Originally Posted By wgjhsafT:


Someone more than likely on the NSC staff (per McCabe the President's PDB team or presidential daily brief team which would include FBI) asked the FBI to go look for it.  As in hint, hint, nudge, nudge.  

Given that the Brits had realized they should make nice and not play fuck-fuck games with Trump winning they sent a letter to Rice and Flynn stating Steele was garbage and distancing themselves from the operation.

They were already unmasking Flynn via NSA requests (what came out last week) but there were plenty of unmasked calls they could pull from and they simply did...more than likely at the direction of the president himself (hence no masking). 

All Obama had to say was "hey chief, what are the Russians up to since I kicked a bunch of them out" and people would know what to do.  (Taken in a way from Bongino). 

Also keep in mind since they were performing a counterintelligence investigation Trump, Flynn, et-al were all suspects.  "By the book" might even mean they have a right to lie to Trump and his team because they are after all suspects and you don't want to tip your hat.  I'd also say that in that meeting they decided to move ahead with multiple plans of action and Rice wrote the memo to put the blame back on Comey and make Obama look cleaner than he was.

Originally Posted By fudimo1:
Follow John he is here to help. he's lookin at you Judge. scroll down it's interesting.

Mr. (judge\uD83E\uDD14) Sullivan,
   I had hoped all along that you would do the right thing, that you would realize that what you're trying to hide is known by people on both sides. I had hoped in knowing that you would consider the situation moot and do the right thing.

John  (@Johnheretohelp) May 16, 2020

Quoted:
TRANSCRIPTS (zoomable) of calls/conversations between Biden, Poroshenko, and Kerry

I can't remember who was asking about this yesterday.

Appending here as well for reference. Reminder this meme has all of them, the transcripts from earlier plus the new additions. pic.twitter.com/8tsDj5DAfj

— lonewolf ?????? (@lonewolfBuilder) May 20, 2020

False statements by Susan Rice in her January 20, 2017 “Memorandum to File” potentially expose her to criminal prosecution.

The declassification of the entire Susan Rice “Memorandum to File” dated January 20, 2017, and further “clarifications” given by former Amb. Rice about her role in the January 5, 2017 meeting which is the subject of the Memorandum, raise questions about what Rice wrote that could end up exposing her to criminal investigation and prosecution in ongoing Justice Department probes.

Let us start by stitching together a few factual representations about events reflected in the Memorandum as written by former Amb. Rice.

First, from the text of the Memorandum, we have the following:

“On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election. President Obama had a follow-on conversation with FBI Director Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office.  Vice President Biden and I were also present.

Susan Rice puts herself in the room for the “follow-on” briefing, which from the balance of the Memorandum concerned Gen. Flynn, and the intercepts of his conversations with Russian Ambassador Kislyak.

This is at odds with what Sally Yates told the Special Counsel’s Office (SCO) during an interview on August 15, 2017.  The Memorandum of this interview is attached to the DOJ motion to dismiss the prosecution of Gen. Flynn, marked as Exh. 4.  In that interview Yates told the SCO the following:

Yates first learned of the December 2016 calls between [LTG Michael] Flynn and [Russian Ambassador to the United States, Sergey] Kislyak on January 5 , 2017, while in the Oval Office. Yates, along with then-FBI Director James Comey, then-CIA Director John Brennan, and then Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, were at the White House to brief members of the Obama Administration on the classified Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Activities in Recent Elections.  President Obama was joined by his National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, and others from the National Security Council.  After the briefing, Obama dismissed the group but asked Yates and Comey to stay behind.

This sets up the factual inconsistency between the recollections of Rice and Yates about whether Rice was actually in the Oval Office during the conversation about Gen. Flynn as Rice stated in her January 20 Memorandum.

In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on Nov. 2, 2017, Yates did not discuss the existence of this “follow-on” meeting as Rice called it.  She was careful to avoid answering any question which would have disclosed the existence of the discussion about Flynn between Pres. Obama, Dir. Comey and herself.  The subject of the Jan. 5 briefing is addressed beginning at p. 78, but the Committee members were unaware of Rice’s memo at that point which disclosed the existence of this “after-meeting.

Next let us turn to a letter sent by former Amb. Rice’s attorney to Senator Chuck Grassley on February 23, 2018, responding to questions he had directed in writing to former Amb. Rice, including some questions about her January 20 Memorandum and the January 5 meeting.  The letter to Sen. Grassley included the following:

The memorandum to file drafted by Ambassador Rice memorialized an important national security discussion between President Obama and the FBI Director and the Deputy Attorney General.

Right there Amb. Rice’s attorney preserves with her language the possibility that only 3 people were in the room when the topics referenced in Amb. Rice’s Memorandum were discussed.  She excludes from her description any other participants in this discussion, which is consistent with Yates’ interview with the SCO.

President Obama and his national security team were justifiably concerned about potential risks to the Nation’s security from sharing highly classified information about Russia with certain members of the Trump transition team, particularly Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

This language allows for the later “parsing” to clarify that the “concerns” were the product of discussions between the “national security” team prior to the meeting, not that other members of the national security team were present at the meeting, although that is the most natural reading of the language used.  The way the sentence is phrased, one could easily draw the conclusion that the discussion regarding concerns over Gen. Flynn on Russia issues were expressed/discussed in the meeting by other members of the “national security team” — including former Amb. Rice — when, in fact, the actual discussion of Gen. Flynn only took place in the “follow-on” meeting.  The letter never addresses who was present in the follow-on meeting — including whether former Amb. Rice was present — as stated in her Jan. 20, 2017 memo.

The letter goes on:

In light of concerning communications between members of the Trump team and Russian officials, before and after the election, President Obama, on behalf of his national security team, appropriately sought the FBI and the Department of Justice’s guidance on this subject.

Once again, the very precise language employed preserved the ability to clarify that only Pres. Obama was present when Gen. Flynn was discussed, and Dir. Comey and Deputy Attorney General Yates were the only officials to whom he addressed his concerns.  So we are back to there being only three people in the meeting — just as Sally Yates recalled when answering questions from the SCO investigators.

In the conversation Ambassador Rice documented, there was no discussion of Christopher Steele….

That strikes me as an odd way to describe a meeting that Amb. Rice was present for, and a conversation that she heard or participated in.  It is a “third party” phrasing that you would use in order to preserve the potential to explain “Well, I wasn’t there, but I was documenting the conversation based on the description I was given by people who were in attendance.”

… upon the advice of the White House Counsel’s Office, Ambassador Rice created a permanent record of the discussion. Ambassador Rice memorialized the discussion on January 20, because that was the first opportunity she had to do so,….

Again, focus on how much care was taken with the language to not overtly suggest or imply that former Amb. Rice was actually present when the conversation she had supposedly “memorialized” took place.

Ambassador Rice memorialized the discussion in an email sent to herself during the morning of January 20, 2017. The time stamp reflected on the email is not accurate, as Ambassador Rice departed the White House shortly before noon on January 20.

Here is where she might have inadvertently “mouse-trapped” herself.  This memorandum was an official government record if she sent it prior to the end of her term as National Security Advisor.  If, in fact, she was not present for the “follow-on” meeting when Gen. Flynn was the subject of the conversation between Pres. Obama, Comey, and Yates, then her statement in the memorandum “Vice President Biden and I were also present” during the follow-on meeting she described, is a “false statement”, and a potential violation of 18 USC Sec. 1001.

The statement is material because she is falsely making herself out as a witness to what was said in a meeting that is relevant to any investigation of how the Flynn matter was started, and the natural tendency of her language is to influence investigators to want to interview her.

This leads to the question “Why would she place herself in the room if she wasn’t really there?”   And if she wasn’t there, who was her source for the details of the discussion about Gen. Flynn between Comey and Pres. Obama as reflected in the paragraph just now declassified?

If only three people were in the meeting, one of those three had to be the source of the details that she “memorialized.”   There seems to be no chance that it was Yates or Comey, so that leaves only Pres. Obama.  So what her Memorandum really reflects is Pres. Obama’s version of what was discussed between himself, Comey and Yates.

Andy McCarthy has posited — convincingly in my view — that the true purpose of the Memorandum written by Rice was to allow Pres. Obama to point the finger of blame at Comey for whatever might happen in the aftermath of the transition into power of the Trump Administration.  According to Rice’s Memorandum, Pres. Obama told Comey to do everything “by the book”, and if Comey did not do so then Comey — and only Comey — was to blame.

Did Rice put herself present in the room just so she could avoid setting forth in the Memorandum that the details she memorialized had come from Pres. Obama?  Was she playing the “loyal soldier” by creating the impression that Obama’s version of the conversation had at least one supporting witness — herself — rather than have it as a “He said, He said” between Pres. Obama and Jim Comey at some future point in time?

Whichever answer is true, neither is a defense to the crime of violating Section 1001.

Originally Posted By togadelic:
?Q !!Hs1Jq13jV6  05/20/20 (Wed) 20:12:509ae635 (1)  No.9258120>>9258133 >>9258135 >>9258136 >>9258145 >>9258146 >>9258148 >>9258149 >>9258150 >>9258152 >>9258159 >>9258161 >>9258163 >>9258167 >>9258172 >>9258173 >>9258176 >>9258183

File (hide): 23277fd0d67a1d8?.jpg (154.38 KB, 1200x704, 75:44, DhOEL47VAAA2WyL.jpg) (h) (u)https://media.8kun.top/file_store/23277fd0d67a1d8633d470e3420ea75dbad24df4a30b7d3d55e6f4cf5a17a5dd.jpg


Important to note [future events].

Masking v unmasking

incidentally intercepted v direct [target]

702 collection [minimization procedures] v CIA v FVEY

How does the CIA collect intelligence?

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html

CIA not governed by FISA [intelligence operations conducted outside US]

FBI is under FISA [foreign counterintelligence mission is principally domestic]

Target location: US or abroad [traveling]

Foreign intelligence collection of US person(s).

Official v unofficial. 

What [central] AB[C] agency played quarterback?

Q

Q

Originally Posted By BM1455:

Washington Post Confirms Flynn’s Name Not Masked in Obama Briefing Material – Open FBI Investigation Intercepted Kislyak Call and Generated Transcript… https://t.co/EFtdaqRNaZ

TheLastRefuge  (@TheLastRefuge2) May 21, 2020

Originally Posted By BM1455:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/196710/Capture4297_PNG-1425445.JPG

The Original Karen #mikabrzezinski has been Triggered beyond repair, somebody get this chick some ice. #Triggered pic.twitter.com/V8TjXCtDaf

The United Spot  (@TheUnitedSpot1) May 20, 2020

Originally Posted By Cecenrse:

OMG @morningmika what is all this!?!? pic.twitter.com/8KBjjCLVTR

Raheem Kassam  (@RaheemKassam) May 20, 2020

Originally Posted By Cecenrse:

DEVELOPING: Special prosecutor Durham said to be looking at retired CIA cronies of Brennan -- including Mike Morell -- for helping politicize intelligence and spreading false rumors about Trump and Russia during 2016 campaign, including some as part of paid special task force

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) May 21, 2020

  

Originally Posted By Cecenrse:
I know it's a small election, but it IS encouraging for us. More importantly it's demoralizing for the Dems.  

republicans have flipped the city council of staunton, virginia, after the gop slate swept the four seats up for grabs

this is an impressive win for republicans in this clinton+2 city in the shenandoah valleyhttps://t.co/KokMQuDTRY

Thao Nguyen  (@helloitsthao) May 21, 2020

Sergei Millian misses New York. After the naturalized US citizen became an unwitting player in the 2016 election controversies, he grew increasingly worried about his safety and left the country.

“I was being set up,” Millian wrote me recently via Twitter.

Millian is one of the central, and yet little-known, figures in the Russian “collusion” hoax. His ostensible role, as described in FBI documents and press reports, is confusing. That was by design.

Christopher Steele told the FBI that Millian was a “boastful” source for the former British spy’s discredited “dossier” describing Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.

Steele’s client Glenn Simpson, a Hillary Clinton campaign contractor, said Millian was a source and a Russian intelligence officer.

The evidence shows that Millian is neither. He was swept into the anti-Trump operation simply because he dealt with Russian businessmen, once sold apartments in Trump properties, and publicly supported the 2016 Republican candidate. Millian, who won’t disclose his present location, is concerned he may still be in danger. He’s already paid a steep price.

The early chapter of Millian’s American story is the quintessential immigrant’s tale of ambition and hustle. Born Siarhei Kukuts in Belarus in 1978, he jumped at the chance to come to the United States when he was offered an education grant in 2001. He first made his home in Atlanta and then New York. He worked as a translator and obtained his real estate license. He also co-founded the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce to promote business, cultural and educational exchanges.

Millian thought it was a chance to make connections. But it was this association that would later spike the dark interest of those who sought to destroy him.

In April 2016, Millian gave an interview to a Russian-language Web site explaining why he supported Trump. He liked the candidate’s business sense, had met him once in Miami in 2007, and was proud to have sold units from a Trump property in south Florida. “That interview is when Simpson started to target me,” Millian wrote me.

Research documents belonging to Simpson’s Washington, DC, firm, Fusion GPS, show that Millian was indeed in their crosshairs. To ­bolster their collusion narrative, they claimed he was a Russian spy secretly in contact with the Trump team.

In fact, Steele never met Millian. The dossier says that another source spoke to Millian, and then claimed that Millian had relayed wild rumors — like Vladimir Putin had compromising videos of Trump. Millian denies saying that.

This secondhand account of unverified hogwash was passed along to the FBI, and was then parroted until it became an unbelievable tale of treachery.

Simpson boasts in his 2019 book, “Crime in Progress,” that he told an ABC News producer “to get Millian on camera.” Millian wrote me that he was baffled and upset when former ABC newsman Brian Ross asked repeatedly if the Chamber of Commerce was a front for Russian espionage. “They promised they wouldn’t air that,” Millian wrote. “But they did.”

Government documents show the FBI appears to have taken Simpson seriously, and opened an investigation into Millian — as they had with Gen. Michael Flynn and three other Trump campaign officials falsely alleged to have suspicious contacts with Russian officials. With Trump’s victory and publication of the dossier, the press pushed the phony claims that ­Millian was a source for it, with ties to Russian intelligence.

Millian began to receive death threats.

“My friends and business associates kept getting calls from the media about me,” Millian wrote me.

“Some got scared and disappeared. I lost job opportunities and the executive positions I held in various enterprises. I lost everything that I’d spent 15 years in America building.”

Millian reasoned that he had little chance of clearing his name at the time, saying: “You saw what they did to Flynn. If they can do it to a general, you can only guess what they would have done to me if I stayed.”

Quoted:


You misunderstand, and I was not clear.

If a former US official is on trial in the US and they've fled, absolutely try to get them back here. I've made no argument to the contrary.

We must never send our former officials to another nation so that foreign nation can put them on trial. If they were naughty, that is a problem we deal with within this nation.

Quoted:

Why do we all have to wear masks but General Flynn gets to be unmasked?

Mini AOC  (@RealMiniAOC) May 20, 2020

For all of Obama’s talk of money and lobbies, he was himself creating a large international constituency for the deal. Sanctions on Iran had kept foreign companies out of the country for decades, but the promise of new markets for major industries, like energy and automotive, had European and Asian industry chomping at the bit. The American president not only promised to relieve sanctions, but also to help drum up business by assuring the world that it was safe to invest in Iran. John Kerry was keen to turn the State Department into Iran's Chamber of Commerce.

“While my Department will not act to prevent you from touring Ford’s plant, I ask that while you are on tour you respect the great efforts of the men and women at Ford — and across this State — by wearing a facial covering,” Nessel wrote. “It is not just the policy of Ford, by virtue of the Governor’s Executive Orders. It is currently the law of this State.”

A Ford spokesperson told the Associated Press earlier this week that the company informed the White House that it requires everyone in factories to wear masks. But the spokesperson noted, “The White House has its own safety and testing policies in place and will make its own determination,” leaving unanswered the question of whether Trump will sport a face covering on Thursday.

Trump has been equally noncommittal about wearing a mask to the factory.

“I don’t know,” the president said Tuesday when asked if he would wear a mask in light of the company’s policy. “It depends. I mean, you know, in certain areas, I would. In certain areas, I don’t. But I will certainly look at it.”

He added that his decision would be contingent on the situation.

“Am I standing right next to everybody or am I spread out?” Trump said. “And also … you know, is something a hospital? Is it a ward? … What is it exactly? I’m going to a plant. So we’ll see. Where it’s appropriate, I would do it, certainly.”

Trump’s comments did not appear to reassure Nessel, who in Wednesday’s letter stressed that Michigan has been “hit especially hard by the virus.” As of early Thursday, the state had more than 53,000 reported cases and roughly 5,000 deaths. Nessel noted that the coronavirus reached the White House earlier this month, when a military valet to Trump and Vice President Pence’s press secretary, Katie Miller, tested positive.

“Anyone who has potentially been recently exposed, including the President of the United States, has not only a legal responsibility, but also a social and moral responsibility, to take reasonable precautions to prevent further spread of the virus,” Nessel wrote.

If Trump does don a mask Thursday, it would be the first time he is seen on camera wearing one in public.