During the congressional testimony of Robert Mueller, Representative Andy Biggs noted evidence of a phone call between Mueller and Rod Rosenstein on Wednesday May 10th, 2017, at 7:45am.
Listen carefully at the 2:26 point of the video.
.
♦James Comey was fired at approximately 5:00pm EST on Tuesday May 9th, 2017. That means Rosenstein first contacted Mueller about the special counsel appointment less than 15 hours after James Comey was fired.
♦According to his own admissions (NBC and CBS), Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe immediately began a criminal ‘obstruction’ investigation the next day, Wednesday May 10th; and he immediately enlisted Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
♦The next day, Thursday May 11th, 2017, Andrew McCabe testifies to congress. With the Comey firing fresh in the headlines, Senator Marco Rubio asked McCabe: “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?”
McCabe responded: “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.”
Also on Thursday May 11th, 2017, The New York Times printed an article, based on information seemingly leaked by James Comey, about a dinner conversation between the President and the FBI Director. The “Loyalty” article. [link]
Despite claiming he never revealed his memo content until May 16th, in hindsight this New York Times article on May 11th is the first article that seems to be based on Comey leaking his memo content to the media.
♦That New York Times article drew this response on Friday May 12th from President Trump:
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!
Again referencing McCabe’s own admissions, also on Friday May 12th McCabe met with DAG Rod Rosenstein to discuss the issues, referencing the criminal ‘obstruction’ case McCabe had opened just two days before. According to McCabe:
… “[Rosenstein] asked for my thoughts about whether we needed a special counsel to oversee the Russia case. I said I thought it would help the investigation’s credibility. Later that day, I went to see Rosenstein again. This is the gist of what I said: I feel strongly that the investigation would be best served by having a special counsel.” (link)
According to Andy Biggs questioning of Mueller, on this same day – Friday May 12th – evidence shows Robert Mueller met “in person” with Rod Rosenstein.
♦On Saturday May 13th, 2017, another meeting between Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller, this time with Jeff Sessions also involved. [Per Andy Biggs]
♦Sunday May 14th, TBD
♦After the weekend, Monday May 15th, McCabe states he and Rosenstein conferred again about the Special Counsel approach. McCabe: “I brought the matter up with him again after the weekend.”
♦On Tuesday May 16th, 2017, Rod Rosenstein takes Robert Mueller to the White House for a meeting in the oval office between President Trump, VP Pence, Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein. While they were meeting in the oval office, the following story was published by the New York Times (based on Comey memo leaks):
Also during the approximate time of this Oval Office meeting, Peter Strzok texts with Lisa Page about information relayed to him by Tashina Guahar (main justice) on behalf of Rod Rosenstein (who is at the White House).
Later that night, after the Oval Office meeting – According to the Mueller report, additional events on Tuesday May 16th, 2017:
Interesting that Tashina Gauhar was taking notes presumably involved in the 5/16/17 meeting between, Lisa Page, Rod Rosenstein, and Andrew McCabe.
This meeting at Main Justice appears to be happening in the evening (“later that night”) after the visit to the White House with Robert Mueller. This meeting appears to be Lisa Page, Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe; along with Tashina Gauhar taking notes.
Why is the Tuesday May 16th, 2017, date of additional importance?
QUESTION:
Why didn’t anyone ever ask Tashina “Tash” Guahar about the “wear a wire” comments?
♦ Wednesday May 17th, 2017: The next day, May 17th, 2017, Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe go to brief the congressional “Gang-of-Eight”: Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, ¹Devin Nunes, Adam Schiff, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, Richard Burr and Mark Warner.
… […] “On the afternoon of May 17, Rosenstein and I sat at the end of a long conference table in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol. We were there to brief the so-called Gang of Eight—the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Rosenstein had, I knew, made a decision to appoint a special counsel in the Russia case.”
[…] “After reminding the committee of how the investigation began, I told them of additional steps we had taken. Then Rod took over and announced that he had appointed a special counsel to pursue the Russia investigation, and that the special counsel was Robert Mueller.” (link)
Immediately following this May 17, 2017, Go8 briefing, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein notified the public of the special counsel appointment.
According to President Trump’s Attorney John Dowd, the White House was stunned by the decision. [Link] Coincidentally, AG Jeff Sessions was in the oval office for unrelated business when White House counsel Don McGahn came in and informed the group. Jeff Sessions immediately offered his resignation, and Sessions’ chief-of-staff Jody Hunt went back to the Main Justice office to ask Rosenstein what the hell was going on.
This investigative ‘small group’ are the people inside Main Justice (DOJ) and FBI headquarters who redacted the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages; removed messages and communication antithetical to their goals; kept key documents and information away from congress; stalled any effort to expose the unlawful aspects of “SpyGate’ and the fraudulent foundation behind the Carter Page FISA application; and undermined any adverse discoveries in the leak investigations (James Wolfe) writ large.
This investigative small group didn’t change when Mueller arrived, they just retooled the focus of their effort based on new leadership and new objectives. Those who created the Trump-Russia collusion/conspiracy case of 2016, evolved into creating the Trump obstructing justice case of 2017, 2018 and 2019.
Everything Mueller and Rosenstein were doing in late 2017 and throughout 2018 was intended to drag-out the Russia conspiracy narrative as long as possible, even though there was no actual Trump-Russia investigation taking place.
It was always the “obstruction” investigation that could lead to the desired result by Mueller’s team of taking down President Trump through evidence that would help Pelosi and Nadler achieve impeachment . The “obstruction case” was the entirety of the case they were trying to make from May 2017 through to March 2019.
**Working on a more detailed timeline, more will follow.
Filmmaker Michael Moore calls on Michelle Obama to run for President as the only Democrat he’s confident could crush President Trump. She won’t be bullied or nicknamed, and she’s the most beloved and respected woman in the world. Will the man who did a Broadway show designed to bring down a president be able to sway the reluctant former First Lady to run? Bill Whittle Now is production of the Members at https://BillWhittle.com
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on the far, far left, against the rest of the field on the merely far left: How can the Democratic Party ever pull together to defeat President Trump when they can’t even agree on their ideology? Can Betsy Warren’s attacks on multinational corporations endear her to the Trump base who oppose globalism? Right Angle is brought to you by the Members at https://BillWhittle.com
While drunkblogging the Democratic presidential debates this week, Stephen Green suffered a haunting flash-forward: “What if one of these jokers wins?” Not content to replay this endlessly inside his own private Hell, Steve puts the question to Bill Whittle and Scott Ott…and you! How much of the Constitution will survive inside the Democrat presidential blast radius? Does America need to elect a hard socialist to innoculate itself against the disease forever? Forty-eight shows each month come free to a world thirsty for truth (even if they don’t know it), thanks to the Members at BillWhittle.com. Get to know these liberty-lovers by becoming one of them at https://BillWhittle.com/register/
QUESTION: What is your view on the new demands for an investigation that there is “overwhelming evidence” that the buildings were brought down by explosives?
KD
ANSWER: I do not know about the Twin Towers, but I can say that the first World Trade Center bombers drew the World Trade Center on the wall of their cell in MCC with planes flying into it. There is no question that there was a terrorist attack. HOWEVER !!!!!!!! There is evidence, I know PERSONALLY, that the government knew what they were going to do. Do not confuse the fact that there were planted explosives to try to pretend there was not a terrorist attack. They just used the attack as cover.
I focus on building 7, which was never hit by any plane, yet it fell like a pancake and that was indicative of explosives. Curiously, the SEC was there and this is where they kept the evidence for court cases. Gun possession cases should have been dismissed but the prosecutors then showed photos of guns. The joke was that they used the same photo for everyone. Judges just accepted it and pronounced, “Take him away.” That is not the way the law is supposed to work.
I had tapes that would have put the whole New York banker crew in prison if we had a real government. There were tapes covering every manipulation they pulled off from rhodium to platinum and silver. It was the platinum manipulation that I had a tape of where they admitted to bribing to a Russian minister to “recall” their platinum to take an inventory. They forced platinum to rally, then the Russian minister announced they found “more” platinum to ensure the price would crash after they flipped their positions. Even Ford Motor Company was looking into suing over that manipulation.
All the evidence I had documenting each player and what they did was seized and vanished. My requests for documents were never honored. One is supposed to be entitled to discovery. There is no rule of law. You cannot win against the bankers. When I asked a New York lawyer why the bankers are never prosecuted, he smiles and laughed. His response: “You don’t shit where you eat!”
We will never have a secure financial market until someone is ready to clean up the corruption in New York City.
There is no question that 9/11 was the event that destroyed the constitution. We lost all of our privacy and rights ever since.
From the attached report on climate change for June 2019Data we have the two charts showing how much the global temperature has actually gone up since we started to measure CO2 in the atmosphere? To show this graphically Chart 8 was constructed by plotting CO2 as a percent increase from when it was first measured in 1958, the Black plot, the scale is on the left and it shows CO2 going up a bit over 30.0% from 1958 to June of 2019. That is a very large change as anyone would have to agree. Now how about temperature, well when we look at the percentage change in temperature from 1958, using Kelvin (which does measure the change in heat), we find that the changes in global temperature (heat) are almost un-measurable. The scale on the right side had to be expanded 10 times (the range is 40 % on the left and 4% on the right) to be able to see the plot in the same chart in any detail. The red plot, starting in 1958, shows that the thermal energy in the earth’s atmosphere increased by .30%; while CO2 has increased by 30.0% which is 100 times that of the increase in temperature. So is there really a meaningful link between them that would give as a major problem? The numbers tell us no there isn’t.
The next chart is Chart 8a which is the same as Chart 8 except for the scales which are the same for both CO2 and Temperature. As you see the increase in energy, heat, is not visually observably in this chart hence the need for the previous chart 8 to show the minuscule increase in thermal energy shown by NASA in relationship to the change in CO2. Based to these trends, determined by excel not me, in 2028 CO2 will be 428 ppm and temperatures will be 15.0o Celsius and in 2038 CO2 will be 458 ppm and temperatures will be 15.6O Celsius. This is what the data shows no matter what the reasons are, so I have no idea how the IPCC gets to predict that the world will end in ten or even twenty years.
The full 37 page report explains how these charts were developed and why using NASA and NOAA data are used without change to prove that The New Green Deal is not required and any attempt to compliment that plan will be a worldwide disaster.
Click on the link below for the full report that you can download.
House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes appears on Fox News with Tucker Carlson to discuss the ongoing investigative situation with James Comey.
Representative Nunes highlights the difference between Inspector General Michael Horowitz and U.S. Attorney John Durham; noting there is a possibility the investigative review of Mr. Durham touches on a great deal more than IG Horowitz. WATCH:
Here’s the opening statement by Tucker Carlson toward James Comey.
With President Trump announcing an additional ten percent tariff on $300 billion of Chinese products, the Chamber of Commerce worm, Tom Donohue, comes out to oppose.
An interesting juxtaposition between two interviews. The first with National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow, and the counter point by CoC President Dohohue:
.
In the next interview Donohue surfaces… he has no choice. Tom Donohue is paid tens of millions by the Wall Street multinationals to retain the current exploitative system of global trade. Donohue has no influence over President Trump.
In the Clinton/Clinton, Bush/Bush, Obama/Obama terms, Tom Donohue was allowed to purchase control, and write the trade language that perpetuated the benefit to those who paid him for trade policy. Three administration’s sub-contracted the work to the CoC.
As a consequence, over the past 25 years the Chamber of Commerce actually wrote the rules, regulations, language and details within the trade deals. That language was written by the CoC to the benefit of those who paid for the terms (Wall Street Corporations) regardless of impact to the U.S. economy or worker.
President Trump stopped this process.
President Trump’s economic team (USTR and Commerce) took back control over the trade negotiation process, and only the U.S. economic team writes the trade language. Wall Street has been cut out of the process. This is the reason for so much of the anger directed toward President Trump and the global trade reset.
Chopper pressers are the best pressers. Earlier today President Trump was departing the White House for Bedminister, NJ, when he stopped to talk to the assembled press pool about a variety of topics. [Video and Transcript below]
.
[Transcript] Q Mr. President, why did you throw the towel in on Ratcliffe? Why didn’t you want to wait a little bit longer and see how that process went?
THE PRESIDENT: Which process are you talking about?
Q The confirmation process. The confirmation process with Congressman Ratcliffe.
THE PRESIDENT: Because I felt that Congressman Ratcliffe was being treated very unfairly. I was reading the press. And I think I am a student of the press. And I could see that the press was treating him, I thought, very unfairly. He’s an outstanding man.
And I asked him — I said, “Do you want to go through this for two or three months or would you want me to, maybe, do something else?” And he thought about it. I said, “It’s going to be rough.” I could see exactly where the press was going and fake news. He’s a fine man. He’s a fine man. And so we hadn’t started the process and I thought it’s easier before we start.
But I read things that were just unfair. And he’s just too good. He doesn’t deserve it.
Q Mr. President, what issue do you have with Sue Gordon in the Acting role?
THE PRESIDENT: A little louder. What?
Q Sue Gordon, as Acting DNI — what issue do you have with her?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that might be — I like Sue Gordon. And Sue Gordon is there now, and I like her very much. I’ve always liked Sue Gordon.
Q Would you name her Acting?
THE PRESIDENT: Could be. Yeah. It could be. We’ll make another choice. And Sue will be — she’s there now, and certainly she will be considered for the Acting, and that could happen. We’ll probably be talking about it either later today or next week.
Do you like Sue Gordon?
Q Did Ratcliffe get cold feet, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I think he was just treated very badly, very harshly by the press. And he really had a decision to make. “Do you want to go through this for — it could be months.” And I said, “I think I see exactly what they’re trying to do.” Nobody understands the press, but I think I understand them as well as anybody. And I didn’t think it was fair.
Q Did Republican lawmakers reach out to you to express concern about Ratcliffe?
THE PRESIDENT: No, they didn’t. I think he would have had support. But again, we were very early in the process. We hadn’t even started. So we were very early in the process. And I think he would have had good support, certainly from the Republicans.
Q They were pretty chilly.
THE PRESIDENT: What?
Q They were pretty chilly at first.
THE PRESIDENT: I haven’t seen that. I could tell you, the Democrats were chilly. That’s for sure.
Q Chairman Burr, Mitch McConnell —
THE PRESIDENT: But the Republican, I think, would have been very good. But a lot of the Republicans didn’t know John. But I think he would have had good receptivity, and he was getting that. But I believe he made the right decision.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. U.N. security (inaudible) resolution and the North Koreans’ missile launch is in violation of U.N. (inaudible). How did you (inaudible) this?
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t — do you understand?
Q I’m sorry, I did not.
Q U.N. security —
Q Mr. President, what does this say about the White House’s vetting? What does it say about the White House’s vetting process? This is the second nominee —
THE PRESIDENT: Well, no. You vet for me. I like when you vet. No, no, you vet.
Q This is the second time a head of an agency has had to withdraw.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the White House has a great vetting process. You vet for me. When I give a name, I give it out to the press and you vet for me. A lot of times, you do a very good job — not always.
Q What does that say about the White House’s process of vetting?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that the White — well, if you look at it, I mean, if you take a look at it, the vetting process for the White House is very good. But you’re part of the vetting process, you know? I give out a name to the press, and they vet for me. We save a lot of money that way.
But, in the case of John, I really believe that he was being treated very harshly and very unfairly.
Q President Trump, Republicans did express concern about Ratcliffe’s experience. Was that a deciding factor?
THE PRESIDENT: No. I tell you what: I think he would’ve had very good support. Republicans love John Ratcliffe, and I think he would’ve had very good support.
Now, he wasn’t in that world that much. I think he would’ve picked it up very quickly. But I think he would’ve had great Republican support. Probably would’ve had no Democrat support, which would’ve been nice to get some. But I think he would’ve done fine. But it would’ve been a long — it would’ve been a long, hard slog.
Q Another question, if you don’t mind, sir. The tweet that you put out about Elijah Cummings and that attempted burglary on his home, Nikki Haley is saying it was so unnecessary. What do you say to Nikki Haley?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that’s okay. I don’t mind that. The tweet itself was just, really, a repeat of what I heard over the news. I know his house was robbed, and I thought that was too bad. That was really just — that was really not meant as a wise-guy tweet. I mean, his house was robbed and it came over the news at a certain moment last night. And I had just mentioned it.
Q What does China need to do to avoid those tariffs going into force on September 1st?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think China — number one, you have to understand, we are so far behind. We have been treated so badly. And I don’t blame China; I blame our past leaders, our past Presidents, our past trade representatives. They’ve done a terrible job.
China — we can’t just go and make an even deal with China. We have to make a much better deal with China. Because, right now, they have a very unfair playing field, and I’m turning it around. So we’re getting 25 percent of $250 billion, and now we’ll be getting 10 percent of probably close to $350 billion. It’s a lot of money.
China has to do a lot of things to turn it around. But you’ll be seeing. They’ve got to do a lot of things. It goes on on September 1st. And, frankly, if they don’t do them, I can always increase it very substantially. In other words, I could increase it — if I wanted to, I could increase it to a very much higher number.
Q On Eric Garner, sir. On Eric Garner — the judge apparently recommended today the officer involved in that chokehold should be fired. Do you agree with that decision?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it’s in a process right now. I know the case very well. It’s a very sad situation. It really — it’s heartbreaking. But that’s in a process right now, so I’m not going to get involved in the process.
As you know, they’re going to be making a final decision, I guess, over the next 10 days. So I won’t interfere with the process.
Q Mr. President, sir, are you withdrawing the troops from Afghanistan? And how many troops are you withdrawing from Afghanistan?
THE PRESIDENT: Say it?
Q How many troops are you withdrawing from Afghanistan?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’ve been moving it down. We’ve been moving it down from Syria. We defeated the ISIS caliphate, and we have now 100 percent of that. We have 2,500 prisoners, and Europe is going to have to take them, or somebody is going to have to take them. But we have 2,500 ISIS prisoners. And we’ve told Europe, “Hey, some come from France. Some come from Germany.” They’re going to have to take them. So we’ll see what happens.
But we’ve pretty much reduced. We’ve taken it way down in Syria. Ultimately, it’ll be down to a very few people, if any.
With respect to Afghanistan, we’ve made a lot of progress. We’re talking, but we’ve also made a lot of progress. We’re reducing it. We’ve been there for 19 years. We’re really serving as policemen. We could win Afghanistan in two days or three days or four days, if we wanted. But I’m not looking to kill 10 million people.
Q Can you trust the Taliban?
THE PRESIDENT: What about it?
Q Mr. President, can you trust the Taliban in these negotiations?
THE PRESIDENT: We could win that war very easily. I could win that war in a week, if I wanted to. But I’m not looking to kill 10 million people, okay? Many of them would be innocent people. I’m not looking to do. And I’m not talking nuclear, by the way; I’m talking totally conventional. But I’m not looking to kill millions of people in Afghanistan.
Q But on the trust factor, can you actually come to an agreement with them?
THE PRESIDENT: That I can’t tell you. I mean, you know, we’ll find out.
Q Mr. President, Republican Congressman Will Hurd announced he’s not running for reelection — the eighth Republican to say that. (Inaudible) critical of you and your tweets about the Squad. What’s your reaction to him not going to run again?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I hear he’s done a good job. I don’t know Congressman Hurd, but I’ve heard he’s done a good job. We differ on certain subjects, but I’ve heard he’s actually done a good job. It’s too bad he’s leaving. But I really don’t know him.
Q Mr. President, who’s on your shortlist to replace Coats?
THE PRESIDENT: So I do have a shortlist. I have a list of a few people we’re looking at — very well-known people. People where the vetting would go very easily because that’s what they’ve been doing; they’re in the intelligence world.
So we do. I have a list of three people that I’m going to be working on over the weekend. We’re going to Bedminster. I’ll be working on that over the weekend. And probably, on Monday, I’ll give you an answer.
And I do like Sue Gordon very much as Acting, as your — as per your question.
Q Who are the other two Mr. President?
Q Who would you like us to vet?
THE PRESIDENT: Say it again.
Q Who would you like us to vet? You said you relied on us to vet.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we really — I think we have a lot of good people. We have three people, specifically — I mean, I could tell you.
Q Yes, tell us the names.
THE PRESIDENT: They’re — I could tell you. They’re right here. (The President gestures to his jacket pocket.)
Q Who are they?
THE PRESIDENT: Right there. But it’s too — it’s too early. Do you want a piece of the list?
Go ahead.
Q As far as peace negotiations with the Taliban, can the Taliban be trusted? Do you trust the Taliban?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don’t want to say if they can be trusted or not. Look, history, I would say, is not so good, but they don’t like us much either. But we’ve brought them down; we’ve brought the number of soldiers down very substantially. They’re coming down. We are talking to them. We have a lot of advantages making a deal with us.
We’re doing very well, as you know, with Pakistan. I met a gentleman who I liked a lot — as you know — last week, from Pakistan. I have a lot of respect for him. We have a good friendship — a good feeling, good chemistry. And I think Pakistan will help us, and I think others will get involved.
But we’ve been there 19 years. We’re not really — let’s put it this way: We’re more police than anything else, and that’s not for our soldiers.
And I’ve said — I’ve said it a lot: We could win the war in Pak- — we could win the war, if you look at it — and you can look at it any way you want — we can win the war in Afghanistan in less than a week. But I’m not looking to kill 10 million people. And I’m not talking nuclear. I’m not talking nuclear. But we’d win that war in less than a week, and I have that as an option, always. But that’s what we’re not looking to do.
Q Mr. President, how do you avoid a nuclear arms race now that you’ve decided to withdraw from the INF nuclear treaty?
THE PRESIDENT: So, Russia — we have been speaking to Russia about that — about a pact for nuclear — so that they get rid of some, we get rid of some. We’d probably have to put China in there.
But right now, we’re number one, Russia is number two, and China is number three. But China is quite a bit down, in terms of nuclear. China is much lower. But we would certainly want to include China at some point.
But I would think that the relationship is good. We’re trying to have a good relationship. It’s very hard, in light of the phony witch hunt, which is now dead.
But I will say this: With Russia, if we could get a pact where they reduce and we reduce nuclear, that would be a great thing for the world.
And I do believe — I do believe that will happen. We’ve — we have discussed it. I’ve also discussed it with China. I’ve discussed it with President Putin. I’ve also discussed it with China. And I will tell you, China was very, very excited about talking about it, and so is Russia. So I think we’ll have a deal at some point.
Q When?
THE PRESIDENT: But the particular pact you’re talking about that expired as of today, they weren’t living up to their commitment. And I said, if they’re not going to live up to their commitment, then we have to — we always have to be in the lead.
You know, I’ve redone our nuclear. We have new nuclear coming. I hate to tell that to people. I hate to say it because it’s devastating, but we’ve always got to be in the lead.
Hopefully — and hope to God — you never have to use it.
Q But you’re now going to test the new cruise missiles? You’re now going to test the new cruise missiles, correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Say it.
Q You’re now going to test new cruise missiles that were previously banned under this agreement?
THE PRESIDENT: We have new everything.
Q Would that be provocative?
THE PRESIDENT: We have the — we have the finest military in the world. We make the finest equipment in the world by far, whether it’s fighters, whether it’s — whether it’s missiles, whether it’s the ships, whether it’s submarines. There’s nobody to compete with us. But if we could hold off spending by getting a pact with Russia and with China, that would be very good for —
Q Do you believe that would provocative?
THE PRESIDENT: — that would be very good for all three countries.
Q On the trade deal that you signed today — that was signed today between the U.S. and EU —
THE PRESIDENT: You’re talking about the trade with the — on beef?
Q Yeah, exactly. Can you now resolve, quickly, all of the trade disputes with the EU?
THE PRESIDENT: EU is very tough to deal with. They’re — you know, they’re very difficult. They have barriers. They had barriers on beef. We broke that barrier today. I appreciate it. It’s a group of countries, as you know. We love those countries, but, for dealing with them, they’re very, very difficult.
But we did a very big deal today — beef. And we’re going to be selling them a big percentage of their beef. And that’s great for our ranchers and farmers, so we were happy to do it.
Q Are auto tariffs off the table? Or do you still think it’s (inaudible)?
THE PRESIDENT: Auto — auto tariffs are never off the table. If they would not treat us fairly — which they’re not. I mean, you know, it’s, right now —
Look, the EU has tremendous barriers to us, but we just broke the first barrier. And maybe we broke it because of the fact that if I don’t get what we want, I’ll put auto tariffs. Because it’s all about the automobile, and it’s all about the tariffs. If I don’t get what I want, I’ll have no choice but maybe to do that. But so far, they’ve been very good.
And I want to thank Mexico. The numbers are way, way down — apprehensions. The numbers are way down. Mexico — they have about 21,000. They actually now have maybe more than that on our border. They have another 6,000 on their northern border. Okay? If you view it that way — their northern border, near Guatemala. And, I will tell you, Mexico is doing a great job.
Q Speaking, Mr. President, of the southern border, any progress on a permanent DHS Secretary?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I would love to see — before we talk about Secretary, I will tell you, I would love to see the Democrats sit down and work out the loopholes in 20 minutes — because that’s what it would take — and work out asylum. But we’re moving along with an asylum fix and asylum bill. Lindsey Graham is heading it up very capably, and we’ll see what happens.
Q Mr. President, do you anticipate that if the trade war with China continues that there will be further bailouts for farmers in the U.S.?
THE PRESIDENT: I’ll always help our farmers. Our farmers were targeted by China. And our farmers — frankly, these are great patriots. I’ll always help our farmers.
There’ll be a time when the biggest beneficiary of what I’m doing, with respect to China and trade, generally — you’re seeing it with the EU. They couldn’t do the cattle thing at all — beef. They couldn’t do it at all. And now, all of a sudden, this came out of nowhere. Our farmers will ultimately be the biggest beneficiaries, and they know that. But our farmers are great patriots.
Q Mr. President, can you assure Americans they won’t pay more for their Christmas presents this year due to new tariffs on Chinese products?
THE PRESIDENT: No, what happens is China devalues their currency and China also is pouring money out, and that will pay for the tariffs. It’s a total misnomer.
Now, I don’t say that with all countries, but with China, they’re very highly sophisticated, but so are we — more than anybody would understand. All you have to do is ask China. All you have to do is ask China.
But let me just explain. So, China is devaluing their currency and they’re also pouring money in. Their currency is going to hell, but they’re also pouring money in. And that will totally pay for the tariffs. The tariffs are not being paid for by our people; it’s being paid for by China because of devaluation and because they’re pumping money in.
Thank you. Thank you, everybody.
Q (Inaudible) I had talked with a farmer last night, a soy bean farmer. And he said tariffs are causing crisis after crisis for him, and this will kill him even more.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you interviewed the wrong farmer, number one.
Number two: Any amount that China sucks out, we’re making up out of the billions of dollars that we’re taking in.
Remember this: Our country is taking in billions and billions of dollars from China. We never took in ten cents from China. And out of that many billions of dollars, we’re taking a part of it, and we’re giving it to the farmers because they’ve been targeted by China. The farmers — they come out totally whole. So you interviewed the wrong farmer, but that’s all right.
The DOJ has filed a response motion requesting a reversal of a prior court order that would have forced unredacted release of the “David Archey Delcarations“; detailed descriptions of the James Comey memos. [Detailed Backstory]
In their latest filing (full pdf below) the DOJ and FBI are falling back on the familiar “sources and methods” justification to block DC Circuit Court Judge Boasberg’s earlier ruling.
[Backstory for those unfamilar] In the background of what was The Mueller Investigation, there was a FOIA case where the FBI was fighting to stop the release of the Comey memos. Within that courtroom fight Mueller’s lead FBI agent David Archey wrote a series of declarations to the court describing the content of the memos and arguing why they should be kept classified.
The FOIA fight shifted; and the plaintiff, CNN, argued for public release of the content of the FBI agent’s descriptions, now known as the “Archey Declarations”.
After a lengthy back-and-forth legal contest, on June 7th Judge James E Boasberg agreed to allow the FBI to keep the Comey memo content hidden, but instructed the DOJ/FBI to release the content of the Archey Declarations. The DOJ is seeking to reverse that order.
Additionally, with new information CTH must correct an earlier report.
The United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch, is fighting this court ordered release. The DOJ Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division is Jody Hunt. That name might be familiar to you because Jody Hunt was Jeff Sessions former chief-of-staff.
We previously anticipated Jody Hunt being involved with this current case; the DOJ and FBI attempt to block release of the memos and declarations. However, we have recently been informed that Jody Hunt was recused from the case by DOJ lawyers during the time when the Mueller investigation was ongoing.
According to the latest information we can gather, DOJ Asst. Attorney James Burnham has replaced Jody Hunt for all oversight issues in this current court battle.
The issue at hand is tangentially related to the current Inspector General carve-out report, through the aspect of the Comey Memos. We are currently anticipating a report from the OIG related to former FBI Director James Comey, his writing of the memos, and the leaking of some of those memos to the media via his friend Daniel Richman. {LINK}
No-one knows the number of memos that James Comey has written. [We may get that answer in the IG report.] There are nine memos written by James Comey surrounding contact and conversations with President-elect and then President Trump (2016/2017).
However, based on the court declarations by Mueller’s former lead FBI investigator David Archey, it sounds like there are many more memos than anyone currently understands; including memos about the investigation of candidate Trump, that were written during the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation 2016 and 2017, that describe investigative details, sources, operations and code-names of intelligence assets used in the investigation.
The Comey memos are not just about his contact with Donald Trump as a candidate, president-elect or president. The media keeps downplaying the memos as a few notes taken by the former FBI director, but all of the background information suggest assembled writing is something more akin to a personal diary.
My strongly researched suspicion is that James Comey kept detailed private notes of what was happening during the operation(s) against Donald Trump and his campaign team, both during the campaign and after the election when President Trump took office. Just take a look at how David Archey described the content and you can see those notes, now called memos, were in addition to FD 302 reports being filed by FBI officials.
Why James Comey would keep detailed notes beyond what was being officially recorded in the FBI 302 reports is likely a question to be answered within the pending inspector general report. There’s a lot of sketchy non-transparent stuff going on amid all of this….
This is what the DOJ and FBI are working to stop from being released to the public:
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
Donald J. Trump
Interesting that Tashina Gauhar was taking notes presumably involved in the 5/16/17 meeting between, Lisa Page, Rod Rosenstein, and Andrew McCabe. 
QUESTION:
Centinel2012 