Did Obama Try To Throw Comey Under The Bus

As if we needed confirmation, yesterday's developments in the Flynn case--both the Court of Appeals' decision but especially the bombshell Strzok notes disclosure--demonstrate that the Establishment media has failed with Fake News and has adopted the tactic of News Suppression. It was still stunning to realize that virtually nothing was said in the Establishment media about Obama's statements in the Oval Office meeting with disgraced FBI Director Jim Comey and Acting AG Sally Yates--as well as Joe Biden. Those statements were recorded in notes taken by disgraced former FBI agent Peter Strzok, probably as briefed by Comey after the meeting. Obama clearly urged the FBI Director to take official actions that the FBI Director had stated were unwarranted, because the matter under discussion "appeared legit."

Imagine if it had become known that Trump--or any Republican president you care to name--had said in similar circumstances:

Make sure you look at things, have the right people on it.

The collective howl from the Establishment media would have been heard around the globe. We would have had a mob descend upon the White House, probably including multiple GOP senators.

It seems clear to me that at this stage in the transition the Obama administration still had hopes of preventing Trump's inauguration. The lengths to which they were willing to go in that effort are revealed by Strzok's notes. It's worth taking another look at Susan Rice's email-to-self in light of these new revelations.

The Rice email has always been suspicious. For starters, the email was patently an exercise in ass covering: the "by the book" admonition attributed to Obama is really the main point of the email. This becomes apparent when we recollect several facts:

UPDATED: Susan Rice: The WH Counsel Told Me To Write It

So Senator Ron Johnson's earlier speculation in the course of a Fox News interview turned out to be well informed speculation. Johnson stated that the Susan Rice email-to-self read like something she was told to write by--Johnson suggested--the White Counsel. That is confirmed by Gillian Turner, citing Rice's "team":

Gillian Turner
@GillianHTurner

#BREAKING: 

@AmbassadorRice’s team confirms to #FoxNews that she was directed by White House Counsel to write the Jan 20, 2017 memorandum documenting an Oval Office meeting in which President Obama & National Security officials discussed #MichaelFlynn.

12:08 PM · May 20, 2020

The White House Counsel at that point would have been long time Clintonista Neil Eggleston.

Remember the FBI's Flynn FD-302? It took weeks to write and turned out to be a team effort. Maybe the Rice email-to-self was like that. We know it took weeks to write, and now Senator Johnson's suggestion that it was a team effort may turn out to be right on the money. And after all, if you wanted to CYA, wouldn't you prefer to have a legal operative like Eggleston do it rather than a Susan Rice?

No doubt John Durham will want to discuss this with Eggleston. In front of a Grand Jury.

UPDATE 1: shipwreckedcrew has an article at RedState that parses the Rice email-to-self--and related correspondence--in excruciating detail. Based on that parsing he poses the question: Has Susan Rice Made Herself a “Target” for Durham Probe With Langauge in Her CYA Memo? His answer is: Yes.

Shipwreckedcrew argues that the email actually represents Obama's own self serving version of his meeting with Comey and Yates. He concludes, based on that understanding (which I agree with):

Andy McCarthy has posited — convincingly in my view — that the true purpose of the Memorandum written by Rice was to allow Pres. Obama to point the finger of blame at Comey for whatever might happen in the aftermath of the transition into power of the Trump Administration.  According to Rice’s Memorandum, Pres. Obama told Comey to do everything “by the book”, and if Comey did not do so then Comey — and only Comey — was to blame. 

Did Rice put herself present in the room just so she could avoid setting forth in the Memorandum that the details she memorialized had come from Pres. Obama? Was she playing the “loyal soldier” by creating the impression that Obama’s version of the conversation had at least one supporting witness — herself — rather than have it as a “He said, He said” between Pres. Obama and Jim Comey at some future point in time? 

Whichever answer is true, neither is a defense to the crime of violating Section 1001.

UPDATE 2: Brett Tolman nails it:

This is what a President or VP instructs Wh counsel to do so they can try and control a problematic narrative. This is not what you do when it is a legitimate national security investigation. https://t.co/bZ1QjqiBJA

— Brett L. Tolman (@tolmanbrett) May 20, 2020

Was The Rice Email Declassification Barr's Message To Obama?

You have to wonder how the revelation of the full Susan Rice email plays into the big picture of the Barr/Durham investigation.

At the beginning of the week AG Barr very publicly stated that he "doesn't expect" criminal charges against Obama and Biden. But that was very quickly followed by the bombshell Rice declassification. The Rice email-to-self, far from exonerating Obama (as Rice must have intended), shows Obama very closely involved with the coup conspirators--plotting against Flynn and thus against Trump himself.

Was Barr sending an equally public message to Obama? If so, that message may have run something like this:

"Look, as a former president we can give you a pass on your involvement and confine our criminal charges to the triumvirate: Brennan, Clapper, Comey. We're prepared to do that, but know this: If you don't back off from public interference with our investigation, life could get a lot more unpleasant for you going forward. Don't count on us not having more than just the Rice email. And know from this--the revelation of the Rice email--that we're ready to use what we have. It's up to you."

Bill Barr is the guy who's ultimately in charge of all this. He's AG, and he guides Durham. He also has authority over all declassifications. When Grenell shows up at Main Justice with a satchel of "stuff", count on it--it's all been carefully calibrated and orchestrated. None of this--not the events and not the timing--is happening by coincidence.

UPDATED: Brett Tolman Analyzes The Susan Rice Email To Self

Readers will know that I always find Brett Tolman's analysis of legal developments worthwhile. Yesterday Tolman offered a brief but pithy analysis of the now famous Susan Rice email to self which was finally fully declassified.

Like me, Tolman regards the email as basically a CYA exercise--designed to cover Obama and herself. In the process, however, it's apparent that all the targeting of Flynn was a structure built on sand--there never was any "there" there, there never was any valid predication to investigate Flynn at all. Ever.

Now, read Tolman with this sound bite from Devin Nunes in mind, taken from a Fox interview with Liz MacDonald. Speaking of the Rice email Nunes says:

If you can believe anything they say, which is a whole 'nuther story.

Which is to say, you have to take everything that Rice writes with a grain of salt. Here's what I mean.

If this email is a CYA exercise, which it is, then it's necessary to claim that the Flynn investigation had some valid basis. Yet, on the other hand, they had nothing to point to--no actual investigative results to point to. Moreover, as we reviewed once again in James Comey Unmasked, they were even unable to articulate any fact based predicate for the Flynn investigation to begin with. That's totally damning. Comey's admission that they've found NOTHING "thus far" is incredibly weak when combined with the lack of predication.

But the fact that Obama is even having this discussion with Comey--in front of a "shellshocked" Sally Yates--is telling. Reading between the lines of the email, it appears that Obama is looking for reassurance that Comey will keep Obama's knowledge of and involvement in the Flynn investigation mum--even while encouraging Comey to continue the operation against Flynn. However, Rice frames this as if Obama knew no specifics and wanted no factual update. Instead, Obama is portrayed as offering only the most general sort of guidance--Do it "by the books," guys!

James Comey Unmasked

Again.

The disgraced former FBI Director is once again revealed as an evil, narcissistic, conniver. Just a despicable excuse for a human being.

The context this time, of course, is the complete declassification of Susan Rice's famous email-to-self--written on 1/20/17 (two weeks after the event), minutes before being escorted out of the White House to make way for the incoming Trump administration. In what may be his parting shot to The Swamp--but there's always hope!--Acting DNI Grenell did the deed and declassified the remaining paragraph in the email. Rice had hoped to keep that paragraph hidden until after any Trump second term.

Here is the full email. The previously redacted but now declassified portion is bolded:

On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office.  Vice President Biden and I were also present.

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”.  The President 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.

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.

Director Comey affirmed that he is proceeding "by the book" as it relates to law enforcement. From a national security perspective, Comey said he does have some concerns that incoming NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador Kislyak. Comey said that could be an issue as it relates to sharing sensitive information. President Obama asked if Comey was saying the NSC should not pass sensitive information related to Russia to Flynn. Comey replied "potentially. He added that he has no indication thus far that Flynn has passed classified information to Kislyak, but he noted that "the level of communication is unusual.

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.

This whole email reads very much like an ass covering exercise on behalf of Obama. The reason Susan Rice would have written this would be because--for the conspiratorial mindset--for Obama to have written something like this would have seemed too obviously self  serving. Rice writing it might seem more in keeping with the dutiful subordinate taking notes.

A Great Tucker Monologue

I'm sure many out there will have seen this already. I just want to memorialize it here, mostly for the segment in which Carlson exposes Susan Rice. The position that Flynn presents regarding China v. Russia as the greater threat to the US is a well reasoned and highly defensible one. Rice, cynically, attempts to turn that into an accusation of "treason" in the general sense. One that neither she nor any of the others were willing to repeat under oath.

OBAMAGATE! pic.twitter.com/pFbb6hgDhF

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 12, 2020

Btw, I do want it known, for the record, that when I first began following the Russia Hoax, I set up a new bookmarks folder and I named it "Obamagate," as it remains to this day.

The Plot Against Flynn Traced To The Oval Office

Andy McCarthy has a must-read article up this morning: Flynn and the Anatomy of a Political Narrative--a title which, in a sense, doesn't do justice to what McCarthy does in his article. McCarthy draws on newly revealed testimony as well as--crucially--information drawn from a NYT article that came out shortly after Flynn's resignation. By putting these sources together what emerges is a picture of Obama himself at the center of a conspiratorial web targeting the Trump administration through the framing of Flynn. We also see James Comey (disgraced former FBI Director) at the head of an empowered FBI--the key domestic agency in the US Intelligence Community because of its law enforcement functions--in McCarthy's words "running rings" around the FBI's "nominal superiors" at DoJ. Which is a telling fact.

McCarthy begins with ground that should be familiar by now--the Obama, Sally Yates, Comey "pull-aside" meeting in the Oval Office on January 5, 2017. This is the meeting described in the now released transcript of Mary McCord's House testimony as well as in Yate's interview by Team Mueller. (See: Mary McCord: Leak To David Ignatius Could Have Come From Obama WH.) Here's McCarthy's description of what occurred in that "pull-aside" small-group meeting:

After the main briefing, the president asked Yates and FBI director James Comey to stick around to meet with him, along with Vice President Biden and National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Yates was taken aback when Obama explained that he had “learned of the information about Flynn” and his conversation with Kislyak. She was startled because, she later told investigators, she “had no idea what the president was talking about.” 

Yates had to figure things out by listening to the exchanges between President Obama and FBI director Comey. The latter was not only fully up to speed, he was even prepared to suggest a potential crime — a violation of the moribund Logan Act — that might fit the facts.

Apparently Obama assumed that not only Comey but Yates as well would know what he was talking about re the Flynn/Kislyak conversation. In fact, Comey probably assumed the same, because Comey's right hand guy, disgraced former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, had called McCord, the head of DoJ's National Security Division (NSD) and briefed her on the Flynn/Kislyak call two days previously. However, McCord hadn't briefed Yates on the matter, as Obama and Comey assumed would have happened. McCarthy writes:

Save The Date!

Some brief Russia Hoax updates.

Toward the end of an interview yesterday (May 3, 2020) with Breitbart News Sunday, Sidney Powell was asked when this injustice against Michael Flynn would finally end. Joel Pollak did the interview and Powell's response was unambiguously straightforward:

BREITBART: So, why are they still prosecuting this man? Why is the Department of Justice not simply saying: You know what? We don't have a case any more. Your honor, we're just gonna throw this one away. 

POWELL: I think they're gonna hafta do that. I think they're gonna hafta do that by May 11th at noon at the latest. 

BREITBART: What makes that date particularly special? And that would be next Monday. 

POWELL: Because Judge Sullivan ordered them to respond to our supplement to the motion to dismiss by that day.

Save the date!

BTW, while the Breitbart web site transcribes much of the interview, that part is not included.

Another bombshell that is transcribed is this one:

Will Eric Ciaramella Be Implicated In The FISA Report?

Gregg Jarrett has a pretty shrewd article up today. It might not be immediately obvious how a GS-13 CIA and NSC analyst like Ciaramella could possibly be implicated in the FBI's FISA abuse, but Jarrett connects some dots, and the possibility is there. That possibility would also suggest an explanation for why Ciaramella--who is represented by top "whistleblower" DC lawyers, recommended to him by Adam Schiff--has developed an acute case of cold feet about testifying. Impeachment 3.0 looks like it wasn't thought out too well. 

TGP provides a handy list of circumstances that show that this Deep State political operative--a more accurate description of Ciaramella--was extremely well connected, beyond what one would expect from his nominal status. One of those circumstances which we've previously discussed is Ciaramella's likely role in propagating the Leftist fantasy that Putin "ordered Trump to fire James Comey." That connection is strongly suggested by the fact that a Ciaramella email regarding Trump's contact with Russian diplomats--following a Trump - Putin phone conversation--is cited but not quoted in a footnote on p. 283 of the Mueller Dossier:

[468] SCR08_000353 (5/9/17 White House Document, "Working Visit with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov of Russia"); SCR08_001274 (5/10/17 Email, Ciaramella to Kelly et al.). The meeting had been planned on May 2, 2017, during a telephone call between the President and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the meeting date was confirmed on May 5, 2017, the same day the President dictated ideas for the Comey termination letter to Stephen Miller. SCR08_001274 (5/10/17 Email, Ciaramella to Kelly et al.).

Get it? Trump spoke with Putin. Then, having received his orders, sat down with Stephen Miller to write up the Comey firing letter. What could be more obvious--to Lefty fantasists? Or cynical operatives like the ones who wrote the Mueller Dossier.

Who Is Eric Ciaramella?

This morning in a comment, Mike Sylwester linked to a blog at American Thinker that discussed possible "whistleblower" candidates: Who is the whistleblower? Eric Ciaramella is the third candidate discussed. There's some shocking material available about Ciaramella, who was a Susan Rice protege and was brought into the White House by H. R. McMaster, a truly disastrous appointment. Of course I have no idea whether Ciaramella is Sammy #1. I merely offer here some material re Ciaramella to show what Trump has been up against throughout his first term. These are excerpts only--the portions that pertain to Ciaramella--of longer blogs:

Ciaramella was involved in 2016 correspondence about $1 billion loan guarantee which Biden had held up, pending firing of prosecutor Viktor Shokin. Ciaramella associate of Clintonista neocon Victoria Nuland, whose name turns up too often, even re Steelehttps://t.co/vmkWBdjKU5

— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) 

Trump’s reshuffle: the McMaster Chronicles — Part 2

On May 15, Alex Jones and Roger Stone wondered if McMaster was leaking information to save his job. Jones tweeted:

Mc Master Caught Leaking to Make Himself Indespensible

On June 11, Cernovich posted again on Medium. The Right News has a copy (emphasis mine):

Meet Eric Ciaramella — H.R. McMaster Appoints Susan Rice Ally to be his Personal Aide

This is an explosive article, excerpted below (emphases in the original):

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: