Report: DOJ Deputy Rod Rosenstein Expected to Depart by Mid March…


Fox News is reporting that Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein is anticipated to resign mid-March and be replaced by a hand-picked deputy by AG William Barr.  Initial reporting is that Jeffrey Rosen will be the replacement.

FOX – Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is expected to leave his role at the Justice Department by mid-March, a senior DOJ official told Fox News on Monday. (read more)

This timeframe would align with prior reporting that Rosenstein would exit mid-March simultaneous to the completion of the Robert Mueller investigation.

NBC REPORT WASHINGTON — Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who had been overseeing the special counsel investigation, plans to step down after Robert Mueller submits his report, according to administration officials familiar with his thinking.

A source close to Rosenstein said he intends to stay on until Mueller submits a report to the Justice Department on the Russian meddling investigation. The source said that would mean Rosenstein would remain until early March. (link)

Jake Gibson

@JakeBGibson

113 people are talking about this

If accurate, Jeffrey Rosen, Barr’s choice as deputy to replace Rod Rosenstein, was an attorney at Kirkland & Ellis, Barr’s former law firm, and is currently deputy transportation secretary.  Interestingly that is a connection to Mitch McConnell via Mitch’s wife Elaine Chao who is the current Transporation Secretary.

Previously Mr. Rosen served General Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor for the White House Office of Management and Budget during the George W. Bush administration. Before that, he was also with the Department of Transportation, serving as General Counsel.

Rosen has a B.A. in economics and a J.D. from Harvard.

President Trump Tweets Interesting Response to McCabe’s Soft Coup Diatribe…


President Donald Trump tweets a reaction to the 60 minutes interview by former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe; where McCabe outlined a concerted effort by the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to participate in a seditious ‘soft coup’ scheme against the president:

One of the points of disagreement amid those who research the deep weeds on ‘spygate’  has always been the oval office meeting between President Trump, DAG Rosenstein and Robert Mueller on the day before Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel.

For over a year the TTP group has highlighted this meeting as Rosetta-Stone evidence that Mueller, Rosenstein and Trump were working together to deconstruct deep state usurpers. However, that perspective always seemed to be a rather absurd stretch.

Given the latest series of points highlighted by the public admission of the soft-coup plotters, a more Occam’s razor likelihood is that DAG Rosenstein didn’t actually wear an electronic wire to record the president, but rather chose instead to carry a human recorder to accomplish the same objective.  Robert Mueller was likely that human recording device.

AG Bill Barr has a mess on his hands.

Remember, back when this entire nonsense began, President Trump strongly said he had nothing to do with any coordination with Russia; nothing to do with collusion with Russia; and also stated he was okay with the investigation as it looked into the propriety of people within the 2016 campaign. However, these statements were also with the assumption, held by himself as a result of -perhaps false- confirmations from James Comey, that he himself was not a target.

few weeks ago HPSCI member Devin Nunes was speculating that President Trump was the actual target all along.  The latest admissions by former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe specifically outlined how he opened two additional investigations of President Trump as a result of the Comey firing.  One investigation was criminal (obstruction of justice), and a second was counterintelligence (was the obstruction due to Trump being a Russian asset.

If the reporting (based on leaks) that has surfaced in the two-plus years of the investigation is accurate; and if Andrew McCabe did open two additional FBI investigations of President Trump on May 10th, 2017; then it is likely the clarification memo that Mueller requested from Rosenstein was about that issue.

If the mandate given to Robert Mueller was to specifically investigate the sitting president of the United States as an active participant, and subsequent target, for a counterintelligence operation, then DAG Rod Rosenstein -and Mueller- would have to hide that mandate from everyone and anyone.  Thus Mueller and Rosenstein would keep the August 2017 Scope Memo hidden from review…. which is exactly what they did.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/375478974/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-4DaehSp6U38EiB8eNVXS

.

President Trump would be the target and none of the principles would be able to discuss the key elements specifically because of this extra-constitutional issue.

All of President Trump’s prior commentary would be based on a (2017/2018) assumption that he was not the target of the FBI probe that was eventually turned over to Mueller by Rosenstein.  If the origination instruction from Rosenstein to Mueller includes the specific charge to investigate the President; then all prior assumptions -including those held by President Trump- are invalid.

Examples:

  • Rosenstein (or any DOJ/FBI official) would always be engaging with POTUS as a target.  All conversation would be clouded by that aspect. As a result, Rosenstein could never be fully honest with President Trump; or answer any question therein.
  • Any action taken by President Trump (emphasis on “any”) would therefore potentially be direct influence by the President toward an investigation that held him as a target.  He could never be permitted to approach the investigation…. yet he would never find anyone with an honest answer as to why he cannot approach the investigation.

We previously pondered this aspect when we outlined “the declassification conundrum“.  However, at the time we did not evaluate the classifications issue from a targetperspective; we were evaluating the issue as if President Trump was the victim of the illegal targeting.

If you flip the paradigm and now look at what actions President Trump could take, while reconsidering that he is the principle target, well, two years of contradictory things start to make more sense.

The conversation, and inability of Rosenstein to be honest with POTUS, changes the dynamic of this tweet:

POTUS writing: “may have a perceived negative impact on the Russia probe” takes on a whole new meaning when you consider a conversation where Rosenstein cannot be honest with the target of the “Russia probe”…. and the target has essentially no idea.

Remember, throughout 2017 and 2018, the basic assumption -due to visible and public declarations by the DOJ- was that Mueller was conducting an investigation into Russian interference with the election; and/or other matters that may surface as an outcome of that investigation.  However, we never knew (still don’t) the actual content of the August 2017 clarification mandate that Rosenstein gave to Mueller (see below):

If accurate, we can imagine a conversation where Mueller approaches Rosenstein in July and August 2017:

Mueller: “Rod, if you want me to consider President Trump a specific target of the investigation, you’re going to have to give some specific expansion of the investigation, in writing, to look into all the stuff inside this dossier.”

Rosenstein: “OK Bob, I’ll put it in writing, but we’ve got to keep this part away from view or the targets will know we’re using an unvetted dossier, which could be portrayed as political opposition research funded by Clinton, as evidence against them…. fair enough?”

Accepting Devin Nunes prior speculation as accurate (after much more thought, it likely is); and accepting Andrew McCabe is accurate in his admission of opening two investigations of Trump after the Comey firing; the redacted portion of the published mandate would be the part where President Trump is outlined as a target.

A direct target, or an indirect target, matters not.  What matters is that President Trump is A TARGET.   That would explain why Mueller requested that Rosenstein write down a much more expanded explanation for the mandate that no-one, [NO-ONE other than Judge Ellis (Manafort case)], has ever seen.

Knowing he would be entering into this foray where President Trump is the target, you can easily see why Mueller would want to meet with President Trump ahead of accepting the job.  The entire enterprise would be fraught with tenuous extra-constitutional issues. Mueller’s target is the most powerful person in the world; and the ramifications are rather stunning.

Any action taken by President Trump to declassify documents, that would show the dubious structure of the originating FBI investigation, would now be considered as: the target of the investigation undermining the investigation into himself.

Under this principle, congress requesting President Trump to declassify documents showing the unlawful nature of the investigative origination is an exercise in futility.

Congress is asking the target of the unlawful investigation to declassify evidence that was assembled against him.  The target then turns to the people who are investigating him and says please declassify….. however, the receiver (DOJ) is getting a request from their target.

Getting a declassification request from Congress is one thing; but getting a declassification request from the target of their investigation is a request they can neither fulfill nor explain their lack of fulfillment.

From the position of the DOJ:

As a counterintelligence target President Trump cannot declassify evidence, nor can he direct anyone to declassifying any evidence on his behalf.

FUBAR

Ultimately the only person who can correct this issue appears to be the same person who started this entire mess, Rod Rosenstein.  Which likely explains why he said he will leave the DOJ when Mueller is finished.

WASHINGTON — Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who had been overseeing the special counsel investigation, plans to step down after Robert Mueller submits his report, according to administration officials familiar with his thinking.

A source close to Rosenstein said he intends to stay on until Mueller submits a report to the Justice Department on the Russian meddling investigation. The source said that would mean Rosenstein would remain until early March. (link)

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein initiated the continued investigation into President Trump by authorizing, and later clarifying, that Mueller is to proceed with the special counsel mandate that includes President Trump as a target.

….And knowing that dynamic completely changes the background review about how corrupt Andrew McCabe’s allies in the FBI and media started leveraging against Rod Rosenstein for their own benefit.

Sunday Talks: Representative John Ratcliffe Discusses McCabe’s ‘Soft Coup’ Effort….


Representative John Ratcliffe appears with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the DOJ and FBI ‘soft coup’ attempt headed by Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe.

Ratcliffe also discusses the outlook with newly confirmed Attorney General William Barr and what actions he hopes AG Barr will take in the wake of mounting evidence that Andrew McCabe, James Baker, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and former Acting AG Sally Yates were coordinating an effort to remove President Donald Trump.

 

Reminder: Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe Also Launched a Criminal Investigation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions…


As Andrew McCabe makes current media statements to confirm how he opened a counterintelligence investigation (July 31, 2016) against candidate Donald Trump, and a criminal investigation against President Donald Trump (May 10th, 2017), it is worth reminding ourselves that McCabe also launched a simultaneous criminal investigation against Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

It is also worth noting in both current and prior reporting that it was/is CBS announcing the revelations from Andrew McCabe and his Lawfare team:

FLASHBACK CBS Reports (March 2018) – […] The investigation was opened before special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed, Reid reports. A Justice Department official says Sessions was not aware of this investigation until he found out about it from reports.

ABC News first reported that McCabe had been in charge of the investigation into Sessions. Sessions’ testimony raised alarm bells, but this is the first time it has been reported that there was actually a criminal probe of Sessions’ actions. (read more)

In hindsight it would appear the criminal probe against AG Jeff Sessions was intended to create a firewall that would isolate the Attorney General and keep prying eyes away from the ‘soft coup’ efforts of the seditious small group.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/377540616/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-VnQlT8HQJOAa4hTVK8wZ

Sunday Talks: Rush Limbaugh Discusses Border Security and DOJ/FBI ‘Soft Coup’…


Influential radio host Rush Limbaugh appears on Fox News with Chris Wallace to discuss the necessity of President Trump’s border security declaration; the DOJ and FBI scheme to conduct a ‘soft coup’ against the president; and how the democrat party is positioning themselves for the 2020 election.

The first half of the interview discusses the national security declaration; then the subject shifts to former FBI Deputy Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein and the ‘soft coup’; and then finishes with discussion over the Green New Deal and the likelihood of democrat success in the 2020 election.u

There are Trillions at Stake…


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.

It doesn’t.

McCabe’s Recent Statements Contradict McCabe’s Prior Testimony…


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.

PelleyHow long after that was it you decided to start the obstruction of justice and counterintelligence investigations involving the President?

McCabeThe 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):

(text message link)

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?

Director McCabe. That’s correct.

[Transcript link]

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:

Melissa Schwartz

@MSchwartz3

1,438 people are talking about this

William Barr and Spygate – Watch The Teams…


Attorney General William Barr quietly took the oath of office in the oval office today with Chief Justice John Roberts administering and officiating the swearing in. [link]

With the introduction of a fully empowered and confirmed U.S. Attorney General there is likely to be a great deal of speculation about how AG Barr will interact with the seditious conspiracy scandal known collectively as ‘spygate’.

No doubt the tick-tock-boom club will sell more books with declarations of soon to be announced indictments, grand juries, etc. However, as with all political horse trading in DC, the reality of accountability usually falls far away from headline predictions.

Attorney General Barr will be navigating a myriad of high-powered political interests through his office at the Justice Department.

If we presume William Barr is not intending to cover-up for the gross misconduct of the DOJ and FBI, which is a considerable presumption, it will be worth watching how the two camps, Team Obama and Team Clinton, react to the shifted DOJ landscape.

{Go Deep}

♦ Team Obama consists of: John Brennan, Susan Rice, James Clapper, James Comey, James Rybicki, Loretta Lynch, John Carlin, Samantha Power and all former White House officials.

♦ Team Clinton consists of: ¹Andrew McCabe, ¹Sally Yates, ¹James Baker, ²Mary McCord, ¹Dana Boente, ²David Laufmann, ¹Mike Kortan, ¹Peter Strzok, ¹Lisa Page, ¹Nellie Ohr, ¹Bruce Ohr, ²John Podesta and essentially all of the former DOJ/FBI small group who are also currently operating within the ³Mueller operation and ³Lawfare (Benjamin Wittes) community.

NOTE: Team Clinton has three sub-sets: ¹direct involvement; ²indirect involvement; and ³cover-up.

Each team has unique interests and exposure to the former operations against candidate Donald Trump.  Team Obama was more of an assisting co-conspiracy role; and Team Clinton was more of a direct conspiracy/involvement role.  Team Clinton has direct legal exposure. Team Obama has indirect legal exposure.

If there is any actual substantive investigation initiated by William Barr:

  • Generally speaking Team Obama should be anticipated to remain silent, except for those members who now hold media pundit/analyst positions.
  • Generally speaking Team Clinton will be the most visible as their exposure means they have a need to shape the narrative. [ex. Andrew McCabe]

The media supports both teams; however, if they were forced to chose the media would be far more supportive of team Obama.

If there is an inflection point (big “if”), it will likely come as an outcome of someone (McCabe is most exposed) breaking the code of Omerta from Team Clinton and attempting to implicate someone from Team Obama.   In that situation U.S. media will defend team Obama and leave team Clinton at risk.

If the “Spygate” fiasco explodes (TBD), it will be team Clinton’s people who will be exposed in the collateral damage. Team Obama will escape with the help of the media and a more favorable DC alliance willing to protect them. Everyone on Team Clinton knows this.

However, all of that said, it would be remarkable if any of the participating members were actually exposed to legal jeopardy.  A far more likely outcome is some backroom deal where both teams agree to being criticized, perhaps publicly – perhaps by the Inspector General, but no-one faces legal exposure….

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is then instructed to ditch the impeachment narrative, Mueller gives an unsatisfying report to Barr, and everyone heads into 2020.

Smart Move – Andrew McCabe Launches Proactive, Planned, Lawfare Media Blitz…


Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe launches a pre-planned proactive media blitz timed to coincide with DOJ receiving a new Attorney General.  Say what you will about the duplicitous, lying, corrupt and conniving weasels – but they know how to seamlessly execute cunning self-preservation political objectives.

The strategy is as transparent as it is Machiavellian.  Andrew McCabe, James Baker and the Lawfare group (Benjamin Wittes, Michael Bromwich et al) had a planned defensive front waiting to roll out; today they pulled the trigger:

.

Team McCabe always knew the biggest legal threat to their corrupt position would be if they lost control of the mechanisms within the DOJ and FBI.  The launch of a media blitz, surrounding a book and constructed defense narrative, positions them to claim that any legal action against them now comes from a retaliatory Trump administration and DOJ institution (Barr) carrying out the objectives of the President.

The best way to position themselves legally was/is to go on the attack and then use their attack as a shield from any accountability. This is what we are seeing today.

For almost two years the corrupt career elements within the DOJ and FBI have been hiding the trail of evidence that would expose the McCabe plan to usurp the 2016 election.

They have redacted evidence including the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages; withheld information from congress; stalled and defied requests for documents they used in the construction of their plans; and generally positioned themselves to run out the clock. In all measures they have been stunningly effective thus far.

The McCabe team, in close coordination with the Lawfare group of strategists, forced the recusal of Jeff Sessions and positioned the use of the Mueller investigation as a political shield to cover their tracks. However, with the introduction of William Barr as a new Attorney General, they obviously would lose their most valuable tool. Thus the moves today and in the weeks/months to follow is the next phase of a continual plan for self-preservation to avoid legal accountability.

Using CBS is almost as predictable. Inherently the 2016 and 2017 actions by the corrupt McCabe team were in alignment with the political agenda of the Obama white house. CBS, including Vice-President David Rhodes – brother to Ben Rhodes, has a well documented history of defending the Obama White House from scrutiny. There is a natural alignment of mutual benefit.

It will be interesting to see how McCabe’s lawyer Michael Bromwich, McCabe’s political ally Benjamin Wittes, and McCabe’s fixer/hatchetman/former FBI chief-legal-counsel, James Baker, align their defense narrative moving forward. Obviously McCabe carries the greatest legal risk if full sunlight is placed upon the ‘small group’. That said, it makes sense for them to use the political narrative as their best weapon against any accountability.

How former FBI Director James Comey positions himself will also be a key ‘tell’ to watch for. If Comey remains distant from the McCabe issues then it will appear more likely McCabe will face some measure of legal accountability. If Comey snuggles up to McCabe, or openly defends McCabe, that would indicate McCabe is likely to avoid any substantive trouble.

Moving forward it makes sense the McCabe crew will blur the lines of wrongdoing by attaching their action to current DAG Rod Rosenstein who was a willfully blind participating member, albeit perhaps initially, unwillingly.

Robert Mueller’s ability to hide the gross corruption within the upper levels of the FBI appears to be significantly reduced with the introduction of William Barr, though given the history of what has taken place over the past two years it would be exceptionally naive to put too much faith or hope in Barr.

There’s going to be a great deal of insider horse-trading, positioning, and attempts to deploy leverage to avoid accountability and exposure. Within DC this is known as the Potomac two-step. Each entity trades their leverage for escape routes and no-one is held accountable. So far, through the use of politics, all of their endeavors have been exceptionally successful and little has changed to inject any confidence things will shift.

Today’s roll-out is smart politics for the McCabe team.

Yes Alice, justice is indeed two-tiered…

Benjamin Wittes

Every Day Is a New Low in Trump’s White House

The president steps over bright ethical and moral lines wherever he encounters them. Everyone in America saw it when he fired my boss. But I saw it firsthand time and time again.

theatlantic.com

Lindsey Graham

25.4K people are talking about this

Summary of Negotiated Budget Appropriations W/ Limits on Border Security and No Funding for Border Agents or ICE Agents (full pdf)….


The actual budget appropriations bill is seven compartments consisting of more than 5,000 pages. However, here is the 29 page summary outlining the key elements as negotiated by congress.

WARNING: This is a bad deal, but it reflects the UniParty reality within congress.  Take a deep breath; don’t lash out.  Remember, there are very few MAGA minded representatives. This was negotiated by two wings of the same corporate bird and both want open borders.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/399623170/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-SCOGFaqwlDLsswYDoZHx

.

  • Provides $1.375 billion, or $4.325 billion less than the $5.7 billion the Trump administration requested, for a very limited 55 miles of physical barrier that can only be placed along the southern border in *only* the Rio Grande Valley of Texas.
  • Contains language allowing only fencing designs in use as of 2017.
  • No funding for new border patrol agents above the current on board levels.
  • Does not fund the Administration’s request for joint detention facilities.
  • No funding for additional enforcement and removal field personnel.

(Via Ryan James Girdusky) Border wall bill is out, here are some highlights:

Here are the areas Trump cannot build any wall

The bill gives $1.375 billion for constructing a “wall”/pedestrian fencing

$725 million for technology

They can only be used to make steel bollard design… no concrete wall, no prototypes. Same thing as what Bush and Obama built… just a little bit taller

The bill secures more than $3.1 billion in foreign health services, more than twice for the wall.

Sec. of DHS cannot increase border crossing fees

Border “Wall” construction is only allowed in the Rio Grande Valley Sector

Other highlights:

$415 million for humanitarian aide

$77 million for opioid equipment

1,200 new Customs and Border Patrol Agents (retain current levels)

The bill expands Catch and Release by reducing the number of border beds from 49,060 to 40,520.

No funding for additional enforcement and removal field personnel. – that means no more ICE agents to deport people already in the country.

Expands the Alternatives to Detention program from 82,000 to 100,000… so instead of housing family units at the border- they get moved into the interior where they almost always stay in the country permanently.

Provides $40 million for additional ICE staffing dedicated to overall ATD (Alternatives to Detention) case management, particularly for asylum seekers… so no new ICE agents, but money to ICE to help illegal aliens settle in a non-detention center in the country.

The bill gives over $1 billion for the Smithsonian.

$3.4 billion in refugee assistance – $74 million more than last year.

$4.4 billion in international disaster assistance – $100 million more than last year.

Does not eliminate any foundations that Trump wanted to get rid of including: The Asia Foundation, the U.S. African Development Foundation, the Inter-American Foundation, and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency.

Israel, Ukraine, and Jordan receive $5.3 billion for border security fencing.