Every Chinese Rocket Design Explained!

986K subscribers

China is now the number one nation in terms of rocket launches, with most of its launchers tracing their design heritage back to the Dong Feng 5 ICBM. This includes the Long March 2, 3 & 4 – all propelled by YF-20 family Engines burning UDMH & NTO The Newer Long March 5,6 &7 all use new cryogenic propulsion systems. Long March 11 is a solid rocket based system. More info at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Ma…) https://space.skyrocket.de/directorie… http://www.astronautix.com/c/china.html

Will New Glenn be the KING of Heavy Lift Rockets?

Blue Origin, perhaps the sleeping giant of the aerospace industry, will be going from a tiny suborbital rocket, to one of the biggest rockets ever made… Today, we’re finally going to do a quick rundown on Blue Origin, talk about their upcoming New Glenn rocket and then compare it to some of the other Heavy Lift Launchers it will be competing against. Want sources and a full article about this video? Here you go! – https://everydayastronaut.com/new-gle…


SpaceX’s Starship Popper – Starship Mk1 Ruptures Tank During Test

986K subscribers

The partially completed Mk1 Starship at SpaceX’s Boca Chica facility was undergoing tank pressure tests when the top few meters of the rocket exploded off and were propelled about 100 meters into the sky. Footage of the RUD was captured by LabPadre and @BocaChicaMaria1 and it shared here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF1NE… The failure happened under high tank pressure, the forward LOX tank unzipped along the circumferential weld line, resulting in the bulkhead being propelled upwards while the pressure change propagated downwards and damaged the lower parts of the vehicle. The project is in the process of building other test vehicles with improved fabrication techniques, but this will no doubt result in slowed progress. Images of the event and the aftermath by: https://twitter.com/labpadre https://twitter.com/BocachicaMaria1 https://twitter.com/bocachicagal

The Star Witness Against Trump?

Here we have direct linkage admitted by Biden that $1 billion would be withheld unless he fired the prosecutor investigating the company who hired his son to gain influence in Washington, This is the standard operational procedure. Iran is told to do something or else they will impose sanctions.

This video doesn’t exist

Chairman Nadler Sends White House and Republicans More Deadlines for Fast-track December Impeachment Effort…

Candidate Trump was framed for stealing a horse; President Trump was subsequently accused of trying too hard to avoid hanging for it. Prosecutor Mueller eventually conceded that Trump didn’t steal the horse; however, by then the focus was on Trump’s efforts to avoid the hanging.  Eventually Mueller testified; it surfaced there was never a horse to begin with… Impeachment was stalled.   Prosecutor Jerry Nadler is attempting to resurrect a legal theory that President Trump can still be hung for attempting to avoid the hanging, even if there was no horse theft.   Yup, that’s were we’re at.

Earlier Friday House Judiciary Committee (HJC) Chairman Jerry Nadler sent another letter to the White House outlining a December 6th deadline for executive participation in the coup by impeachment.  The chairman also sent ranking member Doug Collins a similar letter asking for rebuttal witnesses by December 6th.  In anticipation of Nadler denying the republican rebuttal witnesses he has scheduled a committee hearing on the republican complaints for December 9th [yes, same day as IG Horowitz report release].

Both of these requests, along with the prior “groundwork hearing” request, come from the HJC before the judiciary committee has received the House Impeachment Inquiry report from Adam Schiff’s HPSCI partisan impeachment committee.  Apparently the HJC knows the report content from Schiff’s committee; which means there will be no full committee review by any republican members of the bunker basement impeachment group.

Here’s the Nadler letter to the White House:

Here’s the Nadler letter to ranking member Doug Collins:

Here’s the initial “groundwork” letter to the White House:

  • December 1st – Deadline for White House response for participation in “groundwork” hearing.
  • December 4th – HJC “groundwork” impeachment hearing at 10:00am.
  • December 6th – Deadline for White House response for participation in HJC Impeachment Hearing.
  • December 6th – Deadline for House Republican witness list.
  • December 9th – Hearing to deny House Republican witnesses.
  • December 13th – House recesses for Christmas break.

No idea when Adam Schiff’s House Impeachment Inquiry report (written by Lawfare) will be delivered.  [ I do mean Literally written by Lawfare]

No idea when the HJC Impeachment Hearings will be held, or if they will just go straight to a House vote on impeachment.

Obviously Chairman Nadler is in a hurry.

Bloomberg Government


Adam Schiff said his committee will send a report on its impeachment investigation to the Judiciary Committee soon after this week’s Thanksgiving recess. http://bgovgo.com/CI2187q 

House Panel to Submit Impeachment Report Soon After Thanksgiving

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff said his committee will send a report on its impeachment investigation of President Donald Trump to the Judiciary Committee soon after this week’s Thanksgiving…


100 people are talking about this

President Trump Considering Cartels as “Terrorists” – AMLO Worries About U.S. Invasion, and A.G. Bill Barr Heads to Mexico…

President Trump has said he is close to a decision that would designate Mexican drug cartels as officially recognized terrorist networks by the United States.

Remember, within the geopolitical dynamic that benefits all three North American countries, Mexico needs to start taking clear and decisive actions toward all levels of internal corruption if the ultimate economic objective of the USMCA is going to work.

Mexican President Lopez-Obrador is concerned this designation could lead to U.S. military engagement against the cartels.  The Democrats are concerned this designation would mean they could no longer accept campaign donations from the drug cartels; and into this mix of interests, U.S. Attorney Bill Barr is going to Mexico.

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said on Friday that his government was committed to fighting organized crime, seeking to dispel fears that the United States could take matters in its own hands in the fight against drug cartels.

U.S. President Donald Trump said earlier this week that he plans to designate the Mexican cartels as terrorist groups, a move aimed at disrupting their finances by imposing sanctions.

While this does not directly give the United States authority for military operations in Mexico, many Mexicans are nervous their northern neighbor could use it as a pretext for a unilateral invention.

Lopez Obrador reiterated he would not permit an armed foreign intervention a century after the country was last invaded, arguing that his government was already doing its part to battle criminal gangs.

“Armed foreigners cannot intervene in our territory,” he said, instead offering more cooperation with the United States after a series of recent clashes involving drug cartels, security forces and civilians highlighted the power of the gangs.

Lopez Obrador’s government says its priorities are disrupting the cartels’ cash flows and money-laundering opportunities, and halting illegal arms trafficking into Mexico from the United States.

The Mexican Finance Ministry’s financial intelligence unit has frozen the accounts of 771 people and 1,057 companies, with more than 5.3 billion pesos ($274 million) in total, a statement said.

Mexican officials have had several meetings with U.S. counterparts to discuss how to stop the arms flow, it said, adding that “satisfactory” progress has already been made.

Trump has repeatedly offered military assistance in the fight against drug gangs, which Lopez Obrador has always declined, even after the gangland massacre of a U.S.-Mexican family earlier this month.

U.S. Attorney General William Barr will visit Mexico next week to discuss security cooperation, Mexico’s Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said. The U.S. embassy in Mexico did not respond to a request for comment. (read more)

White House Prepares for NATO Summit Next Week in London – Bilats With Merkel, Conte and Frederiksen Announced…

The leaders of the twenty-nine NATO member nations are scheduled to meet next week in London, England.  Amid consistent pressure on the member states for increased defense spending to live up to their prior 2014 promises (Wales summit); and with NATO economies in a stalled geopolitical stasis due to their attachment to China (5G telecom), Russia (Nordstream II), and Iran; this summit holds increased possible ramifications.

This NATO summit could very well expose the duplicity and hypocrisy of the EU depending on how far U.S. President Donald Trump is willing to call them out.

There are going to be a lot of nervous snake handlers around the table(s), and with the U.K. elections in the near future there is a great deal at stake. The summit is Tuesday and Wednesday.  Here’s the White House background briefing:

[Transcript] – SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I just want to thank everyone for being here today, Friday after Thanksgiving.

Just up front, this call is going to be on background, attribution to a senior administration official, and there will be an embargo on the contents of this call until it’s completed.

Here’s the run of show for today. Our first — our speaker will be [senior administration official], and he will provide an overview of the President’s trip. And I will follow with an overview of the President’s key events and bilats. And after that, we’ll take some questions.

So with that, over to you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, and thanks everyone for listening in. This is a celebratory Leaders Meeting, in many ways. The President is greatly looking forward to it. This is the most successful alliance in history. It remains instrumental in guaranteeing the security and prosperity and freedom of our allies.

The President, as you know, has been committed to making NATO stronger and ready to face today’s threats and tomorrow’s challenges. This is why he places such an emphasis on encouraging all allies to live up to their commitments and increase defense spending, in line with their Wales commitments.

I have to say, for a priority that United States has had for — since at least the 1960s — the President has been spectacularly successful. Since he has taken office, the Allies have added over $100 billion in new spending. In 2016, only four Allies spent 2 percent of GDP on defense. Now, there are nine, and following through their implementation plans to get the 2 percent, we expect there to be eighteen by 2024. This is tremendous progress, and I think it is due to the President’s diplomatic work.

However, there are continuing challenges that NATO needs to face: China, above all. China is actively seeking a great presence and more influence across the globe, including in NATO’s area of responsibility. It is offering cheap money, cheap investment, and critical infrastructure, including ports and electricity grids. It is seeking to trap nations in debt, and thus bring diplomatic concessions that way. And it is looking to undermine the rules-based international order and skirting, in some cases, (inaudible).

5G, as you know, is another area where NATO has to be vigilant. This is a priority of the President. Trading security of our telecommunications networks and privacy of our personal data for savings is not in any of the Allies’ interests. This is an issue we continue to socialize and raise with our NATO partners, and we will certainly be discussing it at the summit today.

Lastly, while we welcome our European Allies doing more and spending more on defense, we have to continue to socialize that EU defense initiatives not undermine or duplicate those of NATO, and that procurement and defense industrial issues are open to United States and U.S. companies.

We are stronger together. The transatlantic relationship is in a very, very healthy place. And I think that will be the message, loud and clear, at this 70th anniversary of NATO.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay, thank you. Before we go into Q&A, I just want to provide an overview of the President’s key events and bilateral meetings. So — and I will speak slowly so that folks can take notes.

On Tuesday, December the 3rd, the President will have a working breakfast with NATO (inaudible) — with NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg. We will be having a bilateral meeting with President Emmanuel Macron of France, and we’ll be going in that evening to the NATO Leaders Reception, hosted by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

On the 4th, we are looking at the official welcome ceremony. The NATO Leaders Meeting Plenary Session, a bilat with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, and then a working lunch with representatives of the following nations: Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Bulgaria, and the United Kingdom.

Additionally, we’re looking at meetings with Prime Minister Frederiksen of Denmark and Prime Minister Conte of Italy. And I just want to — I just want to also caveat that we are also working on additional bilats, and those will be announced once they are confirmed.

Okay, that’s all I have. And so at this time, Operator, I’ll go and hand off you for moderating Q&A.

Q Hi, thank you. Christina Anderson. Thank you for doing this call. Kristina Anderson, AWPS News. Last week, the NATO ministers voted to declare space another domain, along with the other standard domains: air, land, and sea, and cyber. Will there be discussion about space as a domain and the framework to promote cooperation between the NATO Allies going forward? Will this take place at the Leaders Meeting also? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Hey, Christina, thanks for that. No, I think this is a really interesting and exciting point. As you know, the President has stressed space as a domain in his administration. NATO’s adaptation of it is one more example of NATO addressing new challenges. We have already been discussing with our Allies how this works, how this looks, some of the conceptual issues. I expect — yes, I expect that it will come up during the Leaders Summit.

Q Good morning. Thank you for doing the call. This is Dmitry Kirsanov with TASS. I wanted to ask if there will be a discussion at the NATO Summit about (inaudible) relations with Russia. And if that’s going to be the case, and if President Trump is going to raise this issue during his bilats what is he going — what is he planning to tell his counterparts? Thanks so much.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Hey, thanks, Dmitry. I suspect NATO’s relationship with Russia will certainly come up. You know, none of NATO’s measures are intended as a threat to Russia. For example, you know, the four NATO battle groups in the eastern part of the Alliance are relatively modest in size and can’t compare to the very large conventional ground forces that Russia has on the ground. Those are fully in line with our international commitments.

By contrast to NATO’s defensive and proportionate deployments, Russia has shown a consistent disregard for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbors. It is no wonder that so many countries are concerned about Russian threats to their security. Certainly that will be something that will be discussed at the Leaders Summit.

Q Hello, this is David Alandete, from ABC Spain. I wanted to ask about President Trump’s position towards those countries that are the ones that are paying less for defense. (Inaudible) nation — the case is specifically of Spain, Italy, and Belgium. And I wanted to know if Mr. Trump is expecting to meet with these leaders or is he going to push these less-investment countries towards spending more in the coming years? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, the President, as you know, is going to be engaging a number of different leaders. For example, Germany is not paying 2 percent of its GDP in defense. And he will certainly be meeting with Chancellor Merkel.

I would point out though that even among most of the states that have not hit the 2 percent threshold, they are making progress. For example, Germany has added over $14 billion in new spending since 2016. For the first time — Ambassador Grenell told us this a few days ago — has announced a plan to reach 2 percent.

So we think those are marks of progress. But, of course, in that meeting, the President will be urging Germany and other countries to do more.

Q Thank you.

Q Hi, can you hear me?


Q Yeah, hi. Thanks for the call. This is Sebastian Smith with AFP. Just a bit more on the Russia question. Does the President — is he thinking more along the lines of what Emmanuel Macron seems to be saying, that Russia is no longer really the priority for NATO? Macron wants to look more to the south and to terrorism-type threats. Is Russia still a threat for NATO? Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think Russia will be an issue of interest and concern at the NATO Leaders Summit. While we have, I think, successfully worked to adapt NATO to address new challenges — as you point out, like terrorism; and as I mentioned earlier, like China and 5G — the territorial threats to sovereignty, as well as hybrid threats posed by Russia, are an issue a deep, deep concern for many Alliance members, and indeed for us. And certainly — certainly that will be a high priority at this Leaders Summit.

Q Thanks so much.

Q Hello, it’s David Charter from the London Times. May I ask: There’s no bilateral you’ve announced with Boris Johnson of the host nation. What’s the reason for that, please? Is it something to do with the election? Was that a UK request? And is President Trump actually going to appear at a press conference?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Hey, David. As I mentioned, we’re continuing to develop our bilats and that we’ll update accordingly.

Q Press conference?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Stay tuned. We might have more for you on that as it goes forward.

Q Yes, this is Mario Parker with Bloomberg News. Wondering if there’ll be any bilat or other interactions between Trump and Erdogan, and what the President’s message to him will be at the summit, particularly given the S-400 activation.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, thanks for that. So we are not doing as you know, Erdoğan — President Erdoğan was just here a few weeks ago. The President spent several hours in direct diplomacy with him then. We do not have a separate bilat scheduled for the NATO Summit. I suspect President Erdoğan will hear from many Alliance members that — their concern over the activation of the S-400 radar.

We have been very, very blunt with him that that radar is inconsistent with Turkey’s duties as a NATO member, and particularly its participation in a bilateral sense in the F-35 program. That message will be reinforced across the Alliance.

Q Thank you.

Q Hey, it’s Tom Howell from the Washington Times. I just want to know if you’re going to spend a lot of time on 5G technology, pushing for nations to resist Huawei, things like that — if you can just give me a sense of whether that will feature.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. You know, the — this has been a major push of ours. We are absolutely going to insist that our NATO Allies use trusted and reliable partners — providers in their 5G networks.

This is not something they want, where they want to allow the Chinese Communist Party to be able to siphon off their citizens’ data or entry into their networks at all. So this is a very, very high priority for us. And the President’s going to reiterate that message.

Q Hi, this is Lucía Leal with EFE News. I was wondering if there — the President is planning to have any interactions at all with Prime Minister Sánchez of Spain. And secondly, President Macron said recently that the NATO was in a state of cerebral death. I was wondering if President Trump agrees with that.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Hey, there. You know, we are not currently scheduled, as my colleague noted earlier, to have a bilateral meeting with Spain, though we continue to engage them at a high level outside of this event.

With regard to the second part of your question, you know, there is a 70-year history here of the United States — at least a 60-year history — of the United States urging its Allies to pay more in the Alliance. There is concurrently a 60- or 70-year history, as Secretary Pompeo noticed, of contentious actors, (inaudible) France, with NATO. That is part of having Alliance of 29, soon to be 30, democratic nations. But I think, underneath all of the democratic politics hurly-burly, the Alliance members are fully in accord on the goals of their shared commitments in this institute, absolutely.
So, I think we take this as part of the hugger-mugger of democratic politics with the Alliance.

Q Hi, can you hear me?


Q Yes, I am (inaudible) from Sky News Arabia. I want to follow up on Turkey. You said that Erdoğan will hear from several members during this summit, their concern regarding the S-400. But also, there are several issues with Turkey: their invasion to northeast Syria, and we saw this exchange of statements between them and the French leader. To what extent do you think that issues of Turkey would be present during this summit?

And also, the second question, please. I want just to make sure that I have all the bilateral meetings that you mentioned. Can you repeat them, please? On the second day, especially. Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: [Senior administration official], do you want to repeat the bilateral meetings?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No. Ma’am, if you could just send me an email, please. I will be happy to clarify that for you on the second question.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure. Okay. So, on the substance here. Diplomacy is a game of addition, not of subtraction. That is a facile way of saying that the Alliance is stronger with Turkey — fully in sync with Turkey, than out of sync with Turkey. That underpins the President’s diplomacy with the Turks, and it underpins all of our desire at the very top level, which you saw leading up to the October 17th ceasefire, when the President sent most of his senior national security officials out to Ankara to negotiate with Erdoğan and his Cabinet on a ceasefire in Turkey — in Syria, rather.

We believe that ceasefire is still holding. This is — this has been widely confirmed. We are working with the Turks to allow humanitarian access to the area, to that box; to maintain security at the ISIS detention facilities; and to impose order and accountability on those proxy forces — the TSO — that the Turkish armed forces support, engage with.

So all of that to say, I’m not going to speak to the bilateral Turkey-France back-and-forth. But our approach on Turkey — and I believe, which is shared by the vast majority of NATO members — is very clear: direct engagement, working out the tough issues, holding them to their commitments.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Operator, we have time for two more questions.

Q Hi, this is Jordan Foster, with ABC. Can you hear me?


Q Hi, thanks for doing the call. I wanted to ask: President Trump is often viewed as a disruptive force within NATO. But this year, President Macron has sort of been competing for that title, many observe. So I was wondering if you could speak to the, kind of, special bond between the two men. And going into this NATO Leaders Meeting, how do the two men relate to one another? Do they see themselves as sort of a unified force working for change? If you could speak to that relationship a bit?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Oh, I think they have a great deal of respect for each other. You know, the — they have different — they have different priorities for the Alliance. The President wants to make it stronger and the burden sharing more equitable. I think President Macron is still, kind of, working out what he wants out of the group.

But — but I think they have a healthy level of respect for each other. That will come out in their bilateral conversation; indeed, it comes out in every conversation they have.

We were saddened by the loss of 13 French soldiers recently in Africa as part of the great work the French do on CT missions elsewh- — and other things outside of NATO down there.

But in terms of Macron’s participation in NATO, I would simply refer you back to the Secretary’s comment that the, kind of, one or two standard deviations removed of normal of Alliance discourse that sometimes we hear is really just well within the standard of democratic politics, and indeed of democratic politics at NATO over the last 60 or 70 years.


Q Hi, there. It’s (inaudible) with the Sunday Times. I wanted to shore up on a question about Mr. Trump and Boris Johnson. There’s an election coming up in Britain. And I just wonder if the President has been briefed and warned not to speak about it. The Prime Minister today has said that he — even though the President has said nice things about him in the past, that he should not endorse or say anything about the Prime Minister. Is that something that the President has been aware of, that he should avoid talking about the general election while he’s in London? And is that a reason why there’s no bilat currently scheduled? Or is that something you’re still working on? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Hey, that’s something we’re still working on, as my colleague noted earlier. I would point out, the President is very conscious — he doesn’t need briefings from us — of the fact that we do not interfere, wade into other (inaudible).

Q He has said things in the past, though. I mean, he gave quite a splashy interview with The Sun about Theresa May the last time he was there. Is that a concern? Is that something that, you know, has come up that he should stick to?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No. He’s well aware of this. He also, as I suspect you know, likes Boris Johnson — Prime Minister Johnson, personally. But he is absolutely cognizant of not, again, wading into other country’s elections.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thank you. Thank you very much. We’re out of time, as we have to transition. Thank you, everyone for your time today. And this — the embargo is lifted. And we will follow up with any details on bilats.

Thank you so much.


The Mysteriously Redacted Paragraph – 700 Days Since Lindsey Graham Outlined Susan Rice CYA Memo, and DC Doesn’t Want Answers?…

In the past several days; and in anticipation of an inspector general report/release tasked to look into the FISA processes of the prior administration; I have been assembling a file, a series of reminder questions, that peer into the heart of the 2015/2016 FISA surveillance.  Today, is another reminder…  [*ahem* Sidney Powell, please note]

Left to right: Kathryn H. Ruemmler, President Obama, Lisa Monaco and Susan Rice.

Knowing what we know now, consider this long forgotten letter from Susan Rice’s lawyer Kathryn Ruemmler.  Ms. Ruemmler is currently the global co-chairman of the Latham & Watkins white collar criminal defense practice; she formerly served as White House Counsel to President Obama.  Ask yourself: how do these paragraphs reconcile?

[Feb 23, 2018] 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. President Obama and his national security team werejustifiably 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.

[…] While serving as National Security Advisor, Ambassador Rice was not briefed on the existence of any FBI investigation into allegations of collusion between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia, and she later learned of the fact of this investigation from Director Comey’s subsequent public testimony.

Ambassador Rice was not informed of any FISA applications sought by the FBI in its investigation, and she only learned of them from press reports after leaving office. (link)

How could Ms. Rice be aware of a “national security compromise”, “particularly surrounding Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn” after a “briefing by the FBI”, if she was not briefed on the existence of an FBI investigation”?

See the problem?

Perhaps now it is worth remembering a certain paragraph within the Susan Rice letter that mysteriously dropped from the radar.  When Senator Lindsey Graham first revealed the existence of the Susan Rice “memorandum to draft”, it was at the height of the Mueller investigation.

Likely as a consequence of that ongoing investigation, there was paragraph omitted from the public release of the Susan Rice memo.  I am pretty darned sure that paragraph would answer the question I asked moments ago…. and that’s why, 700+ days later, that memo  has never been unredacted and/or released.

So here’s the background and citations for everyone to refresh.

On February 8th, 2018, Senator Lindsey Graham first revealed an inauguration day 2017  email from Susan Rice to herself. That’s 700+ days ago, and yet we still don’t know what is behind the removed and classified paragraph.

Why is this being kept hidden?

At 12:15pm on January 20th, 2017, Obama’s outgoing National Security Advisor Susan Rice wrote a memo-to-self. Many people have called this her “CYA” (cover your ass) memo, from the position that Susan Rice was protecting herself from consequences if the scheme against President Trump was discovered. Here’s the email:

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

President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book“.

The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would, by the book.

From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.

[Redacted Classified Section of Unknown length]

The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.

Susan Rice ~ (pdf link)

This has the hallmarks of an Obama administration justification memo, written by an outgoing National Security Advisor Susan Rice to document why there have been multiple false and misleading statements given to incoming President Trump and his officials.

This is not a “CYA” memo per se’, this appears to be a justification memo for use AFTER the Trump-Russia collusion/conspiracy narrative collapsed; and if the impeachment effort failed.

The “By The Book” aspect refers to President Obama and Susan Rice being told by CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, that President Trump was the subject of an active counterintelligence investigation…. Yet, Rice denies ever knowing about Trump being under investigation?  This contradiction cannot be reconciled.

So with the Mueller investigation concluded, why didn’t Senator Lindsey Graham release the full email content, including the classified and redacted aspects which remain hidden?

Susan Rice responded to Senator Graham’s letter through her attorney Kathryn Ruemmler. Again, Ms. Ruemmler is the global co-chairman of the Latham & Watkins white collar criminal defense practice; she formerly served as White House Counsel to Obama.

Ruemmler’s letter stated there was nothing unusual about Rice’s email memorializing a White House meeting two weeks after the meeting occurred, January 5, 2017. Additionally, Ms. Rice’s lawyer said her client was completely unaware of the FBI investigation into President Trump at the time she made the draft on January 20th.

In part, Ms. Ruemmler’s letter on behalf of Rice states:

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. 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.

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. In the conversation Ambassador Rice documented, there was no discussion of Christopher Steele or the Steele dossier, contrary to the suggestion in your letter.

Given the importance and sensitivity of the subject matter, and 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, given the particularly intense responsibilities of the National Security Advisor during the remaining days of the Administration and transition.

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.

While serving as National Security Advisor, Ambassador Rice was not briefed on the existence of any FBI investigation into allegations of collusion between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia, and she later learned of the fact of this investigation from Director Comey’s subsequent public testimony.

Ambassador Rice was not informed of any FISA applications sought by the FBI in its investigation, and she only learned of them from press reports after leaving office.

Here’s the full letter:


Everything about this Susan Rice email, including the explanations from her lawyer Kathryn H. Ruemmler, is sketchy and suspicious. The sketchy extends to Senator Graham’s lack of action to declassify the redacted paragraph.

Nothing about this DC activity is passing the proverbial sniff test…

As we await the DOJ Inspector General report on FBI FISA authorized surveillance directed toward the Trump campaign and incoming Trump administration; which apparently is significant enough connected to the DOJ case against Flynn such that the prosecution has requested a delay in further proceedings until the IG report is released; I would remind everyone the biggest challenge for current U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr is not necessarily investigating evidence we do not know, but rather navigating through the minefield of evidence a significant portion of the American public are well aware of.

Borrowing from a comment to emphasize the point therein:

We will know the FISA Report is a whitewash if Byrne and Butina are not addressed by disclosing whether Republican presidential candidates other than Trump were surveilled.

For Rogers to conduct his audit and for Collyer to conclude therefrom that 85% of the 11/1/15 through 4/18/16 searches were unauthorized, the database has to have some type of access/search history — whether who or what or when or all three — and for Collyer to conclude that the same person was searched multiple times suggests that its access/search history is qualitative, not just quantitative.

This should also be the case due to the need to regulate statutory two hop authority under Title 1. If you cannot audit access/search history through one or two hops, you cannot know whether the accessor/searcher stopped at two hops for enforcement purposes.

Under such circumstances, the database is subject to abuse beyond our wildest dreams, given it is left to the good faith of those accessing/searching to regulate themselves without any potential oversight.

If this is the case, then Horowitz should tell us (as should have Collyer before him). If it is not, then Horowitz should describe the access/search history of the FISA application for Carter Page, as well as the 3 renewals.

He should describe the extent of the electronic surveillance on Page — text, cell, email, internet, GPS, financial and travel — then identify all those surveilled on the first and second hops, including specifically those affiliated with the Trump campaign or family, including Candidate Trump, both primary and general, President-elect Trump, and President Trump.

The meeting between President-elect Trump and Admiral Rogers had to have communicated actual NSA database surveillance, whether authorized by the FISA court or not, for Trump to react by moving his transition team from Trump Tower and for cabinet members in the intelligence community to urge the ouster of Rogers to President Obama in response. We just don’t know how much Rogers told Trump.

As head of the NSA, Rogers was in a position to monitor database access and search history even outside the confines of the audit, so theoretically he could have monitored every access/search conducted under the Page FISA application and renewals, and provided continuous updates to President Trump through their expiration. But if the small group knew he had that capacity, knew he was watching them, then why seek the renewals in the first place?

To cut through the intrigue, Horowitz should disclose whether the audit revealed electronic FISA database surveillance on candidates other than Trump. If the access/search history for the subcontractors reveals surveillance of Cruz or Rubio, in the same timeframe as Byrne was running Butina through their campaigns, then that is clearly political espionage, using “Russian influence or collusion” as a pretext.

If all of these issues are observable by a poor lurker from what Sundance has been addressing for the last 3 years, Horowitz should be able to see them from his investigation. If he does not address them, we have a whitewash.

London Bridge Terrorist Kills Two, Five Wounded – Knife Wielding Jihadist Stopped by Public…

Two people were killed and up to five more stabbed as a terrorist used two knives to attack the public in London, England.  The attack happened near (and on) the London Bridge and the terrorist wore a dummy explosives vest.   Members of the general public tackled and disarmed the terrorist until police arrived moments later and shot him.

British authorities have confirmed the attack was a terrorist incident.  London Mayor Sadiq Khan has promised the British people he will write a strong letter of condemnation.

(Via Daily Mail) – Two innocent members of the public have died after a knifeman went on a rampage this afternoon in London.

Armed police shot dead a knifeman wearing a fake suicide vest today after he stabbed up to five people in a shocking terrorist attack as frightened crowds fled the scene.

Witnesses on the scene said the man had been brandishing two knives and had attacked people on the north side of London Bridge before running into the centre at around 2pm.

Dramatic video footage showed he was tackled to the ground by at least six heroic members of the public. Seconds later police told people on top of the suspect to move away, before dragging the last bystander to safety and opening fire. Officers were heard shouting ‘stop moving’ twice before shooting the man at close range.

One of the brave heroes was on the other side of the bridge and ran over to help, tackling the man and wrestling the knife off him. The suspect lay on the ground still moving as officers backed away – clearly fearing they were still in danger. (read more)


Note the date:  2018…. Apparently something went wrong with the prior policies put into place to stop refugee jihadists from using knives to kill people.

Peace is the Prize – President Trump Holds Bilateral Meeting With Afghan President Ghani on Thanksgiving Day – Video and Transcript….

After President Trump met with North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-un to stop a region headed toward military crisis, the President was asked about the Nobel peace prize for his efforts with South Korean Moon Jae-in. President Trump responded: “Peace is the prize“.

Yesterday U.S. President Donald Trump secretly flew to Afghanistan to spend time with U.S. troops on Thanksgiving day.   While he was there President Trump met with Afghanistan President Ghani to discuss the groundwork for renewed discussions with Taliban leadership in an effort to construct a peace agreement in the highly tribal nation. [Video and Transcript Below]


[Transcript] – PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, thank you very much. It’s great to be in Afghanistan with our troops. And we had a wonderful Thanksgiving lunch. It was abbreviated a little bit, but we served lunch and had lunch. And these are great people, and it’s also wonderful to be with the President of Afghanistan. And, President Ghani, thank you very much. It’s an honor.

We have a lot of things to talk about — many, many things. We’ve had tremendous success in the last few months with our military, as you know. ISIS has been very — very badly hit, very severely hit. We had al-Baghdadi down in a different part to the world, and we took him out. That was the father of ISIS — the founder. And he was trying to rebuild it, and that didn’t work out too well for him.

But we had tremendous success with ISIS over the last three to four months, and we’re down to a very small number. And likewise, with al Qaeda, we’re down to a very small number. And the Taliban wants to make a deal. We’ll see if they make a deal. If they do, they do. And if they don’t, they don’t. That’s fine. But we’ve had tremendous success.

And I think what I’d like to do — and perhaps, General, if you could say just a couple of words before President Ghani. Tell him about how we’ve literally decimated ISIS in Afghanistan, also al Qaeda in Afghanistan, if you would.

GENERAL MILLEY: Sure, absolutely, Mr. President. And, President Ghani, good to see you again. And we had a great meeting earlier today.

And as you know, Scott Miller and the troops here, and Afghan troops and international troops, have all put a significant amount of pressure on ISIS, particularly in Nangarhar. And they’ve been hurt bad. Their numbers have been treaded and dwindled significantly. Organizationally, they have not been destroyed but they have been severely hurt. And that pressure will continue.

And as the President mentioned, there’s ongoing talks with the Taliban, and hopefully those will be successful. And hopefully we’ll — that will lead to Afghan-to-Afghan dialogue in the not-too-distant future.

So I think there’s been some significant progress, Mr. President. And I thank Scott Miller and the Ambassador. And the entire team of U.S. forces here, in combination with the Afghan National Security Forces, has done a great job.

So thanks for your support.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Good. Thank you very much, General.

And, Scotty, do you want to just mention how much — what we’re left with? You’re down to very small numbers with ISIS, and also you’re down to very, very small with al Qaeda. Do you want to mention that?

GENERAL MILLER: Mr. President, with the Afghan forces, particularly over the last 30 days of this — although it’s been a long fight — we’ve seen a — quite a few surrenders by Daesh/ISIS fighters, as well as their families, coming out of southern Nangarhar, which, as everybody knows, that’s a — been a tough set of terrain for the United States of America and Afghanistan.

Since 2001, it was a safe haven for bin Laden in the early days, and been a pretty remarkable military operation, as well as the following operations with the Afghans.

PRESIDENT GHANI: It (inaudible) al Qaeda South Asia.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: We made that tremendous progress though over the last, I would say, six months. And we’ve really, with respect to ISIS and al Qaeda. And we’ve hit them very, very hard. And they’re down to literally hundreds as opposed to thousands. They had many thousands a short while ago, and now they’re down to hundreds. Probably 200 left. And we’re scouting them out. So we’ll be down to very little, if anything, in a very short period of time.

Great job, by the way. Great job.

GENERAL MILLER: Thank you, sir.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Appreciate it, Scotty.

Mr. President, please.

PRESIDENT GHANI: Well, Mr. President, it’s a great honor and pleasure to welcome you. Let me first pay tribute to the Americans who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

From 2001, 2,298 Americans — might be one or two difference — paid the ultimate sacrifice. We salute their courage and their determination for your security and our freedom.

Since you’ve been President, the number has been 52. So it’s been a tremendous change. Afghan Security Forces are taking the lead now in most of operations. I would like to pay tribute to General Miller and to Ambassador Bass for their remarkable partnership with their problem solving and our security forces. Our team is here; has gone from strength to strength.

I’d like to thank you for your leadership and for your determination both on the South Asia strategy that made this possible and on your very principled decisions regarding putting limits on the type of peace that would ensure the gains of the past years and ensure your security and our freedom.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Right. Well, as you know, for a period of time, we’ve been wanting to make a deal and so have the Taliban. Then we pulled back. We were getting close and we pulled back. We didn’t want to do it because of what they did. It was not a good — it was not a good thing they did with the killing a soldier. They knew he was a soldier, but he was a solider — an American soldier from Puerto Rico. And they killed him. They killed a United Nations soldier. And they also killed — they killed a total of 12 people. They thought that was good negotiating power. I said, “No, that’s bad negotiating power.” That was not good what they did.

And since then, we’ve hit them so hard, they’ve never been hit this hard. In the history of the war, they have not — never been hit hard.

And they want to make a deal. So we’ll see what happens. If they make it, fine. If they don’t make it, that’s fine.

We’re going to be able to do everything we’re doing, and actually more. And at the same time, we’re bringing down the number of troops substantially. But we’re able to because of the weaponry and all of the things that we have in place. We can do, actually, more damage with even fewer troops.

So we’re going to — we’re bringing it down very substantially. And we’ll be down at a number that’s very — it’s a good number. And we’re going to stay until such time as we have a deal or we have total victory. And they want to make a deal very badly.

So we’re dealing with — this is really for the media, I guess, more than anybody, because the President knows what I’m saying. The Taliban wants to make a deal. And we’re meeting with them, and we’re saying it has to be a ceasefire. They didn’t want to do a ceasefire, but now they do want to do a ceasefire, I believe. And it will probably work out that way. And we’ll see what happens. But we’ve made tremendous progress.

But the thing I’m most proud of — because you could look at Taliban and say they’re fighting for their land; you could look at, you know, others and say they’re fighting for other things. But we know what ISIS is fighting for and we know what al Qaeda is fighting for. And we have them down to a very small number of people. So — and that won’t be — that will not be a long-lasting fight. That will be over with very soon.

So we made a lot of progress, and, at the same time, we’re drawing down our troops. And, by the way, the same thing in Syria. I have to tell you, there was false reporting in the New York Times and some of the others, yesterday.

We — as you know, we did withdraw from Syria, except we kept the oil. And we’re doing a little scattered fighting because we had some areas where ISIS was a little prevalent and gaining some traction. And we sent some troops in and pretty much wiped it out. But we have left — for the most part, we’ve left, but we’ve kept the oil. And by keeping the oil, we don’t have the enemy getting the oil. And the oil is what fueled the enemy. In this case, it was ISIS.

And so in addition to — in addition to what we did two weeks ago, which was pretty remarkable, the — what that group of young people was able to do very rapidly and very surgically, we are only in an area where we’re keeping the oil and knocking out certain small groups of ISIS as it reforms. We don’t want to — as it — as it reforms, it gets back, it tries to get back.

But we’ve also knocked out — Mr. President, as you know, we knocked out the number-two person who became the number-one person. And now we have our sights on the number-three person, who’s going to be the number-one person, if he wants it. You know, it’s not a good job. I don’t think he wants it. Maybe he doesn’t want it so badly. He’s not acting too quickly.

So we’ve had tremendous success. And we’ve had tremendous success here, especially over the last period of six months to a year. So it’s very — very nice to be with be with you.

PRESIDENT GHANI: It’s a pleasure.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Very, very nice. Thank you.

PRESIDENT GHANI: Thank you, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Okay, thank you very much everybody.

Q Mr. President, will you withdraw without a deal? Will you withdraw if there is no deal?

Q Has the U.S. restarted peace talks with the Talban?


Q Has the U.S. restarted peace talks with the Taliban?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, we’re talking to the Taliban. Yeah.

Q Are you prepared to withdraw even without a deal?

Q And will you include the Afghan —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I would never say a thing like that. You wouldn’t want me to say a thing like that. But I could just say this: We haven’t had so much success in this — in this country, in this area. We haven’t had success like this probably from the beginning, certainly as it relates to ISIS and al Qaeda, which is a very primary aim. But we’ve had very good success in talks with the Taliban.

Q You said that you’re, at this point, pulling out troops. How many troops are currently in Afghanistan? And what is the plan for —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we’ll give you those numbers later, but we’ll get down to a certain number. I’m not sure I want to give you that number, to be honest. But it’s a very big difference. But because of new weaponry and technology, we’re able to do actually more with fewer troops.

Q You had mentioned 8,600. Is that not the number anymore, sir?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: It’s a number that people are talking about, yes.

Q And is that the number you’re talking about?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yeah, it is, for now. And then we can do much better than that.

Q Would you like to get it lower, sir?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: We can go much further than that. But we’ll have it all covered.

You know, this is a country where, for whatever reason, they reform, they regenerate. And we don’t want that to happen. And we also have the support of a lot of other countries, by the way. We have a lot of help from a lot of other countries. But don’t let anybody tell you that’s it’s anybody else, because we’re leading it all the way.

And frankly — and frankly, that’s one of the thing. We — look, we’re in an area of the world — we’re 8,000 miles away. Some of us — I guess, most of us came here together. We want other players in this area to help. They don’t like ISIS either. They don’t like al Qaeda either. And they have to help also. You have countries that are right nearby that are very big, that have power, and they should be doing some of the work too, not just the United States.

Thank you very much everybody.