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.

.

 

 

Advertisements
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.

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

  1. rf121 says:

    So each day when these conspiritors come here to see what Sundance has unveiled next I am wondering if they are eating popcorn also. I am sure they have one of those boxed wines and I guess it does not last the night. Maybe a vodka shot everytime time they see the Text.

    Liked by 6 people

  2. Doppler says:

    Note how coordinated Obama’s remarks in mid-April 2016 characterizing Clinton’s conduct appear to be with Comey’s initial draft of the exoneration memo in early May, as if following HRC’s talking points. No intent, no real harm.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/358982-early-comey-memo-accused-clinton-of-gross-negligence-on-emails

    Liked by 9 people

  3. trapper says:

    Remember this?

    http://thesouthern.com/news/local/federal-government-finally-buys-thomson-prison/article_25dfea86-0d16-11e2-8164-001a4bcf887a.html

    The Obama administration purchased a maximum security prison from the State of Illinois. How’s that for prescience? The Obama crew can all room together, just like camp. And everyone thought he was planning a move to Hawaii.

    Liked by 12 people

    • stobberdobber says:

      “Seb Dadin (@Awan_Scandal) says: https://i.redd.it/jpdv5wegwvf01.jpg

      Technically I guess that may have been true. After all the only real verification that he talked about the “Russia” thing is the directors subordinates. LOL

      Like

    • fabrabbit says:

      Andy McCarthy makes the distinction that the POTUS has a duty to be up-to-date about counterintelligence matters vs. law enforcement matters. (Nat Review: 2/8/18). Steele dossier mess is counterintelligence. Put aside the fact that they were all acting illegally. Lawyerly speaking he is correct and Obama squeaks through a loophole on this.

      Like

    • PS says:

      The problem with lying is that you have to remember all your lies to keep your story straight. And now the truth is trickling out.

      Like

      • fabrabbit says:

        And think about the backstabbing among them…Comey is probably the master of this. Just like what he did to Priestap. The trouble is turning on anyone might just cause them to go to their lawyer to make a deal with the white hats.

        Like

  4. jbrickley says:

    What in the heck are Mueller and all his lackey’s and staff doing all day, every day? They have got absolutely nothing but rumors and gossip. Are they ordering catered lunches? They must be getting paid a salary. Do they have daily, weekly briefings where they go over all this investigation data they supposedly have dug up? Are they like those New York City teachers who messed up and required to report to the naughty teacher in school suspension and sit there collecting their salary and keeping their benefits and pensions because the union won’t let the city administration fire them? Just what in the heck are these people doing all day long? The taxpayers want to know! Is it still We The People right?

    Liked by 3 people

  5. lastinillinois says:

    A nice little reminder about who, exactly, Barack Obama is and how he treats even those whom he has to credit for his rise thru the political ranks.

    In other words, pack your bags Susan Rice – you are the ‘under-the-busser’.

    http://mobile.wnd.com/2012/04/why-obamas-political-mentor-deserted-him/

    Liked by 9 people

    • lastinillinois says:

      By the way, the woman in this article (Alice Palmer) who refers obama for his first congressional seat – and then gets screwed over by obama – is an avowed communist.

      Liked by 2 people

    • WSB says:

      That’s quite a story. I thought I read everything by Jerome Corsi. But this was a real eye opener.

      Liked by 4 people

    • luke says:

      The fact is regardless if any of these fools see jail we are sooo lucky they lost. Check out Michelle’s portrait and her artist’s other paintings. It really gives me chills to think how close we just came to the point of no return.

      Liked by 1 person

    • maiingankwe says:

      This article is five years old. I didn’t even know this, and I find that shameful.
      The lady on the left claimed a great deal of people learned about this through her. Well, it wasn’t enough was it?

      My question is why didn’t they turn around do this to obama the second time around? Fair play right? In addition, if Palmer had gone a knocking and found there wasn’t anything wrong with any of the signatures than why didn’t she take it to court? Was her life threatened then? If it had been, I sincerely doubt she would’ve wanted to go to dinner with the lady on the left.

      Who knows, maybe that’s why the hag cheated as she did, she felt entitled since it had been done against her as well. I really don’t think it would have made a difference, I truly believe she would’ve cheated any way she could, she just felt more entitled this time around is all.

      Liked by 2 people

      • wolfmoon1776 says:

        It is very important to understand that there is NO loyalty in the communist party. The party was behind Obama (see below). But apparently they were not going to tell EVEN Alice Palmer. They USED her to get Obama into politics, but that is all. They did not, apparently, TELL her that Obama was “the anointed one”. Perhaps they later got her to back off, but my guess is that they would not risk telling her. Instead, they would just weaken her and sabotage any problems she might create for Obama.

        This incident is an AMAZING window into the actual functioning of the CPUSA. There will be BOOKS written about this incident.

        Liked by 1 person

    • wolfmoon1776 says:

      Here is the deal. One will be lost in the weeds of DISINFORMATION on this – UNLESS one knows the about Tom Fife, and how he discovered in 1992 that Obama had ALREADY been picked by the Soviet communists as their champion to get into the White House.

      Alice Palmer was not betrayed by Obama. She was betrayed by THE COMMUNIST PARTY. They were behind Obama 100%. She was old and washed up and had no future. Obama had all kinds of future and no record. HE was their weapon.

      People NEED to start putting the pieces together. If you haven’t followed the story on Tom Fife, I did a tweet on it just recently.

      Liked by 3 people

      • wheatietoo says:

        I remember the Tom Fife story…and thanks for bringing it up, Wolfie!
        It’s chilling, isn’t it.

        Of course, we weren’t allowed to speak of these things while the O was in the WH — because to do so was “racist”.

        Liked by 2 people

        • wolfmoon1776 says:

          It is right now very worth listening to the Tom Fife story, because it really explains EVERYTHING.

          If you KNOW that Obama is a Soviet-supported communist (soviet meaning basically the “globalism of communism”), then it all makes sense. Everybody Obama picked – his “red diaper cabinet” – the works. Why Hillary had to come next. It’s all neatly explained. Who are the commies, who are the fellow travelers, who are the dupes, who are the corruptos. Everything fits. Every NEW piece fits, too. I never fell for Wictor’s bad idea on Susan Rice, because I knew when the communists nailed her, and never saw her flinch. from her duties. She has NOT provided enough value against them to be a spy, IMO. If she is, she’s providing more value to THEM, not US.

          Liked by 2 people

      • d2i says:

        Geez, wolfmoon I totally forgot about Fife. That was a crazy story and very believable. Fife went on record numerous times. He wasn’t the slightest bit shy or intimidated. Thanks for the refreshing my memory…

        Liked by 1 person

        • wolfmoon1776 says:

          You’re welcome!

          The reason I never doubted Fife was because I had read Paul Kengor’s book about Frank Marshall Davis FIRST. I was just totally lucky on that. It turns out I got red-pilled in a very specific order of information. Kengor’s scholarly and well-documented history of FMD provides a super-powerful framework of reality, and disinformation about Obama and others simply doesn’t stick. However, proper suspicions hover around patiently, waiting to fit like puzzle pieces.

          One of the more interesting aspects of the communists is their ability to hide their connection, once they turn sneaker. However, they still have a huge signature, and history shows it in technicolor.

          Obama was always “good for” being what he is going to be shown to be.

          Like

  6. jimsung says:

    You all should consider how a MESH works. We have Page-Strzok’s text messages. But, if the illegal actions in those text messages lead to a warrant (or DoJ/IG) request for other people’s texts and emails, then the chain just keeps going. 2 people become 4 (just guessing to make a point). 4 becomes 8. 8 becomes 16. 16 becomes 32. 32 becomes 64 and so on. Once this thing is busted wide open, look out.

    If Page-Strzok were willing to say so much through texts and emails imagine what others have said. Then, imagine a percentage of each of these folks begging for a deal. This is a snowball that is just beginning to roll down hill.

    I wonder how much of Apple iMessage is captured? The senior folks at the FBI wanted to use Apple iPhones. Page-Strzok referenced many times switching to that iMessage app to discuss sensitive issues. Page-Strzok were angry at Apple for fighting to prevent the FBI from accessing their encryption. They sent NY Times articles referencing the issue. Ironically, they were using that encryption to speak secretly.

    If you download Snowden’s NSA classified material, it shows that the NSA has a backdoor access to the Apple kernel (core). I’m not sure if this is still the case. If it is still so, the NSA may have the ability to break the Apple encryption and record their texts in real time. What they thought might be secure may not actually be. (To computer geeks, I’m not trying to confuse data at rest vs data in transit.)

    Liked by 3 people

    • Campesino says:

      So far most of the revelations we’ve seen come down to the Page and Strzok texts. Much of what happens may come down to the calculation:

      A. How much do Page & Strzok want to stay out of jail?

      B. How afraid are Page & Strzok if they turn evidence to stay out of jail that “accidents” might happen to them?

      Like

    • Rhonda Philips says:

      It’s all available to NSA,…zero privacy. The request for access was a smokescreen for what was already i their posession in violation of Citizens’right to privacy (otherwise considered a warrant-less search).
      Sociopaths are on the loose.

      Like

  7. Whitehouse Clown says:

    25 years in the Army and “by the book” means use any methods necessary but leave a trail that is legal.

    Liked by 15 people

  8. OSP says:

    I find it interesting that Grassley asks Rice:

    “Do you have any reason to dispute the timestamp of the email?”

    Imagine if the timestamp was somehow altered…and Grassley is already aware of this.
    That would be golden.

    Liked by 8 people

    • mimbler says:

      Another explanation could be Grassley thinks it looks very suspicious to be documenting a meeting that took place a couple of weeks previously, rather than at the time.
      So he could be asking her in a roundabout way if she admits the time discrepancy is true,

      Liked by 4 people

      • Stormyeyes says:

        she was out at noon Timestamp is 12:15

        Like

      • Jay Wizz says:

        Yep. This is the correct analysis. The only reason you’d document a meeting weeks later is in reaction to events that occurred in those weeks.

        The entire purpose of documenting a meeting immediately after that meeting occurs, is because it’s decent evidence precisely because it can’t be in reaction to events post meeting.

        This email is very suspicious.

        Liked by 5 people

    • elricviii says:

      And everyone knows that computer time stamps are very hard to fake. – Claude Elsinore in Strange Brew

      Liked by 1 person

      • Judy W says:

        BO’s fake birth certificate comes to mind. I believe we will in due time have that story filled in for us but that is the least of the stories now that seemed like the biggest story in our history just a few years ago.

        Liked by 2 people

        • luke says:

          I think I can help. It was a Trump trick and one of my favs.

          DT “Hey Barack where’s your BC?”

          O “Trump shut your mouth if you know what’s good for you.”

          DT “Cmon Barak show us your BC.”

          Media..”this is outrageous, this is racist. Just give that racist pig your BC Barack and shut him up.”

          The disgruntled BO managed to cough up a BC he was afterall the president and the next one HRC wouldn’t be talking.

          I believe DT knew that he could not release the real one, not because born in Kenya that was irrelevant as he is a natural born citizen (mother). The problem was he faked his college admissions by stating he was Kenyan when his real daddy was Frank Marshall Davis.

          After he showed his certificate Trump knew he had him and it was a forgery. Trump made a quiet jest and said “Hey O show us your college records.”….lol my take

          Liked by 2 people

        • Marygrace Powers says:

          What a moment for POTUS to announce BO’s
          birth certificate is/was FAKE. Sweet justice.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Lizzyp says:

        I’d kiss you, elricviii, but I have puke breath.

        I will love your forever for the Strange Brew reference.

        Like

      • gotoJoseph says:

        I suppose you think the small group will be asking for two bowls of split pleas soup as well?

        Like

    • WSB says:

      It is also fifteen minutes after Trump was inaugurated.

      How is it that an Ex-President is requesting to be updated?

      Liked by 2 people

      • WSB says:

        My apologies, an outgoing President is requesting to be updated? What did he know was going to change? The book? The dossier?

        Liked by 3 people

        • wolfmoon1776 says:

          The updating is in the few weeks, from the alleged meeting, until the end of the Obama administration. The updating is for the time between that meeting (purported, as Grassley says) and when Rice writes the letter.

          Rice is clearly trying to provide some kind of COVER for that interim period – OR POSSIBLY FOR LATER. What is it about? It must have some relationship to COMEY having a responsibility to update OBAMA if there is any reason to CHANGE the giving of certain information to President-Elect Trump. About what – it could be anything, including that Trump was or is under surveillance – OR WILL BE after the email is sent.

          I think she it THROWING COMEY UNDER OBAMA’S BUS. She is PROTECTING OBAMA. She is saying that if bad stuff is found, or not turned off, Comey did it without TELLING Obama. That Comey had some responsibility to inform Obama, and DIDN’T.

          She’s creating a window of deniability for OBAMA. That’s my theory. I think it has to do with SPYING AFTER TRUMP BECOMES PRESIDENT – that she is trying to create the impression that “Obama would have turned off the bad stuff” if only that nasty Jim Comey would have told him that Trump was clean.

          Liked by 1 person

          • WSB says:

            I didn’t see it that way, but you might be right.

            What is bothersome is that she states that Obama wants to be informed by the FBI, not in a legal way,….but that is all it could be. So part of me is thinking that she just stupidly set off a other mine?

            Also, the 15 minutes atfter the Trump Administration is in power, and she has no status but sends this to an IT associate?
            Why?

            Liked by 1 person

      • dutzie60 says:

        WSB, wasn’t she documenting a meeting held on Jan. 5 so I guess could assume he meant until Jan. 19.999? 🤔

        Liked by 1 person

        • WSB says:

          Yes, but what I am idiotically attempting to point out is why would an outgoing President seem to think there would be a change in status in the transition?

          December…Flynn is on the phone with the Russian Ambassador. January 24th…Michael Flynn is interviewed. Sally Yates is in this meeting from Rice’s recollection in her email? Any correlation?

          Liked by 1 person

    • Bulldog84 says:

      I’m just guessing here, but it seems to me that the significance could be that if she is writing the email to herself after she no longer has public duties, then it is inadmissible hearsay and does not fall within the FRE 803(8) public records exception. Stated in other terms, why in the world would this post-administration personal email be in the archives?

      I can’t imagine why in an oversight situation the Rules of Evidence would be particularly important, except that it looks like a CYA document. Perhaps some low level staffer threw this question in to make somebody squirm. Rice and Co. could be thinking “we’re in the clear, we said we’d go by the book,” but why wait until you are out of office to document it?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Dixie says:

      My first thought was that she wrote it recently and backdated it to protect obozo.

      Wondering if it’s even possible to backdate a timestamp? If so, being a computer geek, Stonetear could have done it for her. He’s already in it up to his eyeballs and pled the 5th, so it is possible he would be willing to help her with this.

      But apparently this is too far out since no one else has mentioned it.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. nerveman says:

    So is this article implying that Priestap is a white hat? And why? ……….”There are white hats amid the tiers. NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers and a tenuously placed FBI Counterintelligence Head Bill Priestap are evidence therein”.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Joe S says:

    Again, I keep making this point. PE Trump is briefed on the dossier circulating around by agency heads because he should be aware of it. But he is never told that the dossier was taken seriously enough to be used as evidence in a FISA warrant that is part of the counterintelligence investigation looking into Russian election interference.

    And Comey and no one else told POTUS that after he took office? And, yet, POTUS tweeted after firing Comey that Comey told him he was not under investigation. Comey confirmed this in hearings after his firing.

    Now why in the world, apparently, was POTUS not told about the dossiers use as an investigative piece of evidence and that it was created by the Clinton machine as op research?

    OBVIOUSLY, the people who briefed PE Trump at first using the 2 page dossier summary KNEW THAT IT WAS CREATED AS OPPO RESEARCH AND THE CREATOR FO IT WAS LEAKNG IT TO THE PRESS.

    WHY DID NO ONE TELL THIS TO PE TRUMP OR POTUS TRUMP?

    Holy crap!

    Of course, I am sure that Candidate Trump was aware of this dossier circulating during the election, and knew the story the whole time. Hell, people were referencing it in tweets prior tot he election. Remember “the thing?”

    Liked by 2 people

    • rf121 says:

      But Adm Rogers in November told him that he was under survailance and probably alot more. NSA would have known what searches were done on PT and his campaign. When Comey discussed this with him I doubt PT was that surprised. PT’s trap was already in play.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Joe S says:

        Yes, I agree.

        But the point is, why wouldn’t the FBI director and intelligence agencies not tell PE Trump and POTUS about a counter-intell investigation of Russian interference (a hostile enemy and its progress) when PE Trump and then POTUS’ job it is to ensure the safety of the nation if HE WAS NOT UNDER INVESTIGATION? Remember, the was a hot topic at the time. Should POTUS know about it?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Thecleaner says:

        This was also why they needed to get Flynn out of there…he is military intelligence and knows exactly what they would do, how to evade it and how to advise Trump on a course of action.
        He will be vindicated and will drift into retirement a wealthy man when he is ultimately paid out for the political hit on him that he took for Trump.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Oldschool says:

          Agree cleaner. It was obvious at the time they took out flynn. My issue has always been Pence’s role in it. He forced Trump’s hand.

          Liked by 1 person

          • wolfmoon1776 says:

            I agree that Pence forced his hand, but I think it’s OK. Pence had to play it clean. I think if Pence hadn’t reacted as he did, things would have actually been worse. The Yates gang was looking to create crime – to FORCE a cover-up into the Trump administration – and they could only create a BOGUS crime on a wise guy. That is a SUPER-GOOD outcome. Getting Pence to taint himself in any way would have been a VICTORY for the bad guys. Again – Trump was very smart to go with Pence. When you need a shield, you need a shield – not a sword.

            Like

    • Prairierose123 says:

      Joe, I remember several people saying “there’s no ‘there’ there.”

      Like

  11. Sylvia Avery says:

    Sundance, this “small group” is starting to grow awfully big. Soon it will be the size of my high school graduating class.

    Liked by 7 people

    • mimbler says:

      IMO it has reached the size to where it would be an “open secret”. Just too many people in the know.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Donna in Oregon says:

      Yes, it is bigger. I posted this article where it says how many were used in part of it and that they all had to sign non-disclosure agreements.

      “Director. Brennan first alerts the White House to the Putin intelligence and later briefs Obama in the Oval Office. convened a secret task force at CIA headquarters composed of several dozen analysts and officers from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI.

      The unit functioned as a sealed compartment, its work hidden from the rest of the intelligence community. Those brought in signed new non-disclosure agreements to be granted access to intelligence from all three participating agencies.”

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?utm_term=.3cb758c1ab7f

      Liked by 3 people

      • Donna in Oregon says:

        Obama and Clintonites keep using this because it works…Mr. Campbell the Uranium One witness had to sign a non-disclosure agreement and could not testify.

        Benghazi people had to sign non-disclosure agreements:

        Congressman: Benghazi Survivors Forced to Sign Non-Disclosure Agreements
        http://www.weeklystandard.com/congressman-benghazi-survivors-forced-sign-non-disclosure-agreements/article/739975

        Liked by 4 people

        • scott467 says:

          “Congressman: Benghazi Survivors Forced to Sign Non-Disclosure Agreements”

          _________________

          ‘Forced’ means, by definition, the Non-Disclosure Agreements were signed under duress.

          Agreements (contracts) signed under duress are void and unenforceable at law.

          Liked by 2 people

        • fabrabbit says:

          Someday I hope we find out what really happened here. This was such a tragedy.

          Like

      • Sylvia Avery says:

        Interesting. It struck me a few days ago that it seems like they were operating in cells like spies or terrorists. And here we are!

        Liked by 2 people

      • dawg says:

        LOVE that article! I remember when it came out, I was floored. It documented how they did all this, and the author didnt even realize what he was revealing.

        Like

      • neal s says:

        Using NDAs to try to prevent people from testifying stinks. There needs to be some way to get around this. Otherwise criminal syndicates could just use NDAs to prevent everyone from ratting on anyone else. If the effect of an NDA is obstructing justice by preventing testimony, then that NDA should not be enforceable and should be null and void. If someone can give a legal opinion about such, I would be interested to learn more.

        Like

        • wheatietoo says:

          There are governmental NDAs and then there are private sector NDAs.

          An NDA done in govt service is usually done ‘In the Interest of National Security’.
          For example, to keep classified information secret or to protect the names of undercover agents.

          A Govt NDA can be nullified or lifted by whatever govt official required it to be signed…or by the President.
          Violating one of these govt NDAs can lead to jail time.

          A Govt NDA should not be used as a gag order to keep a witness from testifying against wrongdoing.
          But under the O-administration…it was.

          A Private Sector NDA is different, and is used to protect a company’s proprietary information, trade secrets, etc.
          One can also be put in place in between individuals, in partnerships…or even in marriages.
          Violating one of these private sector NDAs leaves one open to expensive lawsuits, but not jail time.

          Like

      • dutzie60 says:

        Geez, that article reads like a breathless teenager that is telling a story of discovering a sexy note from the principal to a teacher. I could hear the sound effects while I was reading it. Good grief.

        Like

    • redneckgeezer says:

      You might really be surprised at the size if you realize that there are a ton of us who just read this stuff. I only commented here to point that out.

      Liked by 5 people

  12. Donna in Oregon says:

    Well since the Washington Post article states that the Obama muh Russia team had to sign a non-disclosure agreement aren’t we back to square 1?

    Mr. Campbell could not testify before Congress until his was lifted.

    Does anyone take account of this? I was just wondering….

    Liked by 4 people

    • Trogluddite says:

      Non-disclosure agreements << subpoenas, in other words a criminal investigation doesn't care about your NDA.

      Liked by 3 people

    • scott467 says:

      “Mr. Campbell could not testify before Congress until his was lifted.”

      _________________

      I never bought into that on its face.

      Whatever the penalty is for violating an “NDA”, it’s peanuts compared to the importance of what he had to testify about. Imagine if you were a witness to a mass-murder cannibal cult, and they caught you, but they were already full, so they forced you to sign an ‘NDA’.

      Which is the greater crime: violating the ‘NDA’, or allowing a mass-murder cult to continue in secrecy?

      Besides that, signing an ‘NDA’ under duress makes the NDA void and unenforceable.

      All these people claiming they can’t be whistle-blowers or can’t testify because they signed an ‘NDA’ is ridiculous.

      The fate of the Republic outweighs any “I promise not to tell on you!” note by… roughly infinity.

      Like

  13. So Susan Rice – who memorialized explicit detail from her 2+ weeks old recollection of EXACTLY what transpired – will now HAVE to answer Senator Grassley’s questions or IMPUGN her ability to recall in her email-to-self what happened after-the-fact.

    Liked by 5 people

    • We all know Comey took notes. That is what he said.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Stormyeyes says:

        Comey said he only met with Obama 2x during his entire term in office I don’t remember this time being mentioned

        Liked by 2 people

        • Lizzyp says:

          I believe he also said that both meetings were ‘hi-bye’ type of meetings. That was why he didn’t feel compelled to take notes of his meetings with Obama.

          Liked by 2 people

        • deqwik2 says:

          Comey said he only met 2x “Alone” with Obama & never on the phone. That word alone is key to Comey covering his butt while making it look like contact was minimal.
          (I had to look it up because I thought it was only twice myself).

          Liked by 1 person

          • wolfmoon1776 says:

            TRICKY! Comey is a SNAKE! That’s a “Bill Clinton” type evasion!

            Liked by 1 person

            • wolfmoon1776 says:

              However, I hasten to add, it’s ENTIRELY LEGAL to be misleading. WOW.

              Inadvertently, what this does is say that the “small group” participants, up to Obama, met alone, with no other non-conspirators present, and talked about stuff worth covering up.

              Why do I say this?

              Comey is covering up meetings by using a Hillary-style “hide-by-sorting” technique – the same thing they used to exonerate Hillary. He is sneakily excluding on the fact that these were GROUP meetings. But since these meetings are known to be GROUP and that they are worth being covered up, we can presume that they were discussing stuff that would be worth covering up, and the meetings would therefore not include any non-group members.

              Stated differently, Comey’s actual METHOD of covering up, implicates ALL who attended the hidden meetings.

              Like

    • Peter says:

      Can she plead the 5th or just say, “I can’t recall:!

      Like

  14. billrla says:

    Note to Project Architect for Barack Obama Presidential Library: Please update all construction blueprints to to satisfy latest federal codes for supermax prisons.

    Note to self: Order more concrete and rebar.

    Liked by 3 people

  15. Katherine McCoun says:

    To me this email is timed to at the last moment possible before she left the WH but after the President Trump was sworn in as POTUS and the handover was official. 15 minutes after the official swearing in and therefore time for the new admin to begin switching over controls. Why would she wait so long after the meeting to document the meeting? A full 2 weeks from the meeting is a long time to document a meeting. One usually does that very soon after while the meeting is fresh in one’s mind.
    Did she not want the Obama admin to know she sent that email? Was it a last minute panic? Seems to me she waiting for the new admin to officially start before hitting send.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Craig D says:

      Reply to Katherine McCoun – Yes, I agree with your statement that the time stamp of Susan Rice’s email is fifteen minutes after Trump became President because Ms. Rice did not want the previous (Obama) administration to see the email. Rice saw this email as a possible cover (as she suspected this corrupt Russia gate affair when uncovered would evolve into “an everyone for themselves” situation (to put it mildly). It takes one to know one!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Lizzyp says:

      Or could it have something to do with not being bound by executive privilege and that’s why the timestamp matters? Someone up-thread mentioned that she was technically a private citizen at that point.

      Liked by 1 person

    • rich33y says:

      Grass key already knows the answer, but asks in question 1.

      “1. Did you send the email attached to this letter to yourself? Do you have any reason to dispute the timestamp of the email?”

      Maybe she wasn’t the sender…

      Liked by 3 people

      • Katherine McCoun says:

        This is just what I came back to post. My husband and I were talking about this and the 12:15 time stamp just won’t leave my mind (much less the contents which seem like a situation of protesting too much, a set up about Obama not knowing all that he really did know).

        By 12:15 did she still have access? When was the Obama Admin access to IT turned off? Was this an email Rice actually sent or was it inserted into her account after she left? was the 12:15 not because she was waiting for Obama and company to leave but instead because Obama and company were waiting for her to leave? Waiting for when she no longer had access but they still had a few minutes of backdoor access?

        If she no longer had access then she would no know about the email that was a set up for Obama to “prove” he had told his staff not to tell him of investigations, etc.

        The other thought my husband had was what was her usual habit of sending herself meeting notes and memos? If she has a pattern of doing so weeks after meetings then this will fit. If not, and probably not as weeks after a meeting is unusual habit, then this is another red flag. If she did not usual do this at all double red flag.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Jake says:

      Rice was just hoping, right up to the last words of the swearing-in, that all their efforts to stop Trump from becoming President would somehow work. Then she sent the email.

      Like

  16. georgiafl says:

    Liked by 6 people

    • scott467 says:

      “All you have to do is prove that Obama was involved in the investigation.”

      _________________

      We’re already there.

      Liked by 2 people

      • georgiafl says:

        I’m grinning like Pavlov’s dog. :8->

        Liked by 3 people

        • blind no longer says:

          This is mind boggling. Was she covering her own ass here, knowing it would all come out and she wasn’t going down without taking some big dogs with her?? I truly can’t figure this one out. But knowing this evil bunch of conspirators, I am automatically very suspicious. Do they have a plan for her to testify and try to cover with some preconceived story bullshit?
          They always do everything for a reason.

          Liked by 3 people

          • georgiafl says:

            Well, so does Trump, as we have seen thus far.

            Liked by 3 people

          • Bulldog84 says:

            You can tell by the way she speaks that Rice just isn’t that bright. She was a useful idiot.

            Judging by the timestamp on her email, she had literally passed her use-by date.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Rhonda Philips says:

            Blind no longer I think you are on track, subterfuge plan C activated. Now watch the press spin a narrative how O Bama consulted with Pence begging to spare Flinn who fell on his sword for Trump. Unknown to all (except the benificient OBama) Flynn was ultimately protecting Melania because he was really her Uncle and Ivanka actually conceived her children through his sperm donation.

            Like

      • rf121 says:

        I disagree. It is the same argument PT can make. He is the head of the Executive and over the DOJ/FBI and therefore has the right to know what they are doing.

        Wether it is politcally wise to do this is one thing. And the fact they used politically manufactured evidence is another. But I do not see where it is illegal for a President to be involved with DOJ/FBI which per the Constitution he heads.

        Now, if it can be shown the Obama was giving orders to do this and that then he is obviously guilty and really stupid.

        Liked by 1 person

        • scott467 says:

          “I disagree. It is the same argument PT can make. He is the head of the Executive and over the DOJ/FBI and therefore has the right to know what they are doing.”

          _________________

          In Watergate, it was the coverup that got Nixon in trouble, not the underlying crime itself; President Nixon did not know about the original crime when it happened and had no part in the planning of the crime.

          By Hussein knowing about the weaponization of the DOJ and FIB to spy on the opposition candidate and then president-elect and then (until June 2017, IIRC) as president, Hussein leap-frogs right past knowledge of ‘coverup’ and lands squarely in participant in the planning and execution of Treason.

          The DOJ and FIB were committing Treason.

          Hussein DID have a right to know they were committing Treason (as if they would be doing any of this without his orders).

          But even assuming, for ludicrous sake of argument, that Hussein did NOT plan and execute the Treason via the DOJ / FIB (and State Dept., and GCHQ, and CIA, et al), the moment he (supposedly) ‘found out’, he had an affirmative obligation to STOP the lawlessness and prosecute everyone involved.

          Not only was the Treason not stopped, but it continued for months into the new presidency, making Hussein the Usurper, at the very least, complicit in Treason, by definition.

          Quod Erat Demonstrandum

          Like

        • scott467 says:

          “I disagree. It is the same argument PT can make. He is the head of the Executive and over the DOJ/FBI and therefore has the right to know what they are doing.”

          _________________

          The president has every right to know what the departments under the direct authority of the Executive Branch are doing.

          If PT suddenly discovers that, unbeknownst to him, the DOJ and FIB are engaged in Treason, the very instant he possesses such knowledge, he has an obligation and duty to end that Treason and arrest the perpetrators.

          If, on the other hand, he discovers that the DOJ and FIB are engaged in Treason, and he allows it to continue, and benefits from that Treason, then he is, by definition, complicit in that Treason.

          Like

          • scott467 says:

            Whether he was the originator of the Treason, or not.

            Like

          • rf121 says:

            I believe Obama was aware but not directing. I still believe he was just a telepromter reader and Valerie Jarrett was the one wearing the pants at the WH. Agreed, he should have stopped it but he knew his legacy was going to be wipped out with the stroke of a pen. And it was. Thankfully. He gambled and is about to lose.

            Also, I believe it is more acurate to call what they were doing sedition vice treason. Same result, none of it good.

            Liked by 1 person

            • fabrabbit says:

              Yes, sedition.

              Like

            • scott467 says:

              I found Wictor’s thread on this subject, it is certainly interesting, but there are issues:

              …………………………………………………………
              Thomas Wictor

              (1) The Susan Rice e-mail to herself.
              https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-02-08%20CEG%20LG%20to%20Rice%20(Russia%20Investigation%20Email).pdf …

              (2) Rice sent the e-mail on January 20, 2017, at 12.15 p.m. Trump became president at 11:47 a.m. What Rice did was send the e-mail to herself at the very last second that it would be included in records from the Obama administration.

              (3) ALSO, Rice sent the e-mail AFTER the Obama administration could see it or confront her with it. She sent it minutes before she departed the White House for the last time.

              (4) The e-mail documents a meeting between Obama, Biden, Rice, Comey, and Yates. This meeting took place on January 5, 2017.
              ……………………………………………………..

              So far, so good.

              …………………………………………………
              (5) Gassley and Graham were sent the e-mail after they asked the National Archives for records of meetings between Obama and Comey. This e-mail is the only record. Without it, Obama would’ve skated.
              …………………………………………………

              I strongly disagree. Wictor can’t know (yet) what other evidence exists to implicate Hussein, and considering the scope of Hussein’s lawlessness over the course of 8 years, there must be MOUNTAINS of evidence. At NSA alone.

              The email from Rice is a nice bit of evidence to be examined and either proved or disproved, it may help get the ball rolling, but it is inconceivable that it is either the *only* piece of evidence *or* the most damning.

              Hussein is going to drown in a tidal wave of evidence as this continues to unfold. There won’t be any question in anyone’s mind of his guilt before this is over. He’s definitely NOT skating, whether Rice’s email came to light or not.

              The narcissist traitor was not careful about much of anything, he was brazen and arrogant in his lawlessness. And they were sure Sick Hillary would win, so all their lawlessness would be buried, and Hillary would never have the FIB or DOJ investigate and prosecute anyway. It’s not as if Hussein had a carefully crafted air-tight master plan in case DJT won, and he would have gotten away with everything, if only this little piece from Susan Rice hadn’t come out.

              Continuing:

              ………………………….
              (6) Rice wrote the first part of the e-mail in such a bizarre way that it would immediately stand out.

              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.

              (7) It doesn’t read as though a native speaker of English wrote it. This is deliberate. It draws attention to what comes next.
              ………………………….

              I understand what he means by the awkward nature of the paragraph, but it does not sound to me like it was written by a non-native English speaker, or that it was written that way in order to get attention. The content is what will get the attention, not the awkward manner in which it was written.

              Continuing:

              …………………………………………..
              (8) THIS is the meat of the thing. First, this.

              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.

              (9) And then more importantly, this.

              The President asked Corney to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Corney said he would.

              (10) Obama said that he never spoke to Comey about ongoing investigations. Rice says he lied.
              …………………………………………..

              So what? Hussein wasn’t under oath when he told that lie. My standard operating assumption is that everything Hussein ever said was a lie, until or unless proven otherwise. Every single thing. Seriously. Everything. If he stated what time of day it was, I wouldn’t believe it until I checked my own watch.

              So he lied. Of course he lied, he lies about everything, he’s a pathological liar. I knew he was lying when he said it, even when I didn’t have any context to understand the lie, because I know that everything he says is a lie. If he’s breathing, he’s lying. If he’s thinking to himself he’s lying then too, we just can’t hear it. You may think I’m kidding, but I’m only half-kidding, at most. He wasn’t under oath when he told that particular lie (or any others), so that lie (like so many others) is a nothing-burger from a legal standpoint. It’s not relevant, except that it goes to character, and it’s not like we don’t have 8 years’ worth of testament and evidence to his lying character already.

              Continuing:

              ……………………………………………..
              (11) Not only THAT, Rice says that Obama told Comey to WITHHOLD information from the Trump administration AND report back to Obama.
              ……………………………………………..

              Again, so what? On January 5th, Hussein was still president, and DJT was not. Hussein could withhold (practically) whatever he wanted from the incoming president, especially if he ‘claims’ to have done so for ‘national security’ reasons, which he would certainly claim if questioned under oath.

              And with regard to reporting back to Hussein, that is entirely proper, isn’t it? Isn’t the FIB a department under the authority of the Executive Branch? Doesn’t the Director of the FIB serve at the president’s pleasure, and answer to the president? And wasn’t Hussein still the president, from January 5th when the meeting took place, until 11:47am on January 20th?

              So I don’t know what was ‘improper’ here, regarding the formalities of the ‘meetings’. It is the content of what was being discussed, the ongoing lawless spying on the opposition candidate and then president-elect (and we would find out later, lawless spying on the duly sworn-in president DJT) that is the problem.

              There is no possible way to violate the rights of American citizens ‘by the book’, there is no way to weaponize the government against the president-elect ‘by the book’, and there is no way to commit Sedition or Treason ‘by the book’ after the president-elect is sworn in. And Hussein was doing all three.

              Continuing:

              ………………………………
              (12) Rice ALSO says that Comey lied to Congress.

              Bombshell Email Suggests Comey May Have Misled Congress About Meetings With Obama on Russian Hacking
              by Colin Kalmbacher | 5:33 pm, February 12th, 2018
              https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/bombshell-email-suggests-comey-misled-congress-about-meetings-with-obama-on-russian-hacking/
              ……………………………….

              Comey is dog meat, unless he has a (still valid) immunity agreement. But how is it relevant to Hussein, when Comey, by the nature of his job, is supposed to meet with Hussein? I understand they (Hussein and Comey) are trying to pretend like they never met, to provide a fig leaf for Dingleberry, in order to assert that Hussein had no knowledge of the vast Treason and general lawlessness going on all around him, but that doesn’t even pass the laugh test. Even if Comey met Hussein for lunch every single day for Comey’s entire time as Director of FIB, there would be nothing wrong in doing so, it would just raise suspicion with regard to why he would lie about it.

              Continuing:

              ……………………………………………………………
              (13) So, Rice handed Obama and Comey to law enforcement on a silver platter. Did YOU figure that out? I did. Immediately.
              ……………………………………………………………

              She may have handed Comey over on a silver platter, because Comey lied to Congress under oath apparently. If that’s even a crime. Who can tell, they way all these liars all lie to each other with impunity and nobody is ever prosecuted for anything.

              There will be lots of other evidence to convict Hussein, but Rice’s email does, importantly, establish that Hussein was personally aware of and involved in the Treason/lawlessness/corruption of ‘Operation Destroy Trump’, weaponizing the government against a private citizen, then against the president-elect, then against the president of the United States.

              As the texts between Strzok & Page did last week, noting that the president wants to know about everything they’re doing. Rice’s email is secondary confirmation.

              Continuing:

              ……………………………..
              (14) That’s why I said I’m not interested in arguing about this.

              YOU TOTALLY MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT HAPPENED.

              Rice torpedoed EVERYTHING.

              It’s over. All she has to do is confirm that the meeting happened.
              ………………………………

              There is an interesting related development, though Wictor didn’t mention it. Apparently Hussein signed an Executive Order which states that any “memo” or similar writing made by a Department Head or senior staff (Rice was National Security Advisor) is TRUE as far as the Law is concerned, until or unless proven otherwise.

              (see 16:15)
              “On January 5th he committed Treason, and we have that in Susan Rice’s own words, because Mueller and Comey made a law that says a federal officer or a federally elected official in the National Security Council make a ‘note’ then it’s the truth, so Susan Rice’s text message [email, actually] is the truth.”

              Yes, it is as ridiculous as it sounds, and we can only imagine the impetus to pass such an idiotic ‘law’ in the first place, but I am more than confident it was for nefarious purposes.

              It certainly has interesting implications though, considering the unbridled lawlessness of the Hussein administration.

              Continuing:

              …………………………………………………………
              (15) I called this in April, when Rice gave her interview to Andrea Mitchell. It pays to be able to read people.
              …………………………………………………………

              Then two irrelevant posts about anyone who doesn’t agree with him, followed by what he claims is Susan Rice’s ‘motive’ to sabotage Hussein.

              …………………………………………………….
              (18) ADDENDUM: Here’s how badly Obama treated Rice.

              Susan Rice: The Comeback Queen
              September 23, 2013 6:01 AM
              by Jason Horowitz
              https://www.vogue.com/article/susan-rice-the-comeback-queen
              …………………………………………………….

              Interesting times, for sure.

              Like

      • WSB says:

        Isn’t that exactly what Susan Rice just did? She implicates Obama by this one email.

        This sounds more like an SOS.

        Liked by 2 people

        • MaineCoon says:

          That’s my take on it also on my first read of it. She would defend O et al in her big interview and would take that tack as long as anyone is buying it. But, alas, the truth is surfacing as did her email, which is IMO her last ditch effort to save herself when the facts are known, the lying won’t work anymore, and the conspirators are going down. IMO she conclusively sunk O’s ship. A hook or I should say a weight just got thrown around his neck.

          Wonder what Mooch knew….hmm.

          Liked by 1 person

    • MaineCoon says:

      Liked by 1 person

  17. booger71 says:

    Major Breaking News by Hannity that has been talked about for 2 days.

    Liked by 4 people

    • MAGADJT says:

      Not for 99.9% of the country. You have to remember that, in context of the overall population, very very few people are like us and come to sites like CTH. Hannity seemingly repeats things because he has to break it down for a wider audience which is less addicted to the political soap opera.

      Liked by 1 person

    • rf121 says:

      Got to give him a break. He does not work weekends.

      Liked by 1 person

  18. scott467 says:

    “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.”

    _________________

    Allied media clearly giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

    It is Treason.

    https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/44-aid-and-comfort-to-the-enemy.html

    Liked by 1 person

  19. NJF says:

    Calling it 3D chess doesn’t do it justice.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Doppler says:

      The Flynn guilty plea may have been an IG “sting” designed to nail those involved in procuring it. Failing to disclose to Flynn the exculpatory evidence of Yates’ and Strzok’s improper actions and motives in setting him up, and potentially falsifying records associated with the meeting or the plea itself, may supply the proof beyond a reasonable doubt not otherwise available.

      PLUS, (speculation!) If the Clinton Machine and Putin Machine were in cahoots (as they appear to have been in Uranium One), it is also possible there was coordination by the get-Trump group with the Russian ambassador to frame Flynn, which would be rank treason.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Lizzyp says:

      Didn’t I read somewhere that of the 2 agents who interviewed Flynn only Strzok said he’d lied? The other agent, if what I read was correct, said he didn’t think so.

      Like

  20. conservalicious says:

    Which President has the most cringe worthy official Presidential photograph?

    Liked by 3 people

  21. Brant says:

    It is amazing how totally quiet MSM sites have gone about this. There is nothing or very little. Nothing about Trump/Russia, gonna fire Mueller, etc. Its like everyone is just waiting to see whats about to fall. Fascinating.

    Liked by 4 people

  22. Julie says:

    I bet Obama is quite ticked off….

    Liked by 2 people

  23. Clinteastwood says:

    I would like Treepers/Sundance to reflect on the possibility that if Priestap has flipped, Mueller must know he has flipped. So where would that leave Mueller and his team? One would think at least a few innocents (if there are any) on the Mueller team would be wanting to end their witch hunt and start begging Trump for mercy.

    Liked by 2 people

    • rf121 says:

      RR letter assigning the SC was very broad. They could easily turn their sights on the obvious corruption staring them in the face. Decision time people.

      Real easy for Mueller, a former FBI director, to come in and clean house at the FBI to save it. Then gets to claim to be the great reformer. He could probably save Comey his buddy and claim he is the innocent Director who did not know that his underling McCabe was undermining him all along.

      Like

      • Anonymous says:

        Don’t get overconfident versus the enemy.

        1. I saw this same thing with the Plamegate investigation. People think investigation would do 180 turn and go after Plame. Nope…it was Libby. This time you have a group that is very strongly partisan on the Mueller squad.

        2. We don’t know that Priestap has “flipped”. That is just a theory. We have had wrong theories before. And if he flipped who would he flip to? The IG? Give me a break…that is another hope. The IG has a lot less horsepower than Mueller. And if he did flip that does not mean he is totally flipped. Could be doing the bare minimum.

        Stay vigilant. Prosecute the fight. Nunes and Graslette are doing a good job. But the danger of hanging out here with like minded people is you start to buy into the fight being won. It’s not won until it’s won.

        Like

        • rf121 says:

          Who is over confident? I trust none of these weisels. No matter how this game was playing out initially and how they thought it would go their initial initiative is lost. There are more players against them such as the IG and congressional committees that are getting results.

          Citizen journalists like Sundance and many others are also doing yoemans work getting more information out to the masses and to congressional committee staffers who visit here daily I am sure.

          The IG has a some huge positives. Appointed by Obama. His January 2017 investigation was started at the request of congressional democrats. He spent five years being told he could not investigate anyone. Payback is a bitch.

          If Mueller is still going after PT he is fishing in the wrong lake and he knows it. He knows where the fish are. Does he want to catch something or nothing?

          Liked by 1 person

        • Oldschool says:

          Agree anonymous. Until AG steps forward, takes legal action, we have nothing. The media and mueller investigation are unfazed, continue to control the narrative and agenda.

          Liked by 1 person

      • rich33y says:

        Former FBI Director in the Obama Administration.

        He is neck deep in Uranium.

        Like

        • MaineCoon says:

          Yep. Mulehead can’t save anything at this point, including his own neck. He’s just hiding behind the ‘untouchable’ SC title…working away at nothing.

          Like

    • Texian says:

      Priestap is the boss.. and if he cashed in his golden poker chip, it would greatly devalue everybody’s else’s bargaining poker chip that are under him.. The smaller players under him will have lost their leverage..

      Like

  24. dawg says:

    Who is Curtis R Reid that she cc’d the email to??

    Liked by 2 people

  25. Donna in Oregon says:

    Americans need to know how many non-disclosure agreements were signed in this muh Russia attack set-up by former-President Barack Obama on a sitting President Donald Trump.

    Liked by 2 people

  26. starfcker says:

    Interesting. She twitched at the last minute. He caught it. These people aren’t that smart or careful.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Exactly, the O “crew” should never have been given their positions. Reading her wikipedia page, I am in shock. Phi Beta Kappa, Rhodes Scholar, PhD??? She seems quite dull, not impressive at all! Who believes all these awards and credentials?? Suspicious cat is looking suspicious…

      Liked by 1 person

  27. chojun says:

    People may not think this is a big deal, or they may miss the nuance of it all.

    However, it’s a pretty major turning point. Correct me if I’m mistaken but this is the first official in the Obama White House that has become involved in the investigation.

    This is NOT good for Obama.

    Liked by 3 people

    • The Boss says:

      Rice likely committed felonies by dodging the Federal Records Act with her “Richard Windsor” email address. Don’t know if statute of limitations tolled or not, but if not, that is mighty leverage to use against someone whose intelligence is vastly overrated. Rice is low-hanging fruit. Agree this is NOT good for the imposter.

      Liked by 2 people

      • d2i says:

        Here’s a thought your post raised – what if Rice simply copied/pasted this email from her ‘Richard Windsor’ account? What if she in fact wrote it immediately following the 1/5/2017 meeting? Maybe she memorialized the meeting on the 5th and then pasted/sent on 1/20.

        Her insertion with quotations of ‘by the book’ is a tell. Given Zero’s background I looked up ‘by the book’ in the urban dictionary and the slang/hood definition is ‘used to communicate to the other party that there is a third party listening and disinformation is necessary’.

        Maybe she sent it to her IT guy b/c he had ways to disburse info that isn’t being seen/heard by a third party. Just a thought…

        Like

    • WSB says:

      Bingo. I believe this was Rice’s Judas moment. She just nailed Obama.

      Like

        • chojun says:

          Because the Obama administration likely had been allowing or ignoring surveillance abuse for a long time and got sloppy, and got arrogant thinking Trump would lose. When he won they had a lot of cover-up to do and people started scattering every direction like a herd of spooked cats.

          Like

          • dawg says:

            Yeah but what was she trying to do with this particular email? What did she hope to achieve? Assuming she was expecting it to be uncovered at some time.

            Like

            • chojun says:

              I think she knew this would be uncovered and was trying to generate a paper trail that would create a favorable outcome for her when schiff began to hit the fan.

              There would be no reason to do such a thing unless she knew things. We know the “by the book” line is garbage. FISA abuse, by definition, cannot be done “by the book.”

              The important thing here is that this e-mail appears to reveal a consciousness of guilt.

              Liked by 1 person

            • WSB says:

              “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.”

              Obama swore he never had interactions with FBI investigations. Comey said he ony met Obama twice.

              Susan leaves this memo to herself and copies an IT assistant? 15 minutes after the new President is sworn in?

              Sally Yates is in that meeting and a few days later Michael Flynn is ‘caught’ by the FBI , and Yates and Priestap expose Flynn to McGahn for speaking with a Russian Ambassador? The dossier is exposed to Trump?

              Rice is tying this back to Obama in my mind.

              Liked by 1 person

  28. Is it protocol to send this letter.
    I wish they could have a face to face with Susan Rice and ask her these questions without giving her any time to make up more lies.

    Like

  29. I found this on a quick search. Page seems to have been cleaned of any information.
    https://www.facebook.com/curtis.r.reid/about

    Liked by 1 person

  30. R says:

    Rice revealed a nice list suspects that need cover. It is awkward when your reputation as a liar and political hack is so firmly established.

    Liked by 2 people

  31. I can’t claim to know what’s in the “classified” portion of her email, but I AM familiar with CYA emails, as I have sent them to myself a few times.

    I had to fire a female employee a few years ago, for very good reasons, but I also thought she might be the type to sue me to extort money. I documented the reasons to fire her, extensively, along with the reasons for doing so. I documented discussions with other members of the management team.

    While incompetent and rather lazy, she was smart. I think she realized she was about to be fired, and she knew, from my stating it a few times, that I prefer to fire people on Fridays (slightly less drama, on average). The day before I planned to fire her (documented), she told me she was going to take off the next day (not allowed via policy, but she did tell me this). The next morning, she emailed me and a few other executives to let us know she was pregnant…

    We fired her anyway, as it was planned, we could prove that, and we know now that she had just learned she was pregnant the day before. It was, apparently, IVF (in vitro). Her husband is 25 years older than her (two prior divorces and kids with both of those women). She had cheated on him (and we knew this) with a subordinate employee, literally IN THE OFFICE, and she had told us she was planning to divorce her husband. Needless to say, her pregnancy was unexpected, as it did not appear she planned to stay with her husband. Nonetheless, I think that, once she realized she was going to lose her job and it wouldn’t be so easy to leave her husband (he had money, she did not, yet), she decided that she could possibly save both her job and her marriage by getting pregnant and using the possibility of blackmail against us.

    She sued. It’s been ongoing for over 3 years now. I’m pretty sure we’ll win – the facts are on our side and they are well documented. I’m also borderline OCD, and it’s very hard for me to just do the “easy thing” when it fundamentally bothers me (it would have been far cheaper to give her $250K to go away than to fight it in NYC courts (and saved me a lot of time – I have two young children I love dearly – and stress), but I don’t believe “the ends justify the means”. If I gave in, she’d do this to someone else, so I have to win. We will win, because I’m honest.

    Anyway, don’t put it past dishonest people to do terrible things, but it sounds like Rice might have not been 100% on board, and she wanted to save her own skin because she knew evil often begets Karma.

    Liked by 6 people

  32. Stormyeyes says:

    From Reddit the Donald

    Lawyerpede’s Theory Regarding Susan Rice’s Curious Email to Herself on Inauguration Day:

    Lawyerpede here. This (obviously) appears to be a last minute Hail Mary effort to create a written record of her “recollection” at the time of the event — a record that she knew would be preserved and found if there ever was a subsequent investigation — and a record she would hope to rely on as evidence in any subsequent criminal proceeding (she wants to be able to say she “doesn’t recall” when giving testimony and then point to the email and rely on it as proof of her lack of intent and knowledge). Assuming there is no paper trail that would contradict this position (hard to believe one doesn’t or didn’t exist, but any paper trail could have been destroyed by now), and no controverting testimony is given, her plan may work.
    But, there is a problem — given the timeline and circumstances, the email is a classic case of hearsay (and is not admissible as evidence in a legal proceeding (at least to prove what she wants it to). So, if Rice plans to use the email as evidence in a criminal proceeding to prove her innocence (i.e. to prove she was unaware of and not complicit in any wrongdoing), she has to prove the email is not hearsay by relying on an exception to hearsay in Rule 803 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
    Rice is going to argue two exceptions to hearsay apply: (1) present sense impression and (2) recorded recollection.
    (1) Present sense impression: A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.
    A: Rice is not likely to prevail on this exception because the email is backdated to a meeting that occurred 2 weeks prior. She will have a tough time arguing that such a delay qualifies as “immediately after.” Overruled.
    (2) Recorded recollection: A record that (A) is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately, and (B) was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory, and (C) accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge.
    A: Rice will likely rely on this exception. She will argue that she can no longer recall the meetings with Obama and the discussions about and the investigation, that she wrote the email while her memory was still fresh, and that the email accurately reflects her knowledge. Depending on her surrounding testimony, how the judge perceives her credibility (the judge rules on admissibility, not the jury) and other evidence that is presented during trial, she may be successful in introducing her email as evidence, and she would then be in a position to rely on the email as conclusive evidence, claim she does not recall any other details, and hope no other contradicting testimony/evidence is given/introduced.
    The jury can rely only on the evidence admitted. If there is no other controverting evidence for the jury to weigh, Rice could prevail. But let’s be real, that is a big IF, as there is a mountain of evidence against Crooked Hillary, Obama and their affiliates, and Rice is directly implicated.

    Liked by 3 people

  33. youme says:

    Oh, by the way, Susan, right after the January 5th meeting that you refer to, Jim C. went back to the office and met with Bill P. and filled him in on what was said at the meeting. We have Bill’s full statement regarding what Jim C. told him but right now I would like to ask you a few question about your response to our letter. As a reminder you are under oath….

    No way does Rice respond to the letter…

    Liked by 4 people

  34. CND says:

    Just when I think I can no longer be stunned, once again I am…. and yet…not.

    Liked by 2 people

  35. I saw Lindsey on FNC the story. I don’t know why but he cracks me up. Very funny and he laid out a good case about Rice.
    It’s funny to see these guys so seemingly changing with the wind.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Paul Tibbets says:

    Why is this coming out now? Is this about Rice? Is Rice the subject of the IG report?

    uh……..nope!

    Who has the target on his back right now?

    Comey!

    Betcha Comey did not know that Rice wrote that memo! Comey painted Bill Priestap as the fall guy infront of Congress. Bill is working with Sessions, Comey is now headed for take down.

    Time for Comey to flip and rat out BO! Hey buddy you got one chance at this, you want to be left holding the bag?

    They already have enough to get BO right now would be my bet, you always hold your ace until the end.

    Liked by 2 people

    • rf121 says:

      NEVER going to go after Obama. Every one below most likely. Once an incoming administration goes after the head of the former administration then the Repbulic collapses. No one on either side will ever believe the vote again and Civil War will most likely ensue.

      The smooth transition between administrations is what has made the US different then most every other nation since the begining of time.

      As bad as this is, and as close as we came to losing it all, common sense needs to prevail. Shine a bright light on what happen and send a whole lot of people to jail.

      Like

  37. Maryaha says:

    Maybe Susan Rice will claim that a video caused her to send the email to herself. 😎

    Whatever she was up to, you can be sure that Mr. Grassley knows exactly.

    Liked by 4 people

  38. joeknuckles says:

    Wow, this is proof that Susan Rice literally lies to herself.

    Liked by 5 people

  39. Stormyeyes says:

    Liked by 2 people

  40. bullnuke says:

    I wonder if Rice let her bff Samantha Power know what she did.

    Liked by 3 people

  41. youme says:

    “I do not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. We have a strict line and always have maintained it. I guarantee it,” Obama said in an April 2016 interview on Fox News Sunday.

    Liked by 2 people

  42. Campesino says:

    I have two things to say:

    1. Orange is a good look for Susan Rice

    2. Well played, Sen. Grassley!

    Liked by 1 person

  43. herbork says:

    “…the matrices…” Wow. Just wow.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. phoenixRising says:

    Liked by 1 person

    • dawg says:

      Correction to Imperator Rex tweet, that should read “….on Jan 20 ’17”

      Which brings up something that hit me just a couple days ago. Just over one year ago, Barrack Hussein Obama was POTUS. Just think of all we have learned in that relatively short time period!

      Liked by 3 people

  45. What if this evidences what was to be a hard coup?

    Liked by 1 person

  46. dawg says:

    Im sorry, but I need someone to explain to me what her intent was with this email. ?? On its face it doesnt seem to be anything but a sloppy attempt to provide cover FOR Obama. How would it cover HER a$$? How would it be an attempt to throw Obama under the bus as some have suggested?

    Like

  47. Sandra-VA says:

    Did anyone notice the date this email was declassified? 6/30/2017 by John Powers. So…. has Senator Grassley held onto this all this time? They are definitely building up to something big….

    Liked by 2 people

  48. Mike van says:

    I try to explain this stuff to my friends and ther eyes go blank. How do wr educate the masses? The msm will never admit what they have done to potusdjt! So whats the strategy toget this mainstreem on board? We have to give them a pass. Make them feel important. After the IG report they should follow the trail that sd laid out. Do you think the rest of the world will ever know what we know?

    Liked by 11 people

    • formerdem says:

      just tell them over and over again? SD and others offer short ways…

      Liked by 2 people

    • All Too Much says:

      Slowly.
      And pretend they are 12 year olds.
      The same way a lawyer should explain things to a jury.

      Liked by 6 people

      • Mike van says:

        But is this a jury half filled with IM WITH HER. People?

        Liked by 2 people

        • DUDE! PATIENCE! Much, much, patience. Years of patience. The agenda has been subtly pushed for at least 30 years. It will take some time to bring all those that can be brought around, around.

          Liked by 4 people

        • deqwik2 says:

          Teach the young ones the truth. My 10 yr old grandson will set someone straight in a heartbeat that Obama hurt our country & Trump is going to MAGA.
          I can’t tell him every detail but he’s a sponge & soaks up what I do say & he’s eager to spread his knowledge to others. Grown ups are polite enough to let a cute child talk even if they don’t believe it. He is planting the seeds of truth. 🙂

          Liked by 12 people

          • Mike van says:

            Thank you.

            Liked by 1 person

            • If only the rightful penalty for such blatant treasonous and or seditious actions were handed out the hemp necklaces would help everyone understand and quite clearly.

              It really should happen too, this literally must be the start of The Reckoning.

              Liked by 1 person

          • shadowcole says:

            My son did set someone straight when he was 6. I remember overhearing “Bill Clinton is a liar” when telling the older-next door-neighbor boy what he thought of the then president Clinton. Children are capable of understanding much more than we can imagine, sometimes.

            Liked by 2 people

            • deqwik2 says:

              They sure can understand more. I gave my grandson examples of things on a larger scale like Obama didn’t take care of the police & explained it a little bit. When he would see something on the news like a riot, he would say something like “See, Nanny those people are acting that way because they know Obama won’t get them in trouble” He understood & was able to relate it to what he saw.

              Liked by 2 people

          • josco scott says:

            PLEASE don’t let your grandson go to college… unless Hillsdale or its ilk.

            We homeschooled our kids, which helped prepare them for the onslaught of university propaganda.

            Actually, what really hurt them: three of them worked in DC, which turned them into Establishment NeverTrumps, inspiring some major arguments during the election…

            mostly my screaming facts at them, horrified at how smart, basically conservative people could know so little and still hate Trump so much.

            But anyway. All that rambling to say, GREAT WORK with your grandson! And please stick with him as he grows up, since it’s a minefield out there.

            Liked by 2 people

        • anthony earl says:

          and once the light bulb starts glowing over 10watts, they start shaking their heads and at 50watts covering their ears and saying “nananananana”. after that, they run away so as not to have to hear the truth.

          Liked by 2 people

        • neversayanything says:

          The “I’m with her” people are never going to acknowledge any facts.

          Liked by 2 people

    • jakee308 says:

      Covering yourself like this never works. Well mostly never. What it does do is give an AAG cause for believing there’s “guilty knowledge” and includes the person in at least a conspiracy charge. perhaps more depending on what other actions this person took and when.

      I’ve seen this happen in corporate and the usual outcome is a discharge although they try to claim whistle blower status. They forget that you have to blow the whistle before you’re caught. Otherwise it’s a confession.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Bill says:

      Your right in that most people will get lost. I would suggest creating a document similar to the following. Granted it would be difficult and time consuming but the yellow brick road is needed. The only other option is to create a project management chart showing the flow of data and events in graphical form. The plus side, is that this charting form can be used in court.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Rynn69 says:

        I wish SUNDANCE would put together a large chart on the “who and what” as this malfeasance unfolds and unravels. The chart could be posted on this site and #Obamagate for dissemination. It could be distributed on the internet to get the information out to the American people since the MSM arepushing false, misleading news, and failing to cover it by blackout.

        Like

        • Bill says:

          I think Sundance is doing a great job! Remember, we are all given to different skill sets.

          Like

        • AKM says:

          Katica (GOPPollanalyst), a citizen journalist, has created a timeline – very handy.

          Liked by 4 people

          • Bill says:

            This is a great step. Can you, please provide a link to your tables? So that others can see and understand them.

            Please understand, that the different perspectives are very important. In part to feed Sundance with information (I believe) but in part to help educate people like me.

            I see and understand data in three dimensions. Tasks, Events, Dates.

            Liked by 1 person

      • Mike van says:

        That doesnt make my head hurt? Can we ever find a jury w/o clintonistas? My answer is no. Wow can we ever convict anyone when the jury has msnbc viewers? Everything we do is importent. But it wont really lead to anything. Unfortunately

        Liked by 2 people

        • Bill says:

          I envision a long chart, and at best a complex chart of events, task and dates.

          Remember: For evil to win, good only needs to do nothing.

          Liked by 1 person

          • An American says:

            Bill, I believe the chart you and all of us would like to see is a Gnatt chart which is a horizontal type often used in projects where timelines and project steps are defined with results noted. President Trump should be very familiar with these as they are used in building. Some people call them time charts.

            Liked by 1 person

        • mnwild1961 says:

          I’ve heard mention of military tribunals being readied to handle the prosecutions. That would give me more confidence in the process.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Turranos says:

      #1 Don’t fire hose them. I give them a one or two sentence synopsis that paints the broad strokes of what happened. Then I give them a little more after that, followed by a little more after that.
      #2 Take them gently down the path as they show more and more interest. It has worked very well for me so far. Easy does it and simple does it better.

      Liked by 7 people

    • scott467 says:

      “I try to explain this stuff to my friends and ther eyes go blank. How do wr educate the masses?”

      ___________________

      I don’t think we do.

      At least two things are required:

      1) an honest heart

      2) a minimal degree of natural curiosity

      I asked my sister the other day what she thought about the current developments. She had no idea. She’s pro-Trump in a general sense (she would never have voted for Hillary, or Hussein before her), and she knows enough to disbelieve the MSM, but beyond that, she says she doesn’t have time to follow the story or figure out what’s what.

      Very matter of fact.

      At the end of her work day, once dinner has been served and the kids are ready for bed, she just wants to zone out with mindless TV.

      I am reminded that nobody cared to ‘ease’ me into the Obamanation treasonocracy. Nobody cared to ‘prepare me’ for the 8-years of heart-attack inducing insanity perpetrated on our nation by Hussein.

      They just did it.

      And I think we ought to do the same.

      When they turn on their TV one day, and realize Hussein and Sick Hillary are scheduled to hang for High Treason, maybe that will be enough to spur their curiosity to find out what in the world was going on while they played Zombie Living Under a Rock.

      Or not.

      Either way, we’ve all tried.

      It’s time to move forward.

      Liked by 8 people

    • Anon says:

      Obama spied on Trump. Everything else is the coverup.

      Liked by 9 people

    • dayallaxeded says:

      I tell people in small bites and often just respond to disbelief with “wait and see.” If the people want real info, I send them here.

      For those who are committed progzis and seditionists, only criminal convictions and asset forfeitures will get the point across.

      Liked by 6 people

      • nimrodman says:

        I troll them with little snippets that’ll make them fear they look stupid or uninformed.

        Like “You’re gonna want to begin familiarizing yourself with the name ‘Michael Horowitz’ …”

        Liked by 5 people

      • BobInFL says:

        I tell my kids (and other folks) that the Obama administration used made up information, that was paid for by Hillary Clinton, to get law enforcement agencies of our government to spy on candidate Trump, President elect Trump and President Trump. I then tell them that much of these activities are illegal and all of them are unethical. I then throw in sedition and treason as possible outsomes for those who took part in this. I leave out all the names of agencies and players as that is what I find glosses eyes over. However I do say that Hillary Clinton and Obama are going to be in trouble – either legal or damage to their reputations or both.

        Liked by 1 person

        • BobInFL says:

          Forgot to say – if they would like to delve further into the subject matter and get a clear picture of what has been going on and what will likely happen in the future – I send them to The Conservative Treehouse for the most comprehensive coverage and the smartest commenters on the internet!

          Like

    • OldSaltUSNR says:

      I hate to sound like a broken record, because I’ve written this here before.

      Though it’s good that the truth appears to be trickling out, it is also true that this apparent conspiracy has enough tentacles to make an Octopus accidentally choke himself. The details will make ANYONE’s eyes glass over, and especially, the lowest-common-denominators intellectually, the “mainstream press”.

      What’s more, none of this matters. All the “revelations” in the world won’t mean anything without (1) a prosecutor leading (2) an investigation by LEO’s outside the Justice/FBI loop, with (3) a Grand Jury empaneled resulting in (4) subpoena’s and (5) indictments against individuals involved, from lower to highest levels.

      The clock is ticking. The statute of limitations for most crimes is seven years. The Uranium One scandal, to name one item, is probably past prosecuting. Evidence disappears. People die (naturally or unnaturally), people forget, and people get bought off. It will take YEARS for a real, honest-to-goodness CRIMINAL investigation to cover everything, and bring any charges. It won’t be a Democrat show trial with fake evidence, fake witnesses, and leaks to the press. it’ll be an investigation that is credible, which will take time. The clock is ticking, the sand is running out of the hourglass, and the Congressional investigation thus far, has taken over a year.

      It disgusts me to say this, but this whole thing will probably blow over, while Mueller indicts and prosecutes the non-consequential or innocents, and the Democrat and mainstream media will smirk and say it was “all dirty Republican politics”, just like they said about Whitewater, about President Clinton’s perjury, about Sandy Burger’s espionage, about Hillary Clinton (and/or Jarrett’s and/or Obama’s) “stand down” orders while American’s fight and died ALONE in Benghazi, and like Lois Lerner’s corrupt use of IRS law enforcement to keep Obama’s political enemies from gaining traction during his 2012 re-election. There are SO MANY consequential abuses of power and use of government for personal gain by the the Clinton and Obama Democrats which have seen no justice, that a simple attempted coup d’etat against an incoming, elected US President, is water already over the bridge.

      I’m very pessimistic ANY of this will matter. It’s not because of Justice, the FBI, the Democrats, etc. It’s because I know the feckless Republicans, and they can be relied upon to turn tail just like in the 1990’s when they turned on Newt Gingrich and the new GOP conservatives. Nothing will result from these investigations, regardless of how clear or muddy the truth.

      Liked by 1 person

    • 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

        Like

    • 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”

      Like

    • 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.

      Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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