Details are now starting to surface that Empire actor Jussie Smollett not only fabricated a hate hoax crime, but that he actually staged the crime and paid assistants to help him.
Earlier today it was revealed that detectives discovered the two Nigerian brothers questioned by police had purchased the rope found around Smollett’s neck at an Ace hardware. The two co-conspirators are now cooperating with police who are investigating.
Adding more likelihood to the attack being staged, Mr. Smollett has hired high-priced defense attorney and former federal prosecutor Michael Monico to defend him.
CHICAGO (CNN) – Two law enforcement sources with knowledge of the investigation told CNN that Chicago Police believe Jussie Smollett paid two men to orchestrate the assault.
The brothers, who were arrested Wednesday, were released without charges Friday after Chicago police cited the discovery of “new evidence.” The sources told CNN that the two men are now cooperating fully with law enforcement.
The sources told CNN that there are records that show the two brothers purchased the rope found around Smollett’s neck at an Ace Hardware store in Chicago.
Smollett gave his first detailed account of what he says was a hate crime against him, and the aftermath, in an interview with “Good Morning America” that aired Thursday. During the interview he expressed frustration at not being believed. (read more)
Jussie Smollett Reportedly Paid Brothers to Stage ‘Attack’
The 2 brothers released by cops in Jussie Smallett case bought rope and sources claim “attack” was staged.
tmz.com
3,702 people are talking about this
Rafer Weigel
✔@RaferWeigel
High-profile #Chicago defense attorney Michael Monico let it be known he was representing #JussieSmollett on @RoeConn radio show today. Monico also represents #MichaelCohen. He’s considered one of the best defense lawyers in the country.
Several #CPD sources confirmed detectives were able to show the 2 Nigerian brothers questioned by police had purchased the rope found around Smollett’s neck at an Ace hardware. The brothers agreed to cooperate with police who are investigating…(1/2)
Rafer Weigel
✔@RaferWeigel
whether Smollett made up the story after police threatened to charge them with battery. The brothers attorney said both brothers knew Smollett. There are unconfirmed reports that Smollett paid the two brothers to perform the alleged scheme. (2/2).
Every element of global economic trade is controlled and exploited by massive institutions, multinational banks and multinational corporations. Institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO), World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), control trillions of dollars in economic activity. Underneath that economic activity there are people who hold the reigns of power over the outcomes. These individuals and groups are the stakeholders in direct opposition to principles of America-First national economics.
The modern financial constructs of these entities have been established over the course of the past three decades. When you understand how they manipulate the economic system of individual nations you begin to understand why they are so fundamentally opposed to President Trump.
In the Western World, separate from communist control perspectives (ie. China), “Global markets” are a modern myth; nothing more than a talking point meant to keep people satiated with sound bites they might find familiar; but the truth is ‘global markets‘ have been destroyed over the past three decades by multinational corporations who control the products formerly contained within global markets.
The same is true for “Commodities Markets“. The multinational trade and economic system, run by corporations and multinational banks, now controls the product outputs of independent nations. The free market economic system has been usurped by entities who create what is best described as ‘controlled markets’.
U.S. President Trump smartly understands what has taken place; additionally, Trump uses economic leverage as part of a broader national security policy. To understand who opposes President Trump, specifically because of the economic leverage he creates, it becomes important to understand the objectives of the global and financial elite who run and operate the institutions. The Big Club.
Understanding how trillions of trade dollars influence geopolitical policy we begin to understand the three-decade global financial construct they seek to protect.
That is, global financial exploitation of national markets.
FOUR BASIC ELEMENTS:
♦Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national outputs (harvests an raw materials), and ancillary industries, of developed industrial western nations. {example}
♦The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks. (*note* in China it is the communist government underwriting the purchase)
♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
♦With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.
Against the backdrop of President Trump confronting China; and against the backdrop of NAFTA renegotiated; and against the necessary need to support the key U.S. steel industry; revisiting the economic influences within the modern import/export dynamic will help conceptualize the issues at the heart of the matter.
There are a myriad of interests within each trade sector that make specific explanation very challenging; however, here’s the basic outline.
For three decades economic “globalism” has advanced, quickly. Everyone accepts this statement, yet few actually stop to ask who and what are behind this – and why?
Influential people with vested financial interests in the process have sold a narrative that global manufacturing, global sourcing, and global production was the inherent way of the future. The same voices claimed the American economy was consigned to become a “service-driven economy.”
What was always missed in these discussions is that advocates selling this global-economy message have a vested financial and ideological interest in convincing the information consumer it is all just a natural outcome of economic progress.
It’s not.
It’s not natural at all. It is a process that is entirely controlled, promoted and utilized by large conglomerates, lobbyists, purchased politicians and massive financial corporations.
Again, I’ll try to retain the larger altitude perspective without falling into the traps of the esoteric weeds. I freely admit this is tough to explain and I may not be successful.
Bulletpoint #1:♦ Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations.
This is perhaps the most challenging to understand. In essence, thanks specifically to the way the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995, national companies expanded their influence into multiple nations, across a myriad of industries and economic sectors (energy, agriculture, raw earth minerals, etc.). This is the basic underpinning of national companies becoming multinational corporations.
Think of these multinational corporations as global entities now powerful enough to reach into multiple nations -simultaneously- and purchase controlling interests in a single economic commodity.
A historic reference point might be the original multinational enterprise, energy via oil production. (Exxon, Mobil, BP, etc.)
However, in the modern global world, it’s not just oil; the resource and product procurement extends to virtually every possible commodity and industry. From the very visible (wheat/corn) to the obscure (small minerals, and even flowers).
Bulletpoint #2 ♦ The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.
During the past several decades national companies merged. The largest lemon producer company in Brazil, merges with the largest lemon company in Mexico, merges with the largest lemon company in Argentina, merges with the largest lemon company in the U.S., etc. etc. National companies, formerly of one nation, become “continental” companies with control over an entire continent of nations.
…. or it could be over several continents or even the entire world market of Lemon/Widget production. These are now multinational corporations. They hold interests in specific segments (this example lemons) across a broad variety of individual nations.
National laws on Monopoly building are not the same in all nations. Most are not as structured as the U.S.A or other more developed nations (with more laws). During the acquisition phase, when encountering a highly developed nation with monopoly laws, the process of an umbrella corporation might be needed to purchase the targeted interests within a specific nation. The example of Monsanto applies here.
Bulletpoint #3 ♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
In underdeveloped countries the process of buying a political outcome is called bribery. Within the United States we call it lobbying. The process is exactly the same.
With control of the majority of actual lemons the multinational corporation now holds a different set of financial values than a local farmer or national market. This is why commodities exchanges are essentially dead. In the aggregate the mercantile exchange is no longer a free or supply-based market; it is now a controlled market exploited by mega-sized multinational corporations.
Instead of the traditional ‘supply/demand’ equation determining prices, the corporations look to see what nations can afford what prices. The supply of the controlled product is then distributed to the country according to their ability to afford the price. This is essentially the bastardized and politicized function of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This is also how the corporations controlling WTO policy maximize profits.
Back to the lemons. A corporation might hold the rights to the majority of the lemon production in Brazil, Argentina and California/Florida. The price the U.S. consumer pays for the lemons is directed by the amount of inventory (distribution) the controlling corporation allows in the U.S.
If the U.S. lemon harvest is abundant, the controlling interests will export the product to keep the U.S. consumer spending at peak or optimal price. A U.S. customer might pay $2 for a lemon, a Mexican customer might pay .50¢, and a Canadian $1.25.
The bottom line issue is the national supply (in this example ‘harvest/yield’) is not driving the national price because the supply is now controlled by massive multinational corporations.
The mistake people often make is calling this a “global commodity” process. In the modern era this “global commodity” phrase is particularly nonsense.
A true global commodity is a process of individual nations harvesting/creating a similar product and bringing that product to a global market. Individual nations each independently engaged in creating a similar product.
Under modern globalism this process no longer takes place. It’s a complete fraud. Massive multinational corporations control the majority of production inside each nation and therefore control the global product market and price. It is a controlled system.
EXAMPLE: Part of the lobbying in the food industry is to advocate for the expansion of U.S. taxpayer benefits to underwrite the costs of the domestic food products they control. By lobbying DC these multinational corporations get congress and policy-makers to expand the basis of who can use EBT and SNAP benefits (state reimbursement rates).
Expanding the federal subsidy for food purchases is part of the corporate profit dynamic.
With increased taxpayer subsidies, the food price controllers can charge more domestically and export more of the product internationally. Taxes, via subsidies, go into their profit margins. The corporations then use a portion of those enhanced profits in contributions to the politicians. It’s a circle of money.
In highly developed nations this multinational corporate process requires the corporation to purchase the domestic political process (as above) with individual nations allowing the exploitation in varying degrees. As such, the corporate lobbyists pay hundreds of millions to politicians for changes in policies and regulations; one sector, one product, or one industry at a time. These are specialized lobbyists.
EXAMPLE: The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)
CFIUS is an inter-agency committee authorized to review transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person (“covered transactions”), in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States.
CFIUS operates pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) (section 721) and as implemented by Executive Order 11858, as amended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 800.
The CFIUS process has been the subject of significant reforms over the past several years. These include numerous improvements in internal CFIUS procedures, enactment of FINSA in July 2007, amendment of Executive Order 11858 in January 2008, revision of the CFIUS regulations in November 2008, and publication of guidance on CFIUS’s national security considerations in December 2008 (more)
Bulletpoint #4 ♦ With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.
The process of charging the U.S. consumer more for a product, that under normal national market conditions would cost less, is a process called exfiltration of wealth. This is the basic premise, the cornerstone, behind the catch-phrase ‘globalism’.
It is never discussed.
To control the market price some contracted product may even be secured and shipped with the intent to allow it to sit idle (or rot). It’s all about controlling the price and maximizing the profit equation. To gain the same $1 profit a widget multinational might have to sell 20 widgets in El-Salvador (.25¢ each), or two widgets in the U.S. ($2.50/each).
Think of the process like the historic reference of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries). Only in the modern era massive corporations are playing the role of OPEC and it’s not oil being controlled, thanks to the WTO it’s almost everything.
Again, this is highlighted in the example of taxpayers subsidizing the food sector (EBT, SNAP etc.), the multinational corporations can charge domestic U.S. consumers more. Ex. more beef is exported, red meat prices remain high at the grocery store, but subsidized U.S. consumers can better afford the high prices.
Of course, if you are not receiving food payment assistance (middle-class) you can’t eat the steaks because you can’t afford them. (Not accidentally, it’s the same scheme in the ObamaCare healthcare system)
Agriculturally, multinational corporate Monsanto says: ‘all your harvests are belong to us‘. Contract with us, or you lose because we can control the market price of your end product. Downside is that once you sign that contract, you agree to terms that are entirely created by the financial interests of the larger corporation; not your farm.
The multinational agriculture lobby is massive. We willingly feed the world as part of the system; but you as a grocery customer pay more per unit at the grocery store because domestic supply no longer determines domestic price.
Within the agriculture community the (feed-the-world) production export factor also drives the need for labor. Labor is a cost. The multinational corps have a vested interest in low labor costs. Ergo, open border policies. (ie. willingly purchased republicans not supporting border wall etc.).
This corrupt economic manipulation/exploitation applies over multiple sectors, and even in the sub-sector of an industry like steel. China/India purchases the raw material, coking coal, then sells the finished good (rolled steel) back to the global market at a discount. Or it could be rubber, or concrete, or plastic, or frozen chicken parts etc.
The ‘America First’ Trump-Trade Doctrine upsets the entire construct of this multinational export/control dynamic. Team Trump focus exclusively on bilateral trade deals, with specific trade agreements targeted toward individual nations (not national corporations).
‘America-First’ is also specific policy at a granular product level looking out for the national interests of the United States, U.S. workers, U.S. companies and U.S. consumers.
Under President Trump’s Trade positions, balanced and fair trade with strong regulatory control over national assets, exfiltration of U.S. national wealth is essentially stopped.
This puts many current multinational corporations, globalists who previously took a stake-hold in the U.S. economy with intention to export the wealth, in a position of holding contracted interest of an asset they can no longer exploit.
Perhaps now we understand better how massive multi-billion multinational corporations and institutions are aligned against President Trump.
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
Countries that have treated us unfairly on trade for years are all coming to Washington to negotiate. This should have taken place many years ago but, as the saying goes, better late than never!
Tariffs are the greatest! Either a country which has treated the United States unfairly on Trade negotiates a fair deal, or it gets hit with Tariffs. It’s as simple as that – and everybody’s talking! Remember, we are the “piggy bank” that’s being robbed. All will be Great!
There’s a lot of news this week reflecting a great deal of oppositional alignment against the presidency of Donald Trump. CTH can get down in the weeds of each specific issue to discuss the motives and intents (we will, and do), but the big picture MUST remain at the forefront of understanding. If we lose track of the big picture, the weeds are overwhelming.
…“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.”
~ Niccolò Machiavelli
♦POTUS Trump is disrupting the global order of things in order to protect and preserve the shrinking interests of the U.S. middle-class. He is fighting, almost single-handed, at the threshold of the abyss. Our interests, our position, is zero-sum; if POTUS Trump fails, there will never be another available route to confront the Big Club.
President Trump’s aggregate opposition seeks to repel and retain the status-quo. They were on the cusp of full economic control over the U.S. just before candidate Trump snatched away their victory. There are trillions at stake. They won’t make that mistake again.
Summary of Action: President Trump has structured a plan to break down the multinational trade interests, and their “controlled markets.” Step-by-step President Trump is executing this plan; while his opposition, including Mitch McConnell, tries to stop him.
President Trump is disrupting decades of multinational financial interests who use the U.S. as a host for their ideological endeavors. President Trump is confronting multinational corporations and the global constructs of economic systems that were put in place to the detriment of the host; the American Middle-Class. There are trillions at stake; it is all about the economics; all else is chaff and countermeasures.
Familiar faces, perhaps faces you previously thought were decent, are now revealing their alignment with larger entities that are our abusers. In an effort to awaken the victim to the cycle of self-destructive codependent behavior, allow me to cue a visual example from U.S. Senator John Thune. WATCH:
.
What South Dakota Senator John Thune is showcasing here is his full alignment with big multinational corporate agriculture (BIG AG).
Big AG is not supporting local farmers. Big AG does not support “free and fair markets.” Big AG supports the interests of multinational corporations and multinational financial interests.
For the multinational interests the U.S. is the host; from an economic nationalism perspective they are the parasite.
It is critical to think of BIG AG in the same way we already are familiar with multinational manufacturing of durable goods.
We are already familiar how China, Mexico and ASEAN nations export our raw materials (ore, coking coal, rare earth minerals etc.). The raw materials are used to manufacture goods overseas, the cheap durable goods are then shipped back into the U.S. for purchase.
It is within this decades-long process where we lost the manufacturing base, and the multinational economic planners (World Trade Organization) put us on a path to being a “service driven” economy.
The road to a “service-driven economy” is paved with a great disparity between financial classes. The wealth gap is directly related to the inability of the middle-class to thrive.
Elite financial interests, including those within Washington DC, gain wealth and power, the U.S. workforce is reduced to servitude, “service”, of their affluent needs.
The destruction of the U.S. industrial and manufacturing base is EXACTLY WHY the wealth gap has exploded in the past 30 years.
With that familiarity, did you think the multinationals would stop with only “DURABLE GOODS”?
They don’t.
They didn’t.
The exact same exfiltration and exploitation has been happening, with increased speed, over the past 15-20 years with “CONSUMABLE GOODS“, ie food.
Raw material foodstuff is exported to China, ASEAN nations and Mexico, processed and shipped back into the U.S. as a finished product. [Recent example: Salmonella Ritz Bits (whey); Nabisco shuts New Jersey manufacturing plant, moves food production to Mexico… the result: Salmonella crackers.] This is the same design-flow with food as previously exploited by other economic sectors, including auto manufacturing.
Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Monsanto, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Bunge, Potash Corp, Cargill or Wilmar, all stay out of the public eye by design. Most megafood conglomerates have roots going back a century or more, but ever-increasing consolidation means that their current corporate owners may have been established only a few years ago. Welcome to the complex world of Big Ag:
Start with the so-called Big Six [PDF]. Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Bayer, and BASF produce roughly three-quarters of the pesticides used in the world. The first five also sell more than half the name-brand seeds that farmers plant, including varieties modified for resistance to the very pesticides they also sell. Meanwhile, if farmers want fertilizer, a list of 10 other companies, starting with PotashCorp, account for about two-thirds of the world market.
Once the plowing, planting, nurturing, and harvesting are done, around 80 percent of major crops pass through the hands of four traders: ADM, Bunge, Cargill, and Louis Dreyfus. These companies aren’t just financiers, of course—Cargill, for example, produces animal feed and many other products, and it supplies more than a fifth of all meat sold in the United States.
And if you ever had any ideas about going vegetarian to avoid the conglomerates, forget about it: ADM processes about a third of all soybeans in the United States and a sixth of those grown around the globe. It also brews more than 5.6 billion liters of ethanol for gasoline and pours more than 2 million metric tons of high-fructose corn syrup every year. And it produces a sixth of the world’s chocolate. {Continue – and go Deep}
Multinational corporations, BIG AG, are now invested in controlling the outputs of U.S. agricultural industry and farmers. This process is why food prices have risen exponentially in the past decade.
The free market is not determining price; there is no “supply and demand” influence within this modern agricultural dynamic. Food commodities are now a controlled market just like durable goods. The raw material (harvests writ large) are exploited by the financial interests of massive multinational corporations. This is “contract farming”.
Again, if President Trump can successfully pull us out of NAFTA your food bill will drop 25% (or more) within the first year. Further, if U.S. supply and demand were to become part of the domestic market price for food, we would see the prices of aggregate food products drop by half. Some perishable food products would predictably drop so dramatically in price it is unfathomable how far the prices would fall.
Behind this dynamic we find the international corporate and financial interests who are inherently at risk from President Trump’s “America-First” economic and trade platform. Believe it or not, President Trump is up against an entire world economic establishment.
When we understand how trade works in the modern era we understand why the agents within the system are so adamantly opposed to U.S. President Trump.
♦The biggest lie in modern economics, willingly spread and maintained by corporate media, is that a system of global markets still exists.
What is true and what is false? Do those things even exist or are they simply subjective opinions? Naturally, if we look at politics there is a wholesale denial of the existence of any objective reality and moral values. Each side sees only its own reality and proclaims the other is wrong. Is the glass half-full or half-empty? Is there any absolute definitive truth in describing this glass pictured here?
This becomes a problem in politics. We cannot clearly distinguish good from bad, knowledge from ignorance, or dominance from submission. Who is the ruler and who is to be ruled? It’s a critical theory that is reduced in reality to the conclusion that there is no universal truth. No matter what we define, there is always an opposing opinion. Hence, this is my theory of why cycles MUST exist. There is never some one-size fits all. Such attempts by one side to impose their demands only leads to civil unrest. There can be no single truth in life for there will never be an agreement as to what is true or false.
It is wrong to kill someone. But what about crimes of passion that would not reflect the same act as someone who was a serial killer? What about a soldier who kills in a war? Is this not distinguished from someone who kills people in a nightclub rage? What about someone who defends themselves in a store robbery and kills the intruder? There emerges qualifications that will always call into question what is true and what is false.
Karl Marx’s grave was selectively vandalized. Someone used a hammer to deface the monument. No other graves were attacked so it is clear this was a politically motivated incident in line with the rising economic tensions between the left and the right. The tomb of Karl Marx is located in London’s Highgate Cemetery. Marx had been exiled from Germany and then the rest of continental Europe following the failed Revolutions of 1848, which engulfed most of Europe.
Marx did his research in London. This is his pass to the British Library. The Revolutions of 1848 were essentially a democratic movement and an uprising against the political elite. In 1848, Karl Marx published “The Communist Manifesto” with Friedrich Engels, and was exiled to London as a result. In London, where he lived the remainder of his life, he wrote the first volume of “Das Kapital.” This undoubtedly influenced the revolutions that opened the door to communism/socialism. This also inspired the collapse of the old feudal structures and created independent national states. The revolutionary wave began in France in February 1848, when the French monarchy was overthrown. Communism actually began in France as a “commune” where people lived in one shared community with no individual property rights. It was the French who convinced Marx that communism would work better than just socialism, which he had advocated initially.
This 1848 Revolution spread like a contagion, similar to what the American Revolution had done during the previous century. The contagion of 1848 spread to most of Europe and parts of Latin America. In total, it impacted over 50 countries. This was by no means a cooperation between various revolutionary trends around Europe.
Generally, a contagion is attributed to six factors:
(1) widespread dissatisfaction with political leadership, as we have today;
(2) demands for more participation in government and democracy, as republics have once again robbed us of our right to vote;
(3) demands for freedom of the press, which is manifesting today on the internet;
(4) the demands of the working class, whom today have been oppressed by huge tax rates combined with income taxes and VAT at 20%+;
(5) the upsurge of nationalism, which we are again watching unfold thanks to terrorism; and finally,
(6) the regrouping of the reactionary forces based on the royalty, aristocracy, army, church, and peasants, which is again unfolding as class warfare.
Many believe that the Yellow Vest Movement is unfolding in the very same spirit, and it too has spread like a contagion. Ironically, the cycle of civil unrest based upon economics discontent should rise in 2020. Indeed, the Yellow Vest movement appears to be right on schedule.
What is political extremism? Professor of psychology Jordan Peterson points out that America knows what right-wing radicalism looks like: The doctrine of racial superiority is where conservatives have drawn the line. “What’s interesting is that on the conservative side of the spectrum we’ve figured out how to box-in the radicals and say, ‘No, you’re outside the domain of acceptable opinion,'” says Peterson. But where’s that line for the Left? There is no universal marker of what extreme liberalism looks like, which is devastating to the ideology itself but also to political discourse as a whole. Fortunately, Peterson is happy to suggest such a marker: “The doctrine of equality of outcome. It seems to me that that’s where people who are thoughtful on the Left should draw the line, and say no. Equality of opportunity? [That’s] not only fair enough, but laudable. But equality of outcome…? It’s like: ‘No, you’ve crossed the line. We’re not going there with you.'” Peterson argues that it’s the ethical responsibility of left-leaning people to identify liberal extremism and distinguish themselves from it the same way conservatives distance themselves from the doctrine of racial superiority. Failing to recognize such extremism may be liberalism’s fatal flaw. Jordan Peterson is the author of 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos Read more at BigThink.com: http://bigthink.com/videos/jordan-pet…
Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist and Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business. His academic specialization is the psychology of morality and the moral emotions. He is author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, and The Happiness Hypothesis. He co-authored (with Greg Lukianoff of FIRE) an influential article in the September 2015 issue of The Atlantic, entitled “The Coddling of the American Mind”: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/a… He also runs Heterodox Academy which promotes viewpoint diversity at universities. http://heterodoxacademy.org Heterodox Academy Guide to Colleges: http://heterodoxacademy.org/resources…
When a liar lies they often have trouble keeping their statements consistent. Former FBI Director Andrew McCabe gave an interview to CBS and wrote an op-ed, a book excerpt, in the Atlantic with outlining a specific sequence of events, dates and statements surrounding the days immediately after James Comey was fired. However, a review of the timeline and the statements he delivered to CBS is contradicted by his prior congressional testimony.
In his published book excerpt (The Atlantic) McCabe outlines a series of contacts and meetings with President Trump on May 9th, 2017, the day Comey was fired, and then again on May 10th, 2017, the following day.
McCabe (Via The Atlantic) On Wednesday, May 10, 2017, my first full day on the job as acting director of the FBI, I sat down with senior staff involved in the Russia case—the investigation into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. As the meeting began, my secretary relayed a message that the White House was calling. The president himself was on the line.
[…] As requested, I went back to the White House that afternoon. The scene was almost identical to the one I had walked into the previous night. (more)
Note “the previous night” would have been Tuesday May 9, 2017, the day Comey was fired. So McCabe met with POTUS the evening of the 9th, and the afternoon of the 10th.
Now listen and watch McCabe discuss with Scott Pelley the date he decided to open the criminal investigation of President Trump under the auspices of obstruction of justice.
The key part begins at 01:00 as McCabe is describing the first meeting with the president in the Oval Office, May 9th, just hours after Comey was fired:
.
McCabe: I was speaking to the man who had just run for the presidency, and won the election for the presidency, and who might have done so with the aid of the government of Russia, our most formidable adversary on the world stage; and that was something that troubled me greatly.
Pelley: How long after that was it you decided to start the obstruction of justice and counterintelligence investigations involving the President?
McCabe: The next day I met with the teams investigating the Russia cases; and I asked the team to go back and conduct an assessment to determine: where are we with these efforts, and what steps do we need to take going forward? I was very concerned that I was able to put the Russia case on absolutely solid ground, in an indelible fashion, that were I removed quickly, or reassigned, or fired, that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night without a trace. I wanted to make sure our case was on solid ground and if somebody came in behind me and closed it and tried to walk away from it, they would not be able to do with without creating a record of why they made that decision.
Recap:
•May 9th, 2017, Comey fired.
•May 9th, 2017, (Evening) McCabe meets with POTUS.
•May 10th, 2017, McCabe meets with his team. Opens “obstruction” investigation.
•May 10th, 2017, (Afternoon) McCabe meets again with POTUS.
That’s the sequence as described by McCabe in his 2019 book excerpt and CBS interview to correspond with his justification for opening up a criminal case of obstruction against the sitting President of the United States.
McCabe’s decision to open a criminal “obstruction” investigation on May 10th, 2017, corresponds with the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages (same dates):
However, on May 11th, 2017, the day after those two meetings with President Trump; and the day after McCabe opened a criminal investigation; McCabe was testifying to congressabout Russia interference in the election. His story was entirely different in 2017.
With the Comey firing still fresh in the headlines McCabe was asked about whether President Trump was obstructing or interfering:
♦Senator Rubio: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you–without going to the specifics of any individual investigation, I think the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped, or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
Director McCabe. As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our investigation to date. Quite simply put, sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution.
…
♦Senator Collins. So has there been any curtailment of the FBI’s activities in this important investigation since Director
Comey was fired?
Director McCabe. Ma’am, we don’t curtail our activities. As you know, are people experiencing questions and are reacting to
the developments this week? Absolutely. Does that get in the way of our ability to pursue this or any other investigation?
No, ma’am. We continue to focus on our mission and get that job done.
…
♦Senator Heinrich. When did you last meet with the President, Director McCabe?
Director McCabe. I don’t think I’m going to comment on that.
Senator Heinrich. Was it earlier this week?
Director McCabe. I have met with the President this week, but I don’t really want to go into the details of that.
Senator Heinrich. But Russia did not come up?
Director McCabe. That’s correct, it did not.
…
♦Senator Lankford. Thank you. Let me just run through some quick questions on this. Director McCabe, thanks for being here as well. Let me hit some high points of some of the things that I’ve heard already, just to be able to confirm. You have the resources you need for the Russia investigation, is that correct?
Director McCabe. Sir, we believe it’s adequately resourced.
Senator Lankford. Okay, so there’s not limitations on resources? You have what you need? The–the actions about Jim Comey and his release has not curtailed the investigation from the FBI? It’s still moving forward?
Director McCabe. The investigation will move forward, absolutely.
Senator Lankford. No agents have been removed that are the ongoing career folks that are doing the investigation?
Director McCabe. No, sir.
Senator Lankford. Is it your impression at this point that the FBI is unable to complete the investigation in a fair and
expeditious way because of the removal of Jim Comey?
Director McCabe. It is my opinion and belief that the FBI will continue to pursue this investigation vigorously and completely.
…
♦Senator Harris. Has–I understand that you’ve said that the White House–that you have not talked with the White House
about the Russia investigation. Is that correct?
On May 11th, 2017, two days after Comey was fired; and after back-to-back days meeting with the President; Andrew McCabe is telling congress not only has President Trump not interfered with -or obstructed- the investigation, but there has been zero discussion between himself, the President, and/or the White House about the FBI investigation.
However, McCabe is now saying he opened the criminal “obstruction” investigation the day prior to his testimony. In 2019 he’s selling an entirely different story and contradicting himself from his 2017 congressional testimony.
Perhaps that series of contradictions explains why McCabe is now “qualifying” his claims from yesterday about discussing the 25th amendment with Rod Rosenstein:
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg plans to spend $500 million to beat President Trump in the 2020 White House race. Even if Bloomberg doesn’t run, could his money, and experience with data and media help him scuttle Trump 2020? Bill Whittle Now is a production of the Members at http://BillWhittle.com
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
TMZ
Rafer Weigel
Centinel2012 