Replies

PROOF POSITIVE THAT OBAMA KNEW

Obama’s CYA maneuver of January 3, 2017-——the signing of NSA Data-Sharing Order Section 2.3 by AG Lynch —— is the coupe d’etat to blow out The Deep State. Obama’s after-the-fact ex/order contains some unusual language particularly the convoluted language WRT “The Strategic Delay of Section 2.3 of Obama’s Executive Order 12333”:

NOTE WELL: Prior to the formal signing of Section 2.3, greater latitude ALREADY existed within the White House in regards to collection of information – especially in relation to the Trump Campaign. However, once signed, Section 2.3 granted broad latitude to inter-agency sharing of information.

But by the time Obama’s new executive order was signed on January 3, 2017, all that information was already in the possession of Obama White House.

Thus, Susan Rice’s January 20, 2017 email to herself takes on an even greater significance b/c no one was ever supposed to know about the REAL meaning of Obama’s retroactive CYA.....until Rice stupidly laid it all out in an official email.

cont

When Susan Rice stupidly wrote a CYA memo to herself, she inadvertently confessed to a series of crimes that added the time line and inferences about what the outgoing Obama administration illegally concealed from incoming President Trump and his aides.

CYA memos are rarely a good idea. Most often, they reveal things the author never intended——ala Susan Rice’s now-infamous email to herself.

powerlineblog.com

WHY SUSAN RICE WROTE AN EMAIL TO HERSELF........the extraordinary email Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice wrote to herself at 12:15 on January 20, 2017........within minutes of President Trump’s inauguration must have been her last act, more or less, before she vacated the White House. So obviously the email was important to her. But why would it be important to send an email to herself (the only person copied was one of her aides)?

If you read the email, along with Senator Grassley’s letter to Rice, it is obvious that it is a CYA memo. But the question is, whose A is being C’d?

Most attention, so far, has focused on the first two paragraphs of the email, which describe a meeting that occurred around two weeks earlier. The participants included
<><>Barack Obama,
<><>Joe Biden,
<><>James Comey,
<><> Sally Yates–who turns up like a bad penny whenever skulduggery is afoot–
<><>and Rice:

Rice made sure to underscore that 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”. Rice writes Obama 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.

This is pure boilerplate.

It represents, obviously, the company line. But Rice did not write her email to cover Barack Obama’s rear end. If she or anyone else had wanted to document the claim that Obama said to proceed “by the book,” the appropriate course would have been an official memo that copied others who were present and would have gone into the file. (My guess is that such a memo was written, but we haven’t seen it.)

The important part of the email is not the paragraph that purports to exonerate Obama, but the paragraphs that follow: “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 paragraph of the email remains classified and has been redacted. The email concludes:
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.

CONCLUSION Why did Susan Rice send herself an email purporting to document this part of the meeting? Because she was C’ing her own A. Rice was nervous about the fact that, at the president’s direction, she had failed to “share information fully as it relates to Russia” with President Trump’s incoming national security team.

Her actions violated longstanding American tradition. Outgoing administrations have always cooperated in the transition to a new administration, whether of the same or the opposing party, especially on matters relating to national security.

Susan Rice is far from the brightest bulb on the tree, but she was well aware that by concealing facts ostensibly relating to national security from her counterpart in the new administration–General Michael Flynn–she was, at a minimum, violating longstanding civic norms.

If she actually lied to Flynn, she could have been accused of much worse. So Rice wanted to be able to retrieve her email, if she found herself in a sticky situation, and tell the world that she hid relevant facts about Russia from the new administration on Barack Obama’s orders.

What were the secrets that Obama wanted to keep from the new administration? We can easily surmise that the fact that the Steele memo was paid for by the Democratic Party; that the FBI had to some degree collaborated with Steele; that the Clinton campaign had fed some of the fake news in the dossier to Steele; and that Comey’s FBI had used Steele’s fabrications as the basis for FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign were among the facts that Obama and his minions didn’t want Michael Flynn and Donald Trump to know. Susan Rice, we can infer, was told to keep these secrets, and if anyone ever asked why she had failed to disclose them to Michael Flynn and others on Trump’s team, or even lied to those people, she would have the defense that President Obama ordered her to do it.

There may be more to it than this. The redacted paragraph likely contains more information about what it was that Rice wasn’t supposed to tell the Trump team. One of these days, we will learn what was blacked out.

The fact that Michael Flynn was Susan Rice’s counterpart in the incoming administration may also be significant. We know that the FBI agents who interviewed General Flynn–even Peter Strzok!–reported that they didn’t think he had lied about anything. And yet, Obama’s DOJ and Bob Mueller’s “investigation”–basically a continuation of Obama’s corrupt Department of Justice under another, less accountable name–persecuted Flynn to the point where he finally pled guilty to a single count of lying to the FBI in order, as he says, to end the madness and the financial drain.

Why were the Democrats so determined to discredit General Flynn? Perhaps because they wanted to pre-empt any outrage that may otherwise have followed on revelations that the Obama administration’s National Security Advisor hid important facts from her successor during the transition, and may have lied to him about those facts, in violation of all American tradition.

Items from Clinton Foundation’s Dealings with Russian Uranium
Independent Journal Review | April 2015 | Michael Hausum
FR Posted by Beautiful_Gracious_Skies

The New York Times April 2015 published an article about the Clinton Foundation, its receipt of millions of dollars from foreign governments and other interests, and the U.S. government’s involvement in Russia’s stated goal to expand its control of the world’s uranium market.

All while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

The NY Times didn’t reach a conclusion, but one question looms very large: As Secretary of State, did Hillary influence an international deal giving a Russian company 20% ownership of America’s uranium production, in return for millions of dollars of cash donations to the Clinton Foundation?

Here is a list of 11 questionable items forming a chain of events:

1. September of 2005: Canadian Frank Giustra visits Kazakhstan with Bill Clinton. Days later, his company UrAsia wins a major uranium deal with the country.

2. 2006: Giustra donates $31 million to the Clinton Foundation.

3. February 2007: UrAsia merges with Uranium One and expands into the U.S..

4. June 2008: Russian atomic agency Rosatom begins talks to acquire Uranium One.

5. 2008 to 2010: Uranium One and UrAsia investors donate $8.65 million to Clinton Foundation.

6. June 2009: Rosatom acquires 17% of Uranium One.

7. 2010 to 2011: Millions more donated by Uranium One investors to Clinton Foundation.

8. June 2010: Rosatom requests Committee on Foreign Investment (of which the State Department is a member and its approval is needed) to approve a majority ownership in Uranium One, PROMISING NOT TO PURCHASE 100% of it, NOR TAKE IT PRIVATE.

9. June 2010: Bill Clinton receives $500,000 to speak at a conference held by the Russian investment bank involved in the Rosatom transactions.

10. October 2010: Committee APPROVES Rosatom’s request to ACQUIRE A MAJORITY SHARE in Uranium One.

11. January 2013: Rosatom PURCHASES REMAINDER of Uranium One and takes it PRIVATE!.

The origins of the story were reported in the NY Times in 2008 by Jo Becker, a co-author of the recent NYT piece: Unlike established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton....

Within two days, corporate records show that Mr. Giustra also came up a winner when his company signed preliminary agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom. The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world’s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra, analysts said.

Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. CLINTON’S charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 MILLION DONATION FROM MR. GUISTRA that had remained a SECRET until he acknowledged it last month. There are intricacies and subtleties to this story that aren’t evident in the timeline.

For example, when Hillary assumed the job as Secretary of State, she assented to a limitation of the foundation’s international activities and agreed to disclose contributors. It appears, at a minimum, there was incomplete follow-through upon these assurances. Furthermore, those involved in the transactions have denied that any special privileges were sought and that the donations were completely unrelated.