President Trump drops another Mother Of All Bombs, this time in a twitter version directly targeted at a corrupted and politicized James Comey Dept. of Justice.

And what’s more stunning in the aftershock is the media’s incapacity to take the new Trump/Comey timeline information and add it to the existing Sally Yates timeline.

Then again, to do so would be to expose another level of FBI/DOJ politicization that remains hidden from public consumption.  Another political operative, Asst. Director of Counter Intelligence, Bill Priestap, who accompanied acting AG Sally Yates to the meeting with White House Counsel Don McGahn, is a Hillary Clinton campaign donor.

♦We know from Director James Comey’s own admission to congress that he intentionally withheld congressional notification of a counter-intelligence investigation that began in July of 2016.

Within Comey’s March 20th testimony to explain why he intentionally avoided congressional oversight, he cited the recommendation of Bill Priestap, Asst. Director of Counter Intelligence.

Bill Priestap is married to Sabina Menshell a self-employed “consultant” with a history of donations to Democrat candidates, specifically to Hillary Clinton.

(link)

♦We also know from Sally Yates testimony (May 8th), where she outlined the notification of White House Counsel Don McGahn of the issues the DOJ had with Michael Flynn, that Yates took Bill Priestap with her to the WH meeting on January 26th.

So let’s add President Trump’s meeting with FBI Director James Comey into the timeline of Sally Yates, and add her version of what McGahn’s concerns were about the content of the afternoon meeting:

•Friday January 20th – Inauguration

•Tuesday January 24th – Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn was interviewed at the White House by the FBI.

•Wednesday January 25th –  The Department of Justice received a detailed readout from the FBI agents who had interviewed Flynn. Yates said she felt “it was important to get this information to the White House as quickly as possible.”

•Thursday January 26th – (morning) Yates called McGahn first thing that morning to tell him she had “a very sensitive matter” that had to be discussed face to face. McGahn agreed to meet with Yates later that afternoon.

•Thursday January 26th – (afternoon)  Sally Yates traveled to the White House along with a senior member of the DOJ’s National Security Division, Bill Priestap, who was overseeing the matter.  This was Yates’ first meeting with McGahn in his office, which also acts as a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF).

Yates said she began their meeting by laying out the media accounts and media statements made by Vice President Mike Pence and other high-ranking White House officials about General Flynn’s activity “that we knew not to be the truth.”

According to Sally Yates testimony, she and Bill Priestap reportedly presented all the information to McGahn so the White House could take action that they deemed appropriate.  When asked by McGahn if Flynn should be fired, Yates answered, “that really wasn’t our call.”

Yates also said her decision to notify the White House counsel had been discussed “at great length.”  According to her testimony: “Certainly leading up to our notification on the 26th, it was a topic of a whole lot of discussion in DOJ and with other members of the intel community.”

•Friday January 27th – (morning)  White House Counsel Don McGahn called Yates in the morning and asked if she could come back to his office.

•Friday January 27th – (late afternoon) According to her testimony, Sally Yates returned to the White House late that afternoon.  One of McGahn’s topics discussed was whether Flynn could be prosecuted for his conduct.

Specifically, according to Yates, one of the questions McGahn asked Yates was, “Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another?” She explained that it “was a whole lot more than that,” and reviewed the same issues outlined the prior day.

McGahn expressed his concern that taking action might interfere with the FBI investigation of Flynn, and Yates said it wouldn’t. “It wouldn’t really be fair of us to tell you this and then expect you to sit on your hands,” Yates had told McGahn.

McGahn asked if he could look at the underlying evidence of Flynn’s conduct, and she said they would work with the FBI over the weekend and “get back with him on Monday morning.”

•Friday January 27th – (evening) In what appears to be only a few hours later, President Trump is having dinner with FBI Director James Comey where President Trump asked if he was under investigation.

Now, accepting the politicization of the entire Russian Conspiracy Narrative that was leading the headlines for the two months prior to this dinner; and knowing moments earlier your Chief White House counsel informs you that two political operatives (Yates and Priestap) within the DOJ were providing classified intelligence reports about General Flynn; and knowing the prior months (Nov/Dec/Jan) were fraught with leaks from intelligence reports identical to those discussed;  wouldn’t you perhaps think that any action you take could be utilized to add fuel to this Russian narrative?  And/Or be used by these same leak facilitators to make something seem like something it is not?

Think about it.

If you were President under those circumstances, wouldn’t you ask FBI Director James Comey what the deal was with these investigations, and whether or not you were under investigation BEFORE you took action to retain or fire Mike Flynn?

Given the circumstances it could appear, and most definitely should be considered, that the President was being ‘set-up’ to impede an FBI investigation by taking action against Flynn.

If Trump took action – What mechanism was in place for the President to protect himself from accusations of impropriety and impeding an investigation?

Who is to say Yates and Priestap would stand behind the White House and support action taken by the President?

What confidence would President Trump have that Yates/Priestap would speak publicly about their advice?

What would FBI Director Comey and Asst. FBI Director McCabe do with a President Trump conversation about Mike Flynn who was “under investigation”?

Remember, for reference:  On February 15th while discussing another issue FBI Assistant Director Andrew McCabe asked Chief of Staff Reince Priebus for 5 minutes alone after the meeting.  At the one-on-one McCabe told Priebus the New York Times Russia and Trump campaign story was a “bunch of BS”.

Priebus asked McCabe if McCabe would be able to say that publicly.  McCabe said he would check.  Later, McCabe called back and said he couldn’t issue a statement about it. SEE SCREENGRAB:

(LINK)

These are not exactly the most trustworthy of FBI and DOJ officials.

Exactly the opposite is true.  These are known political operatives, in appointed positions of government, with admitted intentions to manipulate transparency, accountability and they even testify to congress they are intentionally not allowing oversight.

President Trump was expected to trust this crew?

Seriously?

UPDATE 7:30pm: As if on cue, THIS is the exact trap we are talking about above.

SEE? In the first paragraph of the first article to draw attention to the timeline, the accusation is made that President Trump was “interfering with an ongoing FBI investigation”.

That is exactly the trap that Director Comey, Acting AG Yates and Asst. Director of DOJ Counter Intel Priestap were laying out.  Director Comey went to that dinner HOPING that Trump would ask him about Michael Flynn which would be seen as impeding a federal investigation.

For several months the media have been steadfast in their efforts to turn this into Watergate 2.0.  To achieve that objective the political angle-players and media need only to paint Trump into a corner with a credible accusation of the president interfering with an FBI investigation (Flynn).   Against the timeline above, as played out this week with Sally Yates testimony to congress, they were only a couple more timely misinformation leaks and twisted reports away from making that happen.

Now look at this tweet again:

The firing of FBI Director James Comey has sent the professional political left into blinding fits of ridiculously over-the-top outrage.

The protestations are so ridiculous that a reasonable person has to ask if Comey wasn’t the center of a much larger political value for their ideological needs.

Made all the more clear when you consider that Comey stunningly admitted to congress (March 20th) he was actively working with the Obama White House, Susan Rice (Nat. Sec. Adviser), James Clapper (ODNI) and Sally Yates (Asst. AG – DOJ), all political operatives, while intentionally not allowing intelligence investigation oversight from congress.

Perhaps it is the removal of that specifically partisan Comey value that has the left-wing politicians and their MSM water-carriers so angered. It would be intellectually dishonest in the extreme not to fully accept this motivation for their behavior.

Therefore when President Trump says that Director Comey told him he was not the subject of, or participatory party to, the FBI counter-intelligence investigation of Russian election efforts, the rage filled oppositional ideologues go bananas.

However, Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican, and Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, seemingly validate the exact same position:

Senator Grassley – […] Mr. Comey testified before the Judiciary Committee last week. Senator Blumenthal asked him whether the FBI had ruled anyone out as a potential target of the investigation of allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. In response, Mr. Comey stated: “Well, I haven’t said anything publicly about who we’ve opened investigations on. I briefed the Chair and Ranking on who those people are.”

Mr. Comey was asked if the FBI is investigating the President. He refused to answer. Mr. Comey said he didn’t want people to over-interpret his refusal, but that he wasn’t going to comment on anyone in particular. He thought it would put him on a slippery slope of having to answer who else is or is not under investigation. That could reveal who is being investigated.

I understand why he took that position, but I don’t agree – at least not when it comes to the President and senior government officials. The American people deserve to know if senior government officials are under active criminal or intelligence investigation.

Mr. Comey did brief Ranking Member Feinstein and me on who the targets of the various investigations are. It would not be appropriate for me to reveal those details before the professionals conducting the investigations are ready. So, I will not answer any questions about who are targets of the ongoing Russia investigations. But I will say this: Shortly after Director Comey briefed us, I tweeted that he should be transparent. I said he should tell the public what he told Senator Feinstein and me about whether the FBI is or is not investigating the President.

On Tuesday, the President’s letter said that Director Comey told him he was not under investigation. Senator Feinstein and I heard nothing that contradicted the President’s statement. Now Mr. Comey is no longer the FBI director. But the FBI should still follow my advice. It should confirm to the public whether it is or is not investigating the President. Because it has failed to make this clear, speculation has run rampant.

The intelligence community said that one of the Russians’ goals is to undermine the American public’s faith in our democratic institutions. Wild speculation that the FBI is targeting the President in a criminal or intelligence inquiry is not just irresponsible and unfounded. It provides aid and comfort to the Russians and their goal of undermining faith in our democracy.

So, what I suggest is that before this Committee does anything more on this matter, that all the Members get briefed by the FBI on what is actually going on.

Hopefully, that will help temper some of the unsubstantiated statements that have been made.  (link)

Additionally, John Solomon from Circa News highlights independent reporting, from independent FBI sourcing, that state the exact same thing as Trump, Grassley and Feinstein.

Congressional officials were told by FBI Director James Comey before he was fired that there are just a small number of Americans who are targets of the criminal or counterintelligence probes involving Russia and that none were President Trump or his top aides, Circa has confirmed.

Behind closed doors, Comey provided specific updates on about a half dozen or less targeted US citizens who were the focus of either counterintelligence probes or criminal investigations emanating from the Russia election scandal, sources familiar with the intelligence told Circa.

“President Trump is not a target nor is any senior government official if Comey’s account is correct,” one source said, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because that person was not authorized to comment.  (link)

With almost all of the Washington DC media FBI reporting being debunked as fast as it is printed, and Trump’s attachment to the Muh Russia conspiracy theory narrative collapsing around them, it is no wonder why the Democrats, NeverTrumper’s, and the DC Politburo media are grasping wildly at any available straws.

All positions have some bearing on the average American; however, some confirmation votes are more directly tied to the well-being of ordinary people than others.  This confirmation will directly and specifically make the lives of middle-class workers, and ordinary American people, improve.

Thank you to those who contacted their Senator and applied the pressure.  There was a great deal of feedback received by the senate in the past 24 hours.  There are those within the swamp lobbying community who are beginning to understand that WE KNOW far more than they ever thought we know.  Change is a direct consequence of that reality.

In a strong showing of bi-partisan support for Trump’s ‘America First’ trade platform the nominee for U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer, was confirmed by the Senate with a vote of 82-14.  The U.S. Trade Representative is a critical position ahead of renegotiations of the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico.

Three Republicans voted NO: ♦Cory Gardner (Colorado), ♦John McCain (Arizona), and ♦Ben Sasse (Nebraska).

For the past 30 years Lighthizer has been a trade lawyer representing American steel companies in their efforts to fight dumping of foreign-made steel below costs and unfair steel subsidies from foreign governments. He has pledged to strengthen enforcement of existing trade deals and to find new legal tools to combat unfair trade practices.

Lighthizer has criticized some Republicans for being too pro-free trade. He told a Senate panel this year that the U.S. should have an “America first trade policy.”  “We can do better in negotiating our trade agreements and stronger in enforcing our trade laws,” he said.

(Reuters) […]  [President]  Trump has said the 23-year-old trade pact devastated U.S. workers and has vowed to tear it up if he fails to get a better deal.

Some Democrats, while critical of Trump’s own views on trade, said they were confident Lighthizer, who served in the Reagan administration as deputy U.S. Trade Representative, would work to help U.S. workers.

“He’s a real pro,” Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, said before voting in favor of Lighthizer’s nomination.

Lighthizer’s approval came despite the objections of two Republican senators, John McCain of Arizona and Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who said they were worried Lighthizer did not appreciate NAFTA’s benefits.

While the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico has ballooned since the trade deal was enacted in 1994, U.S. farmers have profited from exports to America’s southern neighbor while automakers have cut costs by building cross-border supply chains that benefit from lower Mexican wages.

Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican who chairs the Senate Finance Committee and voted in favor of Lighthizer’s nomination, also urged the incoming trade representative to be careful not to put at risk the gains NAFTA has brought.  (read more)

Here’s how they voted.

Voted NO:

Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay
Gardner (R-CO), Nay
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Harris (D-CA), Nay
Markey (D-MA), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Sasse (R-NE), Nay
Schatz (D-HI), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Warren (D-MA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay

Voted Yes:

Alexander (R-TN), Yea – Baldwin (D-WI), Yea – Barrasso (R-WY), Yea – Bennet (D-CO), Yea – Blunt (R-MO), Yea – Booker (D-NJ), Yea – Boozman (R-AR), Yea – Brown (D-OH), Yea – Burr (R-NC), Yea – Cantwell (D-WA), Yea – Capito (R-WV), Not Voting – Cardin (D-MD), Yea – Carper (D-DE), Yea – Casey (D-PA), Yea – Cassidy (R-LA), Yea – Cochran (R-MS), Yea – Collins (R-ME), Yea – Coons (D-DE), Yea – Corker (R-TN), Yea – Cornyn (R-TX), Yea – Cortez Masto (D-NV), Yea – Cotton (R-AR), Yea – Crapo (R-ID), Yea – Cruz (R-TX), Yea – Daines (R-MT), Yea – Donnelly (D-IN), Yea – Duckworth (D-IL), Yea – Durbin (D-IL), Yea – Enzi (R-WY), Yea – Ernst (R-IA), Yea – Feinstein (D-CA), Yea – Fischer (R-NE), Yea – Flake (R-AZ), Yea – Franken (D-MN), Yea – Graham (R-SC), Yea – Grassley (R-IA), Yea – Hassan (D-NH), Yea – Hatch (R-UT), Yea – Heinrich (D-NM), Yea – Heitkamp (D-ND), Yea – Heller (R-NV), Yea – Hirono (D-HI), Yea – Hoeven (R-ND), Yea – Inhofe (R-OK), Yea – Isakson (R-GA), Not Voting – Johnson (R-WI), Yea – Kaine (D-VA), Yea – Kennedy (R-LA), Yea – King (I-ME), Yea – Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea – Lankford (R-OK), Yea – Leahy (D-VT), Yea – Lee (R-UT), Yea – Manchin (D-WV), Yea – McCaskill (D-MO), Yea – McConnell (R-KY), Yea – Menendez (D-NJ), Yea – Moran (R-KS), Yea – Murkowski (R-AK), Not Voting – Murphy (D-CT), Yea – Murray (D-WA), Yea – Nelson (D-FL), Yea – Paul (R-KY), Yea – Perdue (R-GA), Yea – Peters (D-MI), Yea – Portman (R-OH), Yea – Risch (R-ID), Yea – Roberts (R-KS), Yea – Rounds (R-SD), Yea – Rubio (R-FL), Yea – Scott (R-SC), Yea – Shaheen (D-NH), Yea – Shelby (R-AL), Yea – Stabenow (D-MI), Yea – Strange (R-AL), Yea – Sullivan (R-AK), Not Voting – Tester (D-MT), Yea – Thune (R-SD), Yea – Tillis (R-NC), Yea – Toomey (R-PA), Yea – Udall (D-NM), Yea – Van Hollen (D-MD), Yea – Warner (D-VA), Yea – Wicker (R-MS), Yea – Wyden (D-OR), Yea – Young (R-IN), Yea

K-Street wants to retain three decades of Wall Street control over trade to position the multinational interests as a priority.  President Trump wants to break K-Streets lobbying grip and work trade policies that benefit Main Street, not Wall Street.

The issue(s) behind the argument is/are complex, and the political lobbying expenditures only compound the matter.  In essence over the past three decades large portions of U.S. agriculture have been sold to multinational corporations.  With control over production principles, those multinational corporations manipulate the market value of U.S. agricultural outputs to retain the highest profit margin.

It is not a free market system, it’s a controlled market system; and the control is not domestic ownership, it’s multinational corporations.  Part of the way they control the pricing of U.S. agriculture outputs is through export control; the traditional supply and demand commodity equation is non-existent.

This is not a free market.  When multinational corporations control commodity pricing, it is not a free market.  The paradigm that everyone needs to remember is that a free market doesn’t exist because the owners (control agents) of the market are not independent – they are massive institutional multinational corporations.  Through heavy handed contracts pushed on farmers they control the product from field to processing and beyond.

The export of domestic food production is a big part of the reason why U.S. food prices have skyrocketed in the past decade.  The corporations factor in an ability for the U.S. to afford higher prices than alternative destination nations; they know you have the ability to pay more, so they export more and recipient nations pay less.

Again, it’s a complex dynamic but this also ties into the same groups lobbying for increased consumer welfare payments on SNAP and EBT (food stamp) legislation.  Yes, multinational corporations -who control agriculture- lobby congress to fund more subsidy payments for food.  This allows them to export more, tighten the domestic supply, drive up U.S. pricing and increase their profit.  It’s a deeply tentacled controlled process toward increasing the bottom line profit margin of the Wall Street entities.

They have more to export (they make more money), and they drive up the domestic pricing (they make more money), and they pay the lobbyists for welfare legislation to subsidize U.S. food pricing (they make more money).   That’s the basic scheme, and when you know the financial con you can spot their motives.

FBI Director James Comey pens a farewell letter to his colleagues.  Cue the sad virtue signaling music:

**sniff**

The economic lobbyist community known as The Big Club is represented most visibly by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Tom Donohue.

Via the Wall Street community, CoC President Donohue pours tens of millions of multinational corporate contributions into DC lobbying efforts to retain control over politicians and legislation that relates to U.S. trade and economic matters.   [FYI Donohue’s Chamber of Commerce lobbying group were the primary architects of the now dispatched TPP trade deal; they actually wrote the U.S. part of the construct.]

Tom Donohue funds a large number of politicians in DC in an effort to control the outcomes of legislation and policies that could become adverse to his multinational interests.  Two of those primary beneficiaries are John McCain and Ben Sasse.

As a consequence it doesn’t come as a surprise to see McCain and Sasse announce their intention to block the confirmation of U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer:

REUTERS – Republican U.S. Senators John McCain and Ben Sasse said on Wednesday they would vote against President Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, because of his opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

“Unfortunately, your confirmation process has failed to reassure us that you understand the North American Free Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA) positive economic benefits to our respective States and the nation as a whole,” McCain and Sasse said in a letter to Lighthizer. (read more)

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and President Trump strongly support Lighthizer for U.S. Trade Rep.   The institutional control agents within K-Street, aka the economic lobbying group, do not.

The bottom line arguments center around retention of global multinational economic interests that are antithetical to President Trump’s ‘America-First’ economic and trade platform.   K-Street wants to retain three decades of Wall Street control over trade to position the multinational interests as a priority.  President Trump wants to break K-Streets lobbying grip and work trade policies that benefit Main Street, not Wall Street.

The issue(s) behind the argument is/are complex, and the political lobbying expenditures only compound the matter.  In essence over the past three decades large portions of U.S. agriculture have been sold to multinational corporations.  With control over production principles, those multinational corporations manipulate the market value of U.S. agricultural outputs to retain the highest profit margin.

It is not a free market system, it’s a controlled market system; and the control is not domestic ownership, it’s multinational corporations.  Part of the way they control the pricing of U.S. agriculture outputs is through export control; the traditional supply and demand commodity equation is non-existent.

This is not a free market.  When multinational corporations control commodity pricing, it is not a free market.  The paradigm that everyone needs to remember is that a free market doesn’t exist because the owners (control agents) of the market are not independent – they are massive institutional multinational corporations.  Through heavy handed contracts pushed on farmers they control the product from field to processing and beyond.

The export of domestic food production is a big part of the reason why U.S. food prices have skyrocketed in the past decade.  The corporations factor in an ability for the U.S. to afford higher prices than alternative destination nations; they know you have the ability to pay more, so they export more and recipient nations pay less.

Again, it’s a complex dynamic but this also ties into the same groups lobbying for increased consumer welfare payments on SNAP and EBT (food stamp) legislation.  Yes, multinational corporations -who control agriculture- lobby congress to fund more subsidy payments for food.  This allows them to export more, tighten the domestic supply, drive up U.S. pricing and increase their profit.  It’s a deeply tentacled controlled process toward increasing the bottom line profit margin of the Wall Street entities.

They have more to export (they make more money), and they drive up the domestic pricing (they make more money), and they pay the lobbyists for welfare legislation to subsidize U.S. food pricing (they make more money).   That’s the basic scheme, and when you know the financial con you can spot their motives.

Unfortunately, when you know the con it can explode your blood pressure to fully grasp how much we are getting ripped off.  Especially when you read their insufferable reasoning to keep the current system in place.

So knowing that, here’s the letter of opposition from McCain and Sasse who are being paid by these lobbying entities to retain this controlled market system:

Dear Mr. Lighthizer,

We write to explain our intent to oppose your nomination to be United States Trade Representative (USTR). Unfortunately, your confirmation process has failed to reassure us that you understand the North American Free Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA) positive economic benefits to our respective States and the nation as a whole. We fear that you do not have an appreciation for the millions of jobs created by this free trade deal, and that you would not champion agriculture during your time as USTR. Furthermore, we worry that you would not negotiate trade deals that would protect the American consumer and expand economic growth. These concerns, along with the need for Congress to grant you a waiver to serve in the Trump Administration in a must-pass omnibus spending bill is troubling.

Beyond your vocal advocacy for protectionist shifts in our trade policies, the Administration’s ongoing, incoherent, and inconsistent trade message has compounded our concern. This is especially troubling because confirming a USTR grants the Administration additional legal authority to negotiate trade deals that Congress must consider under “fast track” procedures. Given these circumstances, granting the Trump Administration additional legal powers through your confirmation without understanding how you or the Administration intend to use those powers would be irresponsible.