Tag Archives: CNN

Mar 14 2018

FBI Office of Professional Responsibility Recommends AG Jeff Sesssions Fire Andrew McCabe…


Re-Posted from the Conservative Tree House on March 14, 2018 by

A very interesting dynamic today, with a motive that may not be as transparent as initially appears. The New York Times and Washington Post are both reporting the FBI’s internal Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has recommended to AG Jeff Sessions that FBI Asst. Director Andrew McCabe should be fired.

The reason for the recommendation surrounds the DOJ Inspector General discovering that FBI Asst. Director Andrew “Andy” McCabe intentionally leaked information about the Clinton investigation to the media, and coordinated the leaks therein.  The IG referred the issue to the FBI’s internal OPR for review and recommendation to the Attorney General. The Times and Post are leaking information of the determination by the OPR that Andrew McCabe should be fired.

(NYT) […] Now, Mr. Sessions is the final arbiter of Mr. McCabe’s dismissal, shortly before his retirement takes effect Sunday. Though no decision has been made, people inside the Justice Department expect him to be fired before Friday, a decision that would jeopardize his pension as a 21-year F.B.I. veteran. (link)

If AG Jeff Sessions fires McCabe for cause, the former FBI Deputy could, likely would, lose his pension and benefits.  McCabe is scheduled to retire with those benefits on March 20th, six days from now.

The dynamic is interesting.  An OPR recommendation for disciplinary firing puts AG Jeff Sessions into a box; he has two options:  Option #1 is fire McCabe.  Option #2 is set aside the OPR ruling and allow McCabe to retire.  Sessions has to take one of those two actions.

On one hand you could make an argument the Office of Professional Responsibility’s disciplinary recommendation is (Good Guys) trying to hit and punish McCabe at the last moment possible.  However, on the other hand you can look at this leaked disciplinary recommendation as Machiavellian characters (Bad Guys) within the FBI setting up AG Sessions, painting him into a corner, to create yet another controversial storyline.

My guess as to the FBI OPR motive is the latter, not the former, and here’s why.

First, the OPR recommendation is leaked.  We are all too familiar with the IC leaks to the New York Times and Washington Post being 100% constructed by illicit schemers within the intelligence community who are against the Trump administration.  This truism is transparent from the history of the leaking.  All leaks frame a narrative that only goes in one direction. All leaks are against the people’s president, Donald Trump.

Second, and perhaps more convincingly, the recommendation is coming from the Office of Professional Responsibility inside the FBI.  Think about that carefully.

If there was an actual OPR office – containing any semblance of professional watchdog intent – then where the hell were they over the past few years while the entire organization was engaged in brutally corrupt activity.

Now, only RIGHT NOW, the FBI-OPR has issues with McCabe et al?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!

Where was the OPR while the entire administrative apparatus of the FBI was leaking to the media, constructing false witness, assembling fraudulent investigative materials, conducting sham investigations with predetermined outcomes; blocking congressional oversight, and generally behaving like a rogue political intelligence apparatus?

Seriously, where was the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility then?

No.  Sorry.  Not even beginning to buy the angle of a decent department watchdog doing their level-best to bring justice upon the head of a corrupt FBI political operative, Andrew McCabe.  I’m not buying it.

The motive for this FBI watchdog leaked internal story today, and the OPR recommendation therein, is most likely to create yet another antagonistic controversy.  The FBI Machiavelli schemers are still doing their duplicitous crap.

If Attorney General Jeff Sessions fires McCabe, the controversial narrative is that he’s desperately doing the bidding of President Trump who has tweeted about McCabe being corrupt and unaccountable.

If Attorney General Jeff Sessions doesn’t fire McCabe, the controversial narrative is that Session’s is showing more evidence of his own weakness and motive to protect the swamp creatures; which will make Sessions seem like he is in alignment with McCabe and simultaneously anger the President and all his supporters.

The FBI-OPR has painted Sessions into a narrative of controversy either way…. and the leak about it seems to prove the FBI’s internal Machiavellian intent.

See how that works?

.

Mar 14 2018

President Trump Visits Missouri for Business Roundtable – 4:00pm Livestream…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on March 14, 2018 by

President Donald Trump is traveling to Missouri today to promote recent tax cuts and campaign for Republican U.S. Senate candidate Josh Hawley.  The president is scheduled to visit the Boeing plant in St. Louis where he will hold a round table with business leaders and workers, then plans to attend a fundraiser for the senate candidate.

The roundtable discussion with Boeing business leaders will be livestreamed at 4:00pm

WH Livestream Link – ABC News Livestream Link

Mar 14 2018

Solutions for Dealing with the Media: James O’Keefe and Bill Whittle


Published on Jan 2, 2018
At Turning Point’s Student Action Summit, James O’Keefe and Bill Whittle sit down to discuss their experiences in dealing with bad faith in the media.
Mar 14 2018

Justice Department sues California for Harboring Illegal Aliens Defying Constitution


Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law

Re-Posted Mar 14, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

The Justice Department is suing the state of California for violating the Constitution by passing laws that shield illegal immigrants. Governor Jerry Brown is simply committing treason. It is interesting how he is sheltering illegal aliens which seems contrary to so many aspects even economically. I understand children that were brought here, grew up, and have married with children that are American. It is wrong to split up families. That stands in contrast to those who are adults who enter the country illegally. They cannot vote unless that is how Hillary beat Bernie in California.

Mar 14 2018

Corruption & the Rule of Law


Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law

Re-Posted Mar 14, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Today’s opinion section of the WSJ features an article on government’s intervention in AIG. The troublesome point concerns the possibility of a new precedent w.r.t. property rights in the USA, viz.:

“…the government may unlawfully deprive shareholders of their ownership and control of a company as long as it does not formally seize their shares”.

Well, I thought the rights that share ownership conferred were exactly those: an ownership stake in the company and a voice in its voting.

SC

ANSWER: The government plays with legal technicalities. They cannot seize a corporation and nationalize it without compensating the shareholders. However, it can seize a corporation and run it without formally taking the property. It is in a gray area like zoning regulations. The government can tell you what to do with your property short of taking it. However, in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), it was held that there was no authority to seize the steel mills because of a national strike. The court held: The Executive Order was not authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and it cannot stand. The court wrote in the Syllabus:

To avert a nationwide strike of steel workers in April 1952, which he believed would jeopardize national defense, the President issued an Executive Order directing the Secretary of Commerce to seize and operate most of the steel mills. The Order was not based upon any specific statutory authority, but was based generally upon all powers vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the United States and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The Secretary issued an order seizing the steel mills and directing their presidents to operate them as operating managers for the United States in accordance with his regulations and directions. The President promptly reported these events to Congress; but Congress took no action. It had provided other methods of dealing with such situations, and had refused to authorize governmental seizures of property to settle labor disputes. The steel companies sued the Secretary in a Federal District Court, praying for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction, which the Court of Appeals stayed.

The effective seizure of AIG was also illegal. Paulson let both Lehman Brothers and Bear Sterns fail but then rescues AIG without authority to save Goldman Sachs (see Timeline 2007-2009 Crash). The problem we have with is the government can do whatever it desires. The burden then falls on the citizen to go to court and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars or more to say his rights were violated. The Constitution is a complete FAILURE, for the courts have turned it upside down and they can do whatever they want and the burden is on you. The French system is much better. The government passes a law and then the high court rules if it is constitutional BEFORE it is enacted.

The damage our system inflicts upon citizens is off the charts. The government filed charges against Arthur Anderson and put the firm out of business. The case finally made it to the Supreme Court and they unanimously overruled what the government had done. Nonetheless, the firm was destroyed in the process. And guess what? The two prosecutors who charged Arthur Anderson with obstruction of justice and destroyed the firm illegally, are the left and right hand of Robert Mueller going after Trump – Andrew Weissmann and Michael Dreeben. In government, incompetence is rewarded. Dreeben argued that it was an aggressive case, but warranted. The Supreme Court unanimously overruled that position but it was too late to save the firm.

Supreme Court wrote:

Even “persuad[ing]” a person “with intent to … cause” that person to “withhold” testimony or documents from the Government is not inherently malign. Under ordinary circumstances, it is not wrongful for a manager to instruct his employees to comply with a valid document retention policy, even though the policy, in part, is created to keep certain information from others, including the Government.

Mar 14 2018

President Trump Visits San Diego To Review Border Wall Prototypes (Video)…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on March 13, 2018 by

President Donald Trump traveled to San Diego today for a tour of eight border wall prototypes today along with a speech to members of the military at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar.

This is President Trumps first trip to California as president. The peoples’ president spent about an hour reviewing the 30-foot wall segments near the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump’s promise of building a border wall was the primary visible promise made during the 2016 presidential campaign trail. As president, he has been steadfast in his push for the completed project.

“If you don’t have a wall system, we’re not going to have a country,” Trump said at the site of the prototypes. “There’s a lot of problems in Mexico. They have a lot of problems over there. And they have the cartels. And we’re fighting the cartels, and we’re fighting them hard. … But the fact is, if you don’t have a wall system, it would be bedlam, I imagine.”

Mar 14 2018

Rex Tillerson Removed as Secretary of State…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on March 13, 2018 by

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson did an excellent job representing the professional and deliberate diplomatic approach of the U.S. and President Trump administration.  His personal view toward foreign service on behalf of the U.S. was exemplary, and deserves high praise.

Having said that, as President Trump stated earlier today, there was also more than a tinge of disunity between the advocated views of Tillerson and the views of the Commander in Chief toward economic national security.   At times the fractures between policy perspectives were visible.  Over time those differences became more obvious.

As Secretary of the DoS Rex Tillerson supported the Paris Climate Treaty; the President did not; Secretary Tillerson supported the Obama administration’s Iran deal; the President did not; Tillerson was more apologetic toward lax immigration policy; the President is not; and there were other visible departures visible surrounding the use of economic leverage to achieve national security advancements, specifically on the issue of China and North Korea policy.

The primary perspective, drawing the greatest contrast, surrounded President Trump’s view and expressed policy of emphasizing strength; particularly economic strength – to gain national security objectives.

After many years of projected weakness by the former administration one of the key tenets of the Trump presidency has been reestablishing national security by focusing on unapologetic U.S. economic power regardless of global opinion therein.

Unapologetic economic power is where the views of President Trump and Secretary Tillerson parted.  T-Rex projected more of a humble and altruistic approach; almost seeming embarrassed at times to participate in discussions of economic conflict and confrontation.  Indeed it often seemed awkward for Mr. Tillerson as he carries a less confrontational and more servant-minded constitution.

While he is not a pure ‘globalist’ per se’, Secretary Tillerson was less deliberate toward achieving territorial economic goals as a method to achieve geopolitical national security.  On matters surrounding these issues, T-Rex was more Wall Street than Main Street; more traditionally republican than change-agent populist.

Despite the media’s inability to see the severity of perspective, President Trump is not going to be swayed on matters of national economics.  POTUS Trump will listen to alternate opinions based on current events, but his forward advancement toward U.S. economic security will not be slowed by high-minded analysis leading to paralysis.   Within his outlook, always in the back of his mind, the clock is ticking… there’s an inherent sense of urgency.

Forcing economic change to enhance the territorial economic security of middle-America requires the ability of the change-agent to ignore the feelings and sensibilities of outside nations who will be confronted in the process.  Diplomacy must be set aside when entering the predatory world of massive trillion dollar economic deals.  There is no room for friends and comfort here, after thirty years of inept acquiescence, from President Trump’s perspective, winning is the only acceptable outcome.

Stopping the exfiltration of American wealth demands severity: “we either have a country or we don’t.”  Within that dynamic the value of diplomacy is necessarily lessened in favor of more deliberate and unapologetic policy advancement.  Inside that dynamic President Trump and Secretary Tillerson did not agree – and that is a major point of disunity.

As Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has stated several times: “economic security is national security.”   President Trump fundamentally believes that our national security requires independent U.S. economic security.  Everything is downstream from the economics of the issue, any issue, regardless of the issue – foreign or domestic.

Carrying a sense of urgency toward these national security issues, delicate sensibilities -and the opinion of the media who protect them- are necessarily dispatched like a feather in a hurricane.  Again, “we have no choice”, as often heard from President Trump.

Going into year #2 of the administration the current emphasis is a structural reset in the U.S. approach toward global trade.  “Killers” are of value now; thirty years of talking and losing is over.  As such inside this seismic trade-policy-shift, a parallel geopolitical strategy is being played out from the Middle-East through allies in Europe and into Asia around the rarely moved cornerstones of economics and trade.

National liberty, that is actual liberty – not the perception of liberty, is directly tied to economic victory.  During this reset there are only two groups: predators and prey.

Confronting China (Xi Jinping) economically was/is what brought North Korea (Kim Jong-Un) to the table of discussion to give up their nuclear ambitions; it was not diplomacy that created the breakthrough conditions for a national security win.  What brought China/DPRK to this position was the very real possibility of looming economic defeat.  President Trump’s approach won, Secretary Tillerson was surprised.

President Trump has aligned his economic opponents into his preferred geography. Everyone within sight is either an adversary or an ally.  However, allies are now reduced to being benefactors who will smartly get out of the way while the apex predators destroy their opposition.  Year two is about resolving to achieve economic victory regardless of international collateral damage. There is no longer any room for negotiating terms.  Diplomats retreat to the hilltops.  The era of economic Titans has come again.

Final point – When approaching specific goals and objectives President Trump works through a strategy based on phases.  President Trump doesn’t retain people past their expended usefulness.  Rex Tillerson did an outstanding job as Secretary of State introducing the Trump administration to nations’ of the world.

The diplomatic introductions and niceties are now complete; it’s time to get down to business.

Mar 14 2018

Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson Press Conference – 2:00pm Livestream…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on March 13, 2018 by

Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is scheduled to hold a press conference moments from now to discuss current events including his exit from the Dept. of State and his replacement by CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

UPDATE: Video Added

PBS News Livestream – NBC News Livestream – CBS News Livestream

Mar 13 2018

Will US Companies Repatriating Cash Home Create Banking Crisis Outside USA?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Banking Crisis

Re-Posted Mar 13, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

 

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; Do you believe that if American companies do repatriate dollars to get the low tax rate in the USA, will this impact foreign banks as capital withdraws? I figured you are the best qualified to answer that question nobody seems to be discussing.

Thank you for sharing your expertise.

SY

ANSWER: That is a very interesting question and it is indeed unique. I cannot think of anyone who has asked that one yet.  Let us assume that U.S. corporations will repatriate at least 25% of their estimated US$2.6 trillion of offshore funds to take advantage of a one-off 14% tax holiday. It will not matter if they are selling euros, yen, pounds, or yuan. Switching their fund from the offshore dollar funding markets to domestic dollars will have a similar impact to the same trend that took place between 1980 and 1985 that drove the dollar to all-time record highs.

American corporations moving capital sends a powerful impulse through global finance system. Despite the rise of China and the creation of the euro, the world has never been so “dollarized” as it is today. The euro is a complete failure for there is no single market with a centralize debt to compete with the dollar as an alternative. China is rising, but it is not ready for prime time. There is no alternative to the dollar. That is the real crisis in the world economy.

U.S. lending rates are critical to the world economy. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) says offshore dollar funding has risen fivefold to US$10.7 trillion since the early 2000s, with a further US$14 trillion of global dollar debt hidden in derivatives. BIS research also confirms that the rise and fall of the dollar is the major cycle of dollar liquidity which is driving the world’s investment appetite and global asset prices. This liquidity spigot is clearly being turned off. The Fed is not only raising rates, it is also reversing bond purchases exactly OPPOSITE of the ECB which openly admits it will repurchase government debt as it expires. The Fed is shrinking its balance sheet while the ECB is trapped and cannot dare take the same steps.

The BIS is warning that China, Canada, and Hong Kong all have the risk of banking failures that are greater than that of Europe. Apple Inc. said it will bring hundreds of billions of overseas dollars back to the U.S., pay about $38 billion in taxes on the money and spend tens of billions on domestic jobs, manufacturing and data centers in the coming years. That is more than a quarter-trillion. The answer is YES – ABSOLUTELY. US companies will bring back a substantial amount of that money and this will reduce deposits overseas and that will increase the risks of bank failures outside the USA, but probably more so in Asia than Europe. The ECB will most likely prop-up banks no matter what it says.

Mario Draghi will NOT stop Quantitative Easing and he WILL NOT raise rates until he can get out the door. His term at the ECB is for 8 years and sources say he cannot wait to leave. Draghi will extend his signature landmark bond-buying stimulus programme that is just life-support for the member governments at least September 2018 officially but indefinitely until he leaves. He does not want to be blamed for the economic disaster he has created for the world and as such he is trapped in the ECB until October 2019. The question will be can he really keep up this insane losing position that much longer or will the entire house of cards come crashing down.

So look first to bank failure on the rise in Asia, and they will spread to Europe. Nonetheless, there is deep concern about Italian banks and that may be the spark which ignites the next catastrophe.

Mar 13 2018

BUSTED: Former Director Of National Intelligence, James Clapper, Caught Lying During CNN Broadcast…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on March 13, 2018 by

It is easy to get lost in the weeds if you don’t follow the details closely; however, last night James Clapper appeared on CNN to defend himself against mounting evidence he leaked, and falsified the content of a presidential briefing of an Intelligence Discussion -including the “Steele Dossier”- to CNN January 9th or 10th 2017. [Full Recent Backstory]

Before getting to the CNN/James Clapper video, it’s important to revisit the specific sequence of events. It is difficult to spot lies if you don’t have events to reference. Here’s a recap of the exact timeline of events from 2017:

♦Friday January 6th – DNI James Clapper, CIA John Brennan, FBI James Comey and NSA Mike Rogers briefed President-Elect Trump on their Joint Analysis Report of the Russian Election interference. (link) [POTUS-Elect released a statement]
♦Tuesday January 10th – CNN runs an explosive story (Jake Tapper) and article about Intelligence Officials briefing President Trump about the Steele Dossier. (link)
♦Tuesday January 10th – (Moments later) At 5:20pm Buzzfeed uses the CNN story as an excuse to publish the Steele Dossier.
♦Wednesday January 11th – The Trump transition team states the content of the CNN story [claiming President-Elect Trump was briefed on the Dossier] was false.
♦Wednesday January 11th – (same day) President Trump blasts CNN for pushing “fake news” about their story; P-Elect saying he was not briefed on the “dossier”.
♦Wednesday January 11th – (same day) NBC independently refutes the content of the prior day CNN story. Trump wasn’t briefed on dossier the Friday prior. (link)
♦Wednesday January 11th – (same day) FOX News independently refutes the content of the prior day CNN story. Again, Trump wasn’t briefed on dossier. (link)
♦Wednesday January 11th – (same day – EVENING) DNI James Clapper puts out a press release and affirms he only told the President-elect of the IC position on the Steele Dossier moments before. (January 11th – NOT January 6th) (link)

That’s the cited sequence of events, and the copy of the Press Statement by ODNI James Clapper for verification [Archived Link Here]  Pay close attention to the wording above.

Recapping: On Tuesday January 10th, 2017, CNN stated President-Elect Trump was briefed on the dossier.  An hour later Buzzfeed was publishing the dossier. The next day, Wednesday January 11th, President Trump said he was not briefed on the dossier.  NBC confirmed Trump wasn’t briefed.  Fox News confirmed Trump wasn’t briefed. Later that night, again Wednesday January 11th, DNI James Clapper notes in his statement he just briefed the President-elect on the dossier moments before.

Now, here’s James Clapper last night (March 12th, 2018) talking to CNN’s Don Lemon. It is important to pay attention to the details of this denial and the transparent motive behind why Clapper would try to cloud the events. Here’s the Clapper Interview:

.

The two things you’ll immediately note are that Clapper has the dates wrong, likely intentionally wrong, and Clapper is intentionally misleading on the sequence.

Clapper stated to Don Lemon POTUS-Elect Trump blasted the media on January 10th prior to the CNN/Buzzfeed story.  This is false.  The Trump Media “Nazi” Press Conference was Wednesday January 11th, the day AFTER the CNN story ran and Buzzfeed put out the dossier. For a reminder Watch:

.

Is Clapper “lying” or is he “intentionally misleading”, your choice on the definition.

However, given the nature of his adverse relationship with the truth -and Clapper’s motive to lower his risk as an identified intelligence leaker- he no longer gets the benefit of the doubt.  James Clapper is intentionally lying.

Lastly, and very importantly; please look closely at the highlighted sentence within this January 11th, 2017, James Clapper press release:

Note: “The IC has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable”.

This was January 11th, 2017.   How does that statement from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper square with the Intelligence Community using that  “document”, the “Steele Dossier”, to the FISA Court three months prior, on October 26th, 2016, to obtain a FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant?

If the IC had not found the information in the document reliable by January 11th 2017, then what the heck were they doing using it for a FISA warrant in October 2016?

This is probably the single most important (and clear-cut) piece of evidence that proves the DOJ and FBI were falsifying the validity of the Steele Dossier to the FISA Court.

Any questions?