General Flynn?

Lt.Gen. Flynn was fired by Obama when he was head of Defense Intelligence Agency. I believe that he was fired for not being on Obama's team and knowing where the bodies are buried.

As national security advisor, General Flynn would have daily, direct communication with President Trump. Removal of Flynn as national security advisor, by any means required, was the top priority of then Acting Attorney General Yates.

Charging Flynn with lying to the FBI, to which he later copped a plea, has effectively shut him up. Hopefully, with Judge Emmet G. Sullivan now assigned to Flynn's case, Flynn's guilty plea will be vacated and charges dropped, with prejudice.

Then, perhaps, General Flynn will help reveal the truth on the Obama administration corruption.

9 posted on 06/05/2018 8:32:33 AM PDT by FtrPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FtrPilot; Liz; null and void; aragorn; azishot; AZ .44 MAG; Baynative; Beautiful_Gracious_Skies; ...

PING

Check out article and # 8, # 9.

.


10 posted on 06/05/2018 9:24:41 AM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FtrPilot

“by the book”...that they’are still trying to rewrite.


11 posted on 06/05/2018 10:37:06 AM PDT by equaviator (There's nothing like the universe to bring you down to earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz; LucyT
It is clear to me that this meeting needed to take place because the "insurance policy" was lapsed. They were coming up empty handed and now they had to move forward with the transition, one they had hoped wouldn't take place. At that point it becomes clear that they are all culpable to many infractions that they believed would not have been revealed.

For the people in that meeting it was made to appear as if they had been operating "by the book" and going forward need to continue to because the plan was still in place up and until Comey was fired.

12 posted on 06/05/2018 10:40:12 AM PDT by GregNH (If you can't fight, please find a good place to hide!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Watergate was about the Coverup.

Obamas conspiracy to commit Treason (covering up Hillary’s Treason) needs to send him to prison for the rest of his life.

Leftist will shriek, but dont they always ?


13 posted on 06/05/2018 12:23:21 PM PDT by elbook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: elbook

I have reached the point where I do not care how much they scream, shriek or wail..............................


14 posted on 06/05/2018 12:30:28 PM PDT by Red Badger (When Obama and VJ go to prison for treason, will Roseanne get her show back?...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: billyboy15
“President 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’.”

Please note that your inferences points to your ignorance; she did not define "book..."

"Rules for Radicals??"

That is classic ClintonianSpeak.

15 posted on 06/05/2018 6:23:53 PM PDT by publius911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: publius911

How does my reference to a quote make me “ignorant”?


16 posted on 06/05/2018 10:36:23 PM PDT by billyboy15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson