I have been requested to put some context behind a recent set of statements made by former President Barack Obama to Stephen Colbert. As many interested observers understand (some may gain deeper appreciation later on) statements -even defensive- made in furtherance of a conspiracy can be used later in court to highlight intent.
To encapsulate for those who requested, we first start with the recent statement by the former President. Listen closely:
Obama: “The White House shouldn’t be able to direct the AG to go around prosecuting whoever the president wants prosecuted. You can’t have a situation where whoever is in charge of the government starts using that to go after their political enemies or reward their friends.” pic.twitter.com/zqkV1vPdfq
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) May 6, 2026
On May 19, 2020, Acting DNI Richard Grenell declassified the hidden paragraph of the Susan Rice memo that was hidden for three years. This enabled us to put a full context to the ‘memo to file‘ that was published by Susan Rice on January 20, 2017; an event that was timed to happen during President Trump’s inauguration.
The context was President Obama and Susan Rice holding a meeting with FBI Director James Comey during the transition period approximately two weeks before President Trump took office. On January 5, 2017, President Obama and Susan Rice were discussing incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn with FBI Director James Comey.
When you understand the context, you understand exactly why the Intelligence Community tried to keep this paragraph hidden. The motive to write the January 20, 2017, memo is clear. Also, the IC did not ever expect this to be released. Here’s the formerly hidden paragraph:
Within this paragraph we find the motive for Susan Rice writing it (emphasis mine):
“Director Comey affirmed that he is proceeding “by the book” as it relates to law enforcement.” … “Comey said he does have some concerns that incoming NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador Kislyak.” “Comey said that could be an issue as it relates to sharing senssitive information.” “President Obama asked if Comey was saying that the NSC should not pass sensitive information related to Russia to Flynn.” “Comey replied “potentially.”” “He added that he has no indication thus far that Flynn has passed classified information to Kislyak, but he noted that “the level of communication is unusual.”
Remember, the position of President Obama and Susan Rice is that they were never aware of any FBI investigation of Flynn (or the Trump campaign); nor did they have any involvement in directing it to take place.
The content of this January 5th meeting makes the first part of their claim challenging to accept. Thus, the need for Susan Rice to cover for it.
Here’s the full memo in context (including the redacted paragraph):
On January 5, 2017, James Comey officially put President Obama on notice about the FBI conducting an investigation and surveillance upon the Trump campaign. Obviously, Obama already knew this; however, at these moments in real time each of the participants was trying to protect themselves by documenting all of the activity and making sure the entire group was attached to the legal risk if anything went wrong.
Now it gets a little uncomfortable for the Obama White House here because just a few days earlier DNI James Clapper created a document trail from the FBI to the Office of The President. That trail created by Clapper was problematic, and that’s why the January 5th meeting was organized.
We learned from James Comey’s testimony, that a day or two prior to this January 5, 2017 meeting, DNI James Clapper briefed President Obama on the nature of the call between Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Michael Flynn.
James Clapper received raw “intelligence cuts” about the call from FBI Director James Comey and used them to brief President Obama.
James Comey knew he gave the information to Clapper, and James Comey knew Clapper went to the White House to brief Obama. As a consequence, it becomes very problematic for the Obama white house to claim they didn’t know about, nor direct, an FBI investigation of incoming President Trump or incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn given the fact they were briefed on the intercepted phone communications conveyed by the FBI, via DNI Clapper, to President Obama.
If the FBI wasn’t investigating Flynn, then why was the FBI intercepting his calls?
Understandably President Obama and NSA Susan Rice would be worried about being attached to a potentially very unlawful investigation of the incoming administration and NSA Michael Flynn; hence the ‘stay behind’ meeting.
As a result of prior briefing material given to President Obama, he knew the FBI was monitoring the Trump transition team and intercepting Flynn’s communication. The aspect of Obama questioning Comey about sharing sensitive information from Flynn; and Comey’s response; points to Obama/Rice knowledge of an FBI operation against Flynn.
This is an FBI operation against Flynn (and Trump) that Susan Rice knows she needs to claim she and Obama did not know about.
From a hindsight perspective it gets very sticky for Obama/Rice to deny knowledge with that 1/5/17 meeting content in the fray. That’s the purpose of the Jan 20th CYA memo to file. Think about it:
Question: Ms Rice how can you claim to have no knowledge of an FBI investigation when the FBI was providing the White House FBI with intercepts of Flynn communication?
Are you saying the FBI intercepts were not authorized by President Obama?
Rice’s CYA memo was essentially saying exactly that. She’s positioning FBI Director James Comey as rogue with his investigation, and that is a threat to James Comey. Hence, Comey giving DNI Clapper the information knowing he would walk it into the White House.
Without the memo FBI Director James Comey could claim President Obama and Susan Rice were well aware of the FBI’s Flynn operation.
With the memo Obama/Rice position themselves as having no idea until FBI Director Comey started talking.
That’s the purpose for the memo; Obama & Rice protecting themselves from Comey if things go sideways.
Now, to further illustrate this intent, it’s worth remembering the letter from Susan Rice’s lawyer, Kathryn Ruemmler to the Senate:
Note the second to last paragraph, Rice’s letter in 2018 is trying to deny knowledge of FBI operations, writ large, against the Trump campaign or incoming administration.
This letter from Rice’s lawyer to the Senate Judiciary Committee is false, demonstrably false. However, the written lie highlights that Susan Rice and Kathryn Reummler never expected that “classified paragraph” to ever be released.
….”President Obama asked if Comey was saying that the NSC should not pass sensitive information related to Russia to Flynn.”….
Go back and read that second to last paragraph from Susan Rice in February 2018, and contrast it against what Susan Rice wrote on January 5, 2017. See the problem?
When James Clapper walked directly into the White House with “intelligence cuts” on January 3, 2017, specifically from FBI Director James Comey, to share with President Obama, it is clear the white house legal team around Obama -specifically including Kathryn Reummler- went bananas.
DNI James Clapper was always a doofus, but usefully so. However, in this context doofus Clapper -with his FBI cuts in hand- just infected the White House with direct knowledge of an ongoing FBI investigation of the incoming administration. In that briefing Clapper just walked over their carefully assembled plausible deniability. Clapper carried the evidence into the Oval Office, removing Obama’s ability to say he was unaware of any FBI surveillance of Michael Flynn (and Trump).
The white house next move was to call for the January 5, 2017, meeting with FBI Director James Comey, and the January 20th Susan Rice memo-to-file was supportive material for the intention of again putting the issue onto Comey, not Obama. That is why Susan Rice memorialized the meeting as a cya to mitigate legal risk.
It must be emphasized that for three years the redaction of that key paragraph remained hidden. The DOJ/FBI, Intelligence Community and Robert Mueller’s crew were trying to keep James Comey protected, while simultaneously maintaining the offensive against the Trump administration.
Imagine if this fully unredacted Susan Rice memo had been released in 2017 or 2018? The sunlight would have been unbearable for a multitude of ongoing narratives. Robert Mueller could never have attempted to prosecute Flynn in 2017 against the backdrop of a known and fabricated FBI investigation to target Donald Trump and Michael Flynn. An investigation that President Obama was fully aware of despite his denials.
Wicked, evil people–willfully, purposefully, subverting our own volition. Thank you for continuing to carefully explain how and why.
Susan Rice was Biden’s Domestic Policy Advisor from Jan 2021 to May 2023. Biden had to be surrounded by Obamaites to keep Obama’s propaganda machine & corruption going. Thanks to Sundance who keeps putting the pieces of the puzzle together to coherently reflect the corruption. Dems thought no one could ever do so & that all the separate pieces would only create confusion not coherence.
Woke, Progressive-Marxists have no national loyalty (only loyalty to self and ideology) hence they do not understand it in others or take it into consideration when anticipating the citizenry’s response to their behavior. Such blind-siding couldn’t happen to more deserving humans!
President Obama Highlights Ongoing ‘Opposition to his Communist Democrat Party’ During Interview with Media
More liberals pretending not to know things.
This brings to mind a term not seen so frequently these days as it was during those deeply nefarious activities….
“The walls are closing in on him.”
And “the beginning of the end”
As Sundance has exquisitely explained the how and the why, the question then becomes: What actions will be taken against the perpetrators? And when and by whom?
No actions by anyone.
Our system of justice is a joke.
Jug ears is using the same old playbook of the Democrats, shifting the blame of what they have done to the other side with the support of the media. What a buffoon.
It is learned behavior also know as projection. I believe it is mentioned in that book, “Rules for Radicals”. It is a tactic used against normal people who understand Communism is misery for all.
One day Barry…one day…
Until “big media” is completely broken up, the level of corruption in the U.S. will not abate.
Until the Judicial branch is made an example (expatriated to prison), the same.
Until the DOJ prosecutes corruption, sedition, and crime, the same.
Until citizens get involved, demand accountability, & put down their fu*kin phones / beers / sports, the same.
I’m willing to believe that something might happen to these traitors. See the below AI response regarding people who have been tried for traitorous events long after the fact. And then there are always the Nurenberg Trials. Given blondi is gone, there’s a chance….
Yes, individuals have been convicted of treason against the USA years after their actions, particularly following WWII, which saw the last successful convictions. Notable examples include Iva Toguri D’Aquino (“Tokyo Rose”), convicted in 1949 for wartime broadcasts, and Tomoya Kawakita, convicted in 1952 for abusing POWs during the war. [1, 2, 3]
Iva Toguri D’Aquino (Tokyo Rose): Convicted in 1949, she served over six years of a 10-year sentence for treasonous radio broadcasts made during WWII (1941–1945), later receiving a presidential pardon.Tomoya Kawakita (1952): A dual US-Japanese citizen who abused American prisoners of war in Japan during WWII, Kawakita was caught years later and convicted of treason in 1952.Martin James Monti (1948): An Army Air Force pilot who defected to the SS in 1944, he was convicted of treason in 1948 for his wartime actions.Axis Sally (Mildred Gillars): Convicted in 1949 for broadcasting Nazi propaganda during the war.Key Context on Treason Cases:
WWII Focus: The last treason convictions in U.S. history occurred in the 1940s and early 1950s related to WWII.Legal Hurdles: The U.S. Constitution requires two witnesses to an overt act or a confession in open court, making prosecution rare.Alternative Charges: Many acts of “treasonous behavior” are now prosecuted under other laws, such as the Espionage Act or seditious conspiracy, rather than treason itself.
If “Conspiracy Against Rights” had not already been a federal crime before Obama and Holder came along, they could have been the ones to inspire putting it into federal law as a crime. It is what they were trying to do to Trump and his top people from the moment Trump announced his first run for the Presidency, if not before.
This is just about the most glaring example of Democrat projection, accusing their opponents of doing exactly what they are doing in order to deflect attention from themselves. What slime, what absolute hypocrites.
Those clapping seals in the colbert video clip think Obama is pure as the driven snow. smh.
When I try to explain this to some people, I get the “Conspiracy Theory” response. If anything comes of the FL investigation with wide ranging consequences, it will be my pleasure to rub their noses in it.
I appreciate your problem. The advantage “our side” has is that so many previously classified or partially redacted documents have come to light. (And has been published on the CTH website thanks to the fantastic Sundance!) Our main disadvantage is that one cannot force people who don’t want to read to read – and understand. The Mamet problem all over again.
Brain dead liberals simply don’t want to see it or hear it or read it or understand it. They live in a make believe world and a constant state of denial.
This petulant little loser is a dire threat to our country and should be treated as such.
I mean, what the hell is this subversive little punk doing chumming up to China con Carney?
This gathering of these ingrates on foreign soil sure doesn’t sound like a good day for America.
Surveillance is in order for this communist operative.
I grow tired of how the imaginations of liberals, who find “penumbras, emanations, and rules based norms” whenever they want to change the Constitution by means other than an amendment. The President is charged EXPLICITLY by the Constitution with the responsibility of “seeing to it that the laws (enacted by Congress) are faithfully executed.” To fulfill this responsibility, the President has the Attorney General, and those officers and agents under the Attorney General’s authority, to investigate possible violations of federal law and prosecute those crimes once Probable Cause is established as a result of an investigation.
The President is the CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES, seeing to it the intent of the Congress is carried out. Therefore, the Attorney General is NOT, and cannot be under the existing Constitution, INDEPENDENT OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT. If Obama was familiar with recent history, he will remember back when we actually HAD an INDEPENDENT COUNSEL LAW under which a three-judge panel could appoint an authority independent of the President to investigate possible crimes committed by that President’s administration. Since both sides of the Uniparty had Presidents investigated by Independent Counsels, they both decided to let the law sunset. The Democrats were the ones that wanted the law gone because Clinton was the one being investigated.
It was frequent golfing partner of Trump, Bill Clinton, and then fellow New Yorker, who bitched to Trump about having an Independent Counsel investigating him. People heard Trump go ballistic and quote Clinton about the Independent Counsel when he heard about Mueller being appointed.
There are no “rules based norms” about an “independent DOJ.” The liberal media should know better. Only REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT’S Attorneys General are deemed “independent” of the sitting President, not those like Merrick Garland who serve DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTS, and can meet with state and local prosecutors to go after their political adversaries whenever they wish, regardless of the existence of a “conflict of interest” in having the lieutenant of Fani Willis consort with White House counsel or Alvin Bragg shortly after indicting Trump.
Obama belongs in Gitmo. No doubt.
Well, I guess this was “Obama’s Worst Week.”
Kathy Reummler met with Epstein, in person, on Jan 4, 2017 at 4pm
From DoJ Epstein Library:
To:
From:
Subject Alert – 4:00pm Go Look At Apartment w/Kathy Reummler I JOJO TO DRIVE
YOU
January 4, 2017 4:00 PM : 4:00pm Go Look At Apartment w/Kathy Reummler
JOJO TO DRIVE YOU
EFTA_R1_00910664
EFTA02200365
Well done, Sundance. Louder , please!!
With dancing girls and fireworks…then maybe the low info crowd will look up.
Blessings!!
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!