Posted on 01/15/2019 11:08:40 AM PST by Liz
EDITED The NYT's blatant attempt to cover-up Obama's plot to frame Trump. The NYT says that even though there was no evidence to support allegations that Pres Trump was “knowingly” or “unwittingly” working for Russia, the decision to investigate Trump was done "in good faith."
The rotting of the FBI hierarchy began with Steele's “unsubstantiated dossier,” financed by the Clinton campaign, then used to get a FISA warrant to wiretap Trump's campaign. Those of us in the criminal justice process for decades have never seen L/E concerned about anything unsubstantiated.
The NYT whines that Trump “refused to criticize Russia.”
<><> Where was the FBI or DOJ angst in 2012 when Obama on an open mic requested Medvedev tell Putin that after the election, he would have “more flexibility” to deal with stuff like missile defense?
<><> Where was the angst when Sec of State Hillary attempted a Russian reset?
<><> Was anyone in L/E tossing his cookies in 2010 when Bill Clinton, took $500,000 from a Russian entity comprised of former Russian intelligence operatives?
<><>Or when the Obama admin allowed corrupt Russian-controlled companies to purchase Uranium One, thereby acquiring 20% of the US uranium supply.
NYT says firing Comey was “obstruction of justice."
<><> So if firing Comey obstructed justice, why wasn’t Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, who recommended the firing, also placed under investigation?
The bizarre January 20, 2017 email Susan Rice wrote “to herself” purporting to document a January 5, 2017 meeting with the Obama crew gives a clue. The meeting discussed the bogus Steele dossier and Russian collusion, but curiously Rice stressed that the former president said every aspect should be handled “by the book.”
Strzok had told his FBI colleague and paramour Lisa Page not to worry about Trump being elected because “We’ll stop it.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Susan Rice’s CYA email at like, 1 minute before Pres. Trump’s inauguration makes even more sense, now.
She stupidly laid out all the criminal t of the case........and named the principles.
[[The NYT whines that Trump “refused to criticize Russia.”]]
Where is the crime in that?
[[NYT says firing Comey was “obstruction of justice.”]]
No it wasn’t- the investigation NEVER stopped- so how was it obstruction of justice? Explain that to us NYT!
The NYT whines that Trump “refused to criticize Russia.”
These people are stupid. If Trump was an agent working for Putin he would certainly criticize him in public while doing Russia’s bidding in private.
In a less civilized country, the perps of this debacle would be locked up or gone as in ‘gone’ gone.
Leavenworth ain’t big enough for the lot of these public menaces that make life hell and pretend they are above it all in pursuit of virtue and sane policy.
It’s a blippin’ coup by any other name.
If you thought midterm elections had problems, wait until you learn about Nancy Pelosi’s plan to terminate state control over American elections. Democrats in Congress have announced their top legislative priority, and it isn’t health care, immigration, or taxes. Instead, they want to centralize power over elections in Washington, D.C. H.R. 1 is number one on the legislative agenda because it is the number one priority of House Democrats, leftist groups, deep-pocketed dark money, and those who use election process rules to help win elections — or at least to cause chaos.
The bill is a 571-page dreamscape of wild wishes and federal mandates on states. H.R. 1 has 218 cosponsors. It forces states to implement mandatory voter registration. If someone is on a government list — such as receiving welfare benefits or rental subsidies — then they would be automatically registered to vote. Few states have enacted these systems because Americans still view civic participation as a voluntary choice. Moreover, aggregated government lists always contain duplicates and errors that states, even without mandatory voter registration, frequently fail to catch and fix.
<><> H.R. 1 also mandates that states allow all felons to vote. Currently, states have the power under the Constitution to set the terms of eligibility in each state. Some states, like Maine, have decided that voting machines should be rolled into the prisons. Other states, like Nevada, have chosen to make a felony a disenfranchising event.
<><>H.R. 1 also undermines the First Amendment by exerting government control over political speech and undoing the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision. (Excerpt) Read more at citizenfreepress.com ...
Here’s a thought. McCabe was hatching a plan to investigate Trump. Rosenstien has as much as said McCabe wanted to him to wear a wire to frame Trump. Trump met with Mueller. Then Rosenstien appointed Mueller Special Council the next day. The Trump/Russia investigation is then taken away from McCabe. Did Rosenstien appoint Mueller to protect Trump from an FBI gone rogue?
Amen
And the New York Times refuses to praise President Trump.
SO WHAT?
“The rotting of the FBI hierarchy began with Steele’s “unsubstantiated dossier,”
The rotting began long before then.
And whether this monstrosity is enacted lies with Bitch McConnell and the RINO Cadre in the Senate primarily. Furthermore, if we loose the 2020 Presidential Election, this $hit will be rammed through like crap through a goose.
Good point.
To cover-up the criminal spying —— Obama has said it was not spying-——it was to “protect” Trump.
BOL.
IF-—big IF-—protecting Trump was the reason for spying.....why did the “benevolent Obama team” not advise Trump?
Taken another way, it was criminal not to tell Trump he was in danger and needed protection.
PROOF POSITIVE THAT OBAMA KNEW
Obama’s CYA maneuver of January 3, 2017-——the signing of NSA Data-Sharing Order Section 2.3 by AG Lynch —— is the coupe d’etat to blow out The Deep State. 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 ALREADY 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 January 20, 2017 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.
cont
Some people are espousing this theory and appointing Mueller’s good friend as AG, only bolster’s that theory. If true, this is the most incredible ruse ever. The propagandist media will have a fit if true.
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.
SOURCE: 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.
Very true. This stump has been rotting a long time.
This goes way back, to the 50s and earlier.. JFK got in the way, RFK and MLK too,, The FBI and DoJ sure showed their true colors as we endured the Watergate and Contra scandals, only to see a Dixie Mafia syncophant elected and a shaky pick , Reno, selected to head up and battle internal “homegrowns’ aka citizens&patriots while turning blind eyes to Islamic zealots blowing up civilian and gubamint targets globally.
I guess the early pictures of Clinton in Russia as a young fellar were a harbinger of things to come.
Collusion is as collusion does, Momma always said.
Now Forrest Trump is the target. and look who’s feeding the ammo belts into the rapidfire media guns.
============================================
HAT TIP DESERT RHINO And it’s astonishing how the overall process in DC now resembles the USSR in many many ways. Constant propaganda to the nation, a nomenklatura class that can do no wrong and becomes wealthy, groupthink, an intelligence service that wields unjust and outsized power, enforced state atheism, seeing national threats everywhere, threatening dissenters with loss of job and a sort of non-person status. One party rule in DC (90% voted for Hillary) And the cherry on the cake...when they dislike Trump, starting a drumbeat that he is mentally ill and probably unable to carry out his duties. Same with Steve King, suddenly he is “senile” (never a problem with Pelosi, Thad Stevens, etc)
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.