President Trump sends antagonistic media into spastic fits, and pearl-clutching circle-running, with a single tweet about Michael Flynn.  Epic:

Praetorian professional punditry immediately jump into their “he can’t” routine, filled with protestations about poor judgement and the risk of commenting on an on-going investigation, and such… blah, blah, blah…  However, what seemingly never crosses their mind is that: A) Everything asserted is 100% factual; and B) When there’s nothing to hide, there’s no risk.  D’oh, dummies.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the President-Elect’s Transition Team talking to any foreign government, or any official within any foreign government. Ever. Period.  Actually, that’s exactly what transition teams are supposed to do; they reach out and receive information from foreign government officials as the starting point to communication with a new administration.

Many people have asked the question why would Michael Flynn lied about talking to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the first place?

It’s a great question.

The Occam’s Razor answer is the toxic political environment that existed in January 2017, where the administration was being hammered by a tsunami of media narratives and political opposition claiming that any scintilla of contact with anything Russian meant that Putin and Trump were “colluding” BFF’s,…. and Flynn didn’t want to fuel that nonsense.

That’s really the only reason to mislead about Russian contacts.

And/or once Vice-President Mike Pence made the statement that Flynn had no contact with anyone from Russia etc. any contradictory statement from Flynn would make Pence appear compromised; so Flynn had to stick to it without clarification.

Reminder:

•Sunday January 15th – VP-elect Mike Pence appears on Face The Nation. [Transcript Here]

JOHN DICKERSON: But there’s a distinction between that feeling about the press and legitimate inquiry, as you say, that the Senate Intelligence Committee is doing. Just to button up one question, did any advisor or anybody in the Trump campaign have any contact with the Russians who were trying to meddle in the election?

MIKE PENCE: Of course not. And I think to suggest that is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy. (link)

[*NOTE* Notice the narrative questioning at the time (early Jan) was framed that ‘any contact’ with Russians was evidence of meddling/election-collusion with Russians.]

•Friday January 20th – Inauguration

•Tuesday January 24th – Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn was interviewed at the White House by the FBI.  [Either Flynn contradicts Pence, or he tells a lie, those were his options.]

•Wednesday January 25th –  The Department of Justice received a detailed readout from the FBI agents who had interviewed Flynn. Yates said she felt “it was important to get this information to the White House as quickly as possible.”

•Thursday January 26th – (morning) Yates called McGahn first thing that morning to tell him she had “a very sensitive matter” that had to be discussed face to face. McGahn agreed to meet with Yates later that afternoon.

•Thursday January 26th – (afternoon)  Sally Yates traveled to the White House along with a senior member of the DOJ’s National Security Division, Bill Priestap, who was overseeing the matter.  This was Yates’ first meeting with McGahn in his office, which also acts as a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF).

Yates said she began their meeting by laying out the media accounts and media statements made by Vice President Mike Pence and other high-ranking White House officials about General Flynn’s activity “that we knew not to be the truth.”

According to Sally Yates testimony, she and Bill Priestap reportedly presented all the information to McGahn so the White House could take action that they deemed appropriate.  When asked by McGahn if Flynn should be fired, Yates answered, “that really wasn’t our call.”

Yates also said her decision to notify the White House counsel had been discussed “at great length.”  According to her testimony: “Certainly leading up to our notification on the 26th, it was a topic of a whole lot of discussion in DOJ and with other members of the intel community.”

•Friday January 27th – (morning)  White House Counsel Don McGahn called Yates in the morning and asked if she could come back to his office.

•Friday January 27th – (late afternoon) According to her testimony, Sally Yates returned to the White House late that afternoon.  One of McGahn’s topics discussed was whether Flynn could be prosecuted for his conduct.

Specifically, according to Yates, one of the questions McGahn asked Yates was, “Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another?” She explained that it “was a whole lot more than that,” and reviewed the same issues outlined the prior day.

McGahn expressed his concern that taking action might interfere with the FBI investigation of Flynn, and Yates said it wouldn’t. “It wouldn’t really be fair of us to tell you this and then expect you to sit on your hands,” Yates had told McGahn.

McGahn asked if he could look at the underlying evidence of Flynn’s conduct, and she said they would work with the FBI over the weekend and “get back with him on Monday morning.”

•Friday January 27th – (evening) In what appears to be only a few hours later, President Trump is having dinner with FBI Director James Comey where President Trump asked if he was under investigation.

Now, accepting the politicization of the entire Russian Conspiracy Narrative that was leading the headlines for the two months prior to this dinner; and knowing moments earlier your Chief White House counsel informs you that two political operatives (Yates and Priestap) within the DOJ were providing classified intelligence reports about General Flynn; and knowing the prior months (Nov/Dec/Jan) were fraught with leaks from intelligence reports identical to those discussed;  wouldn’t you perhaps think that any action you take could be utilized to add fuel to this Russian narrative?  And/Or be used by these same leak facilitators to make something seem like something it is not?

Think about it.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has charged Flynn (full pdf below) with falsely telling FBI agents that he did not ask the ambassador “to refrain from escalating the situation” in response to the sanctions.

According to the plea, while being questioned by FBI agents on January 24, 2017, Flynn also lied when he claimed he could not recall a subsequent conversation with Kislyak, in which the ambassador told Flynn that the Putin regime had “chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of [Flynn’s] request.”

Furthermore, a week before the sanctions were imposed, Flynn had also spoken to Kislyak, asking the ambassador to delay or defeat a vote on a pending United Nations resolution. The criminal information charges that Flynn lied to the FBI by denying both that he’d made this request and that he’d spoken afterward with Kislyak about Russia’s response to it.

There was nothing wrong with the incoming national-security adviser’s having meetings with foreign counterparts or discussing such matters as the sanctions in those meetings. However, lying to the FBI is the process crime that has led to Flynn’s admissions herein:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/366062176/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-QHaNTpsHk3My0BRqqECU

Earlier this morning, while departing the White House for a fundraiser in New York, President Trump delivered remarks on last night’s historic senate tax vote.  Additionally, the President answered a question about Michael Flynn’s plea deal:

.

WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT: President Donald J. Trump applauds the Senate for passing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The Senators who voted for these historic tax cuts did a great service to their constituents as they supported putting America first, growing the economy, and rebuilding our great country.

The policies in this bill will cut taxes for hardworking families and put our economy on a path of sustainable economic prosperity and job creation. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reclaim Americas great destiny. The Administration looks forward to working with Congress to fulfill the promise we made to deliver historic tax cuts for the American people by the end of the year. (link)

UPDATE: 1:49am EST The final Senate Tax Reform Bill Passes 51-49.  Senator Bob Corker was the lone republican voting against the bill.

The U.S. Senate is currently voting on amendments to the Senate Tax Reform bill.  Senator Bob Corker previously announced he will not support the overall tax reform effort.  All other Republicans have indicated they will, at least generally, support the bill.

Before they can get to a final passage vote, Republicans need to go through a marathon voting session known as a “vote-a-rama,” where any senator can force a vote on any amendment:

.

Vice-President Mike Pence is anticipated to be on site in the Senate chamber for the final vote in case his tie-breaking vote is needed.

Yesterday we pointed out the reasons why the New York Times was making up ridiculous claims about President Trump replacing Secretary of State Rex Tillerson – SEE HERE –

If you are paying attention to the comprehensive Trump Doctrine you can specifically see how President Trump and T-Rex are an incredible partnership. [The swamp hates that.]

(Tweet Link – Instagram Link)

Additionally, if you expand the Trump/Tillerson geopolitical strategy circle of administration officials to include: U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, you really begin to see the most effective foreign policy team we have ever seen.

The Trump Doctrine is a brilliant geopolitical strategy of using economics to create national security outcomes favorable to the U.S., without having to use blood to achieve results.  The effectiveness of the approach embarrasses decades of professional diplomats who have been incapable of achieving results as purposeful as President Trump.

It’s both the pride and jealousy of lesser effective people that forms the basis of their antagonism toward President Trump and Secretary Tillerson.

To fully conceptualize the strategic policies of the Trump Doctrine in action its useful to see the fuller scope of everything. Action does not happen in a vacuum.  In the multidimensional economic-security approach, all of the economic cabinet officials play a critical role especially Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.

As an example, the sanctions against Venezuela, while targeted, are only one small outcropping of a much larger geopolitical strategy that U.S. President Trump initiated for the past ten months with jaw-dropping success:

From OPEC (Saudi Summit) to the EU and Baltic States (Poland Pre-G20); to North African energy development via President Macron (Libya and Mali); to walking away from the Paris Climate agreement; to discussions with Theresa May on a bilateral trade deal; to massive shipments of coal to U.K. and France; to closing a deal to deliver Ireland massive amounts of Texas LNG; to our own internal U.S. energy production policy with pipelines, Oil, Coal and Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) etc.

President Trump has used all of those “allied” relationships to lower global energy prices.

The bigger part of the ‘big-missed-picture‘ was how that energy strategy impacted adversaries like Russia, Iran, China and more recently Venezuela; while simultaneously supporting the larger America-First economic and geopolitical goals.

President Trump thinks seriously long-term, and really BIG picture.

Global energy, mostly oil, fuels the expansionist and interventionist structure that builds the very foundation of our geopolitical adversaries’ ability to continue their global influence. Diminish the value of oil and Donald Trump puts the squeeze on the financial resources of those nations dependent on energy as income.

Most of our current geopolitical adversaries Russia, Iran and Venezuela are dependent on high energy prices. Secondly, the downstream economic adversaries are dependent on high energy prices to maintain their economic position and alliances. As examples: China (as an geopolitical influence agent), and Mexico (as a NAFTA trade parasite), hold adverse interests to the U.S. on trade.

President Trump, by pressuring global energy prices downward, has fractured the ability of energy producing nations to influence their own geopolitical strategy. Trump has diminished their most powerful tool.

As a consequence, economic adversaries like China are put into a position of having to spend more money, directly, to aid their allies and to maintain their influence.

Think about how much financial strain is on China currently.  North Korea is entirely financially dependent on China; Pakistan is financially dependent on China’s continued investment; Mexico is financially dependent on Chinese investment; Venezuela is dependent on Chinese loans and oil purchases; etc., etc. the list goes on.   The Trump Doctrine is confronting these relationships through economics.  Each of these relationships is bleeding out money from China.

Conversely, on the income side of China’s ledgers, they are dependent on manufacturing and trade to keep their revenue stream viable.  The Trump Doctrine of renegotiated trade relationships is also confronting China on the revenue side.  China needs our market to sell their goods; China is dependent on access to the U.S. $20 trillion trade market.

See the squeeze?

The Trump Doctrine of using economic strategy is forcing China to spend more and yet simultaneously they are facing less income.   And remember, as a combined result of their dependency on international trade and a trade surplus with the U.S., China’s central bank vault holds “dollars”.

China’s #1 threat, if you want to call it that, would be to dump dollars to retaliate against what President Trump is doing.  However, if the value of the dollar drops, China has less value in their vault, and a lower dollar actually helps our exports.

It’s a three way geopolitical and financial squeeze.

Now, back to Venezuela – The United States was the only remaining cash purchaser of Venezuela oil.  Both China and Russia purchase Maduro’s oil, however their current purchases are/were all made as offsets, repayments, for prior loans.  It doesn’t generate additional revenue for Maduro if China and Russia to purchase more oil, it only pays down the Venezuelan debt.

♦When the threat is Sunni Extremism, the problem was/is the Muslim Brotherhood and the enabling of Qatar. Trump assigned responsibility for solving that issue to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council. It is the GCC who are confronting Qatar, not the United States.

♦When the threat is Syria’s chemical weapon, the problem was/is the Assad regime and ISIS. Trump assigned responsibility for solving that issue to Russia; Russia initially refused to solve it, so Trump bombed the shit out of Assad – Russia/Assad took ownership, the chemical weapon use stopped; further action was not needed by the United States.

♦When the threat is DPRK’s nuclear weapons, the problem was/is Kim Jong-un and the enabling China. Trump assigned responsibility for solving that immediate threat to China. It was Beijing who is working to get Kim Jong-un to stand down. Not just the United States.

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn releases a statement following his plea agreement with Special Counsel Robert Mueller:

It would appear, as CTH has predicted for well over a year, that Flynn brokered a deal with Robert Mueller to admit to misleading statements to the FBI in exchange for Mueller agreeing not to prosecute Flynn for his FARA (lobbying) violations.

As CTH warned in November of 2016 Flynn was involved in lobbying efforts on behalf of the Turkish government.  The financial constructs surrounding the payments to Flynn were sketchy, very sketchy.  CTH anticipated this sketchy behavior would come back to bite Flynn and -by extension- could be an issue for the White House if he took a high level position.  None of that had anything whatsoever to do with the fictitious vast Russian conspiracy story.

It is increasingly clear that Mueller used the sketchy financial arrangement between Turkey and Flynn -specifically how Flynn maneuvered the money- as the leverage in the unrelated Russian conspiracy investigation.

Giving Flynn a pass on his failure to register the arrangement under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and the banking issues (possibly IRS trouble), gets Robert Mueller a dual benefit.

Benefit #1 – Robert Mueller gets Flynn as a notch on his political belt and; Benefit #2 simultaneously sets up a scenario where he can allow Tony Podesta et al, to skate prosecution for similar illegal and sketchy lobbying activity.

This dual benefit approach would, essentially, be an escape valve for Muller to comply with the leverage the Clinton Crime Syndicate have over him (Uranium One etc.) and protect John and Tony Podesta from criminal investigation over their illegal lobbying constructs.

No doubt Mueller would like to shake his way out from under the Clinton controlled Sword of Damocles.

Conversely, the failure of Mueller to indict the Podesta brothers becomes favorable leverage for Paul Manafort who is criminally accused of the same conduct Tony Podesta has thus far avoided.

No doubt Manafort’s legal team would contrast the politics of Mueller charging Manafort for almost identical activity Mueller is unwilling to charge Podesta of.

As we have shared from the beginning – this is all about DC politics, not judicial crimes in the same vein as everyone else would be charged.

You cannot view the current action through the transactional prism of modern judicial proceedings as they relate to you and me. These are political struggles taking place inside the venue of the legal system. The players use the legal system to game out the optics and narrative of political battles for ideological wins and losses.

In essence, this is about leverage for political use.

The 2016 election caused the balance of power to shift favorably toward political forces that are external to the DC machine, ie. President Trump and the deplorables.

The subsequent action by Robert Mueller, Democrats, the Media (writ large), and President Trump is a confrontation over political goals and objectives. The DC machine, the “swamp” per se’, is attempting to frame leverage against actions adverse to their political interest.

The Sword of Damocles is swinging, President Trump is fanning the candle flame and Robert Mueller is attempting to reinforce the horsehair.

The charging documents unsealed in the Manafort indictment are a case study in leverage and narrative exploitation. To save time, and rather than go through the entire indictment, Andrew McCarthy has a good deconstruction OUTLINED HERE.  The charging documents today against Michael Flynn represent a similar leveraged construct. Again, Andrew McCarthy has a solid outline on the issues SEE HERE.

Paul Manafort is being leveraged toward a political objective; his legal jeopardy is negligible. The documents, and the underlying charges, are intended to make life miserable for Mr. Manafort – not to end with some traditionally framed criminal consequence, ie. prison.

Likewise Michael Flynn was being leveraged toward a similar political objective; his legal jeopardy is just as minimal, but Flynn is not as well-off as Manafort, thus the plea agreement was likely driven as much by money as it was the underlying unfounded and inconsequential nature of the entire accusation to the larger issue of ‘Muh Russia‘.

Both Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort’s wealth were/are being held as leverage, compliance, toward acquiescence within the game; nothing more. Both likely end up with some charge, a financial fine good enough for media optics and perhaps -at worst- some probation for not following the FARA rules (Manafort). That’s it.

Conversely, on the other side of the political continuum, Tony and John Podesta are within the leverage process yet hold the larger political clout of the Clinton Crime Syndicate.   Like Manafort and Flynn, Tony Podesta most likely will not face legal jeopardy, if any at all, beyond a similar outcome; thanks in part to Podesta’s connection to the deeper part of the swamp where the Clinton Crime Syndicate previously held court.

In the bigger picture of the Clinton dynamic you have Robert Mueller putting that deeper part of the Deep Swamp and remaining black hat intelligence community, on notice to knock-it-off with the selling of U.S. policy toward gaining their own financial indulgences. Mueller is generally positioning himself to exhaust all of the player’s political leverage.

K-Street lobbyists, writ large, are also part of the intended recipient group of this message. There’s also a part of this dynamic where the familiar tug-of-war between Clinton camps and Obama camps are playing out within the party apparatus.

You can spot the internecine “leverage/tug-of-war” within the original Washington Post (intelligence community leak) sacrificing Clinton to protect Obama over the Fusion GPS funding; in direct connection to Tony Podesta leaving the (Clinton Matrix of Influence) Podesta Group lobbying firm.

The optical play is to create somewhat of a narrative where Podesta is to Clinton as Manafort/Flynn is to Trump.

Setting aside the Clinton leverage over Mueller for a moment, this is the magnanimous and patriotic legacy optic Robert Mueller is trying to project by playing the role of Solomon, splitting the baby and giving each political group a narrative for their purposes.

In the background Mueller also appears to want foreign policy influence sales, and the larger risk from foreign policy influence sales becoming dangerous to U.S. policy, stopped. Unfortunately, Mueller previously exposed himself to this toxic process (Uranium One) and to this day carries some of the infection with him.

Selling U.S. foreign policy for money and ideological benefit is damned dangerous. However, there are billions of dollars to be made in the process therein.

It still seems as if Robert Mueller, while compromised by his conduct in prior administrations’ who engaged in this process, is trying to position himself as The Good Shepherd and break the leverage holdings of the various political camps.

In addition to taking away all of the ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ leverage cards, this is also the theater of pure politics. Optics are everything in DC and political narratives are built from inferences as well as reality.  If President Trump has political leverage he can execute his agenda; if Pelosi/Schumer have political leverage they can block Trump’s agenda. In many ways Robert Mueller is mediating the ideological battle through the prism of his role within the system.

Again, the gamesmanship -currently being pitched through the media- is about political leverage. That leverage in DC is traded like baseball cards amid the upper tier of those who float in an entirely different orbit of influence from everyone else.

Chuck Schumer plays out his knowledge of the current situation by claiming “Trump needs to stay away from Mueller”. The media sells Schumer’s claim as if Bad Trump would impede an investigation; but that’s not the accurate dynamic.

Senator Schumer wants to keep his leverage right where it is currently; and stop ‘his side’ from feeling the effects of Mueller’s legal admonishments. If Mueller indicts Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort Pelosi/Schumer have political leverage.  If Mueller focuses on Tony Podesta Pelosi/Schumer lose political leverage.

Nothing about the current dynamic is factually encompassing President Trump; it is all about optics, narratives and political leverage. However, everything about this dynamic is factually encompassing the existential threat that outsider Trump represents to the established way of life in the DC Swamp.

Toward the end goal of disrupting DC swamp-life, Mueller and Trump appear aligned in common cause.  Robert Mueller from the perspective of trying to get the external influence agents to the U.S. stopped and retrieving all existing leverage; and President Trump from the policy perspective of America-first, which coincidentally is in alignment with Mueller’s projected patriotic goals to stop influence agents.

That’s the bigger part of the BIG picture.  Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

Again, if you drop the legal prism and review everything from the perspective of gaining or losing political leverage it all makes sense.

“Today, Michael Flynn, a former National Security Advisor at the White House for 25 days during the Trump Administration, and a former Obama administration official, entered a guilty plea to a single count of making a false statement to the FBI.

“The false statements involved mirror the false statements to White House officials which resulted in his resignation in February of this year.

Nothing about the guilty plea or the charge implicates anyone other than Mr. Flynn. The conclusion of this phase of the Special Counsel’s work demonstrates again that the Special Counsel is moving with all deliberate speed and clears the way for a prompt and reasonable conclusion.”

~ Ty Cobb,  (statement above) Attorney for President Trump

Former National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to a process crime of lying to FBI investigators about the content of a December 29th phone call with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak. The conversation occurred the same day that then-president Barack Obama announced sanctions against Russia for its interference in the 2016 election.

This is the same misleading information that led to the White House firing Michael Flynn.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has charged Flynn (full pdf below) with falsely telling FBI agents that he did not ask the ambassador “to refrain from escalating the situation” in response to the sanctions.

According to the plea, while being questioned by FBI agents on January 24, 2017, Flynn also lied when he claimed he could not recall a subsequent conversation with Kislyak, in which the ambassador told Flynn that the Putin regime had “chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of [Flynn’s] request.”

Furthermore, a week before the sanctions were imposed, Flynn had also spoken to Kislyak, asking the ambassador to delay or defeat a vote on a pending United Nations resolution. The criminal information charges that Flynn lied to the FBI by denying both that he’d made this request and that he’d spoken afterward with Kislyak about Russia’s response to it.

There was nothing wrong with the incoming national-security adviser’s having meetings with foreign counterparts or discussing such matters as the sanctions in those meetings. However, lying to the FBI is the process crime that has led to Flynn’s admissions herein:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/366062176/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-QHaNTpsHk3My0BRqqECU

As Andrew McCarthy writes:

If Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador had evinced the existence of a quid pro quo collusion arrangement — that the Trump administration would ease or eliminate sanctions on Russia as a payback for Russia’s cyber-espionage against the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic party — it would have been completely appropriate, even urgently necessary, for the Obama Justice Department to investigate Flynn.

But if that had happened, Mueller would not be permitting Flynn to settle the case with a single count of lying to FBI agents. Instead, we would be looking at a major conspiracy indictment, and Flynn would be made to plead to far more serious offenses if he wanted a deal — cooperation in exchange for sentencing leniency. To the contrary, for all the furor, we have a small-potatoes plea in Flynn’s case — just as we did in Papadopoulos’s case.

It is becoming increasingly palpable that, whatever “collusion” means, there was no actionable, conspiratorial complicity by the Trump campaign in the Kremlin’s machinations. (read more)

 

We’ve had ENOUGH !  Just Build It…

Deep State Swamp Hits Back

The New York Times narrative engineers: Maggie Haberman, Peter Baker and Gardiner Harris are attempting to create division between President Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in an entirely manufactured hit piece against the Trump administration.

According to their script, which again requires “anonymous or invisible sources“, the White House is considering a replacement for Secretary of State Tillerson.

Nonsense.

Beyond the customary pro-active contingency plans, that are always in place for succession planning amid top level leadership, the narrative as being distributed is 100% pure agenda-driven horsepucky.

The media agenda here is clear.  Secretary of State Rex is methodically downsizing the State Department and reversing the current mission of the agency away from interventionist globalism, and back toward common sense foreign policy.

The position of hundreds of pontificating sanctimonious career bureaucrats are being dissolved.  The Deep State is being deconstructed and the globalists are apoplectic.

That reality has created the need for left-wing propaganda pushers like the New York Times to create narratives to defend their Deep State Swamp interests. Nothing more.

Additionally, the objective in this media endeavor is a familiar pattern; try to create a self fulfilling prophecy by creating division between the ranks of key administration officials. In these efforts the Murdoch Clan (Fox News) is in direct alignment with the Slim Clan (New York Times).

Remember, the entrenched swamp professional political embeds from the State Dept leak to CNN and the New York Times.  The Intel embeds leak to the Washington Post.

To drive the wedge between T-Rex and President Trump the NYT relies on dredging up old previously used division stories and attempt to present them as a backdrop for their renewed efforts.  THIS TOO WILL FAIL.

We noted yesterday the first indications that something was shuffling around in the shadows near the horizon.  President Trump has pushed through all attempts to destabilize his agenda advancement.

With momentum in the tax reform agenda and with economic reality of a growing economy, POTUS Trump has the aggregate political enemy on its heels. It should be obvious to political followers now how the collective DC UniParty apparatus attempts to reposition when in retreat.

The GOPe and Democrat opposition, the UniParty, utilize their familiar media engineers to push back.  That’s why we saw Marco Rubio on the FOX TeeVee last night with his Rubio/Schumer amendment (Rubio and Schumer… I mean c’mon, duh), and that also leads toward this insufferable New York Times attack approach.

It’s all connected.

The “Big Ugly” is a 360° battlespace.

There’s a big con job just over the horizon.  All of the elements are there.  The timing, the platform, the personalities, the discussion topics, etc., it’s a familiar script.  CTH would like to direct attention to this interview which took place last night on Laura Ingraham’s new Fox News show.  Listen carefully to three elements:

♦On Tax Reform – on one side of Rubio’s ‘full-throated‘ mouth he wants higher taxes on corporations 22% -vs- 20%. In the almost the same breath, inside the same argument, he says “it’s not their (the government’s) money”.   Try to reconcile that.

♦On DACA – [Remember, three months ago President Trump gave congress six months to fix DACA]  Rubio says the “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) program is not the “Dreamers”.  What? Yes it is. The childhood arrivals ARE the so-called ‘dreamers’.

♦However, much more importantly, listen to what is said on “chain migration“.  Ingraham asks if Rubio supports “chain migration”.   Rubio says no, then immediately says: “I’ve always agreed to limiting chain migration to immediate family members”. WHAT? That is chain migration.

Laura Ingraham suffers from the same interview issue as Sean Hannity. Both conduct interviews where they ask questions but are not listening. Instead, they are waiting to talk. There’s a big difference.

Given the nature of the topics, and the interview on Fox, and knowing the specifics of the 2013/2014 immigration agenda of the Murdoch family specifically on Fox… and the relationship between Murdoch and Rubio… there’s justifiable room for skepticism and cynicism in the narrative construct of this entire interview.

Any reasonable person, receiving those responses, would have called Marco Rubio out for those three jaw-dropping, virtually simultaneous, hypocritical and mutually exclusive positions… Especially the last one on chain migration. Yet Laura Ingraham skipped right over them as if the answers provided were irrelevant and she was simply checking off a list.  [Insert Suspicious Cat Here]

Something is going on in DC that precipitated this interview.

Battered Conservative No-More !