Susan Rice’s memo about a high-level Jan. 5, 2017, meeting plainly aimed to protect the then-national security adviser’s boss, President Barack Obama — but it’s backfiring spectacularly.
Rice sent the Jan. 20, 12:15 p.m., note (recently declassified) to herself at literally the last minute: President Trump was sworn in at noon that day; her administration was headed out the door.
Oh, and Rice’s lawyer says she drafted it “upon the advice of the White House Counsel’s Office,” Fox News reports.
The point? Ostensibly, to memorialize the meeting with her, Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, FBI boss James Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, following a briefing on Russian hacking.
Obama, the memo claims, stressed that “every aspect of this issue” be handled “by the book” and then “reiterated” that law enforcement proceed “by the book.” Comey “affirmed” he’s “proceeding ‘by the book.’ ” That’s right: She used the term three times.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
7 comments:
Rice typical democrat woman. Nothing but lowly slaves to men. Just like hill made a career out of covering for cigar inserter bill. And now we have perv biden's wife. Walks around looking like a washed up pole dancer with those dresses and skirts too short for her age and too much cleavage showing at times all to please perv joe.
What is it with these dumbocrats that take pride in how comfortably they can lie lie lie?
Never to old to wear short skirts if done tastefully. I know women in their 70s that would put a 20 year old to shame. If you got it flaunt it😂😂😂😂
I agree that some older look better than some younger. But, they don’t really look appealing to flaunt it at their age. Not saying they don’t look great. Just my humble opinion. Keep us old guys guessing
Obama followed one particular organized crime bosses'template to a T but I suppose no one but myself ever noticed it.
So wait, lemme get this right.
Your evidence that something untoward was happening is because of the insistence that nothing untoward should go on?
So, evidence of something is dependent on the insistence of the opposite?
This is absurd.
Follow the logic.
So wait, lemme get this right.
Your evidence that something untoward was happening is because of the insistence that nothing untoward should go on?
So, evidence of something is dependent on the insistence of the opposite?
This is absurd.
Follow the logic.
Post a Comment