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.

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

  1. georgiafl says:

    Liked by 5 people

    • georgiafl says:

      Liked by 5 people

    • mitrom says:

      Wictor is very insightful and interesting, but there is no way Rice wrote that memo to implicate Obama. It was a poor attempt to try to protect Obama, Biden, and herself. She’s a serial liar and is deep in this fake plot.

      Liked by 7 people

      • dawg says:

        Agree 100%


      • Tonawanda says:

        I respectfully disagree. I believe Wictor may be correct here based on the timing of the email but especially the language.

        I believe many of the corrupt leftists are either stupid or far less intelligent than they think, but I do not believe Rice could possibly be as stupid as her language in this email suggests, NOR could she actually believe that the email could possibly exonerate anybody of anything.

        No, as Wictor says, she was documenting the fact that BO KNEW about the investigation (IMO).


  2. MTK says:

    The orange jump suit woman. Who is it?
    It looks like a still from the ‘Orange is the new black’ show.

    SD, are you saying Rice is in protective custody.

    Makes one wonder if the Obama administration, would have been better advised to just remove all the ‘T’ from WH computers and called it a day.

    Liked by 3 people

    • All Too Much says:

      “Makes one wonder if the Obama administration, would have been better advised to just remove all the ‘T’ from WH computers and called it a day.”


      Liked by 3 people

  3. georgiafl says:

    When Stefanik presses Comey….

    Liked by 15 people

  4. Coast says:

    Will Rice be able to use hair straightener once she’s in prison?

    Liked by 5 people

  5. evergreen says:

    Particularly in this extreme and felony-ridden collective effort, memorializing such a meeting two weeks after the fact is not a “memorialization”; it is a fabrication.

    Contemporaneous memorialization cannot, by definition, invoke future events beyond their ability to be reasonably predicted. It reflects a state of mind as perfectly as can be expressed: it IS the current state, even if the facts are fudged.

    Memorialization in hindsight, however, is informed by actual events. Reality may have Schiffted for the worse in the interim, and the possibilities of who expressed what to whom are endless. Therefore the value of the memo is reduced to nil, and in fact can become negative: a potential proof of adverse state of mind…and guilt.

    Liked by 10 people

    • MVW says:

      The email does two things incontrovertible.
      First, it says there was a meeting, the date, who was there, includes Obama and Biden, that the subject was the dossier, and that the dossier was previously discussed with Obama.
      Second, it does not explain why she, Susan Rice, was there.

      Why was she there????? Prior role? What was that role?

      Liked by 5 people

      • Rynn69 says:

        In addition, it gives the white hats a nice little trail of who was involved in this despicable cabal. Dumb. Just dumb.

        Liked by 4 people

        • scott467 says:

          “In addition, it gives the white hats a nice little trail of who was involved in this despicable cabal. Dumb. Just dumb.”


          Q: “These people are stupid.”

          Liked by 2 people

      • dawg says:

        Where in the email does it say anything about the dossier?

        Liked by 1 person

        • nimrodman says:

          Rice’s email doesn’t mention the dossier but she does describe the Jan 5, 2017 meeting as following a briefing by “IC leadership”.

          Grassley, however, DOES mention the dossier explicitly (first sentence page 2 of his letter to Rice), he says:

          “That meeting reportedly included a discussion of the Steele dossier and the FBI’ s investigation of its claims. 1 “

          … where ‘1’ is footnote 1 that cites a Jan 12 CNN article about IC leadership briefings to Pres-elect Trump on “Russian efforts to compromise him” and also that Obama was briefed similarly at the time.

          So Grassley is stating that both Obama and Trump were briefed on the dossier and stating that it was a topic of the Jan 5 meeting. He’s not asking Rice, he’s telling her. He has put that point together from various sources I presume (press reports, first-hand records of the Jan 5 meeting, etc).

          And just upthread MVW states that the dossier was a topic of the meeting, I haven’t reviewed back to see how that was put together.

          In summary, Rice’s Jan 20 email doesn’t mention the dossier but apparently other sources establish that it was part of the Jan 5 “meeting” that Rice is trying to launder in her email.

          That’s the little bit of it that I’m surmising, having just browsed quickly and not read in-depth the past couple days because I’ve got family in town and have been playing host.


      • Tonawanda says:

        Exactly: time, place, participants, subject matter.


      • BobInFL says:

        I think it very interesting that Joe Biden is included in this…..first time he is explicitly stated to have knowledge of goings on I think?

        Liked by 1 person

    • boogywstew says:

      Well written … succinct … Shakespeare was thinking of you … ‘Brevity is the soul of wit.”

      Liked by 1 person

    • scott467 says:

      “Particularly in this extreme and felony-ridden collective effort, memorializing such a meeting two weeks after the fact is not a “memorialization”; it is a fabrication.”


      Worse, it’s evidence of knowledge of wrongdoing.

      And entering false reports on matters of national security (or any other official capacity) in the attempt to evade prosecution is, at a minimum, obstruction of justice.

      In the furtherance of the crime (Treason), she just identified herself as being complicit.

      Thanks for playing, Susan.

      Liked by 4 people

  6. Michelle says:

    1) Shouldn’t all investigations be handled by the book? Why would Obama need to tell them to handle it by the book? It’s like that scene in A Fee Good Men where Tom Cruise asks Jack Nicholson “if you ordered Santiago not to he touched, and your orders are always followed, why would you have to transfer him off the base?”

    2) I guess Obama really was getting updates on FBI investigations despite his claims to the contrary!

    Liked by 10 people

    • Rynn69 says:

      Nice points…especially the latter. Sort of blows to bits his blissful ignorance.

      Liked by 2 people

    • scott467 says:

      “1) Shouldn’t all investigations be handled by the book?”


      We mustn’t assume what book she means.

      Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’ is the primary likelihood.

      She definitely wasn’t referring to any book of American law. They only used those for shredding.

      Liked by 5 people

      • d2i says:

        BINGO! scott467 – ‘We mustn’t assume what book she means’ – the ‘by the book’ is in quotation marks for a reason. Rice wanted that to stand out. Why? Well, most would read ‘by the book’ as following the rules, protocol… But in slang or hood speak ‘by the book’ is ‘used to communicate to the other party that there is a third party listening and disinformation is necessary.’ Get it?

        Who may have been BCC’d on that email? Who may have been listening in? – ‘by the book’

        Liked by 1 person

  7. All Too Much says:

    Imperator Rex and others are saying WH visitor logs contradict Rice email.
    The meeting Rice memorialized didn’t happen per the WH log.

    Liked by 9 people

  8. Donald Trump says:

    Heres a wild card; Mueller is investigating Russian Collusion, but not by Donald Trump. Hes investigating it by Obama/Clinton. Mueller was always a man of law, so after years of having to bite his tongue over numerous scandals under the Obama admin he finally got his shot at payback without the threat of losing his job. Mueller KNOWS what we know, and a lot more. He knows where the collusion happened. And only a fool would try to frame Trump at this point. I think there would be many Americans rightfully marching to Muellers office (hopefully peacefully) for answers if Mueller tried to frame Trump. Remember, Mueller was interviewed by Trump for the FBI director position. Why would trump even consider hiring an EX Obama official? This was their plan all along. The flynn charges are fake, knowing they would be dropped due to the illegality of how flynn was unmasked and those unmasked transcripts being part of him lying. (Fruit of the poisonous tree). Also why Flynn pleaded out immediately, more evidence of this is his sentencing being postponed. The flynn/manafort/papadopoulous arrests are all pretenses to give mueller credibility to the rabit liberals who have praised and vouched for him. (Also why numerous republicans have said that the memo doesnt hurt or impede mueller investigation) Now when Mueller drops the hammer on Obama/Clinton, he will have already established all the credibility possible with the liberals and the media and they will have nothing to say. Only a stable genius could pull this ofd. MAGA #45

    Liked by 3 people

    • Sandra-VA says:

      Why are using the President’s name as your userid?

      I don’t think Mueller is doing what you think… considering the assemblage of Clintonites on his team.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Anonymous says:

      “Heres a wild card; Mueller is investigating Russian Collusion, but not by Donald Trump. Hes investigating it by Obama/Clinton.”

      Very unlikely. Look at who is/was on his team. People like Strozk and Page. Gunning for Trump. It is not a bipartisan team.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Donald Trump says:

        I agree, but if mueller was planted by trump to secretly investigate the corruption, then what better way then to bring the corrupt individuals on to your team and say “does anyone have any ideas/whats your plan moving forward?” And they are probably dumb enough to tell mueller everything. But just a guess.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Rynn69 says:

      Interesting theory, but Mueller in all likelihood has 99.99% bad intentions. Look into the scandals and problems that occurred under his direction during his tenure as FBI Director (2001-2013). He is a swamp creature. And I am sure that Stetson on his head is black…

      Liked by 1 person

    • jakee308 says:

      This implies a depth of knowledge of the conspiracy that doesn’t put Mueller in a very good light in my view. If he knew this was happening why wait for Trump to be elected?


    • GB Bari says:

      I’ll stick my “neck” out and upvote you on that one. Mueller has been more silent than Sessions and Priestap if you think about it. Unless I missed something, he could be working on the next moon shot for all anyone out here in the daylight knows. Trump has voiced or tweeted “unemotional” words of support several times. But AFAIK never really blasting Mueller in his tweet barrages. Could be a subtle indicator.

      Liked by 3 people

    • dayallaxeded says:

      All of this has been discussed before. Read first, then comment. And get your own username. Posting under anyone else’s real name is rude and unethical. Posting under PDJT’S name is those things and presumptuous.

      Liked by 4 people

  9. Newhere says:

    Rice’s overly-parsed summary hides the scandal in plain sight.

    First, a classic case of Few Good Men “why give two orders ….”: Now, Mr. President, I have just one more question ….. if your “commitment” to “ensuring that every aspect […] is handled by the book” is, as you say, a “continued commitment” (i.e., not something you woke up caring about just this morning), then why would you need to “stress” the direction at all? Surely the top brass at Justice already are “crystal clear” about any “continued commitment” of the president? Was this a “continued commitment” you were keeping to yourself until your way out the door? Surely you didn’t suspect that the finest justice department in the world was ignoring the importance you place on following the law, and needed reminding?

    Second, why would Obama only get around to asking that “we be mindful” about sharing Russia-related information “as we engage with the incoming team” …… in January? The transition was nearly over.

    So why scratch out a hasty CYA, and wait until the not-so-subtle date of Jan 20?

    My guess? The trigger was the imminent Flynn caper. Maybe on that Friday, Jan 20 (their very last chance to paper the record), it dawned that the convergence of “national security” mischief and law enforcement mischief was about to get real: the Flynn interview was to happen that Tues., Jan. 24 (perjury trap set), and by Thurs. Jan. 26 Yates would be warning WH counsel that the new NSA director was irredeemably compromised. Rice/Obama/Biden wanted to make sure any traces or fingerprints could be explained as “from national security perspective only….” (And note: in the Clapper/Yates Senate Testimony, Clapper expressly notes in his opener that any “direct” knowledge of events ceased on Jan. 20 …… his own plausible deniability.)

    Liked by 3 people

  10. CorwinAmber says:

    “you PURPORT to document a meeting”…bwaaahhh! I love the sly sense of humour herein – that’s my old Senator Chuck having some fun with his prey…nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. “Purport” – what a great word…methinks I gotta use it more often meself.

    Liked by 9 people

  11. scott467 says:

    Susan Rice: “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.”


    Since NOTHING the Hussein administration did — from the beginning — was by any ‘book’ of American LAW, the question becomes, to what book is Susan Rice referring?

    The Book of the Dead?

    The Necronomicon?

    Liked by 3 people

  12. Rynn69 says:

    Clearly, these people are not the most intelligent in the room and ooze guilt. Rice said “by the book” twice in this memo to herself. I am reminded of the quote by Margaret Thatcher: “Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.” I think the same thing applies here. If you have to state everything is “by the book” repeatedly, it is not by the book. Timelines are key in all investigations (see wonderful work done on Political Vanguard website. This whole Obama-FBI/DOJ-Clinton cabal has a damning timeline.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Rynn69 says:

      Clearly, these people are not the most intelligent in the room and ooze guilt. Rice said “by the book” twice in this memo to herself. I am reminded of the quote by Margaret Thatcher: “Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.” I think the same thing applies here. If you have to state everything is “by the book” repeatedly, it is not by the book. Timelines are key in all investigations (see wonderful work done on Political Vanguard website). This whole Obama-FBI/DOJ-Clinton cabal has a damning timeline.

      Liked by 2 people

  13. asdf says:

    Obama said he never got involved in Criminal investigations, but he might have good reason to get updates about counter intelligence investigations. National Security, Commander in Chief and all

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Republicanvet91 says:

    If Comey was such a stellar, unimpeachable straight shooter, why would Obama have to repeatedly stress that he conduct his job “by the book”?

    Liked by 4 people

  15. Bill says:

    I would love to see the IG’s report on this time frame. Documents, we have not seen.


  16. phoenixRising says:

    Liked by 2 people

  17. If it ever comes out that “O” is not a US citizen, he could legally be held in Gitmo as a foreign spy. Wouldn’t that be icing on the cake.

    Liked by 5 people

    • scott467 says:

      He can legally be held in Gitmo as an enemy combatant, right now, regardless of his true nationality, thanks to a bill signed into law by Hussein himself, during his reign of terror.

      This article from a hostile (to America) source, the ACLU:

      December 31, 2011



      WASHINGTON – President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law today. The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations. The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA, but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill.

      “President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”

      Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again.”

      That is just one example of MANY, how far our Republic has been undermined by these traitors.

      An American citizen, on American soil, can be detained, indefinitely, without charge or trial.

      Hussein signed it into Law.

      Let him be the beneficiary of what he meant and intended to be used against us.

      Liked by 4 people

  18. scott467 says:

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


    Which means the truthful answers to those questions will definitely harm Susan Rice and everyone at the top level of the administration, including Hussein.

    And if she gives answers that are lies, it will only hurt Susan Rice and everyone at the top level of the Hussein administration even worse.

    That’s what I call a ‘win-win’ scenario 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

  19. tav144 says:

    OMG. I think I see exactly what and why she did that. I believe that meeting was actually their strategy meeting and I bet dollars to donuts that in fact it was the opposite that Obama said. I bet they got their marching orders that day straight from Obama’s mouth. There’s your conspirators.
    Then just prior to inauguration POTUS had her write that self serving email so that if this all blew up in their face, Comey and Yates and the rest of them would be set up to take the fall. This letter was the bus he threw them all under it.
    Now the truly genius is that this realization has to be hitting the rest of them, as they know what was actually said, plus it has got to be pretty worrisome wondering what is under that redaction. This has got to make some of them squirm and it’s just a matter of time until somebody talks.

    Liked by 4 people

    • deqwik2 says:

      Tom Cotton said the following to Hugh Hewitt

      “Susan rice is the Typhoid Mary of the Obama administration foreign policy. Every time something went wrong, she seemed to turn up in the middle of it, whether it was these allegations of improper unmasking and potential improper surveillance, whether it was Benghazi, or many of the other fiascos over the eight years of the Obama administration.”

      Liked by 2 people

  20. GB Bari says:

    Drip drip drip is turning into a steady trickle…..

    Liked by 3 people

  21. phoenixRising says:

    Liked by 2 people

  22. scott467 says:

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


    Like orbital debris on the event horizon, hurtling into the singularity.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. daizeez says:

    Who would send an email to themselves just before leaving the office forever?

    Liked by 2 people

  24. scott467 says:

    “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.”



    Admiral Rogers was / is the head of No Such Agency, not DOJU or FIB.

    And Señor Priestap… was he a ‘white hat’ before Comey threw him under the bus at the committee hearing, or because of it?

    Liked by 1 person

  25. WOW, I mean WOW S D…
    TIME to LAWYER UP everybody !!
    Hey SUSAN, Hows if feel to be in the hot seat 4 a change ?
    Your and your fellow traitors CARMA really sucks , wouldn t ya say?

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Thinking about this alot says:

    Keep in mind, the Obummer team attending this meeting, were aware that Admiral Rogers had advised Trump of their treasonous activities…Of course, the Rice Memo is a hoked up CYA document….”However, Mrs. Rice since you brought it up, please answer the following questions”…

    Liked by 1 person

  27. distracted2 says:

    Two thoughts –

    If one has to announce one’s actions are “by the book”, they likely aren’t. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be necessary to make such a proclamation.

    And, two, this letter completely contradicts Obama’s statement that he never involves himself in an investigation. “Full stop” is what he said to Chris Wallace in that interview.

    The discussion begins at about the 10:00 mark.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Keebler AC says:

      Exactly. If there is no wrongdoing going on then there is no memo needed. She does contradict Obama this is true. He stated he wanted to be kept up to date. So how much did he know and when did he know it? One thing is for sure, Obama detests President Trump. Because President Trump wants to make America great again! This is the complete antithesis of Obama‘s presidency. He was chomping at the bit for the Clinton Steele dossier and had the power as sitting president to politicize the FBI under Lynch, and before that Eric holder. It does not look good for him.

      Liked by 1 person

    • distracted2 says:

      I should add that this video is the interview that Judge Napolitano was referencing today on Martha MacCallum’s show on Fox.


  28. Keebler AC says:

    That she had to pen a memo 15 days before President Trump‘s inauguration to absolve herself, Biden, and Obama is in itself incriminating. The memo signals she was aware of her involvement in a highly suspicious and nefarious activity. otherwise, why bother with a memo to “herself?

    Liked by 1 person

  29. phoenixRising says:

    Liked by 6 people

  30. phoenixRising says:

    Liked by 3 people

  31. phoenixRising says:

    Liked by 2 people

  32. Name Redacted says:

    Susan Rice may become the Webb Hubbell of the Obama era.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. GREENMIRROR says:

    Obama absolutely knew the “insurance policy”.
    Jan 5 this meeting
    Jan 10 Al Frankin given knowledge Flynn has met with Kislyak
    Jan 12 WP Ignatius has leaked info Flynn met with Kislyak
    Jan 13 Hallie Jackson has leaked info Flynn met with Kislyak
    Jan 15 Face the Nation Dickerson, Ignatius attempt entrapment of Mike Pence & Rex Tillerson
    Jan 19 Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Yates discuss impeachment
    Jan 20 Trump and Pence Take Oath, Rice tries to cover for entire mess with Benghazi tactics

    Liked by 2 people

  34. 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?


  35. 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

  36. 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

  37. JK says:

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

    Liked by 2 people

  38. 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!


  39. 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

  40. 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

  41. 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

  42. 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.


  43. 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.”


  44. 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.” 😉


  45. 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?


  46. 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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s