How Can Susan Rice Know What Obama and Comey Said if She Was Not Present? by Larry C Johnson

Larry Johnson-5x7

Here is the bottomline in a nutshell–Susan Rice has been caught red handed trying to construct a lie about what Barack Obama knew and did not know with respect to General Michael Flynn. She claimed to be present when Barack Obama discussed the Michael Flynn intercept but, according to Sally Yates, who was interviewed by the FBI, only Yates, Jim Comey and Barack Obama were present. This new revelation–made possible by the declassification of the Susan Rice email written in the last moments of the Obama Administration–actually bolsters Michael Flynn's contention that he was the victim of a political hit job designed to take out Donald Trump.

Let me remind you of the essential facts that you must have in mind in order to understand Rice's clumsy attempt to fabricate an excuse for Obama's inexcusable spying on Donald Trump, his family and his team.

  1. December 29, 2016: Michael Flynn, who was vacationing in the Dominican Republic, returned Russian Ambassador Kislyak's phone call at the behest of the Trump Transition team back in Mar-a-Lago and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner (see here). 
  2. January 3, 2017: Deputy FBI Director Andy McCabe tells Department of Justice official, Mary McCord, that the FBI had been planning to close the Flynn investigation but "discovered" his phone calls with the Russian Ambassador. McCabe described the content to the calls (Exhibit 3, page 2).

  3. January 4, 2017: The FBI Agent leading the investigation of the General Flynn sends Peter Strzok the memo recommending the case be close because there was no evidence against the General. (Exhibit 1) Peter Strzok tells the Agent that the "7th Floor" is interested.

  4. January 5, 2017: Barack Obama tells Acting Attorney General Sally Yates in the presence of Jim Comey that he had learned about Flynn's conversation with the Russian Ambassador on sanctions. (Exhibit 4)

Please take a close look at Sally Yates' account to the January 5, 2017 meeting:

Sally Yates Account of the Obama Meeting on 5 January

According to Sally Yates, OBAMA DISMISSED THE GROUP (i.e., Susan Rice, Jim Clapper, John Brennan and "others" from the National Security Council) and asked Yates and FBI Director Jim Comey to "stay behind." It was Obama who 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.

Now we have the Susan Rice account of this meeting and it differs markedly from Yates. How could Susan Rice know what was said in the January 5th meeting? She wrote this email 15 days after the meeting the email is supposed to record and, according to Yates, was not present.

Let me point you to the salient points. According to the first paragraph, Susan Rice and Sleepy Joe Biden were present for the "follow on" conversation Barack Obama had with Sally Yates and Jim Comey. Sally Yates said nothing about Joe Biden and she was very clear that everyone but her and Comey left the office.

Rice then wants us to know 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 fabricated account, directs the staff to "ascertain" if there is any reason the Obama team cannot fully share intelligence relative to  Russia.

Rice then hangs the saddle on Jim Comey's back. 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."

Susan Rice Email re 5 Jan 2017

This is nothing more than a lame, stupid attempt on the part of Susan Rice to create some plausible deniability for Barack Obama. She placed herself in a meeting that, according to Sally Yates, was limited to Obama, Comey and Yates. Rice puts the blame on Comey for talking about the Russians. The Sally Yates account told to FBI under the penalty of lying to the FBI, was quite clear that Obama initiated the discussion of Russia, Flynn and the sanctions. 

Someone is lying. Susan Rice is a demonstrated liar and was not under oath when she wrote up her fabricated version of the 5 January meeting. Sally Yates, however, would face legal peril if she lied to the FBI agents who interviewed her. I believer Sally Yates provided the truthful account of what actually happened after Barack Obama asked everyone but Yates and Comey to leave the room.

All of these people need to be under oath.

I think this is just one more piece of ammunition that Sidney Powell can load into her legal sniper rifle. She kicked the legal drama kicked up a notch today by filing a Writ of Mandamus. Here's the legal definition of this term:

A writ of mandamus is an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion. According to the U.S. Attorney Office, "Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance."

In the federal courts, these orders most frequently appear when a party to a suit wants to appeal a judge's decision but is blocked by rules against interlocutory appeals. Instead of appealing directly, the party simply sues the judge, seeking a mandamus compelling the judge to correct his earlier mistake. Generally, this type of indirect appeal is only available if the party has no alternative means of seeking review.

Simply put–General Flynn's attorney is asking a Superior Court to order Judge Sullivan to stop acting like a partisan hack and accept the mutual agreement of the Department of Justice and Michael Flynn's attorney to dismiss charges.

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

8 Responses to How Can Susan Rice Know What Obama and Comey Said if She Was Not Present? by Larry C Johnson

  1. Deap says:

    Did Barry ever wing anything on his own without his sidekicks Rce or Jarrett immediately by his side, ready to run cover for him later when necessary?
    Rice’s presence was probably so ubiquitous, it was not worthy of mention in later present party recollections. I would assume Barry could not speak in public without a teleprompter and not speak in private without his “wingman”.
    Why do we assume Valerie Jarrett is still living in the same house as the former POTUS? So when the phone rings and someone wants to know something about what Barry did while he was in office, ValJar the NightStalker can be ready with the answer.
    My guess is Rice was attached at the hip whenever there was a chance Barry would open his mouth. Make the failure to mention Rice more an oversight rather than something ominous.
    More troubling was Yates getting cut off by Lindsey Graham every time she tried to explain that Flynn had not been “unmasked” during her Senate testimony, per the video clip. What that just dismissive on Graham’s part or inadvertent. Wild speculation, had McCain “leaked” the Flynn phone call to Wapo?

  2. akaPatience says:

    I guess Obama didn’t think he could rely on Sally Yates to lie on his behalf but knew he could count on “Old Faithful” Susan Rice to do the job. If the MSM were fair they’d be mocking (at the very least) her overuse of the figure of speech “by the book”. I hope someone throws that book at her and the rest of the cabal.
    BTW, I seem to recall reading a long time ago that Rice made a mess wherever she served. I could be mistaken though.
    Has anyone else noticed that James Comey’s been very quiet lately?

  3. Morongobill says:

    Well if we can’t get a “perfumed prince” in the docket, this deplorable will settle for a “perfumed princess.”

  4. Fred says:

    I think Trump should announce operation “What’s Good for the Goose” – an operation to ensure there is no foreign interference in US elections. He can even list the people whose conversations he plans on listening too, since all the left agrees Obama’s administration was scandal free and there was nothing illegal in all of this. Then he should have the IRS apply the Lois Lerner standard to tax exempt groups on the left. “Good for the Gander” sounds like a nice project name for that. I can’t see why anyone would object.

  5. Deap says:

    Crying fowl, Fred. I suggest we bring back …….”if it walks like a duck, squawks like a duck and looks like a duck.. it is a duck.” Hat tip to that ol’ country lawyer Sam Ervin.

  6. Deap says:

    RedState expands this evolving memo-gate unraveing. LJ pulled the right thread here to get things started.
    Now it is claimed by RedState Rice did not even write the memo, but was directed by Obama’s WH counsel to drape Barry in “plausible deniability” as power passed irrevocably from Obama-44 to Trump 45. https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2020/05/20/susan-rice-may-not-have-been-the-author-of-the-just-released-inauguration-day-memo/
    This could explain why Rice wrote about events where she was not even present. But neither was WH counsel – so how did they construct the imaginary conversations. ……by the book?

  7. Keith Harbaugh says:

    I think K.T. McFarland explains the Obama/Trump dynamic wonderfully well in this six-minute video:
    https://youtu.be/AuKC_4h1ysg

  8. TeakWoodKite says:

    yes Larry Spot on. It certainly was by the book. no two ways about it.
    what consequences there are for doing it by ” the book” are yet to be determined.

Comments are closed.