Chinese electric vehicle sales in Europe reached a record high during the first five months of 2026. Chinese brands sold 171,800 battery-electric vehicles across the 18 largest Western European markets, raising their market share from 9.4% to 14.2% in one year. One out of every seven EVs sold in Western Europe now carries a Chinese brand, despite additional EU duties of up to 35.3% on top of the standard 10% automobile tariff.
Brussels claims China is “dumping” state-subsidized vehicles, and there is no question that Beijing supported its EV industry. Yet Europe subsidizes battery factories, charging stations, renewable energy, manufacturers, and the consumers purchasing these cars. Italy’s incentives temporarily reduced the Chinese Leapmotor T03 to as little as €5,000. The difference is that China used industrial policy to build an efficient supply chain, while Europe spent public money creating regulations, mandates, compliance departments, and carbon-accounting schemes.
According to the International Energy Agency, producing a battery-electric vehicle in China costs more than 30% less than producing one in an advanced economy. China manufactured 70% of the world’s electric cars in 2025 and more than 80% of its battery cells. It also controlled approximately 85% of cathode-active-material production and more than 90% of anode-active-material production. Europe is attempting to compete with China while purchasing essential components from the same Chinese supply chain it supposedly intends to defeat.
Chinese battery packs were about 35% cheaper than European packs in 2025. Rhodium Group estimates that manufacturing a small EV in China costs nearly $10,000 less than producing the equivalent vehicle in Germany. Brussels can impose more tariffs and hold another emergency summit, but it cannot legislate away a $10,000 structural disadvantage.
China also embraced lithium-iron-phosphate batteries while Western manufacturers remained committed to more expensive nickel-based chemistry. LFP batteries are cheaper, safer, more durable, and do not require nickel or cobalt. Chinese companies spent years improving the technology until LFP represented more than 55% of global EV battery deployment in 2025. Europe debated environmental standards while China refined the chemistry, built the factories, secured the materials, and lowered the cost.
European manufacturers attempted to protect premium profit margins while Brussels ordered consumers to abandon combustion engines. They believed people would pay €40,000 or €50,000 for an electric car because regulators intended to eliminate the affordable alternative. That arrogance created an opening for BYD, Geely, SAIC, Chery, Leapmotor, and Xpeng.
Chinese manufacturers offered more than 120 electric models in Europe during the first five months of 2026, compared with roughly 100 European models. Around 30% of battery-electric models in China had an entry price below $20,000 in 2025, while fewer than 10% of European BEVs were available below $30,000.
Energy remains the issue Brussels refuses to confront. Europe surrendered cheap Russian energy, closed nuclear plants, imposed carbon taxes, restricted fossil fuels, and attempted to run an industrial economy on intermittent power. China expanded coal, nuclear energy, ports, railways, refining, chemical processing, and battery production. Europe lectures China about emissions while importing Chinese vehicles and batteries manufactured with the dependable energy Europe declared unacceptable.
Brussels responded with tariffs because government punishes consumers when its own policies fail. BYD faces an additional duty of 17%, Geely 18.8%, and SAIC 35.3%. These penalties may buy time, but they do nothing to reduce European production costs, improve software, accelerate development, or rebuild the battery supply chain.
Chinese manufacturers are also moving production into Europe. BYD is establishing manufacturing in Hungary, allowing it to avoid duties on vehicles assembled inside the EU. Chinese companies can bring their production methods, battery relationships, and supply-chain discipline directly into Europe. Brussels will then discover that the problem was never simply where the vehicle was assembled, but the efficiency of the entire industrial system.
Europe cannot allow its automobile industry to disappear. The sector supports millions of jobs and provides expertise essential to steel, chemicals, robotics, semiconductors, machine tools, AI, and defense. Europe is already heavily dependent upon China for solar panels and lithium-ion batteries. Permitting the auto supply chain to vanish would turn Europe into a consumer market living on tourism, taxation, and debt.
The public is not betraying Europe by purchasing an affordable Chinese EV. Brussels betrayed Europe by making European manufacturing uneconomic and then demanding that consumers personally pay the difference. If BYD provides more equipment and technology for thousands less than Volkswagen, a working family has no obligation to impoverish itself to protect executives and politicians who refused to adapt.
China did not steal Europe’s automobile industry. Europe handed it over through arrogance, regulation, and the delusion that government could decree prosperity.
Ukraine’s latest strike inside Russia confirms the direction this war has been moving for some time. Ukraine is no longer limiting its attacks to border regions, occupied territory, or Russian military positions near the front. It is deliberately taking the war into Russia’s economic and industrial interior.
Ukrainian drones struck Nizhnekamsk in the Russian Republic of Tatarstan, roughly 1,200 kilometers or 750 miles from the Ukrainian border. Ukraine’s General Staff said it hit the TANECO oil refinery and started a fire. Russian authorities said the attack killed 13 people, including a child, and injured dozens more. The conflicting reports regarding the number injured range from 39 to 75, and the precise circumstances of the civilian casualties have not been independently established.
TANECO is not some minor roadside operation. It is one of Russia’s most advanced refineries and processed approximately 17 million metric tons of crude during 2024. Nizhnekamsk also contains another refinery and a major petrochemical complex. This was an attack on a critical industrial center that helps supply the Russian economy and, by extension, its war machine. The strike reportedly marked the third attack on the TANECO complex this summer. That alone demonstrates that these are not isolated raids. Ukraine has developed a sustained strategy intended to dismantle Russian refining, transportation, storage, and export capacity one facility at a time.
Ukraine cannot defeat Russia through a conventional war. Russia has more people, more territory, greater industrial depth, and more resources. Kyiv therefore shifted toward economic warfare, using inexpensive long-range drones to attack refineries, pipelines, ports, airfields, factories, warehouses, power systems, and logistics centers deep inside Russia.
In November 2024, I wrote about Ukraine’s use of American and British weapons to strike inside Russia and the corresponding change in Moscow’s nuclear doctrine. The danger was never confined to whether an ATACMS missile crossed an imaginary distance on a map. The strategic change was the decision to make Russia’s interior part of the battlefield.
By May 2026, the Russian government had gone so far as to authorize the central bank, Sberbank, and cash-collection organizations to deploy anti-drone systems and arm their personnel. Banks were effectively being told to defend themselves. This confirmed that the war had spread beyond military installations and into the economic infrastructure of the state.
Russia cannot place a sophisticated air-defense system beside every refinery, pipeline junction, railway yard, warehouse, bank, port, power plant, and factory across 11 time zones. Even Russia does not possess enough defenses to protect a country of that size against thousands of cheap drones approaching from different directions.
The Nizhnekamsk attack also exposes the false argument that deeper strikes will somehow force a quick peace without escalating the conflict. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Russia’s war “will be felt more and more at their own home—in Russia.” That is not the language of de-escalation. It is an admission that Ukraine is attempting to turn Russian civilians against Putin by making the economic and human cost of war increasingly visible inside Russia itself.
The attacks may certainly cause Russia economic damage, but they can also produce the opposite political result. Bombing a population does not automatically cause it to overthrow its government. It can unify the people against the common enemy, as we saw in Iran years ago. Ukraine says it targets infrastructure supporting Russia’s military campaign. Russia says civilians and residential areas were struck. Once drones are flying into cities hundreds or thousands of miles from the front, civilian casualties become inevitable. Russia then uses those deaths to justify still larger attacks on Ukrainian cities.
Ukraine has already demonstrated that nearly no part of Russia can be assumed safe. In February 2026, Ukrainian drones struck the Kaleykino pumping station near Almetyevsk in Tatarstan, also around 1,200 kilometers from the border. Kaleykino is a critical junction within the Druzhba pipeline system, receiving and blending crude from Western Siberia and the Volga region before sending it toward Russian refineries and export routes.
At least six explosions were reported, followed by a major fire. Two storage tanks, each reportedly capable of holding 50,000 metric tons, were ignited. Russia’s pipeline monopoly Transneft subsequently reduced crude intake by approximately 250,000 barrels per day. The station itself has the capacity to handle around one million barrels per day.
The consequences extended beyond Russia. Druzhba remains important to Hungary and Slovakia, two EU and NATO countries that depend heavily on Russian crude because their refinery systems and pipeline connections cannot be replaced with slogans from Brussels. Ukraine’s attacks risk dragging neighboring countries into an energy confrontation with Kyiv and further splitting Europe over continued support for the war.
In June, Ukraine said it attacked the Lazarevo oil-pumping station in Russia’s Kirov region, approximately 1,300 kilometers from Ukrainian-held territory. That station serves the Surgut-Gorky-Polotsk pipeline, which moves Siberian oil westward toward Belarus. Once again, Ukraine was not targeting a tank near the battlefield. It was attacking the circulatory system of Russia’s energy economy.
Then came the July strike on the Omsk refinery in western Siberia, approximately 2,700 kilometers or 1,700 miles from Ukrainian-held territory. Omsk is Russia’s largest refinery, processing around 23 million metric tons annually, equivalent to approximately 460,000 barrels per day. Local Russian authorities confirmed that drones reached the industrial area. Ukraine said the attack caused a fire. Zelensky called it an “important achievement” and declared, “Siberia, too, is now within reach of Ukrainian precision strikes.”
That statement should have awakened every government in Europe. A war that began over eastern Ukraine had developed into attacks on Siberia. Yet NATO continues pretending that each new escalation can be contained and that Russia will never decide it has reached the final red line.
During the same July campaign, Ukraine said it struck the TANECO and TAIF-NK refineries in Tatarstan, the Saratov refinery, a military airfield at Borisoglebsk, a petroleum pumping station in Bashkortostan around 1,450 kilometers from Ukrainian-held territory, and nine oil tankers in the Sea of Azov. Ukrainian operations also reached the Russian Baltic ports of Ust-Luga and Vysotsk, two major oil-export facilities.
On August 6, drones caused a large fire at the Slavneft-YANOS refinery in Yaroslavl, which has an annual processing capacity of roughly 15 million metric tons, or about 300,000 barrels per day. Ukraine also confirmed an attack against the Bashneft-Novoil refinery in Bashkortostan. Days later, a warehouse belonging to Russian online retailer Wildberries burned in Yekaterinburg, more than 2,000 kilometers from the Ukrainian border.
The pattern is unmistakable. Oil production is attacked at the refinery. Transportation is attacked at pumping stations. Exports are attacked at ports and aboard tankers. Aviation is attacked at remote airfields. Industrial supplies are attacked inside factories and warehouses. Ukraine is attempting to impose economic attrition across the entire Russian state.
This strategy did not suddenly appear in 2026. In April 2024, Ukrainian drones struck facilities at Yelabuga and Nizhnekamsk in Tatarstan, more than 1,100 kilometers from Ukraine. Yelabuga housed a facility connected to the production of Shahed-type drones, while Nizhnekamsk contained the TANECO refinery. Those attacks demonstrated that Ukraine was already developing the capacity to penetrate far beyond Russia’s border defenses.
Operation Spiderweb in June 2025 made the strategy undeniable. Ukraine concealed small drones in trucks and prefabricated structures transported across Russia. The drones were launched near Russian airfields rather than flying the entire distance from Ukraine.
The operation targeted strategic aviation bases at Olenya, Belaya, Dyagilevo, and Ivanovo, among others. Ukraine initially claimed that 41 aircraft were hit. American officials offered a lower assessment, estimating that as many as 20 Russian military aircraft were struck and around 10 destroyed. Satellite imagery confirmed damage to valuable Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 bombers used to fire missiles against Ukraine.
Belaya Air Base is located in Siberia, thousands of kilometers from Ukraine. The operation proved that distance no longer provides security when drones can be smuggled into a country, hidden near their targets, and activated remotely.
This is why Russia has begun spreading anti-drone nets, electronic-warfare systems, armed guards, and localized defensive units across infrastructure that was never designed to become part of a battlefield. Reports even show Russia placing additional anti-drone protection over submarines at its Pacific base on the Kamchatka Peninsula, more than 4,500 miles from the Ukrainian front.
Damaging Russian refineries has not forced Putin to withdraw. Operation Spiderweb did not end Russia’s missile campaign. Striking Siberia did not bring peace. Each spectacular operation has instead been followed by additional Russian attacks, tighter internal controls, more militarization, and a deeper commitment by both governments to continue the war.
There is also a dangerous political calculation behind these attacks. Ukrainian officials believe that economic hardship and civilian fear will turn the Russian population against Putin. Yet Putin faces pressure from the opposite direction as well. Russian hardliners argue that he has been too restrained and that Moscow should retaliate more aggressively against Ukrainian government centers, transportation networks, energy infrastructure, and the Western systems enabling these strikes.
Russia has already lowered the threshold in its nuclear doctrine for responding to conventional attacks supported by nuclear powers. This does not mean Russia will automatically use a nuclear weapon, but it does mean NATO governments are recklessly testing a doctrine they did not write and cannot control.
The West supplies Ukraine with money, intelligence, satellite imagery, targeting assistance, components, and weapons. Western politicians then insist they are not participants in the war. Russia does not necessarily accept that legal fiction. If Western intelligence helps identify a target and a Ukrainian system attacks it, Moscow may eventually treat the sponsor and the operator as part of the same military structure.
The War Cycle for 2026 never suggested peace. It indicated rising volatility and expansion, with extremes in both directions. There may be negotiations, ceasefires, or temporary gestures toward settlement, followed by renewed aggression. That is precisely what we are witnessing. Every attempt at diplomacy is undermined by another strike, retaliation, arms package, territorial demand, or political promise that neither side can accept.
No one is asking where this ends. That has been the fatal mistake from the beginning.
Iran International reports that the average advertised monthly rent in Tehran has climbed to 723 million rials, or about $389 at the open-market exchange rate. Many Iranian workers earn only 200 million to 250 million rials per month, equivalent to $108 to $134. A worker must now surrender nearly three months of wages to pay one month of rent. That is the destruction of an entire population’s standard of living.
Rents have reportedly risen between 70% and 100% in parts of Tehran, despite the government’s 25% ceiling. Even Alireza Novin, a member of parliament’s construction committee, admitted that “the 25% rent increase is clearly not being observed.”
The IMF now projects that Iran’s economy will contract 5.4% in 2026, the worst annual decline in decades. Consumer-price inflation is projected to reach 68.9%. Estimates indicate that unemployment rose from 7.6% in the first quarter to 9.1% in the second, while industrial destruction and economic disruption may have eliminated around one million jobs.
The rial traded near 70 to the dollar at the time of the 1979 revolution. Iran International’s housing calculations now use an open-market rate of 1.86 million rials to the dollar. Iran’s government may issue a 10 million-rial banknote or remove zeros from the currency, but changing the numbers printed on the paper cannot restore the savings that were destroyed.
Food and beverages have risen 113.8% from the previous year, according to figures attributed to the Statistical Center of Iran. Bread and cereals increased 140%. Red meat and poultry rose 135%. Dairy products climbed 116.8%, while oils and fats surged 219%. Fruits and nuts increased more than 104%.
Rural inflation has reportedly reached 86.5%, compared with 69.3% in urban areas. The poorest citizens are being hit hardest because food, transportation, and household necessities consume nearly all their income. They do not own stocks, foreign property, or offshore bank accounts. Their entire wealth is their labor, and the government has destroyed the value of that labor.
Real income per person has fallen by approximately 47%, pushing the average Iranian’s purchasing power back toward levels last seen in the late 1990s. Poverty is estimated to affect about 36% of the population nationwide and as much as 50% in deprived regions. Iran is creating millions of working poor—people who still have jobs but can no longer afford to live.
The diet of the Iranian people is shrinking. Red meat supply has reportedly fallen to approximately 623,000 metric tons, about 20% below 2024 and nearly 39% below its 2010 level. Dairy consumption has declined to around 40 kilograms per person, roughly one-third of the global average. Families are not changing their diets for health reasons. They are abandoning meat and dairy because they cannot afford them.
Grocery workers have reported increasing theft of bread, cheese, butter, and meat. Medical patients are postponing treatment because they cannot afford medication. People are moving back in with their parents, sharing apartments with strangers, or fleeing Tehran for poorer outskirts.
Tindex estimates that the average advertised home in Tehran now costs more than 240 billion rials. A worker earning 250 million rials per month would need 80 years of gross wages to reach that price, assuming he never spent anything on food, rent, clothing, or taxes. Homeownership has become mathematically impossible for much of the population.
The war turned Iran’s prolonged decline into an active crisis. Factories, power plants, railways, airports, bridges, and industrial facilities have been damaged. Oil exports, the financial lifeline of the government, have reportedly fallen as much as 70% during periods of severe disruption. Some estimates place the economic cost of the blockade near $435 million per day.
The cumulative cost of the war has been estimated at around $144 billion, equivalent to roughly 40% of Iran’s prewar GDP. Whether every estimate proves exact is secondary to what Iranians can see: businesses closing, wages vanishing, investment stopping, and entire industries struggling to obtain materials or transport goods.
The government has compounded the damage by restricting the internet. Iran’s own communications ministry estimated that shutdowns cost the economy around 5 trillion rials per day at the official exchange rate. Other estimates placed the direct and indirect losses much higher. Online businesses lost customers, workers lost income, and private commerce was sacrificed so the state could suppress information.
Meanwhile, Iran’s rulers continue spending on missiles, proxies, internal surveillance, and political repression. The people are told to sacrifice for the revolution while those connected to the state preserve access to hard currency, property, and protected markets. The ruling class rarely eats the consequences of its policies. The people do.
Yet Washington and Israel should not celebrate this misery. Sanctions and blockades do not starve political elites first. Officials control state resources, smuggling networks, and foreign currency. It is the mother buying bread, the factory worker searching for an apartment, and the pensioner choosing between food and medicine who pays.
The neocons believe that enough bombing and deprivation will force Iran to surrender and produce a friendly democracy. They made the same argument in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria. Economic misery can produce revolution, but it can also produce repression, military rule, fragmentation, or civil war.
A government can manipulate inflation statistics and threaten landlords. It cannot hide an empty refrigerator or convince a worker that three months of wages should equal one month of rent. Many have turned to military service for survival, but what happens when the government cannot pay its troops? Iran’s people are watching their economy unravel in real time. Their wages have become scraps of paper, their savings have disappeared, and the idea of building a future is slipping beyond reach.
This report is part of the War Cycle looking at the mover and shakers who are determined to send the West into war for their personal glory. The Neocons are still fighting the Cold War and the fact that Communism Collapsed is irrelevant. They didn’t get to shoot anybody so to them, the war is not over. With the Russian elections for the Duma coming in September and Zelensky stepping up attack inside Russia public admitting that he is trying to influence the Russian elections, this is the great miscalculation that is more likely to hurl the West into that fateful World War III that destroys not just Europe, but Western Culture all for personal hatreds. Zelensky has refused to allow any election because he is a poppet of the Neocons and would be voted out of power in the blink of an eye. I warned in 2013 that Ukraine would be where it all begins. When Zelensky took the presidency, I warned that sources were all saying this was the guy hand-picked to start World War III. He has even publicly stated that World War III has begun.
Earlier today President Trump held an executive order signing ceremony in the oval office on the subject of the childhood vaccination schedule. [White House Fact Sheet Here] President Trump also took questions from the media.
WHITE HOUSE – DELIVERING GOLD STANDARD CHILDHOOD VACCINE RECOMMENDATIONS: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order to recognize Gold Standard Childhood Vaccine Recommendations that maximize parental choices over vaccinations for their children and align three categories of childhood immunizations with scientific evidence and best practices from peer, developed countries.
Keep in mind the Washington Post receives all of their exclusives from the CIA leak network.
For some insufferable reason, the Washington Post (CIA) is publishing a story about President Trump’s security protocols following the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey last month.
As the story is told, President Trump went into the legacy Airforce One, however, he quietly exited the plane via a catering truck set up on the opposite side of the plane and then he boarded an Air Force C-32 support plane for the flight out of Turkey destined to Britain’s Mildenhall air base.
At the time of the travel there was a credible threat from Iran toward the President. Apparently, extra precautions were taken, and the Washington Post (CIA) needs to tell people about them.
[…] In Ankara, Trump boarded the old Air Force One jumbo jet in view of television cameras. He was secretly shuttled minutes later to a smaller plane — an Air Force C-32A — via an airport catering truck typically used to load meals and other supplies preflight, according to the U.S. official and corroborating material reviewed by The Post. That made Air Force One a “decoy” with media and some White House staff aboard, the official said.
[…] A credible threat to Trump involving Iran set the “deception operation” in motion, the U.S. official said. The New York Times and CBS News reported last month that intelligence officials flagged a specific threat of an attack on the president or his jet, triggering additional precautions.
There are decades-old concerns in the U.S. government of Iranian terrorism plots against American officials, including Trump. Those fears have escalated recently as a result of Washington’s role in the killingof Iranian military and political leaders. (read more)
The media who are attempting to undermine the security of President Trump are not quite sure how he reentered the legacy Airforce One in order to be photographed departing it in Great Britain. However, as soon as they discover that trick, they will be sure to write about it so that our enemies are aware should the opportunity surface again.
The White House government transparency office, John Solomon, has declassified and released FBI internal documents surrounding their opening of an investigation of Jeff Sessions on May 10, 2017. The investigation of Sessions surrounded his contact with the Russian ambassador Sergey Lavrov and was opened the day after James Comey was fired on May 9, 2017.
Several people have questioned the naming of the FBI investigation as “March Toll,” however, the essential aspects to the nonsense investigation stemmed from corrupt DOJ and FBI insiders (the ‘small group’) who were strategizing on a way to force Jeff Sessions to recuse himself. That planning took place in March, hence the term ‘March Toll.’
[SOURCE – Declassified Release]
Jeff Sessions was confirmed as Attorney General on February 9, 2017. Almost immediately the group in charge of the Crossfire Hurricane (Trump-Russia) investigation began planning on a way to force Sessions to recuse himself. Ultimately they were worried that Sessions would tell the FBI to end their ridiculous Trump-Russia investigation, so they needed the Attorney General isolated.
CTH previously wrote about the campaign to recuse Jeff Sessions {GO DEEP}. The original planning meetings took place on March 2, 2017, and were attended by Jody Hunt, Dana Boente, Tashina Guahar, Jim Crowell and Scott Schools. All of those names are directly connected to the manipulation of the Trump-Russia investigation therein and thereafter.
The day after James Comey was fired, on May 10th, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein was immediately on the phone with Robert Mueller to organize the Mueller special counsel investigation. As you can see from the opening EC, this was also the same day the FBI triggered the ‘March Toll’ investigation of Jeff Sessions.
From March 2nd to May 10th, the FBI crew were working to isolate Jeff Sessions. Ultimately, opening an official FBI investigation of Sessions was to enable the corrupt FBI embeds to remain in control.
“Crossfire Hurricane” – During 2016, after the November election, and throughout the transition period into 2017, the FBI had a counterintelligence investigation ongoing against Donald Trump. FBI Director James Comey’s memos were part of this time-period as the FBI small group was gathering evidence. Then Comey was fired….
♦Tuesday May 9th – James Comey was fired at approximately 5:00pm EST. Later we discover Rod Rosenstein first contacted Robert Mueller about the special counsel appointment less than 15 hours after James Comey was fired.
♦Wednesday May 10th – From congressional testimony we know DAG Rod Rosenstein called Robert Mueller to discuss the special counsel appointment on Wednesday May 10th, 2017, at 7:45am. [See Biggs questions to Mueller at 2:26 of video]
According to his own admissions (NBC and CBS), Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe immediately began a criminal ‘obstruction’ investigation. Wednesday May 10th; and he immediately enlisted Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
This is the same date they began the official FBI investigation of Jeff Sessions.
A few hours after the Rosenstein-Mueller phone call James Comey’s office was being searched by the SSA Whistleblower per the IG report on Comey’s memos.
♦Thursday May 11th – Andrew McCabe testified to congress. With the Comey firing fresh in the headlines. McCabe testified there had been no effort to impede the FBI investigation. 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]. The IG report shows: “[Daniel] Richman confirmed to the OIG that he was one of the sources for the May 11 article, although he said he was not the source of the information in the article about the Trump Tower briefing“.
♦Friday May 12th – Andrew McCabe met with DAG Rod Rosenstein to discuss the ongoing issues with the investigation and firing. 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, May 12th, evidence shows Robert Mueller met “in person” with Rod Rosenstein. This is the same day when SSA Whistleblower went to James Comey’s house to retrieve FBI material and both Rybicki and Comey never informed the agent about the memos:
May 12th, is the date noted by David Archey when FBI investigators had assembled all of the Comey memos as evidence. However, no-one in the FBI outside the “small group” knows about them.
♦On Saturday May 13th, 2017, another meeting between Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller, this time with AG Jeff Sessions also involved. [Per Andy Biggs]
♦Sunday May 14th – Comey transmitted copies of Memos 2, 4, and 6, and a partially redacted copy of Memo 7 to Patrick Fitzgerald, who was one of Comey’s personal attorneys. Fitzgerald received the email and PDF attachment from Comey at 2:27 p.m. on May 14, 2017, per the IG report.
♦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 this same day was when James Rybicki called SSA Whistleblower to notify him of Comey’s memos. The memos were “stored” in a “reception area“, and in locked drawers in James Rybicki’s office.
♦Tuesday May 16th – Per the IG report: “On the morning of May 16, Comey took digital photographs of both pages of Memo 4 with his personal cell phone. Comey then sent both photographs, via text message, to Daniel Richman.
Back in Main Justice at 12:30pm Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, Jim Crowell and Tashina Guahar all appear to be part of this meeting. I should note that alternate documentary evidence, gathered over the past two years, supports the content of this McCabe memo. Including texts between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok:
The same group who was meeting in Main Justice on March 2nd to organize the removal of Jeff Sessions, are the same group of people who organized the investigation of Jeff Sessions to begin on May 10th the day after Comey was fired.
All of the FBI action was to keep anyone who would impede the creation of a Special Counsel removed from the process until after they could get Mueller and Weissmann into place. Robert Mueller was made official on May 17th, the day after he visited with President Trump at the White House.
CTH covered all this information eight years ago. I’m not sure what the Solomon objective is to declassify this stuff now.
We been knew!
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!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
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
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending
Centinel2012 