Thursday, May 23, 2019

The Sound Of Silence

In Impeachment Madness I pointed out for the second time that

Barr has bigger fish to fry than the texting duo of Strzok and Page--and one of those fish is named Barack Obama.

That observation was based on Bill Barr's revelation, a week ago, that what has grabbed his personal attention in the Russia Hoax is the January 6, 2017, Trump Tower meeting:

According to Hemmer, the one specific example that Barr kept returning to was the Trump Tower meeting on January 6, 2017, between disgraced former FBI Director James Comey and Trump, when Comey tried to blackmail, er, when Comey briefed the President Elect about the salacious claims of the Steele "dossier". Weirdly, all those salacious claims appeared in the press within days of the meeting.

And, not at all coincidentally, that meeting came the very day after a White House summit or council of war was held against the president elect--a meeting that featuring the top level of the outgoing Obama administration and the key holdovers. To reprise:

Michael Goodwin draws on Comey's book, which begins to look very much like an initial defense and threat against Obama himself:

Comey revealed there was a meeting in the White House on the previous day, Jan. 5, to plan the briefing. He said Obama approved of him telling Trump about the prostitutes. 
Obama’s presence was also acknowledged in a strange memo Susan Rice wrote to herself on Inauguration Day. In a “Dear Diary” tone, she insisted Obama did not push for “anything from a law-enforcement perspective,” demanding only that everything be done “by the book.” Hmmm. 
Rice also puts Joe Biden and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the room.
More likely, the meeting aimed to entrap Trump and overturn the election. 
Whatever the aim, Barr is on the case. Prepare for bombshells.

Don Surber, tracking Goodwin (Comey's book implicates Obama), provides the passage from Comey's book:

"Obama turned his head to his left and looked directly at me. He raised and lowered both of his eyebrows with emphasis, and then looked away. . . . To my mind his Groucho Marx eyebrow raise was both subtle humor and an expression of concern. It was almost as if he were saying, 'Good luck with that.'"

Who suspects that Barr has bigger fish to fry now than the obsessively texting duo of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, that he's aiming for Obama? Goodwin clearly does, and so do I.

Today Paul Sperry observes:

Paul Sperry

Sshh, hear that? It's the deafening silence of Barack Obama, who's suddenly gone to ground as #SpyGate scandal draws nearer & calls for him to be questioned under oath grow. No US speaking events, appearances. Organizing for Action (OFA) quietly removed from his website. Fewer Tweets
9:46 PM - 22 May 2019

When your best defense appears to be to keep your mouth shut, I'd say you're in trouble. And no amount of demented impeachment chatter will change the legal facts on the ground. The Left/Progs have been frantically manipulating the control levers, as dutifully reported by their note takers in the media. Reality hasn't changed.


  1. Another event that occurred on January 6, 2017, was that James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, published a document titled Background to Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections": The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution. Clapper's report was supposed to convince the public that the Russian Government had meddled significantly in the USA's 2016 elections.

    Clapper's report was preposterous, but it was the best report he could publish in the hurried situation.

    On December 19, 2016, the Electoral College had confirmed that Donald Trump had won the 2016 election.

    On December 29, President Obama had expelled 35 Russian diplomats in order to whip up an anti-Russian hysteria. Henceforth, any actions by the incoming Trump Administration to resolve that hysteria would be portrayed as proof that Trump was colluding with Vladimir Putin.

    Clapper's report on January 6, 2017, was supposed to convince the public that Russia indeed had meddled in the election. However, the report did not include any proof.

    This problem -- the report's lack of proof -- surely was discussed during Obama's meeting on January 6.

    The report's numbered text is 13 pages. More than eight of those pages -- pages 6 to 13 -- tell about Russia's RT television company. Why?

    During 2018, the US Intelligence Community had been trying to prove that RT was a secret conduit of money and communications between (1) the Kremlin and (2) politicians campaigning against Hillary Clinton. In December 2015, Michael Flynn (Trump's advisor) and Jill Stein (the Green Party's candidate) had been paid to attend a dinner celebrating RT in Moscow. That was the best lead that the US Intelligence Community really had that Russia had meddled in the election.

  2. On January 6, 2017, James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, published a document titled Background to Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections": The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution.

    The document begins with a section titled "Scope and Sourcing". There the public is informed that this "analytic assessment was drafted and coordinated" by three Intelligence agencies -- the CIA, FBI and NSA. Of course, the document does not point out that this is not a normal National Intelligence Assessment (NIA), which would include other agencies such as the DIA and the State Department.

    In other words, on January 6, 2017 -- two weeks before the inauguration of President-Elect Trump -- Clapper still had not accomplished -- or likely even initated -- a normal NIA about Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

    What Clapper had done instead was to handpick a few Trump-hating analysts from the CIA, FBI and NSA who hoped to earn future promotions by concocting an assessment that Clapper wanted.

    Now on January 6, 2017, Obama, Clapper and his fellows foresaw that the new Trump Administration might initiate a proper NIA that would not confirm Clapper's assessment.

    This was a serious problem that surely was discussed in Obama's meeting on January 6, 2017.

    1. It's an important point that people tend to forget. This was a key part of the Russia Hoax narrative.

      BTW, this illustrates why I like 371 as a possible prosecutive theory. At first glance, what Clapper (and the others) did might appear simply underhanded, but not criminal. However, things look different when you've constructed a 371 theory to defraud the government by "impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government." In that light the twisted NIA becomes one of several steps taken to enable the overall conspiracy.

  3. I tend to agree with your line of thinking but what explains the fact that other conspirators like Comey and Brennan can't stop talking. I get the idea of setting up the defensive narrative with the MSM, but at some point you run the risk of making stupid mistakes and/or giving up the game to the public. Especially those who are finally waking up to the truth after almost three years of deception.

    1. This is the point where the conspiracy degenerates into "every man for himself--and the devil take the hindmost!"

    2. And how! By the way, can you delete my double post?

      I apologize for that.

    3. One problem with Blogger is I can't figure any way to allow comments to be edited, so reposting and deleting seems the only way to accomplish that.

  4. Replies
    1. I could only skim for now, but it's interesting and seems compelling. BTW, you seriously date yourself--and me!

  5. Until January 6, 2017, the public had been misled to think that all 17 of the USA's Intelligence agencies had concluded that the Russian Government had meddled in our 2016 Presidential election.

    Hillary Clinton made that claim in the second Presidential debate on October 10, 2016, and tried to shame Donald Trump for flouting the conclusion of all 17 Intelligence agencies. From then until Election Day, November 8, Clapper took no action to clarify that issue for the electorate. Clapper perceived that Clinton's claim was helping her politcally against Trump. Although Clapper was the Director of National Intelligence, he was serving not our Nation, but rather only the Democrat Party.

    In the document that Clapper published on January 6, 2017, he revealed that the assessment about Russian meddling had been "drafted and coordinated" by only three agencies -- CIA, FBI and NSA. However, this revelation was not recognized by the public.

    Clapper's published document states (Page 1) that it "is a highly classified assessment that has been provided to the President and to recipients approved by the President."

    I question whether the classified assessment ever has been published. I suspect that, rather, the assesesment was "provided" only orally to the people present at the January 6 meeting.

    When Trump's Administration occupied their offices on January 20, no printed assessment was found.

    What is the publication date of Clapper's classified assessment? Was it published before President Obama expelled the 35 Russian diplomats on December 29? Has it ever existed as a hard-copy document?

    1. Interesting and important, Mike.

    2. If, as is being reported, Durham is investigating the "fusion cell" set up by Brennan (and which included Strzok), I have to suspect that he may also end up looking at the NIA. The NIA, however, may not be considered part of the "origins" and may fall to some other investigation, but I have to believe it will be closely scrutinized.

  6. When President Obama hosted his meeting on January 5, 2017, did he invite NSA Director Mike Rogers or any other NSA officials to participate?

    What did NSA want to be told to President-Elect Trump about Clapper's assessment? Since NSA was one of only three agencies that "drafted and coordinated" the assessment, shouldn't NSA have provided some input for the imminent briefing to President-Elect Trump?


    In mid-November, Rogers had advised Trump that he should move his staff away from Trump Tower, and Trump had done so on the following day.

    Nevertheless, when Clapper, Brennan and Comey came to brief Trump on January 6, he hosted them in Trump Tower. Trump hosted them in the very place that was not secure from wire-tapping, according to NSA Director Rogers.

    In other words, Trump did NOT host them at his relocated headquarters, which was secure from wire-tapping.

    I think Trump hosted Clapper, Brennan and Comey in Trump Tower in order to signal to them that he did not trust them -- and they understood his signal.

  7. I question whether the classified assessment ever has been published. I suspect that, rather, the assesesment was "provided" only orally to the people present at the January 6 meeting.

    I meant to write the January 5 meeting.

  8. I've read various accounts of the 1/5/17 meeting, and none have indicated Rogers was present. He wasn't trusted. In fact, NSA's lukewarm assent to the assessment was, in effect, a no-confidence statement.