The Ballad of the Green Berets performed by Letters from Home Singers


Published on May 29, 2016

Letters from Home Singers perform Live on AM Raleigh, ‘The Ballad of the Green Berets,’ written by Barry Sadler, and send chills up my spine with this superb performance! We honor our fallen on Memorial Day and Always and we say with all our hearts, ‘Thank You!’


Apollo 10’s Lunar Module Snoopy Is Lost In Space – Could We Bring it Home?

Published on May 20, 2019

The lunar module flown on Apollo 10 is the only flown lunar module which didn’t end up crashing into the moon, or burning up in the Earth’s atmosphere. After the testing in lunar orbit the ascent engine performed a burn to depletion which meant it escaped into interplanetary space. At this moment the location is unknown, but people are looking for it, however it could take decades to be sure since it only comes into the vicinity of the Earth every 15 years or so. If it were found however, would it be possible to bring it back to earth for inspection by historians and space archaeologists – time to fire up Kerbal Space Program with realism overhaul to try flying this mission. Mike Loucks’ did the math to figure out the possible orbits:

The Only Pilot to Shoot Down A Spacecraft – A Space Ace

Published on Aug 18, 2019

Sure space fighter pilots are an undying trope in science fiction and fantasy, but in reality the only pilot who can claim to have shot down a spacecraft is Maj. Wilbert ‘Doug’ Pearson. In 1985 he flew a modified F-15 with a specialized anti-satellite missile to shoot down an old satellite. Much of the detailed information was derived from Sven Grahn’s collection:……

New Report Details SpaceX’s Plans To Launch Starship From Florida

Published on Aug 5, 2019

While it’s still a couple of years out at least, SpaceX has been doing the important paperwork detailing their plans to launch Starship and Super Heavy from Launch Complex 39A at the Kennedy Space Center. A great deal of new info has come to light in the Environmental impact report including information on the sound levels as a result of the engines and the sonic booms from reentry. Also some detailed modelling on the chemical composition that results from the Raptor engines, gives us some more info on what to expect from the final Raptors. The report is available here:…


The Rising Tensions: Kashmir – Hong Kong – Korea

The War Cycle is by far on schedule. We have tensions rising almost everywhere. In Asia, we have the Kashmir Crisis as hundreds of people took the streets in Srinagar, the main Indian city, to protest New Delhi’s decision to lift the special status of the territory.

In Hong Kong, there are fears that China will send in troops and take military action, which would trigger an international crisis as fear in Asia as a whole will rise sharply over the future of economic stability. This could send the yuan crashing and even force the break of the Hong Kong peg. The Hong Kong share market peaked in January 2018. It has not made new highs in 2019 and remains at risk of breaking the 2018 low of 24540.43. That gives way and capital is showing its concern for the future of Hong Kong.

In South Korea, the high in the share market remains that of November 2017. We are trading below the 2017 low. A closing at year-end below that warns of lower lows into 2020. Here, the concern is the economic pressure on North Korea. North Korea holds a Tree Planting Day every March. The question is whether it could help regreen a largely deforested nation whose people face food shortages, deadly natural disasters, and bitterly cold winters. These economic pressures will eventually push the Supreme Leader into perhaps an attack on South Korea or face an overthrow himself.

We have a serious crisis building in Asia on three fronts. Then there is the chaos of Europe. The Democrats are complete idiots for claiming if Britain exits the EU, they will block any trade deal to punish Britain in support of Brussels. Instead of helping to solve the crisis, they are encouraging the EU not to renegotiate. The Democrats are basically saying — screw the Irish.

Right now, I am working from Asia in the middle of a real crisis with a front-row seat.


Asia 2019 Crisis

COMMENT: when you showed FX and stock markets of Asia in Rome, the computer did forecast quite some panic cycles for this summer – here we go !


REPLY: I know. That’s why I am here.

The Deep State Reality

QUESTION: Dear Mr. Armstrong
Isn’t the FBI a government agency?
In this case, they are paid with “the people” tax money?
Aren’t they supposed to be neutral, I mean, they should be “incorruptible”?
They should not take a position for the left or the right. They should be there for “Justice”?
Can you explain?
Many Thanks to you and your team for all your teachings.
Have a beautiful day

ANSWER: What you say is the theory of a perfect world. Unfortunately, I believe that ever since Bush Jr was elected, the power shifted from the president to the bureaucracy. I have stated before that I use to meet with people who wanted to run for president for the Republicans as a vetting process. They were told I was there to inform them of the global economy and how it functioned, but in reality, I was told to determine if I believed they could handle the job. Then I was asked to run to Texas to meet with Bush Jr, but I was told this was different. I was told he was really “stupid” and they asked me if I would accept the position of Chief Economic Advisor to the president. I was shocked. I asked, “Why would you make someone stupid president?” Particularly since it was exactly opposite of what I had been asked to do for years. I was told he had the “name” to win.

I was told at that time they needed to surround him with “good people” and that is how Cheney became the de facto president. Naturally, I declined for I could not continue my business. Ever since that point in time, the bureaucracy rose to power. They took on a mantle of authority that no one has been able to challenge. Trump has tried, but look at what they have done to him. This is what people are calling the Deep State. The idea that we are free is only an illusion. We have no rights.

Coxey & His ArmyThe first march upon Washington emerged at this time from the Panic of 1893 known as Coxley’s Army. This was a group of unemployed men who marched during the depression year of 1894. Jacob S. Coxley (1854-1951) was a businessman in Ohio whose idea was that government should provide employment through creating public works. His ideas were eventually incorporated in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and became the WPA in 1935. Coxley set out for Washington on March 25, 1894, with about 100 men and arrived there on May 1st with about 500 more who had joined. Coxley’s First Amendment rights were, of course, violated for they arrested him for walking on the grass and pretended it had nothing to do with his march.


YellowBrickRoadNevertheless, it was this event that became the “Wizard of Oz.” Lyman Frank Baum (1856-1919) was impressed by this movement. Off to see the Wizard was Washington. The Tin Man was industry, the Scarecrow agriculture, and the Cowardly Lion was William Jennings Bryan. The Yellow Brick Road was the gold standard. It was hoped to persuade Congress to authorize a vast program of public works, and restore the repealed Sherman Silver Purchase Act to increase the money supply – the 19th Century version of Quantitative Easing that virtually bankrupted the USA. This movement was all about financing a substantial increase in the money in circulation to provide jobs for the unemployed.

Kamala Harris – Medicare for All

QUESTION: Marty, what do you make of Harris’s Medicare-for-all plan joining Bernie Sanders? Is this just another way the destroy the society?


ANSWER: There is a HUGE problem nobody seems willing to address. People compare US healthcare costs to those of places like Britain. The problem is that we have a private system and in Britain, the doctors work for the government. Harris’s plan is sort of a hybrid and it would be phased in over 10 years making it another government disaster. All we need to do is look at the VA hospitals. Government is simply incapable of managing anything and then misconduct and mismanagement are exempted from exposure when it is politically important for an election.

Unlike Sanders’, Harris’s plan would include a substantive role for private insurers, which would still be able to offer plans under a tightly regulated system, similar to the way that private insurers currently do through Medicare Advantage.

Additionally, it would transition Americans from the existing system to Medicare-for-all in 10 years, instead of four. And finally, it would use a slightly different payment mechanism: Harris backs several of the methods Sanders has suggested, including higher capital gains taxes, but would only impose taxes on households making $100,000 or more. Sanders’ plan, meanwhile, would impose taxes on households making $29,000 or more.

Healthcare is pricing itself out of the economy. We cannot create a hybrid system leaving private doctors yet 100% coverage under the current system. The VA hospitals prove government cannot be trusted with management. That means we have to create a system that is private yet not uncontrollable.

I would encourage private Medicare-for-all hospitals by treating them as a public utility and to create an incentive for existing hospitals to convert eliminating private insurance entirely. We do that by making them TAX-FREE and all procedures would be priced at a fixed rate with a standard profit margin. No more $500 for a $50 brace.

There are doctors who have been in private practice who have left and gone to the VA because it has become so insane. Many foreign immigrants come into the USA to get lucrative jobs as doctors with a medical degree. Then there are young people who want to become doctors because of the money rather than to help people. Nevertheless, there are a lot of people who want to help people and they would switch over in a heartbeat if we created a viable system.

I have had friends who had local private practices who have effectively been forced to join hospital groups. We have an explosion of Urgent Care centers created which compete against private practices. I have had discussions with those in hospital groups who have said decades ago that they would take that over private practices. That has been the trend.

We can encourage existing groups to switch to a Medicare-for-all system by making them TAX-FREE provided they agree to control over pricing as is the case in public utilities

Assisted Suicide Avoidance – John Brennan Intel Asset Joseph Mifsud “Gave Audio Tape Deposition Before Going Into Hiding”…

According to an interview granted by the lawyer for intelligence asset Joseph Mifsud to journalist John Solomon, professor Mifsud admitted to being a western intelligence asset who was part of a CIA intelligence “operation” against candidate Donald Trump in March 2016.

Yes, stop and read that introductory paragraph again….

Solomon notes that an audio-taped deposition exists from Joseph Mifsud prior to going into hiding after the 2016 Presidential election.  From the description it sounds like Mifsud anticipated his assisted suicide and recorded a deposition as leverage against his unwanted demise.   WATCH:


What Solomon describes would align with the CIA purposefully leaking the details about Mifsud to the Washington Post on July 1st, 2019.

In the synergy between the U.S. intelligence apparatus and their media agents, the CIA, DOJ and State Department have specific outlets assigned to public relations.

A long-tracked pattern reflects the DOJ and FBI leak their needs to the New York Times. The preferred outlet for the U.S. State Department is CNN; and the Washington Post generally comes out first with leaks in defense of the CIA agenda.

This pattern has been remarkably consistent for years.

So against a backdrop of looming revelations about the intelligence community and their activity in the 2016 election; suddenly The Washington Post, seemingly out of nowhere, pushed an article intended to diffuse the issues around western intelligence asset Joseph Mifsud.

As we noted in July, we can reasonably assume something is happening in the background that has officials in the CIA worried about exposure and their image.  From the WaPo introduction we can see what part of “spygate” the CIA is concerned about:

(Wa Po) […] The Maltese-born academichas not surfacedpublicly since that October 2017 interview, days after Trump campaign aide GeorgePapadopoulos pleaded guilty tolying to the FBI about details of theirinteractions. Among them, Papadopoulos told investigators, was an April 2016 meeting in which Mifsud alerted him that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.”

The conversation between Mifsud and Papadopoulos, eventually relayed by an Australian diplomat to U.S. government officials, was cited by special counsel Robert S. Mueller IIIas the event that set in motion the FBI probe into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

With Attorney General William P. Barr’s review of the counterintelligence investigation underway,the origins of the inquiry itself are now in the spotlight — and with them, the role of Mifsud, a little-known figure. (more)

The entire WaPo article is fraught with highly manipulated narrative engineering intended to cloud the fact that clear evidence exists that Professor Mifsud’s engagement with George Papadopoulos was directed by some entity other than Mifsud.

It would be intellectually dishonest not to see some other purpose and intent beyond an academic wanting to build a relationship with some obscure policy staffer for the Trump campaign.

If he walks like a counterintelligence agent; acts like a counterintelligence agent; sounds like a counterintelligence agent; hangs out with other counterintelligence agents; has admitted to engagements on behalf of intelligence agencies; trained U.S. FBI agents in conducting counterintelligence operations and generally has a history of counterintelligence agent behavior, well, he ain’t just a Maltese professor.

Just sayin’.

So what’s up?

Why was the Washington Post trying to get out-front of Joseph Mifsud all of a sudden?

Likely it’s because someone in the background (Barr via Durham) is peeking at the connective tissue between John Brennan’s instructions in 2015 and 2016; and John Brennan’s “electronic communication’ results to the FBI in July 2016 that kicked off the counterintelligence operation against candidate Trump known as Crossfire Hurricane.

Additionally, there is clearly some recording of Papadopoulos and/or transcript of Papadopoulos engaging with CIA and FBI assets (spies) that Trey Gowdy has claimed to be “very exculpatory” toward any claim that Papadopoulos was doing anything wrong. Those transcripts are possibly part of the AG Barr’s declassification directive.

Remember, back in May Devin Nunes told AG Barr something was going on:

(Via Fox News) “He is the first person that we know of on earth that supposedly knows something about the Russians having Hillary’s emails,” Nunes, R-Calif., said on “Fox News @ Night.”

“He has since denied that but (Special Counsel Robert) Mueller in his report claimed that Mifsud – or insinuated that Mifsud – was some sort of Russian asset. We know that this is not the case. In fact, we know that he was in the U.S. Capitol… just steps away from an intelligence committee.”

[…] Nunes, a ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News that the has sent letters this month to the CIA, FBI, NSA and the State Department asking for documents tied to Mifsud. He said all of the agencies except one – the FBI – have cooperated with his request.

He then made the leap, “The FBI is not cooperating, per usual, which means they’ve got something to hide.”

“It is impossible that Mifsud is a Russian asset,” Nunes added. “He is a former diplomat with the Malta government. He lived in Italy. He worked and taught FBI, trained FBI officials, and worked with FBI officials.” (read more – w/ video)


Someone at the CIA is nervous….

President Trump Impromptu Presser Departing New Jersey – Video and Transcript…

Earlier today President Trump, Melania Trump and Barron Trump arrived in Morristown, NJ, airport en route back to Washington DC.  Prior to boarding Air-Force-One the President delivered brief remarks and answered media questions for 36 minutes.

[Note: longer version of video provided to see young 13-year-old (very tall) Barron Trump as he arrives with Mom and Dad.  (Full Video (begin 6:45) and Transcript below)]


[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: So, we had a lot of meetings yesterday on Afghanistan, on the economy — which is doing very well. We have the strongest economy, by far, in the world. The tariffs have cost nothing, in my opinion, or certainly very little. We have import prices from, and through, July — all the way through July. And they’re down 1.8 percent so that the import prices have actually gone down.

China is eating the tariffs because of monetary manipulation. And also, they’re pouring a lot of money into their country because they don’t want to lose jobs. They’re losing, as you probably know, because you reported it, but they lost over 2 million jobs in a short period of time. And they want to make a deal; we’ll see what happens. But they definitely want to make a deal.

I’d like to see Hong Kong worked out in a very humanitarian fashion. I hope President Xi can do it. He sure has the ability, I can tell you that, from personal knowledge. He certainly has the ability to do it if he wants to. So, I’d like to see that worked out in a humanitarian fashion. I think it would be very good for the trade deal that we’re talking about.

And other than that, if you have any questions?

Q What’s the status of your deliberations on the Afghanistan — the troop withdrawal and where things stand?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’re looking at Afghanistan. We’re talking to Afghanistan, both the government and also talking to the Taliban, having very good discussions. We’ll see what happens. We’ve really got it down to, probably, 13,000 people. And we’ll be bringing it down a little bit more, and then we’ll decide whether or not we’ll be staying longer or not. We’re having very good discussions with the Taliban. We’re having very good discussions with the Afghan government.

Q What’s the argument for staying?

THE PRESIDENT: I think just that we’ve been there for 19 years. We’re like a police force. And that’s about it, frankly.

I think it’s very important that we continue intelligence there, in all cases, because it is somewhat of a nest for hitting us. If you look at what happened with the World Trade, it essentially came out of Afghanistan. Most of the people, I think, they may not have come from Afghanistan originally, but that’s where they were taught. So there’s a big argument to be made. And I buy that argument.

You know, it’s very tough when somebody says, “Well, this is a big breeding ground.” And it is a breeding ground. And we have things under control very well with a small force. We can probably make it a little bit smaller, and then we’ll decide. It’ll depend on the Taliban. It’ll depend on the Afghan government. But there is a case to be made. And the case also is that we’re going to be leaving very significant intelligence behind for just the reasons I stated.

Q Have you spoken to President Xi, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: I can’t comment on that. Can’t do it, Maggie.

Q Can you comment at all on where things stand in terms of the China negotiations? You said there was progress.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think President Xi obviously has this in mind because he probably would’ve acted faster. So I think he has at least something in mind, having to do with trade, because it’s something he could do fairly easily. It could be, unfortunately, very ruthless. So I do think it plays on his mind, and I do think he — he’s thinking about what I’ve had to say. It would have an impact on trade; there’s no question about it.

Q Is there any U.S. land holding that you would be willing to do in exchange —

THE PRESIDENT: Little louder, Maggie.

Q In order to get your interest in Greenland, which has been widely reported, is there anything —

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Greenland, I don’t know — it got released somehow. It’s just something we talked about. Denmark essentially owns it. We’re very good allies with Denmark. We protect Denmark like we protect large portions of the world. So the concept came up and I said, “Certainly, I’d be. Strategically, it’s interesting, and we’d be interested.” But we’ll talk to them a little bit. It’s not number one on the burner, I can tell you that.

Q Would you ever make an exchange with them of any kind for U.S. territories?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, a lot of things can be done. I mean, essentially, it’s a large real estate deal. A lot of things can be done. It’s hurting Denmark very badly because they’re losing almost $700 million a year carrying it. So they carry it at a great loss. And, strategically, for the United States, it would be nice. And we’re a big ally of Denmark, and we help Denmark and we protect Denmark, and we will.

In fact, I’m supposed to stop. I’m thinking about going there. I’m not necessarily definitely going there, but I may be going. We’re going to Poland and then we may be going to Denmark — not for this reason at all. But we’re looking at it. It’s not number one on the burner.

Q Mr. President, sir, back to Afghanistan. Two questions on that. First of all, have you seen the reports about the suicide bomber at a wedding? There were more than 60 people killed. And so, why then could you trust the Taliban to keep Afghanistan safe from terrorists when you have a suicide bomber killing so many people there?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m not trusting anybody. Look, I’m not trusting anybody. It’s a horrible situation that’s going on in Afghanistan. It has been for many years. Russia tried to do something. And at the time they did it, they were the Soviet Union, and now they’re Russia. They spent all their wealth on trying to do something in that land. There have been many, many great nations in that land. It’s a difficult territory.

There are a lot of very good people there, I will say, but they’re also good fighters. We have it very much under control as far as what we’re doing. But the rest is — you know, a lot of bad things happen in Kabul. A lot of bad things are happening in Afghanistan, and some very positive things.

But we would — look, we’re there for one reason: We don’t want that to be a laboratory. Okay? It can’t be a laboratory for terror. And we’ve stopped that, and we have a very, very good view. I mean, some things are going to be announced over the next couple of weeks as to what happened, who’s been taken out. A lot of people have been taken out that were very bad — both ISIS and al Qaeda.

Q And Senator Lindsey Graham said that for you to withdraw the U.S. troops from Afghanistan and entrust the Taliban would be the biggest mistake since Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I guess that means Lindsey is a very tough man, isn’t he? Huh?

Okay. What else?

Q On Huawei — is the administration going to allow U.S. businesses to continue selling to Huawei? Is there going to be an extension of the license tomorrow?

THE PRESIDENT: No. That was reported. And, actually, it’s the opposite. Huawei. Huawei is a company we may not do business with at all. And it was sort of reported, I think the opposite, today — I was surprised — that we are open to doing business. We’re actually open not to doing business with them. So I don’t know who gave the report.

Now, they have little sections of Huawei, like furniture and other things that we could do. But when you cut out sections, it gets very complicated: what’s being sold, what’s coming in.

So, at this moment, it looks much more like we’re not going to do business. I don’t want to do business at all, because it is a national security threat. And I really believe that the media has covered it a little bit differently than that. So we’re looking, really, not to do business with Huawei. And we’re actually talking about not doing any business, because, again, the rest of it is not national security, but it’s very difficult to determine what’s coming in and what’s not coming in. It’s still Huawei. So we’ll be making a decision over that in the not-too-distant future. But it’s a little bit the opposite of what seemed to be reported this morning.

Q How were your meetings at Bedminster, sir? How was your meeting with Tim Cook? Did you meet with other folks? Who did you golf with?

THE PRESIDENT: I had a very good meeting with Tim Cook. I have a lot of respect for Tim Cook. And Tim was talking to me about tariffs.

And, you know, one of the things — and he made a good case — is that Samsung is their number-one competitor, and Samsung is not paying tariffs because they’re based in South Korea. And it’s tough for Apple to pay tariffs if they’re competing with a very good company that’s not. I said, “How good a competitor?” He said they are a very good competitor. So, Samsung is not paying tariffs because they’re based in a different location, mostly South Korea, but they’re based in South Korea. And I thought he made a very compelling argument, so I’m thinking about it.

Q And, sir, there’s reporting on CNN that Larry Kudlow may be leaving at some point soon. Do you have confidence in him?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I hope not. I love Larry Kudlow. I think he’s done a fantastic job. He has been going through health problems, as you know. But I watched him this morning; he was terrific. I think Larry is a fantastic guy. But I haven’t heard that at all.

Q And are you doing any planning, or are you going to be directing your administration to plan for the possibility of a recession?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t see a recession. I mean, the world is in a recession right now. And — although, that’s too big a statement. But if you look at China, China is doing very, very poorly. They’ve had — I just saw a report — they’ve had the worst year they’ve had in 27 years because of what I’ve done. And they want to come to the negotiating table. You know, they’re having companies lose — I mean, they’re leaving. The companies are leaving. And they’re laying off millions of people because they don’t want to pay 25 percent. And that’s why they want to come to the table. I don’t think there’s another reason other than President Xi, I’m sure, likes me very much. But they’re losing millions and millions of jobs in China. And we’re not paying for the tariffs; China is paying for the tariffs, for the one-hundredth time.

And I understand tariffs work very well. Other countries it may be that if I do things with other countries. But in the case of China, China is eating the tariffs, at least so far.

Q But a lot of economists say that you should be preparing for a recession; that no President is immune from a recession, and that it’s malpractice for the government not to be doing something to get ready for that scenario.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. Phil, honestly, I’m prepared for everything. I don’t think we’re having a recession. We’re doing tremendously well. Our consumers are rich. I gave a tremendous tax cut, and they’re loaded up with money. They’re buying. I saw the Wal-Mart numbers; they were through the roof, just two days ago. That’s better than any poll. That’s better than any economist.

And most economists actually say, Phil, that we’re not going to have a recession. Most of them are saying we’re not going to have a recession.

But the rest of the world is not doing well like we’re doing. The rest of the world, if you look at Germany, if you look at European Union; frankly, look at the UK — I mean, look at a lot of countries — they’re not doing well. China is doing poorly. Parts of Asia are doing poorly.

We are doing better than any country, or even area, anywhere in the world. We’re doing great. And our consumer is really, really strong, and it looks like they’re going to be for a long time.

Also, when you go in and analyze the curve, the curve always means that about two years later maybe you’ll go in. That’s a long time — two years. But I don’t think so. Interest rates are low. I think I could be helped out by the Fed, but the Fed doesn’t like helping me too much. But, you know, frankly, we have money that’s pouring into our country because they want the security of the United States.

We have billions and billions of dollars daily that’s pouring in — we’ve never had anything like this — because they want to come into the United States. That’s a great thing. That means we can loan that money out.

Mortgage rates are at an all-time low. Borrowing costs are at an all-time low. It’s probably a great time. I told Secretary Mnuchin that this is a great time to refinance our bonds, or some of our bonds.

You know, it’s — I mean, the money is pouring into the U.S. like never before and like no other country has ever experienced, including China money. I mean, China money — everybody — they’re all coming into the U.S. So we’ve never had anything like it. I think our economy is very, very good.

Q But if it were to slow down, could you win reelection?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’d be prepared for it. We can do — sure, we can do a lot of things. But if it slowed down, it would be because I have to take on China and some other countries.

Look, you have other countries that are just as bad as China, the way they treat us. You take a look at what’s happening with the European Union; they have barriers, they have tariffs. Take a look at other — I’m not going to mention all the countries because you’ll be surprised. But we’re treated very badly — a lot of them by our allies. We’re treated very badly.

When all of that normalizes, we’ve got a rocket ship. Our country is going to be stronger, by far, than ever before. I mean, if I wanted to make a bad deal and settle on China, the market would go up but it wouldn’t be the right thing to do. I’m just not ready to make a deal yet. China would like to make a deal. I’m not ready.

Q Do you have an updated on the Iranian oil tanker in Gibraltar that has (inaudible)?

THE PRESIDENT: No, no update, other than Iran would like to talk also. I have to say “also.” China wants to talk, but Iran would like to talk. They just don’t know quite how to get there.

Look, they’re very proud people, but their economy is crashing. It’s crashing. Inflation is through the roof. They’re doing really badly. They’re not selling oil. Even — I mean, we put the sanctions on. The oil is selling much less — I mean, much less — than we thought. It’s like a trickle. And they very much want to make a deal. They just don’t know how to call because they’re proud people, and I understand that. But I have a feeling that maybe things with Iran could work out, and maybe not.

If you notice, they haven’t taken any of our boats. They haven’t taken our ships. They’ve taken ships, but they haven’t taken our ships, and they better not.

But I will say this: I really think that Iran wants to get there. They have a great potential. I say this about North Korea. North Korea has tremendous potential. Also, Iran has tremendous potential, and we can do something very fast, but they don’t quite know how to begin because they’re proud people. They’re very proud people. But their country is crashing. Their economy is a disaster. They’ve got to do something, so let’s see what happens.

Q What about gun control, Mr. President? Where does that stand?

THE PRESIDENT: So, Congress is working on that. They have bipartisan committees working on background checks and various other things. And we’ll see. I don’t want people to forget that this is a mental health problem. I don’t want them to forget that, because it is. It’s a mental health problem. And as I say — and I said the other night in New Hampshire; we had an incredible evening — I said: It’s the people that pull the trigger. It’s not the gun that pulls the trigger.

So we have a very, very big mental health problem, and Congress is working on various things, and I’ll be looking at it. We’re very much involved. We’re very much involved in looking at what they’re studying.

Q Mr. President, the Dayton shooter had a 100-round-capacity magazine. Would you support banning high-capacity magazines?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’re going to look at a whole list of things, and I’ll make a determination then. But I will say, Congress is now, as you know, meeting in a bipartisan way. We’ll see what happens. A lot of things are happening on the gun level. A lot of things are happening.

But you have to remember, also, it’s a big mental — I was talking about mental institutions. They closed so many — like 92 percent — of the mental institutions around this country over the years, for budgetary reasons. These are people that have to be in institutions for help. I’m not talking about as a form of a prison. I’m saying for help. And I think it’s something we have to really look at — the whole concept for mental institutions.

I remember, growing up, we had mental institutions. Then they were closed — in New York, I’m talking about. They were — many of them were closed. A lot of them were closed. And all of those people were put out on the streets. And I said — even as a young guy, I said, “How does that work? That’s not a good thing.” And it’s not a good thing. So I think the concept of mental institution has to be looked at.

Unrelated to that, I believe that the concept also of voter identification has to be looked at, because you can’t have great security for the voter. People that vote, you can’t have that national security unless you’re going to have voter identification. It’s something people have to look at very strongly.

Q Sir, what does that have to do with guns?

Q Can you say who you golfed with, sir, and who else you met with at Bedminster? I know you did a lot of work.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, I did. We had a lot of meetings, and the golf was the least of it. I played two days. The golf was the least of it. I don’t care about — look, I like golf; it’s fine. It’s so unimportant to me. Usually, I’ll play with senators, I’ll play with people where it can help. Golf is not important from that standpoint other than it’s a little form of exercise, and that’s not so bad.

Q Sir, on Taiwan, any answer on — or response, rather, on the sale of F-16s to Taiwan?

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, yeah. Yeah, there is. I mean, I’ve approved the deal. The deal is approved. Got to be approved by the Senate, but I’ve approved the deal. It’s $8 billion. It’s a lot of money. That’s a lot of jobs. And we know they’re going to use these F-16s responsibly. But we approved the deal. A lot of money. And it’s a great aircraft. And we really believe — or we perhaps wouldn’t have done it — they’re going to use it very responsibly. But it’s tremendous numbers of jobs. It’s $8 billion.

Q And, Mr. President, you brought up voter ID laws in the context of the gun control debate.

THE PRESIDENT: No, no, just — I said, “unrelated.” I wanted to bring that out while I’m here with you. I think voter ID laws are — if you look, voter identification. So when people show up to vote — because, if you look, Judicial Watch made a settlement with California, I guess, or Los Angeles, where they found over a million names that was very problematic — a problem.

And you just take a look at that settlement; that’s a lot of names. You had people that were well over 100 years old that were voting, but we know they’re not around any longer.

So, you have a lot of voter fraud. The way you stop it, the easiest way, is voter identification. We have to go and think about that. I hope Republicans and Democrats can vote, sit down, and work something out on voter ID.

Q But your commission on voter fraud didn’t find any actual fraud. It disbanded.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let the commission — the commission was having a tremendous problem, legally, getting papers from various states like California. They were absolutely hard-lining. They didn’t want to give this commission — it was just a quick commission, headed up by Vice President Pence, to look at voter fraud.

The problem the commission had is we had to have a vast amount of lawyers, which I didn’t want to bother with, because California and other states were giving up no information whatsoever. And the reason they weren’t giving up information is because they were guilty. They were guilty of it. And they know they’re guilty of it. Many, many people voted that shouldn’t have been voting. Some people voted many times. What I’m saying is we need voter identification. We need voter ID.

Q I know it’s not a top priority for you with Greenland, but when you go to Denmark, is this something you’re going to want to talk to them about?

THE PRESIDENT: Maybe. Maybe. I don’t think Denmark has been absolutely set in stone yet, going there. But if I did, I’d certainly talk about it. But not — not top in the list.

Q How much is it worth? How much do you think it’s worth?

THE PRESIDENT: We haven’t gotten there yet. First, we have to find out whether or not they have any interest.

Look, they’re losing almost $700 million carrying it. That’s a lot of money for Denmark. They’re losing a tremendous amount of money. So we’ll see what happens.

Q And I’ve got this — this Fox News poll the other day — I don’t know what to make of polls at this point, but it showed you underwater.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Fox has always given me — I’ll tell you, Fox is a lot different than it used to be, I can tell you that. Juan Williams. Then they have the wonderful woman that gave Hillary Clinton the questions. That was a terrible thing. And all of a sudden, she’s working for Fox. What’s she doing working for Fox? Fox has changed. And my worst polls have always been from Fox. There’s something going on at Fox, I’ll tell you right now. And I’m not happy with it.

Q (Inaudible.) What do you think the change is at Fox?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know what’s happening with Fox, but when they have, like, a Juan Williams, who has never said a positive thing, and yet, when I show up at the Fox building, he’s out there, “Oh, sir, can I have a picture with you? Could I have a picture?” And he was 100 percent nice. I mean, you’ve never asked me for a picture.

Q I have not. Should the Murdochs, sir, change the management at Fox? Or should they bring in new —

THE PRESIDENT: No. No. They have to run it the way they want to run it. But Fox is different. There’s no question about it. And I think they’re making a big mistake, because Fox was treated very badly by the Democrats — very, very badly — having to do with the debates and other things. And I think Fox is making a big mistake. Because, you know, I’m the one that calls the shots on that — on the really big debates. I guess we’re probably planning on three of them.

Q You might not debate, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m very — I’m not happy with Fox. I’m certainly happy — I think Sean Hannity, and Lou Dobbs, and I think Tucker Carlson and Laura and Jesse Watters, and Jeanine. We have a lot of great people. Even Greg Gutfeld; he wasn’t good to me two years ago. Now he sees all I’ve done, and he said, “Would you rather have a great President or a nice guy?” I don’t know, I think I’m a nice guy. But nobody has done in two and a half years what I’ve done. And I say that a lot. And very few people can challenge it.

The first two and a half years, nobody has done what I’ve done in terms of tax cuts, regulation cuts, the military, the vets, the Choice, so many different things. Nobody has done that.


Q Can you clarify what you meant when you said that you don’t want to do business with Huawei? Are you not going to extend this license for 90 days to temporarily allow —

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m talking to my people, but ultimately, we don’t want to do business with Huawei for national security reasons.

Q But not even a temporary extension that —

THE PRESIDENT: We’ll see what happens. I’m making a decision tomorrow. It could be temporary — could be — and maybe not. But we’re going to make a decision tomorrow.

Q So the — what I was asking about, the Fox poll, that they had you underwater against your main Democratic (inaudible).

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t believe it.

Q Okay.

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t believe it. Every place I go, we have lines outside. Then we have even phony stuff with that. You guys were in New Hampshire. Maggie was there. You saw, that room was packed. And they had thousand — Maggie — there were thousands of people outside. And then, I see some phony website some wise guys put up. That place was packed.

Q Where do you see that? Where did you see that?

THE PRESIDENT: And the New York Times actually saw that, and actually, there was a massive flag behind — and even the seats behind the flag where you had no view —

Q But there were pictures of empty seats that were on Twitter.

THE PRESIDENT: Because those people came down to be on the floor.

Q Who showed you those pictures? Where did you see those?

THE PRESIDENT: But all of the people — any empty seat, you had the people come down to be on the floor because they were so far away. Plus, you had a big flag.

Look, we had, I think they said, 17,000 people outside that couldn’t get in. The fire marshals close it at a certain level. The arena announced — I don’t know the people at the arena — that I broke Elton John’s record. And then, I have fake news. The fact is that people tend, during a speech that I make, they love to come down to the floor if they’re sitting in the high areas. And they’re not allowed, for fire reasons, to have any more people.

So, that was an amazing evening, and you saw the enthusiasm. But we had a lot of people sitting behind that massive American flag that couldn’t see, so they moved over and they moved down, and they came down to the floor as the speech started.

But Maggie Haberman was very fair. And she was there and she saw the beginning of that speech. Every seat was packed. But then they tend to come down. They do it all the time.

Q But Mitt Romney did his last rally there the night before the election and it was packed.

Q It was.

Q He ended up losing the election, but — so it’s —

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I don’t know. Phil. Phil, what can I tell you? Do I think I’m going to win? Yes. Do I think I have more enthusiasm now than I had before this — you know, the 2016 election? Yes. I think we’re — I think you people do too. And some of you have reported it.

I think there is more enthusiasm for President Trump than there was even for Mr. Trump. Because what I said that I was going to do, I did. The tax cut, the regulation cuts — the biggest in history. In two and a half years, more than — and that’s one of the reasons our jobs are so good, because of the regulation cuts.

Q So, why can’t you tell us whether you talked to President Xi?

THE PRESIDENT: I just don’t want to comment on that

Q Is there a call set up for next week?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I can speak to him any time. But he understands how I feel. I just can’t comment as to whether or not I spoke to him. But I will tell you this: We’re having very, very substantive talks with China, and with others, but with China.

Q Did you watch any of the coverage of the Hong Kong protest? Huge numbers of people.

THE PRESIDENT: I can’t believe it. You know, I tell you, I’ve never seen 2 million people. When you talk about crowd size, Maggie, those are serious crowds — the Hong Kong crowds. I mean, when they said 2 million people on the streets, that really looked like 2 million people on the streets.

Q What changed your mind, sir? Because the other day you were saying that it was, sort of, China’s problem and Hong Kong’s problem to figure this out. And why have you moved?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I think it would be very hard to deal if they do violence. I mean, if it’s another Tiananmen Square, it’s — I think it’s a very hard thing to do if there’s violence.

And, you know, that — I’m President, but that’s a little beyond me because I think there’d be — you know, I think there’d be tremendous political sentiment not to do something.

So I hope — because I think we’re going to end up doing a very good deal. And I think China, by the way, needs a deal much more than we do. But I really do believe that if this weren’t part of the deal, possibly something would have happened already a long time ago.

Q Do you support the principles of the protestors — the pro-democracy movement?

Q That’s — that’s what I’m asking.

Q Do you think democracy matters?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’ll tell you what I do support: I support liberty. I support democracy. I understand what’s going on very well over there. I’d love to see it worked out in a humane fashion. And I think they have a great chance of doing it.

Look, I put out — and I told you that I really believe — I have a confidence in the — in the talents of President Xi. I think if he met with the protestors, within a very short period of time, they would work something out that’s good for everybody. I really believe that.

He’s a very talented man. I mean, aside from everything, he’s a very talented man. He’s very smart, very talented. And I know him well, probably as well as anybody, And I believe if he sat down with them — now, you know, he’s not — that’s not his deal, sitting down with people. You know, he doesn’t do that. But I think, maybe, the world changes. I really believe if President Xi sat down with representatives of the protestors — and they do have representatives; pretty good representatives, pretty strong representatives. I’ve been watching and seeing them. If he sat down, I think he’d work something out. And I think it would be good for everybody. But it does put pressure on the trade deal. If they do something negative, it puts pressure.

Now, that deal I can sign by myself. It’s structured so I don’t have to go to Congress. But I respect Congress. I respect the views of Congress. And I respect, most importantly, the views of the people of our country. And I think it would be much harder for me to sign a deal if he did something violent in Hong Kong.

Q But do you support cutting $4 billion in foreign aid?

THE PRESIDENT: Are you talking about the —

Q Rescission.

THE PRESIDENT: — rescission? Yeah. I support many of those things. We’ll negotiate it out. But, you know, I’ve cut back a lot on countries. You know, we give billions of dollars to countries that don’t even like us. And I’ve been cutting that a lot.

We give billions and billions of dollars to countries that don’t like us — don’t like us even a little bit. And I’ve been cutting that. And we just put a package of about 4 billion additional dollars in. And, in some cases — you know, in some cases, I could see it both ways. In some cases, these are countries that we should not be giving to.

Q How do you see that cutting aid to them is helping the United States, though? Does it make us safer? Does it make us wealthier?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think so. No, I don’t think so. And if I thought it would, I’d probably do it. But, you know, I cut back $1.3 billion a year to Pakistan. And when I cut it back, I have a better relationship with — as you know, the President came in, and we have a great relationship. Prime Minister came in. We have a great relationship with Pakistan now. He — we had a really good meeting.

So, what happened: I cut back $1.3 billion. We have a better relationship now. I also cut it back on the Palestinians because they speak very badly about our country. So I cut it back on the Palestinians. We were paying $500 billion a year, and now we’re paying nothing. But I think we’re going to get further because I could see opening that up again. I think we’re going to do much better the way I’m doing it. You know, we’re trying to negotiate a peace deal. Everybody said that’s the deal that’s totally impossible. They talk about a deal between the Palestinians and the Israelis as the toughest deal you could possibly do, no matter what deal you’re talking about.

And I stopped payment on $500 million a year, but I think they’re going to make a deal. And I think one of the reasons they’d want to make a deal is because of that. Okay?

Q Are you going to wait until after the Israeli elections to put out your Middle East Peace plan?

THE PRESIDENT: I probably will wait, but we may put out pieces of it. We have some very talented people — as you know, our great ambassador and others. We have some very talented people.

But that’s probably the toughest deal of all — peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians — because they’ve been decades of hate. And it’s tough to make a deal when there’s that much hate.

But I think I’ve helped it very much by saying, “Look, until there’s a deal, we’re not going to pay you anymore.” And other people should have done that long before me. So these are things, when you talk about rescission — and that’s not part of rescission, by the way — but we have a lot of things like that in the rescission.


Q Sir, you’re going — you’re heading back to Washington after a week off. Do you have any thoughts on the Cabinet? Is the Cabinet solid and going to stay in place, or is somebody going to change?

THE PRESIDENT: I think we have a great Cabinet. Yeah, there will always be people changed, because, you know, after — you’re going to be three years now. It’s a long time. They’re under a lot of pressure. And — but I think we have a great Cabinet. I really do. I think our Cabinet is terrific. Some of them will leave for a period of time; they may come back. I mean, the relationship I have is very good with the Cabinet and with others.

But, you know, it’s almost three years now, if you can believe it. Right? And at a certain point of time, people do tend to leave.

Q Are you still considering withdrawing from NAFTA if Nancy Pelosi doesn’t bring up the USMCA on the House floor?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I haven’t said whether or not I would, but I would say NAFTA is one of the worst deals ever made in the history of trade deals.

If you look at NAFTA, and you take a look at what it’s done to our country, thousands of factories closed, millions of jobs. It’s been a one-way street. And the USMCA is a great deal. The unions love it. The farmers love it. Everybody wants it. But it’s up to Nancy Pelosi. If she wants to put it for a vote, she’s going to get overwhelming bipartisan support. And I view that as a bipartisan deal. I would imagine she’d put it up.

There’s an easy thing to do. It will be totally bipartisan, which is good for the Democrats and the Republicans. And everybody wants it. I mean, the unions like it. The unions hated NAFTA, but they love the USMCA. The farmers, above all, love it, especially the American farmers. Our farmers love it more than the other two sides. They love it. So, a lot of good things going.

But we have to see; they have to put it up for a vote. You know, it’s political season, if you haven’t noticed. So they have to put it up for a vote.

Q You talked about some people coming back into the administration. Could Nikki Haley come back into the administration in any role?

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, at some point, maybe, if she wanted to. Yeah.

Q Have you been talking to her about that?

THE PRESIDENT: I really haven’t. I’ve been talking to a lot of people.

Q (Inaudible) change on the ticket, would you, Mr. President? This continues to get asked about.

THE PRESIDENT: No, I’m very happy with Mike Pence.

Q You are?

THE PRESIDENT: I think Mike Pence has been an outstanding VP. I think that he’s been incredible in terms of the love that a lot of people — especially if you look at the Evangelicals and so many others, they really have a great respect for our Vice President. And so do I. And so do, I think, most people.

No, I wouldn’t — I wouldn’t be thinking about that. A lot of people — a lot of people, you know, amazingly, they bring different names up. And they brought a lot of different names up.

Q What are the names?

THE PRESIDENT: And that’s — and that’s, by the way — (laughs) — at some point, I’ll let you know — but that’s, by the way, standard. You know, that’s standard. Everybody thought that President Obama was going to change Biden. They all thought that in the, you know, second term, he was going to change it. Everybody thought it. And he didn’t do that.

But, no, I’m very happy with Mike Pence.

Q Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you.

Q Could just be a little clearer on the gun — your gun position? I don’t —


Q Your position on background checks and guns. What would you support exactly?

THE PRESIDENT: So, Congress is looking at it very strongly. Bipartisan. I put in certain parameters, which you somewhat know about. I’m also very, very concerned with the Second Amendment, more so than most Presidents would be. People don’t realize we have very strong background checks right now.

If you go in to buy a gun, you have to sign up. There are a lot of background checks that have been approved over the years. So I’ll have to see what it is.

But Congress is meeting. Bipartisan. A lot of people want to see something happen. But just remember this: Big mental problem, and we do have a lot of background checks right now.

Q But you’re not willing to support universal background checks right now?

THE PRESIDENT: I’m not saying anything. I’m saying Congress is going to be reporting back to me with ideas. And they’ll come in from Democrats and Republicans. And I’ll look at it very strongly. But just remember, we already have a lot of background checks. Okay? Thank you.

Q Have you spoken to Wayne LaPierre again, sir?


Q Have you spoken to Wayne LaPierre this week at all during your trip?

THE PRESIDENT: I have. Well, I spoke to him a week ago. And, look, I’ve had a great relationship with the NRA, and I will always have a great relationship. I’ve been very good for the NRA.

If you just look — I mean, we have now two Supreme Court justices — great ones. And who would have thought that was going to happen in, you know, long prior to three years?

So, we have two. And equally importantly, we will have, within another 90 days, 179 federal judges. And I say, “Thank you very much, President Obama.” Because he was unable to get them filled. I don’t know what happened to him, but he was unable. So, President Obama did not do his job. And I inherited 138 empty positions. And, honestly, from his standpoint, and the standpoint of where he’s coming from, that shouldn’t have happened.

And we did do one other thing. I saw last night where some people were talking about criminal justice reform — very liberal Democrats. I’m the one that got it done. And I saw that, and I said, “You know, isn’t it a shame? You do something…” — and I’ve had very conservative people wanting it and very liberal people wanting it.

But if you take a look at — if you take a look at that reform package, without Donald Trump, it doesn’t happen. And you know what? I don’t need the credit. I get enough credit. But they never even mention my name. And these were people that were begging me to do it — calling me, begging me like you’ve never seen. And now that criminal justice reform is done — beautiful package, wonderful — they don’t even mention my name. So stupid. So stupid.

Thank you. Thank you.


Arrival at White House – South Lawn:

Maria Bartiromo Outlines The Architect of “Spygate” and “Crossfire Hurricane”, CIA Director John Brennan…

Among all media personalities Maria Bartiromo easily has the most comprehensive grasp of the 2016 operation against President Trump.  During two interviews today Bartiromo outlines the evidence that leads directly to the person at the origination point, former CIA Director John Brennan.

First, here’s a mash-up of the two interviews (Senator Graham and John Solomon) where Bartiromo asks the same question.  [hat tip Michael Sheridan for the video]


Former CIA Director John Brennan lies at the heart of the intelligence community decision to weaponize against Donald Trump. In this outline I will provide supporting evidence for Bartiromo’s assertion, which I suspect has already led to a criminal referral to U.S. Attorney John Durham by HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes.

Suspicious Cat ate canary…

The FBI’s formal origination of the counterintelligence investigation into candidate Donald Trump known as “Operation Crossfire Hurricane”, begins with a two-page memo submitted by former CIA Director John Brennan to former FBI Director James Comey.

The two page origination memo is known as an “EC” or “electronic communication”. This classified origination memo is one of the key documents requested by congress for declassification by President Trump, to be shared with the American people.

According to House Intelligence Committee member Devin Nunes; who is also a member of the intelligence oversight ‘Gang-of-Eight’; that EC contains intelligence material that did not come through “official intelligence channels” into the U.S. intelligence apparatus.

On April 22nd, 2018, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes appeared on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the origin of the July 2016 counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign.

WATCH the first two minutes:


The origin of the 2016 counterintelligence operation was the Electronic Communication document, a ‘raw intelligence product’ delivered by CIA Director John Brennan to the FBI.

The EC was not an official product of the U.S. intelligence community. Additionally, Brennan was NOT using official partnerships with intelligence agencies of our Five-Eyes partner nations; and he did not provide raw intelligence –as an outcome of those relationships– to the FBI.

When we first watched this interview the initial questions were: if the EC is not based on official intelligence from U.S. intelligence apparatus or any of the ‘five-eyes’ partners, then what is the origin, source and purpose therein, of the unofficial raw intelligence? Who created it? And why?

Now we know many of the answers to those questions.

All research indicates CIA Director John Brennan enlisted the help of U.S. and foreign intelligence assets to run operations against the Trump campaign early in 2016. The objective was to give the false and manufactured appearance of compromise. Once the CIA established the possibility of compromise, that activity created the EC which opened the door for an FBI investigation.

The operation run by Brennan targeting Papadopoulos is at the center of the two-page “EC” (electronic communication); given to FBI Director James Comey to start the counterintelligence operation (Crossfire Hurricane) against the Trump campaign.

Two of the intelligence assets Brennan organized were Joseph Mifsud and Stefan Halper.

Yes, the primary intelligence sources of John Brennan’s “EC” is were operations run by FBI and CIA operative Stefan Halper, and western intelligence asset Joseph Mifsud.  A great background on Halper is HERE.

In March 2018 Chuck Ross of The Daily Caller took a deep dive on how Stefan Halperinteracted with George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. Halper is sketchy, and he was trying to initiate contacts with low-level Trump campaign aides. [SEE HERE]

DAILY CALLER – Two months before the 2016 election, George Papadopoulos received a strange request for a meeting in London, one of several the young Trump adviser would be offered — and he would accept — during the presidential campaign.

The meeting request, which has not been reported until now, came from Stefan Halper, a foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6.

Halper’s September 2016 outreach to Papadopoulos wasn’t his only contact with Trump campaign members. The 73-year-old professor, a veteran of three Republican administrations, met with two other campaign advisers, The Daily Caller News Foundation learned. (Please Keep Reading)

We now know Brennan’s originating structure involved Stefan Halper the foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor deeply connected to the CIA and willing to run the operation to benefit the political objective for CIA Director Brennan. This is how John Brennan originates the “EC” through non-traditional intelligence channels. The EC is then given to James Comey, who starts Operation Crossfire Hurricane on July 31st, 2016.

[NOTE: •On July 31st, 2016 the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign. They did not inform congress until March 2017. •At the beginning of August (1st-3rd) 2016 FBI Agent Peter Strzok traveled to London, England for interviews with UK intelligence officials. •On August 15th, 2016 Peter Strzok sends a text message to DOJ Lawyer Lisa Page describing the “insurance policy“, needed in case Hillary Clinton were to lose the election. That’s where Carter Page comes in.]

However, CIA Director John Brennan didn’t stop with simply originating the FBI investigation, he went on to promote additional material from his knowledge of the Christopher Steele Dossier.

This is the part that John Brennan has denied; however, the evidence proving his lies is overwhelming.

We start by remembering the sworn testimony of John Brennan to congress on May 23rd, 2017. Listen carefully to the opening statement from former CIA Director John Brennan and pay close attention to the segment at 13:35 of this video [transcribed below]:

Brennan: [13:35] “Third, through the so-called Gang-of-Eight processwe kept congress apprised of these issues as we identified them.”

“Again, in consultation with the White House, I PERSONALLY briefed the full details of our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election to congressional leadership; specifically: Senators Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr; and to representatives Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff between 11th August and 6th September [2016], I provided the same briefing to each of the gang of eight members.”

“Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case [that means the FBI], involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in our presidential election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of congress; each of whom was accompanied by one senior staff member.”…

Notice a few things from this testimony. First, where Brennan says “in consultation with the White House“. This is a direct connection between Brennan’s activity and President Obama, National Security Adviser Susan Rice and Chief-of-Staff Denis McDonough, each of whom would have held knowledge of what Brennan was briefing to the Go8.

Secondly, Brennan is describing raw intelligence (obviously gathered prior to the Carter Page FISA Application/Warrant – October 21st, 2016) that he went on to brief the Gang-of-Eight (pictured below). Notice Brennan said he did briefings “individually”.

Brennan also says in his testimony that he began the briefings on August 11th, 2016. This is a key point because former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to James Comey on August 27th, 2016, as an outcome of his briefing by John Brennan. But it is the content of Reid’s letter that really matters.

In the last paragraph of Reid’s letter to Comey he notes something that is only cited within the Christopher Steele Dossier [full letter pdf here]:

This letter is August 27th, 2016. The Trump advisor in the letter is Carter Page. The source of the information is Christopher Steele in his dossier. Two months later (October 21st, 2016) the FBI filed a FISA application against Carter Page using the Steele Dossier.

So what we are seeing here is CIA Director John Brennan briefing Harry Reid on the Steele dossier in August 2016, even before the dossier reached the FBI. However, John Brennan has denied seeing the dossier until December of 2016. A transparent lie.

Brennan goes on to testify the main substance of those 2016 Go8 briefings was the same as the main judgements of the January 2017 classified and unclassified intelligence assessments published by the CIA, FBI, DNI and NSA, ie. “The Intelligence Community Assessment” (ICA).

However, we know Brennan put material from the Dossier into the ICA.

We also know from Paul Sperry: “[…] A source close to the House investigation said Brennan himself selected the CIA and FBI analysts who worked on the ICA, and that they included former FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok“Strzok was the intermediary between Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he was one of the authors of the ICA,” according to the source.” (link)

Summary so far: During a period early in 2016 CIA Director John Brennan manufactured the material needed to start the FBI investigation on July 31st, 2016. John Brennan also received information from within the Steele Dossier which he put into President Obama’s Daily Briefing and shared with the Gang of Eight.

Here’s where it gets even more interesting.

On December 15, 2016, Strzok and Page texted each other about a sister organization leaking to the mainstream media. The next day, December 16, Strzok texted Page again, this time to discuss an article in The Washington Post“FBI in agreement with CIA that Russia aimed to help Trump win White House”, where Strzok argued that the Central Intelligence Agency is more capable of manipulating the press and that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had the initial position, not the Central Intelligence Agency…

So it would seem that Brennan was leaking to the media and pushing hard on this same Russia narrative during the transition period. It’s almost bizarre to see Brennan now saying “perhaps he had bad information”… BRENNAN IS THE INFORMATION !!

Fucking Brennan.

Additionally, if you want to throw on an even more stunning layer upon this manipulation matrix, consider that Nellie Ohr was likely working for the CIA.

“I read an article in the paper that mentioned Glenn Simpson. And I remembered because he had been a Wall Street Journal reporter working on things like Russian crime and corruption, so I recognized the name. I was underemployed at that time and I was looking for opportunities.

Nellie Ohr via congressional testimony

If Nellie Ohr, a known CIA open source contractor, sought out Glenn Simpson at Fusion GPS for the job in 2015, not vice-versa, then it would appear a sting operation from within the CIA (John Brennan) was underway and long planned. The evidence of this likelihood surfaces later from Brennan’s knowledge of the specific intelligence within the Steele Dossier as shared with Obama and briefed to Harry Reid in August 2016.

So let us recap:

♦In the first phase of this operation the CIA, likely Brennan, seeded Fusion GPS with information via Nellie Ohr. After it became clear that Donald Trump would be the 2016 GOP candidate, that information was then piped-into another Fusion GPS contractor and former FBI Source, Chris Steele. Steele then “laundered”, and returned the Ohr research material into an official intelligence product to the FBI. [The tool was Carter Page.]

♦Concurrently timed with the start of this first phase, Brennan was running an operation using Stephan Halper and Joseph Mifsud to generate the “EC” and initiate the FBI to begin a counterintelligence operation named Crossfire Hurricane. [The tool was George Papadopoulos]

This is why the media got/get somewhat confused with the origins of everything: Papadopoulous (Crossfire Hurricane) -vs- Carter Page (dossier into FISA); an origination confusion which still exists through today.

In essence we can see that John Brennan was the initiator manipulating everything, somewhat behind the scenes, for all of the activity (tangentially noted by Peter Strzok and Lisa Page in their text messages about the CIA leaks). After the 2016 election, Brennan continued pushing the Steele Dossier into the media bloodstream as it carried the Russian Conspiracy virus he created.

During the time James Comey’s FBI was running operation Crossfire Hurricane, Comey admitted he intentionally never informed congressional oversight: “because of the sensitivity of the matter“. I suspect he knew there was manipulation behind the events that initiated the construct; he was, however, willfully blind to it.

When Brennan now says in hindsight he might have received “bad information“, it’s laughable – because the information is his creation.

Now with all of that hindsight in mind, watch the first four minutes of this interview and pay attention to the duping delight:


Lastly, unlike other DOJ and FBI officials connected to the fraudulent exploitation of the FISA court, John Brennan is not attached to the ongoing DOJ Inspector General investigation being conducted by IG Horowitz.

Presumably Inspector General Michael Horowitz is only looking at the process, procedures and people who were involved in submitting an unverified and likely fraudulent FISA application.  Though his investigation would mean reviewing the underlying evidence for the FISA warrant, ie. the Steele Dossier, the list of IG targets does not necessarily include anyone outside the DOJ and FBI process.

This could mean former CIA Director John Brennan, or any other Obama-era official outside the DOJ and FBI, could be referred for criminal investigation to John Durham; and investigation or review of that referral should not impede any ongoing investigation by IG Michael Horowitz.

That’s why it is possible for Devin Nunes to have submitted a ¹criminal referral for John Brennan; which would be one of the primary aspects of review by Durham (noted by Solomon), and only tangentially connected to the IG Horowitz investigation.

¹Or, NSA Advisor Susan Rice, ODNI James Clapper, or former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power (unmasking); or any other administration official who may have engaged in leaking and/or disseminating classified intelligence information.