Posted on 02/12/2018 1:04:34 PM PST by mojito
February 8, 2018
The Honorable Susan Rice Senior Fellow, Belfer Center Harvard University 79 John F. Kennedy Street Cambridge, MA 02138
c/o Kathryn Ruemmler, Esq. Latham and Watkins LLP 555 Eleventh Street NW Washington, DC 20004
Dear Ambassador Rice:
The Senate Judiciary Committee has a constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the FBI and the broader Department of Justice. Part of that duty involves ensuring that law enforcement efforts are conducted without improper political influence. Accordingly , the Committee has been investigating the FBI's relationship with Christopher Steele during the time his work was funded by Hillary for America and the Democratic National Committee, as well as the FBI's reliance on his unverified third-hand allegations in the Bureau' s representations to courts.
As part of that effort, the Committee sent a request to the National Archives for records of meetings between President Obama and then-FBI Director Corney regarding the FBI's investigation of allegations of collusion between associates of Mr. Trump and the Russian government. In response, the Committee received classified and unclassified versions of an email you sent to yourself on January 20, 2017 - President Trump's inauguration day. If the timestamp is correct, you sent this email to yourself at 12:15pm , presumably a very short time before you departed the White House for the last time.
In this email to yourself, you purport to document a meeting that had taken place more than two weeks before, on January 5, 2017. You wrote:
"On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Corney and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also present."
That meeting reportedly included a discussion of the Steele dossier and the FBI's investigation of its claims.1 Your email continued:
"President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities "by the book". The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book."
"From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia."
The next part of your email remains classified. After that, you wrote:
"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."
It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia investigation. In addition, despite your claim that President Obama repeatedly told Mr. Corney to proceed " by the book," substantial questions have arisen about whether officials at the FBI, as well as at the Justice Department and the State Department, actually did proceed " by the book."
In order for the Committee to further assess the situation, please respond to the following by February 22, 2018:
1. Did you send the email attached to this letter to yourself? Do you have any reason to dispute the timestamp of the email?
2. When did you first become aware of the FBI's investigation into allegations of collusion between Mr. Trump' s associates and Russia?
3. When did you become aware of any surveillance activities, including FISA applications, undertaken by the FBI in conducting that investigation? At the time you wrote this email to yourself, were you aware of either the October 2016 FISA application for surveillance of Carter Page or the January 2017 renewal?
4. Did anyone instruct, request, suggest, or imply that you should send yourself the aforementioned Inauguration Day email memorializing President Obama' s meeting with Mr. Corney about the Trump/Russia investigation? If so, who and why?
5. Is the account of the January 5, 2017 meeting presented in your email accurate? Did you omit any other portions of the conversation?
6. Other than that email, did you document the January 5, 2017 meeting in any way, such as contemporaneous notes or a formal memo? To the best of your knowledge, did anyone else at that meeting take notes or otherwise memorialize the meeting?
7. During the meeting, did Mr. Corney or Ms. Yates mention potential press coverage of the Steele dossier? If so, what did they say?
8. During the meeting, did Mr. Corney describe the status of the FBI's relationship with Mr. Steele, or the basis for that status?
9. When and how did you first become aware of the allegations made by Christopher Steele?
10. When and how did you first become aware that the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee funded Mr. Steele's efforts?
11. You wrote that President Obama stressed that he was "not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective." Did President Obama ask about, initiate, or instruct anything from any other perspective relating to the FBI's investigation?
12. Did President Obama have any other meetings with Mr. Corney, Ms. Yates, or other government officials about the FBI's investigation of allegations of collusion between Trump associates and Russia? If so, when did these occur, who participated, and what was discussed?
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please contact Patrick Davis of Chairman Grassley' s staff at (202) 224-5225 or Lee Holmes of Chairman Graham's staff at (202) 224-5972 if you have any questions.
“The way the questions are worded, it seems that Grassley-Graham already know the answers to these questions.”
And THAT is in precise particular the hallmark of a pointed, deliberate, litigation-savvy questioner.
If you go back and listen to Darryl Issa asking witness questions during the various hearings he chaired, you will understand the difference between someone who “thinks” they are a lawyer; (Issa was not an atty) and one who is a skilled litigator. Every question Issa ever asked had 2 or 3 possible answers. This drove me utterly flaming nuts. The witnesses could answer “well, perhaps it could have been this way, or, perhaps it could be that way”. And as a result he could never zero in on a plan of attack where the witness answered a train of questions that....ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS. The witnesses, instead, were invited to throw out seed corn this way and that and generate endless possibilities of indetermination. Drove me batty. I actually wrote Mr. Issa and pleaded with him to let Trey Gowdy prepare his questions and to quit destructively “winging it”.
Exactly. Decades ago I heard that an attorney never asks a question he doesn’t know the answer to. It’s pretty clear that’s in play here.
Maybe it was typed by an Indian like this article about “James Corney”
Precious few hits, though. The main one was the article from India I just posted.
darnit, lost the link
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.