Game-Changer: Susan Rice Order Set Up Trump, Assured Russian Meddlers Left Alone
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Here’s a “Russian collusion” lead special counsel Robert Mueller might want to follow up on.
The investigators who’ve spent more than a year trying to find evidence that the Donald Trump presidential campaign was working with the Russian government might have gotten a big clue from testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee Wednesday about which influential Americans knew about Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 election.
And it wasn’t the circle around the man heading the Republican ticket.
According to The Daily Caller, Obama administration “cybersecurity coordinator” Michael Daniel told a committee hearing that then-National Security Adviser Susan Rice had ordered him in August 2016 to “stand down” rather than respond to Russian cyber-attacks during the campaign.
The order was first reported in March in the book “Russian Roulette,” by Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff and David Corn, Washington bureau chief for the liberal magazine Mother Jones, according to The Daily Caller.
At Wednesday’s committee hearing, which was reviewing the Obama and Trump administrations’ response to Russian cyber activity, Daniel confirmed the book’s account.
“You were told to stand down, is that correct?” asked Idaho Republican Jim Risch, The Daily Caller reported.
“Those actions were put on the back burner, yes,” Daniel said. “That was not the focus of our activity during that time period.”
The exchange during Wednesday’s committee meeting sounds awfully dry compared to how the order was presented in the Isikoff-Corn book, according to The Daily Caller.
In the book, one of Daniel’s staff members said he was “incredulous and in disbelief” when he learned about Rice’s command.
“Why the hell are we standing down?” the staffer asked, according to The Daily Caller. “Michael, can you help us understand?”
Could it be because the Obama White House wasn’t terribly interested in reacting to the Russian interference?
It’s important to remember that in August 2016, with the mainstream media acting as a national cheerleading squad for Hillary Clinton, it still looked to the Washington establishment that Barack Obama was going to be succeeded by a Democrat – and if Russian activity wouldn’t stop it, or even helped it along, who was to complain?
But on a more sinister note, it’s entirely possible that Rice was installing an insurance policy in the event of the unthinkable happening and Trump actually won the presidency.
The anti-Trump crowd at the Obama administration’s FBI certainly knew about “insurance policies.” In fact, text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page used those exact words, even though it’s never been clear exactly what they were referring to.
What Rice was doing, by preventing her own cybersecurity czar from taking action on the Russians, could well have been setting up a trail of breadcrumbs that would lead to the Trump campaign if the election somehow turned out differently from how Democrats had tried to rig it.
That would make it appear that Russian influence over the election’s outcome had boosted the Republican candidate, and tarnish Trump’s presidency even before he took the oath of office.
Even without testimony about Rice’s intent — which is unknowable at this point — no one can deny that that’s pretty much how events eventually played out.
This kind of setup for Trump isn’t the “Russian collusion” Mueller and his team of Trump-hunting zealots are expecting, of course. But more than a year into his investigation, which has turned up exactly zero public evidence that the Trump campaign was working with the Russians, checking it out might give him something to follow up on.
So far, the Mueller investigation has cost American taxpayers at least $17 million. It would be nice to get something for that money. Even if it’s not what Mueller is looking for.
Tags
Who is online
103 visitors
“Could it be because the Obama White House wasn’t terribly interested in reacting to the Russian interference?
It’s important to remember that in August 2016, with the mainstream media acting as a national cheerleading squad for Hillary Clinton, it still looked to the Washington establishment that Barack Obama was going to be succeeded by a Democrat – and if Russian activity wouldn’t stop it, or even helped it along, who was to complain?
But on a more sinister note, it’s entirely possible that Rice was installing an insurance policy in the event of the unthinkable happening and Trump actually won the presidency.
RELATED: Son of Prominent Obama Admin Figure Now an Outspoken Trump Supporter and Republican
The anti-Trump crowd at the Obama administration’s FBI certainly knew about “insurance policies.” In fact, text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page used those exact words, even though it’s never been clear exactly what they were referring to.
What Rice was doing, by preventing her own cybersecurity czar from taking action on the Russians, could well have been setting up a trail of breadcrumbs that would lead to the Trump campaign if the election somehow turned out differently from how Democrats had tried to rig it.
That would make it appear that Russian influence over the election’s outcome had boosted the Republican candidate, and tarnish Trump’s presidency even before he took the oath of office.
Even without testimony about Rice’s intent — which is unknowable at this point — no one can deny that that’s pretty much how events eventually played out.”
What a load of shit...don't you folks follw up with anything you read?
The author even made it clear why the stand down order was given but in the hurry to post something, anything that might cast a shadow away from Trump that it's facts be damned.
You got suckered again.
Any deflection in a storm. And Trump is facing a storm.
In the meantime Robert Mueller has to hope that there is a there, there, as he waits on two overly charged individuals who have yet to reveal the desired info.
If there is a 'there--there,' Mueller has already examined it.
True - IF, but It appears that I'm right
First, right about what?
Second, am still unsure what any of this means to the investigations being undertaken.
'Here’s a “Russian collusion” lead special counsel Robert Mueller might want to follow up on.'
I'm sure he'll get right on it HA!
Doesn't matter. Every Trump campaign persons denied Russian contacts. And every Trump campaign persons lied. Why would that be? Got nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, right?
Trump is right when he cries no Russian collusion. The Russian aspect is alliance, not collusion.
Jim Risch:
WHAT ABOUT YOUR AREA OF SUPERVISION. DID IT COMPLETELY CEASE?
Michael Daniel:
NO. WE SHIFTED IN THE SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER TIMEFRAME TO ASSISTING THE STATES IN BETTER PROTECTING THE ELECTORAL INFRASTRUCTURE, AND ENSURING WE HAD AS GREAT VISIBILITY AS POSSIBLE INTO WHAT THE RUSSIANS WERE DOING AND DEVELOPING ESSENTIALLY AN INCIDENCE RESPONSE PLAN FOR ELECTION DAY.
"But on a more sinister note (opinion), it’s entirely possible (rhetorical hypothetical hyperbole) that Rice was installing an insurance policy (hypothetical) in the event of the unthinkable happening and Trump actually won the presidency.
The anti-Trump crowd at the Obama administration’s FBI certainly knew about “insurance policies.” (more nonsensical opinion) In fact, text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page used those exact words, even though it’s never been clear (or even remotely proven) exactly what they were referring to.
What Rice was doing, by preventing her own cybersecurity czar from taking action on the Russians, could well have been (more rhetorical hypothetical hyperbole) setting up a trail of breadcrumbs that would lead to the Trump campaign if the election somehow turned out differently from how Democrats had tried to rig it.
That would make it appear (would if any of that nonsense were true) that Russian influence over the election’s outcome had boosted the Republican candidate, and tarnish Trump’s presidency even before he took the oath of office.
Even without testimony about Rice’s intent — which is unknowable at this point — no one (or anyone and everyone) can deny that that’s pretty much how events eventually played out."
This sad attempt at obfuscation and distraction would almost have a point if two things weren't abundantly clear. First, it would have legs if there weren't any Trump campaign members and associates who had numerous contacts with Russian operatives and then lied about it when questioned. The facts show that it was just one or two but nearly a dozen on the Trump campaign who lied about their contacts with Russian government operatives. That makes Susan Rice's actions not only necessary, but not investigating would have been a dereliction of duty.
Second, it would only make sense IF the goal of Susan Rice was to get Trump elected since supposedly silencing or stopping any investigation into the Russian meddling and keeping silent about the investigation into the Trump campaign was an obvious benefit to his campaign. If she had wanted Trump to lose there would have been a leak about how the FBI was actively investigating Russia ties a month before the election.
The reality is when you look at the actions with 20/20 hindsight you see an administration trying desperately to avoid making it look like they had their thumb on the scale of an election, while also recognizing the Russians were trying to pull shenanigans with our election by either recruiting Trump or throwing enough dirt on it to make reasonable Americans doubt the outcome lose faith in western democracy and what most Americans had believed were free and fair elections. At this point we can't say whether Trump was turned though we know many of his campaign were or at best considering the Russians offers.
Which actually was known, but Daily Caller and the other sludge propaganda processors shit their story out to the less intellectual as usual and they picked it up and ran with it...
The author explains that Rice wasn't stopping any programs but was trying to keep a lid on leaks to come up with a plan that wouldn't be leaked and wouldn't be propagandized as it has here and on another equally adrift of facts with plenty of right wingers slapping backs and making ill informed comments.
Not odd at all. The quote that I posted is the very NEXT question and answer after what the article quoted.
We need not rely on the Daily Caller or the rehash from the Western Journal to find out about what was said @ the hearing. It was carried live on C-Span and can be viewed on their website today for those who want to know the FULL content and CONTEXT, just go to about 43:00 to hear the WHOLE exchange.
You want everyone to know the FULL truth right? RIGHT?
The best irony is that Rice’s own son is a Republican and a strong supporter of President Trump.
And another irony is that thirty eight of Trump's illegitimate children from the late 70's are actively working with groups connected to Tom Steyer.
The difference is that what I said is factually true and that yours is not.
Are you sure?
Too bad this seed is factually a lie. And you promoted it.
No it’s not and I proudly stand by it in full.
Really? The author already wrote about this. He explains the real reason for the stand down.
Seems your source forgot to imclude those facts for convenient reasons.
Once again you didn't check your propaganda source and got suckered.
You're proudly standing behind a lie you are willingly promoting. Does Jesus save those who purposely deceive?
I have seen no evidence that the seeded articles author, Joe Saunders has backed down or changed his story.
Not talking about the article author...I'm talking about Isikoff, the author of the book being distorted by the right including you.
This reminds me of when so many from the right misquoted and lied about Obama's books for a false agenda.
You didn't bother to verify the article.
But of course you admittedly survive just to irritate the left leaning citizens. Does that mean ethics be damned?
This "news story" comes from a piece of online junk called The Conservative Tribune. It is quite plainly a conspiracy theory. The right wingers of Newstalkers now relentlessly seed crap like this day after day. They want to simultaneously annoy and bore everyone to death.
The main theory seems to be that Rice wanted to "frame a guilty man" (the Trump campaign) by leaving "breadcrumbs" of evidence about Russian meddling to be found by investigators in case Trump won the election.
Let's see now, did Susan Rice coerce all the Trump campaign figures and associates into meeting with Russians. Did she trick Don Jr. into meeting with someone (Russian) to buy dirt on Clinton? etc etc etc
The idea that this hypothesis, based almost solely on the theory that Rice colluded with the FBI agents who daydreamed about an "insurance policy" against a Trump win, represents a smoking gun is extremely silly.
It is like the plot for an unpublished boring ass political "thriller".
“According to The Daily Caller, Obama administration “cybersecurity coordinator” Michael Daniel told a committee hearing that then-National Security Adviser Susan Rice had ordered him in August 2016 to “stand down” rather than respond to Russian cyber-attacks during the campaign.
The order was first reported in March in the book “Russian Roulette,” by Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff and David Corn, Washington bureau chief for the liberal magazine Mother Jones, according to The Daily Caller.
At Wednesday’s committee hearing, which was reviewing the Obama and Trump administrations’ response to Russian cyber activity, Daniel confirmed the book’s account.
“You were told to stand down, is that correct?” asked Idaho Republican Jim Risch, The Daily Caller reported.
“Those actions were put on the back burner, yes,” Daniel said. “That was not the focus of our activity during that time period.”
The exchange during Wednesday’s committee meeting sounds awfully dry compared to how the order was presented in the Isikoff-Corn book, according to The Daily Caller.
In the book, one of Daniel’s staff members said he was “incredulous and in disbelief” when he learned about Rice’s command.
“Why the hell are we standing down?” the staffer asked, according to The Daily Caller. “Michael, can you help us understand?”
And Isikoff wrote an article in Yahoo that showed this seed is a lie.