When a collection of bad guys pulls off a big heist, or a murder, or another important crime, one of the critical problems they face is co-ordinating the cover story. The cops may arrest one or more of them, and then question each suspect separately. Any cover stories must be completely consistent if they are to succeed. Inconsistencies in the cover story, even slight ones, will prompt focused questioning that could cause the whole house of cards to collapse.

But co-ordinating cover stories is not so easy. You might remember the case of Paul Manafort, recently under investigation for alleged crimes including lobbying of the U.S. Congress without proper registration. On that subject, Manafort’s story was that his lobbying efforts did not relate to the U.S. Congress, but only to Europe; thus, no registration necessary. As the government questioned other witnesses, Manafort attempted to reach out to them to be sure that they were on board with the line that “we were only lobbying Europe.” Unfortunately, the FBI was snooping on everything Manafort did. From the New York Times, June 4, 2018:

Prosecutors said that Mr. Manafort tried to contact witnesses by phone, through an intermediary and through an encrypted messaging program. One witness told the F.B.I. that Mr. Manafort was trying to “suborn perjury,” prosecutors said. Two witnesses provided the texts to the F.B.I., which also searched Mr. Manafort’s cloud-based Apple account, according to court records.

You might recall that these efforts to co-ordinate stories got Manafort slapped into solitary confinement while awaiting trial. (Ultimately, he was convicted on other charges, including tax fraud and bank fraud.)

Now, assume you are attempting to pull off the most egregious abuse of government power in American political history. There must be a better way than Manafort’s to co-ordinate cover stories. Which brings me back to yesterday’s post comparing Obamagate to Watergate, and to the section of that post relating to the personal involvement of the President. In that section, I linked to what might seem to be a very odd email that National Security Advisor Susan Rice sent to herself on January 20, 2017 (Inauguration Day), during her very final moments in office. Here is the link I provided yesterday. If you go to that link, you will find five large black blots, obliterating five lines of text. This was a redaction, supposedly because the information was classified.

It turns out that even as I was writing that post, new Directory of National Intelligence Ric Grenell was declassifying the formerly-obliterated paragraph. The text became available last evening. Here is the previous paragraph (which I quoted yesterday):

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.

And here is the next paragraph that was newly declassified only yesterday:

Director Comey affirmed that he is processing “by the book” as it relates to law enforcement. From a national security perspective, Comey said he does have some concerns that incoming NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian ambassador Kislyak. Comey said that could be an issue as it relates to sharing sensitive information. President Obama asked if Comey was saying that the NSC should not pass sensitive information related to Russia to Flynn. Comey replied “potentially.” He added that he has no indication that Flynn has passed classified information to Kislyak, but he noted that “the level of communication is unusual.”

Let’s ask the obvious question: Do you write emails “to file” like this one? I didn’t think so. Many have called this email an instance of “CYA,” and I suppose there is an element of that. But really, that’s not the nub of it. Rice’s “A” is not the one that needs covering here. If you think about it, this email was all about communicating the official agreed-upon version of the events to all the participants to that they could get their stories straight and not deviate from the party line and contradict each other.

Writing in National Review today, Andrew McCarthy also points out that Rice attempted to spin the events as best she could to shift responsibility for improper conduct away from Obama and onto Comey.

The patent point of Rice’s last-second email — written “To the File” (what file?) as she was leaving her office on January 20, memorializing a meeting that had occurred over two weeks earlier — was to shift responsibility from President Obama to FBI Director Comey for the pursuit of the Trump–Russia probe.

Hey, Obama was just asking if the NSC should conceal its most important investigation from the incoming President and National Security Advisor. It’s Comey who was making the final decision! McCarthy expresses what I would agree is an appropriate degree of skepticism:

We are left to conclude that Obama must never have directed that anything be done. Hey, if it turns out the FBI kept up its Trump–Russia investigation, that must have been Comey’s doing — Obama had nothing to do with it. Yup.

There is definitely more that will come out about this in the documentary record. I can’t wait.