Senator Chuck Grassley Questions Susan Rice About ‘Unusual’ Documentary Letter to Herself…

Earlier today Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley sent a letter to President Obama’s former National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, about a curious email she sent to herself documenting a White House conversation between President Obama and former FBI head James Comey (pdf below).

On the day of the inauguration, January 20th, 2017; at the very last minutes of the outgoing administration; Mrs. Rice documented a conversation which took place on January 5th, 2017 between President Obama, Asst. AG Sally Yates and FBI Director James Comey.  Vice-President Joe Biden and Susan Rice were in attendance.

On its face the Rice note would appear to be a CYA memo documenting a conversation in the larger effort of the White House in case the DOJ/FBI were discovered to be conspiring to create a series of false accusations, the “insurance policy” per se’, against the incoming president.  Rice appears to be leaving a document trail in the event she needed to extricate herself from risks associated with the intention of the ‘small group’.

The substance of the meeting surrounded the “Clinton-Steele Dossier”, and how the DOJ and FBI officials were pursuing the use therein.  The date of the meeting, January 5th, 2017,was amid a series of leaks from inside the FBI and DOJ toward allied media who were working diligently to frame a narrative of Russian collusion.

The meeting date described, January 5th, 2017, was immediately prior to FBI Director James Comey informing President-elect Trump of the dossier content.  That Comey/Trump meeting was quickly leaked to the media; and is noted in footnote #1 of the Grassley inquiry directing attention to a CNN report (Evan Perez, Jim Sciutto, and Jake Tapper).   We previously drew attention to the sketchy nature of the CNN reporting at the time – SEE HERE: “Anatomy of a Political Smear”:

CTH January 10th, 2017 – […] The framework for the latest narrative begins with a CNN report, constructed by a familiar set of characters (Jake Tapper, Jim Sciutto, Evan Perez and Carl Bernstein), all referencing a vague and intensely obtuse claim about Russians attempting to gain some form of opposition research leverage against President-elect Trump.

To establish the construct of their political narrative they must first set the cornerstone. The cornerstone must appear reasonable and prudent.  The cornerstone establishes their ‘high horse’ credibility position.

The team attempts to do this by presenting notification of a two page addendum to the DNI report on Russian interference with the 2016 election.  The CNN crew claim the addendum discusses Russians attempting to find opposition research on Trump.

The existence of this addendum comes from the ever predictable “unnamed official intelligence sources” etc.  Sound familiar?  It should.

The reported claim as outlined by Jack Tapper and crew, within the addendum, stems from a political opposition research file commissioned by Team Hillary Clinton and Team Never Trump in the run up to the election and reportedly executed by a British former intelligence agent.

CNN pushes the story today of the Russian black mail angle – SEE HERE – about the FBI/DNI summarizing the addendum from a 35 page oppo-research report which came as an outcome of this Clinton/NeverTrump commissioned investigation.

However, even CNN admits everything within the memo discussion is innuendo, allegations and unsubstantiated political rumor, ie. bullshit.

[…] One reason the nation’s intelligence chiefs took the extraordinary step of including the synopsis in the briefing documents was to make the President-elect aware that such allegations involving him are circulating among intelligence agencies, senior members of Congress and other government officials in Washington, multiple sources tell CNN.

[…] Some of the memos were circulating as far back as last summer. […] The two-page summary was written without the detailed specifics and information about sources and methods included in the memos by the former British intelligence official. (read more)

The entire construct is ridiculous, and these bizzarro memo claims are complete nonsense. It can be fully anticipated the 2 page addendum describing the ridiculous allegations, was largely saying they were nonsense.   Especially considering the details within the “memos” are wrong about the geography and locales they describe in Russia.

However, with the cornerstone firmly in place, thanks to CNN, it’s off to the political races.

Democrat Senators fully anticipating and given advanced notice of the play, introduce the ‘Russian Blackmail Memo Narrative’ at Senator Jeff Sessions confirmation hearing via Senator Al Franken.

The Daily Beast gleefully pushes the story. And the concerted effort of CNN and congress finally allows Buzzfeed to publish the memo’s they previously didn’t publish out of embarrassment for the ridiculous and absurd claims within them:

(Via Buzzfeed) […] The dossier, which is a collection of memos written over a period of months, includes specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives, and graphic claims of sexual acts documented by the Russians.

CNN reported Tuesday that a two-page synopsis of the report was given to President Barack Obama and Trump. (link)

See what they did there?  “Media reports on media reports” again.  All timed to coincide with the beginning of President Donald Trump’s cabinet confirmations.

See how that works?

Oh, and what happened to the 20 female “October Surprise” assault accusers?  Yeah, vanished right after their usefulness was gone.   We can expect the same disappearing outcome with this ridiculous CNN story line as soon as it holds no more value in diminishing the incoming White House.   Playbook returns to shelf.

It’s just how they roll.  (more)

Here’s the Chuck Grassley letter to Susan Rice requesting information and asking questions about why she felt it necessary to document the January 5th meeting:


Senator Grassley is not asking questions he doesn’t already know the answers to.

Grassley and Nunes are now beginning to draw the upper part of the administration into the matrices of the conspiracy.  Secretary of State John Kerry; CIA Director John Brennan; ODNI James Clapper; Attorney General Loretta Lynch; AAG Sally Yates; DAAG John P Carlin (DOJ-NSD), DAAG Mary McCord (DOJ-NSD); Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe and FBI Director James Comey are inherently wound-up in the larger plan.

Chairman Grassley is simply expanding the net.

All narrative collapses eventually lead to President Obama’s involvement.

Not everyone in/around the top of the DOJ and upper-level FBI was comfortable with the dynamic.  There are white hats amid the tiers.  NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers and a tenuously placed FBI Counterintelligence Head Bill Priestap are evidence therein.




This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Clinton(s), Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Desperately Seeking Hillary, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, Election 2016, FBI, NSA, President Trump, Spying, Susan Rice, THE BIG UGLY, Uncategorized, USA. Bookmark the permalink.

711 Responses to Senator Chuck Grassley Questions Susan Rice About ‘Unusual’ Documentary Letter to Herself…

  1. Joshua2415 says:

    So when Obama said he wanted everything done “by the book”, do you think he meant Rules for Radicals or Mao’s Little Red Book?


  2. fred5678 says:

    Just got an email fro my alma mater’s (Stanford) alumni association.

    Next year’s Homecoming weekend will feature not only the football game but a field trip to the nearby federal penitentiary to visit Susan Rice and the many other alumnae expected to be in prison (ValJar, Cheryl Mills, et al). The field trip will be hosted by Stanford alumna Chelsea Clinton, substituitmg for her soon-to-be incarcerated mother, who will be visited by her Yale fellow alumnae on their Homecoming the following weekend.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. i'm just sayin'.. says:

    Make it into a parable (this takes some reflection and work but it can be worth it). Think Nathan’s story to David about the rich man who stole the poor man’s sheep. Think Jesus’ parables; short, easy to understand in the day’s context and effective.
    Sometimes when the names and objects are changed to something imaginary but the illustrative motives and behaviors from the topical situation are retained an audiences mental and emotional defences may be lowered and a point can be made.

    Liked by 1 person

    • All American Snowflake says:

      Yeah… remember the Pharisees the Parable of the Vineyard Owner. I think they got the point. Slinking off like that. Hahaha
      “Because they knew He had said this parable against them, they were looking for a way to arrest Him, but they were afraid of the crowd. So they left Him and went away.” Mark 12:12


  4. Don L says:

    We didn’t do nuthin…see we left proof of our innocence right here in this e-mail, handy for all to see.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. JK says:

    Susan Rice probably pooped in her drawers when she read Grassley’s questions.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. cali says:

    Let’s get right to this clusterfarck of Susan Rice’s attempt to CYA. @Sundance I join you saying ‘it’s all bullshit’!
    Rice lied and nothing in that email is truthful. She gave it away what she emphasized that Barry Soetero told Comey and Yates to do everything ‘BY THE BOOK”. Oh my gosh how did any of these people ever get into their government position? Has Barry Soetero ever done anything by the book?
    In reality Brennan’s bud going back to Saudi Arabia Barry was nothing but a CIA cutout and foreign agent that was placed into the white house where he and Brennan et al ran a rogue CIA operation for all 8 years they were there. It started in 2007 when Brennan accessed Barry Soetero’s passport at the State department cleansing all the unfavorable and questionable info contained within. One of it was his 1981 visit to Pakistan with his Pakistani friend (pictured on the couch holding hands while smoking attending Occidental college). He was always a Sunni/MB member.
    I will never forget that episode because LT. Harris was murdered after that episode. He was scheduled to testify about who really accessed Barry’s passport.
    So all in all Rwanda Susan Rice is a criminally corrupt as they come. Take a close look who she is and who her father is. It will explain her rise in politics and agenda.
    Lastly: We will learn more about “Operation Pelican” very shortly that Obama did not handle ‘by the book’ refusing to follow US laws. Nukes disguised as ship containers are currently floating among tracked ship containers in the US. His Pakistani buddy whom he travelled with in 1981 just so happened to given control over a large port a contract Obama entered in without any approval.
    By the book? Susan Rice obviously never the smartest cookie in any jar couldn’t come up with anything better to argument an email she send to herself on 5 January 2017? Oh my!


  7. Zippy says:

    “How do wr educate the masses?”

    Considering that the neo-marxists (the workers/boss conflict didn’t fully take root because capitalism raised the prosperity of BOTH worker and boss is now replaced with a general victims/oppressor conflict which is -THE- reason for identity politics and pathological political correctness) control the media and academia, it is going to take a gargantuan effort.

    The first and MOST IMPORTANT step is to demand this LEARNED skill actually be taught in schools. It is acquired incidentally by taking science courses (as I did – many of them) that too many avoid, I suspect because they DO require that special skill that they haven’t developed and therefore are considered too difficult:

    “CRITICAL THINKING is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.”

    “I think people in power have a vested interest to oppose critical thinking. You see, if we don’t improve our understanding of CRITICAL THINKING and develop it as kind of second nature, we are just suckers ready to be taken by the next charlatan who ambles along… there are lots of ways to gain power and money by deceiving people who are not skilled in critical thinking.” – Carl Sagan, radio interview, May 1996

    “Despite the favorable opinions of undergraduates and alumni, a closer look at the record…shows that colleges and universities, for all the benefits they bring, accomplish far less for their students than they should… Many cannot reason clearly or perform competently in analyzing complex, non-technical problems, even though faculties rank CRITICAL THINKING as the primary goal of a college education…Most have never taken a course in quantitative reasoning or acquired the knowledge needed to be a reasonably informed citizen in a democracy.” – Derek Bok, former 20 year president of Harvard University in his book “Our Underachieving Colleges”


  8. doit4atlas says:

    And tell them to watch Hannity…he may be a pain in the butt at times, but he explains over and over and over and over and over. They will catch on eventually.


  9. dawg says:

    I think people are focusing on the wrong part of the email.

    The paragraph in her email that is giving me pause is this one:

    “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.”

    So we have:

    1st paragraph: “We had a meeting”

    2nd paragraph: “Pres said to do it by the book”

    3rd paragraph: “HOWEVER, Pres said we can’t necessarily disclose everything to the next admin.”

    I think THIS 3rd paragraph is the whole point of this email, and the whole point of the little meeting in the Oval Office. There is nothing else extraordinary in the email. This one word paragraph, with the word HOWEVER, stands out to me. She is saying that the President told us that we can’t necessarily disclose everything to the next admin. We do everything else “by the book”, but we can’t share the classified info “by the book”.

    4th paragraph: Classified/redacted; Has House intel committee seen this paragraph? Footer said its part of Presidential record, which remains classified I thought.

    5th part: Obama asks Comey to keep him posted of anything that would affect how they share classified info to the Trump team. Comey says ok.

    It seems that the whole point of the meeting was for Obama to make sure that everyone knew they can’t tell the Trump team everything, or anything, as they make the handoff.

    The next day, Jan. 6, Comey meets Trump for the first time at Trump Tower.

    What her specific intent was of writing this email, Im not sure. She seems to be trying to memorialize the fact that Obama instructed them on Jan 5 NOT to disclose everything to the incoming admin. Maybe throwing him under the bus, not sure.

    But I think the point of the meeting itself is clear.


    Liked by 1 person

  10. Deplore Able says:

    Who is Curtis R. Ried was was CCed on Rice’s e-mail to herself. From the e-mail address it appears he was also employed by the National Security Council, Executive Office of the President, but I also see that at one time he worked for the United States Mission to the United Nations and was also a Foreign Service Officer at the State Department. He seems to have lots of connections to Rice and Hillary. It seems he followed Rice around in her career. A camp follower?

    Liked by 1 person

  11. jeans2nd says:

    One is able to easily see how Rice, Obama, and Mob will be able to circle round and counter all these arguments.

    Let us go back to the basics, as always applying the KISS principle, a required rule in life (for me, anyway).
    Go back to the original unanswered words and, perhaps more importantly, questions.

    Which brings us back to the prescient words and still un-answered question of a patriotic American from nearly a year ago –

    —>>>”Why did you notify Clapper and the White House but delay congressional notification?” (NOT Stefanik’s question, btw)
    For Rice, Obama, and Mob – same question, paraphrased “Why was Congress not notified, especially as this was serious enough to consider not notifying the incoming Trump administration of certain things?

    “Comey is admitting to intentionally acting without oversight.”
    Seems Rice, Obama, and Mob are as well.
    Were the suspicions truly as outlined in Rice’s email to self, seems all the more urgent to notify Congressional oversight. For the security of the nation and all.

    “That said, James Comey has an expressed interest in claiming an ongoing investigation exists …just to ensure the prior administration contact and behavior was shielded behind the wall of “an ongoing investigation.””

    As, obviously, does Rice, Obama, and Mob. Shielded behind the “wall” of Rice’s email to self, that is. Hence this Rice email to self.

    “Comey is admitting to intentionally acting without oversight.”
    According to Rice’s email, apparently so is Rice, Obama, and Mob.

    A pattern seems to be emerging, does it not?
    There is more, but this suffices for now.
    By The Book.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. G. Combs says:

    Urban Dictionary: “by the book”
    May 8, 2010 – Inspired by the use of this phrase in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, “buy-the-book” is used to communicate to the other party that there is a third party listening and disinformation is necessary.


  13. Bill says:

    I think the following is the reason, for the Race email to herself on January 5, 2017.

    “♦ On Thursday November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Mike Rogers traveled to New York and met with President-Elect Donald Trump.

    ♦ On Friday November 18th The Washington Post reported on a recommendation in “October” that Mike Rogers be removed from his NSA position:

    The heads of the Pentagon and the nation’s intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed.”


  14. jello333 says:

    This is similar to what sometimes happens in court cases, and is a nightmare for the side that messes up. Either a prosecutor or a defense attorney, or sometimes a witness, makes a statement or asks/answers a question that they didn’t think was a big deal. But turns out that that presumed innocent, boring little question or answer has the effect of “opening the door” to a whole new, MUCH LARGER line of questioning by the opposition. This can quite easily shift the entire momentum of a case. A MASSIVE “oops!” for whichever side made the mistake.

    Anyway, kinda looks like Rice did this when she decided to get all cutesy and write herself that email. Based on his many questions stemming from this single email, Grassley is like, “Hey thanks, Susan… appreciate you opening that door for us.” 😉


  15. pencil_pushin says:

    Fox News judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said “So you are a juror in a courtroom and you learn that an event occurred on January 5th and one of the people at the event 16 days later decides to write a memo summarizing what happened at the event. She writes the memo after Barack Obama is out of office, it’s 12:15 in the afternoon, his term ended 15 minutes earlier, after she no longer had a job. My suspicion, and I think Senator Graham shares this as well, is that they learned something between January 5th and January 20th which caused them to want to change the narrative about this meeting.”

    Could they have read Inspector General Horowitz’s memo announcing a sweeping review of Justice Department and FBI actions leading up to the November election on January 12?


  16. Holmes says:

    If Grassley already knows the answers to his questions, and I’m guessing he has a pretty good idea what the answers are, then those answers must have been provided by someone who was in that meeting (Rice, Comey, Yates, Obama, Biden). But who? And why?

    For various reasons, it doesn’t seem like any of those five would leak that info. Were other unnamed persons of lesser status also there who are now talking?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s