Untangling the Lies About The Obama Biden Coup Meeting of January 5, 2017 by Larry C Johnson

Larry Johnson-5x7

The release this week of Peter Strzok's notes on the 5 January 2017 meeting convened by Barack Obama and attended by his national security and law enforcement chiefs makes it clear that Sally Yates and/or Susan Rice are lying about what transpired and when it happened.

Strzok adds scintillating details to the depth and scope of the plot to try to destroy Donald Trump and his Presidency and, for now, provides the only record of what transpired prior to Obama dismissing Clapper, Brennan and the NSC staff. Here is the problem,  Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates told FBI agents that OBAMA DISMISSED THE GROUP (i.e., Joe Biden, Susan Rice, Jim Clapper, John Brennan and "others" from the National Security Council) and asked Yates and FBI Director Jim Comey to "stay behind."

But that is not what Susan Rice claims. Her now infamous memo to the file (drafted in the final moments of the Obama Administration) notes that she, along with Sleepy Joe Biden, also stayed behind.

Strzok's memo destroys the claims of Yates and Rice about the select group Obama asked to "stay behind."

Yates account is that she only learned of the intercepted conversations between Michael Flynn and the Russian Ambassador after the others left. Channeling the spirit of Inspector Renault from Casablanca (he was shocked to discover gambling in the Casino), poor Sally was surprised and shocked when Obama, on his own, brought up Michael Flynn's conversation with the Russian Ambassador and specifically identified "SANCTIONS" as the substance of that conversation. Obama then said, according to Yates, that he did not want any additional information on the matter, but was seeking information on whether the Obama White House should be treating Flynn differently going forward.


Yates told the FBI agents who interviewed her that she had "no idea what Obama was talking about but figured it out based on the conversation." To paraphrase Jim Comey, "Lordy, Lordy, what's a body to do."

Susan Rice tells a different story. She claims that Obama kicked off the conversation by insisting that he was not "asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective". Obama's next move, according to Rice's account, directs the staff to "ascertain" if there is any reason the Obama team cannot fully share intelligence relative to Russia.

Rice then pins the tail on the donkey Jim Comey. Comey affirms he's doing everything by the book (except we now know he overruled the FBI agent recommending closing the case on Michael Flynn). It was Comey, according to Rice, not Obama who raised the specter of Michael Flynn chatting up the Russians. Comey could not point to any specific violation of classified information by Flynn, but commented that the level of communication is "unusual."

Peter Strzok's notes tell a completely different story from Yates and Rice. We do not know if Strzok was present as a notetaker for Comey or if he prepared this note at the direction of Comey. Regardless, Strzok's note shows that the issue of going after Michael Flynn for his conversations with the Russian Ambassador occurred with everyone in the room, including CIA Director John Brennan and the Director of National Intelligence Jimmy Clapper.

It is the presence of Clapper and Brennan and what they said that explains the blacked out portions of the Strzok note on the "conversation" at the White House.

Strzok writes:

NSA Director (Susan Rice, National Security Advisor) and DAG (Deputy Attorney General Yates): Flynn calls(?) Other Ambassadors

D (Comey) and DAG: Lean forward on “?????”

VP (Biden): “Logan Act”

P (Obama): “These are unusual times”

VP (Biden): “I’ve been on the intel committee for ten years and I never . . .”

P (Obama): “Make sure you look at thing and have the right people on it.”

P (Obama): “Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling the transition team?”

D (Comey): “Flynn-Kislyak call but appear legit.

According to Strzok's account, it was Comey who told Barack Obama not to say anything to the Trump team about the Flynn-Kislyak conversations. Rice's account on this point appears to corroborate Strzok's version of events.

However, Strzok states that Comey characterized the Flynn-Kislyak call as "legit." Rice contends that Comey said it was unusual. Someone is lying.

Strzok's notes destroys Yates claim that she did not know nothing about a Flynn-Kislyak call. She reportedly chimed in with Susan Rice to report that Flynn had conversations with other Ambassadors.

That interchange apparently struck a nerve with Vice President Joe Biden who, according to Strzok, raised the Logan Act.

Someone is lying. The only one right now in potential legal jeopardy is Sally Yates. Her account given to FBI agents with the warning that lying to the FBI is punishable under U.S. law, differs markedly from Rice and Strzok. Time to get Strzok and Rice under oath and ask them to go on the record.

If you want to see the original Yates and Rice statements, go here. Peter Strzok's notes can be seen here.

The Obama/Biden coup is being fully exposed. More to come.

This entry was posted in Larry Johnson, Russiagate. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Untangling the Lies About The Obama Biden Coup Meeting of January 5, 2017 by Larry C Johnson

  1. Flavius says:

    Time is running out. It could very well already be too late. The predicate violations have to be articulated and put up on the board; the principal and subordinate targets identified, who are to be the pivotal witnesses and who gets offered what, preliminary pleas and/or immunities; primary and other venues need to be clearly established; and most critical, a special FGJ empanelled which, to my knowledge, has not been done, and testimony locked in forthwith. This is a complicated and time consuming process requiring multiple experienced (and committed) prosecutors and at least 12-14 experieced agents. Can this be done in 4 months in the heat of a presidential campaign amidst all the attendant political pressures and carping coming from the congress and the MSM? I certainly hope so, but I frankly doubt it.
    If Trump loses, an Eric Holder or Andrew Weissman like appointment to AG will bring this case to a shameless and whimpering end in the first 10 days of the incumbency with the details of the plot left for sorting out by historians. There will be no legal accountability exacted, the Bidens, the Schumers, the Pelosis will care less and in fact will be well pleased; the leaders of the insurrection will be rewarded with plum jobs in the new administration; and the history of it all for the next 20 years will be written by the winners. Perhaps after Hillary’s life has run its natural course, the FBI Building will be renamed for Jim Comey.

  2. Jim says:

    Sally Yates, the number one pusher of the Logan Act, anti Russian hysteria artist, all the hoaxes, and has been under consideration as Biden’s VP.
    The FBI agents’ SCO document of her Sept. 2017 interview with Mueller’s team states: “Yates stated it is a violation of the Logan Act for someone not a member of the administration to advocate a position contrary to the current administration position.” This is under oath. [which begs the question; was Mueller using Logan and calling it FARA all along?]
    On Jan. 24, 2017 Yates is Comey’s boss.
    Yates told SCO Mueller’s team that she knew of Comey’s idea to interview Flynn that day.
    Yates did ZERO, Zip and Nada to stop this from happening.
    Yet she claims she did not approve. This couplet of fact is not in dispute.
    Her failure to act to stop something she claims was wrong does not following her being upset by it.
    Yates told SCO Mueller along with CNN’s Anderson Cooper all sort of hysteria about how “compromised” Flynn is, etc.
    She did more or as much as anyone to spread this Slander, this Libel, this lie: the Resistance Queen Bee Yates.
    She has been under consideration to be Biden’s VP.
    The FBI agents’ SCO document of her Sept. 2017 interview with Mueller’s team states: “McGahn said to her at one point something along the lines of ‘Oh, come on, what are the chances DOJ will prosecute the Logan Act?'”
    “Yates told McGahn that putting aside whether or not anyone had been successfully prosecuted for a Logan Act violation, they were missing the point that they had a potential compromise (sic) situation with their National Security Advisor,” she told the SCO.
    Barr protected Yates in a televised interview not that long ago, repeating the hagiography that Yates was “surprise” at Jan. 5 2017 meeting. Unless she already is a cooperating witness in the Durham probe, I found Barr’s comment on this particularly unctuous, if she is not already in the dock.
    Thank you Larry for this essay.
    It’s about time folks stop at her legs and instead examine her vile acts and moral turpitude.
    What is her defense going to be — That she was Obama’s “right people” to destroy Flynn?
    We may soon find out.
    -30-

  3. Keith Harbaugh says:

    BTW, AG Barr gave an interesting interview with Senator Cruz yesterday, 2020-06-25, in which the Strzok memo is briefly discussed:
    https://youtu.be/_HVqRE-6bkc?t=14m25s
    (The Strzok notes are discussed starting at 16:57. Barr specifies that the notes are of the January 5 meeting.)

  4. Brutus canneloni says:

    Ah flavour
    time is slip sliding away.what truly frightens the trump opposition is pence.Trump being reelected and pence by proxy being president.The deathly Hallows harken the halls as knees shake and humans quake.
    Let an earthquake produce this outcome and Ben and jerry’s will name an ice cream in its honour

  5. Andre Surkis says:

    Thanks for posting. It is very interesting.

  6. Stephen Richter says:

    are Trump and Republicans totally incompetent by failing to uncover all of this activity in the first 2 years of his admin? Or was there something Trump has been hiding all along that prevented him from forcing everyone to lay their cards on the table back then?
    After all, Trump put in a lot of effort Mueller investigation to keep from having to directly answer their questions. And Roger Stone refused to testify at his trial and has also, never answered question from the Mueller team.

Comments are closed.