Mrs. Beverly Young Nelson has finally admitted that she personally wrote a portion of the infamous high school yearbook she and her attorney Gloria Allred used as proof of her accusations against U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore. Nelson’s tenuous credibility is now entirely gone.
However, in a similar blow to credibility, ABC News, the network of Brian Ross, downplayed the bombshell by presenting the admission of forgery as adding ‘notes’ to the inscription. The ABC narrative engineer actually coaches Mrs. Nelson, putting words in her mouth, and attempting to downplay the enormous significance of her deceit.
Roy Moore presser below:
Mrs. Beverly Nelson now admits she added the signature and other material in an effort to deceive the audience.
Last night news broke that U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras “has been recused” from the case overseeing the prosecution of General Mike Flynn. Details are vague. According to Reuters, both the judge and the Flynn legal team have yet to comment.
Additionally, there is no concrete answer as to whether the recusal was done by the judge himself or was forced upon him. While the reasoning is the key, the difference between the two options adds another layer of consequence within the rest of this outline. Reuters News Service puts it this way:
(Reuters) – The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia judge presiding over the criminal case for President Donald Trump’s former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has been recused from handling the case, a court spokeswoman said on Thursday.
According to a court filing, U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, who presided over a Dec. 1 hearing where Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about his contacts with Russia, will no longer handle the case.
Court spokeswoman Lisa Klem did not say why Contreras was recused, and added that the case was randomly reassigned. Reuters could not immediately learn the reason for the recusal, or reach Contreras. An attorney for Flynn declined to comment. (Link)
Obviously, the customary reason for recusal is when there is a conflict of interest between the case as assigned and the judge overseeing it. However, as you can clearly see, in this case it’s rather odd that if a conflict existed the judge would have even begun to oversee the case at the prior hearing. Why wait until six days after the first hearing?
As to the reasoning for the recusal, and stressed against the backdrop of the new information surrounding the investigative practices of the DOJ and FBI, this recusal is potentially both a game-changer and a massive dose of sunlight.
Judge Contreras was in the position of approving FISA warrants at the time when FBI Deputy Head of Counterintelligence, FBI Agent Peter Strzok was assembling the underlying information for the FISA warrant used against candidate Trump.
There is a very real possibility that Judge Contreras signed off on the FISA warrant in October 2016 that initiated the counterintelligence wiretapping and surveillance of the Trump campaign. That wiretapping and surveillance ultimately led to the questioning of Michael Flynn; the consequence of which brings Flynn to Contreras courtroom.
However, before getting to those ramifications it is important to step back for a moment and review the former March 20th, 2017, congressional testimony of FBI Director James Comey.
We have drawn attention to this testimony frequently, because it is one of the few times when congress has pinned Comey down and made him commit to specifics. In fact, for an otherwise innocuous congressional hearing, this specific segment has been viewed over 400,000 times. When we understand the importance of the content – we accept that perhaps even James Comey’s own lawyers have watched it repeatedly.
The first three minutes of this video are what is important. As you watch this testimony remember to overlay what you know now against the James Comey statements from nine months ago.
I would particularly draw your attention to the timeline as Comey describes (counterintelligence investigation beginning in July 2016); and also to pay attention to the person Comey assigns responsibility for keeping congress out of the loop on oversight. Comey points to the DOJ’s National Security Division Head who is in charge of the counterintelligence operations, Bill Priestap. However, Comey doesn’t use Priestap’s name:
…”it’s usually the decision of the head of our counterintelligence division”.
Everything happens in the first THREE MINUTES:
.
It’s obvious James Comey was not anticipating that line of questioning. His discomfort and obfuscation pours out within his words and body language. However, from that testimony we gain insight which we can add to the latest information.
We know the DNC and Clinton Campaign commissioned opposition research in April of 2016 through Fusion GPS, who sub-contracted Christopher Steele. Between April and July of 2016 the retired MI6 agent put together opposition research on Donald Trump centered around a claimed network of dubious and sketchy Russian contacts.
Notice the FBI counterintelligence operation began in July 2016. That directly and specifically lines up with the recent discoveries surrounding Deputy Head of Counterintelligence, FBI Agent Peter Strzok and the new information about Agent Strzok having direct contact with Christopher Steele, the author for the “Russian Dossier”.
Additionally, the July 2016 time-frame lines up with candidate Donald Trump winning the GOP nomination, and also the first application for a wiretapping and surveillance warrant to the FISA court which was unusually denied by a FISA judge.
Very few FISA requests are ever denied. Actually, only like 1 out of 100 are denied. So for a FISA request to be denied, there had to be a really compelling reason to require more than the traditional amount of FBI/DOJ due diligence within the request.
If you consider that monitoring associates within a presidential campaign would certainly be one of those types of requests which would lend a judge GREAT pause, well, perhaps the denial gains perspective. Certainly any FISA judge would easily understand the potential ramifications of the U.S. government conducting surveillance on a presidential campaign.
According to media reports in October of 2016 the full and completed Russian Dossier was being heavily shopped by Fusion GPS with payments toward journalists. Additionally, in October 2016, according to yesterday’s headlines: DOJ Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce G Ohr was outed and demoted because he too had conversations with Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS etc.
So in the month where a FISA Judge granted the warrant for wiretapping and surveillance, the FBI (via Agent Strzok), and DOJ (via Deputy AG Bruce Ohr), were both in contact with Russian Dossier author Christopher Steele.
October 2016 is EXACTLY when The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. As Andrew McCarthy pointed out months ago: “No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.” (link)
Are you seeing how the dots connect?
June/July 2016 a FISA request is denied. This is simultaneous to FBI agent Strzok initial contact with Christopher Steele and the preliminary draft of the dossier.
October 2016 a FISA request approved. This is simultaneous to agent Strzok and Assoc. Deputy AG Bruce G Ohr in contact with Christopher Steele and the full dossier.
It would be EXPLOSIVE if it turned out the FISA warrant was gained by deception, misleading/manipulated information, or fraud; and that warrant that led to the wiretapping and surveillance of General Flynn was authorized by FISA Court Judge Contreras – who would now be judge in Flynn’s case.
Is this the recusal reason?
Additionally, was that “Dossier” part of the collective intelligence gathering that led to the ridiculous (January 2017) “Russian Malicious Cyber Activity – Joint Analysis Report“? The report that attempted to give justification for the December 29th Russian sanctions, and made famous by the media falsely claiming 17 agencies agreed on the content.
Back to the timeline we go, and remember NSA head Admiral Mike Rogers was the one Intelligence Community official without *confidence* in the “Joint Analysis Report”.
On Tuesday November 8th, 2016 the election was held. Results announced Wednesday November 9th, 2016.
On Thursday November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Mike Rogers traveled to New York and met with President-Elect Donald Trump.
The next day, Friday November 18th, President Trump moved the transition team from Trump Tower to his golf course in New Jersey.
AND… On Friday November 18th The Washington Post reported on a recommendation from “October” that Mike Rogers be removed from his NSA position:
[…] In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower. (link)
Apparently, Mike Rogers never told his boss, James Clapper (or anyone else) he was going to see the president-elect. The recommendation to fire Mike Rogers (in October) was made by Defense Secretary Ash Carter and ODNI James Clapper “according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter.” October?
Is it entirely possible that NSA Director Mike Rogers, having seen the full scope of the intelligence, might have expressed reservations about the October FISA application content, and as a consequence positioned himself as a threat to the group plans?
So here we are in December of 2017. The Office of the Inspector General is currently working from the inside to investigate the politicization of the FBI and DOJ; and the IG is beginning to identify specific people: FBI Agent Strzok and DOJ Deputy AG Bruce G Ohr.
Meanwhile the oversight committees (Judiciary, Intelligence) are working from the outside of the corrupt organizations to spotlight the consequences from those identified people and highlight specific actionable behavior.
It’s all right there in front of everyone:
FBI Agent Peter Strzok’s former boss was Bill Priestap, FBI Asst. Director in charge of Counterintelligence. [The same Bill Priestap James Comey stated was the person who decided not to tell congressional oversight of the investigation] Bill Priestap’s boss was FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Directly above McCabe in the chain-of-command was FBI Director James Comey.
Inside the DOJ: Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce G Ohr’s former boss was Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. Sally Yates boss was Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
There’s the identified usurpers, and the political plan they utilized, with a common sense outline clear as day. Along with obvious official assistance from all of the personal staff under each official.
Back to the Flynn Case: (note the players)
•Friday January 20th – Inauguration
•TuesdayJanuary 24th – Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn was interviewed at the WH by the FBI (one of the interviewers was FBI Agent Peter Strzok).
•WednesdayJanuary 25th – The Department of Justice received a detailed readout from the FBI agents who had interviewed Flynn. Sally Yates said she felt “it was important to get this information to the White House as quickly as possible.”
•ThursdayJanuary 26th – (morning) Yates called White House Counsel Don 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.
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:
After House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes almost derailed the Muh Russian Collusion Conspiracy in March/April 2017, the UniParty pushed him into an ethics blender claiming he disclosed classified information.
As an outcome of his Chairmanship role Representative Nunes is also a member of the elite intelligence oversight team known as the Gang of Eight. Today, the House Ethics Committee cleared Nunes of any wrongdoing, and stated the information he discussed was not classified.
Chariman Nunes is now free to go full wolverine on the usurping intel agents.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives Ethics Committee on Thursday cleared the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee of charges that he had disclosed classified information, potentially clearing the way for him to resume leadership of the panel’s Russia investigation.
Republican Representative Devin Nunes, who had consistently denied wrongdoing, thanked the committee for its finding, but said the probe had taken too long and the accusations against him were politically motivated.
[…] Nunes criticized the ethics panel for taking “an unbelievable eight months” to dismiss the matter, and called on the panel to publicly release all transcripts related to his case. (read more)
President Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence met earlier today with congressional leadership: House Speaker Paul Ryan, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
[Video and Transcript of remarks below] When Nancy Pelosi began talking the look on VP Pence’s face is, well, priceless. Additionally, anticipating Pelosi and Schumer are going to hold up the budget by threatening military spending, the ever-strategic Trump invited General Mattis into the discussion so the Democrat leadership could tell him to his face why they would be willing to put American military lives at risk. Epic.
.
[ Transcript] 3:08 P.M. EST – THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. We’re all here as a very friendly, well-unified group. It’s a well-knit-together group of people. And we hope that we’re going to make some great progress for our country. I think that will happen, and we appreciate it very much.
And, Chuck, Nancy, would you say anything — like to say anything? Chuck?
LEADER SCHUMER: Well, we hope we can come to an agreement. Funding the government is extremely important, helping our soldiers is very important, and helping average citizens is very important.
So we’re here in the spirit of: let’s get it done.
LEADER PELOSI: Thank you, Mr. President, for this opportunity. We are here to make progress. We have some important issues that we share with you. You have described the opioid crisis in our country, and we want to address that; help our veterans; S-CHIP, children’s health insurance; and, again, all things that have bipartisan support in the Congress.
THE PRESIDENT: That’s very true. Thank you, Nancy, very much. Mitch.
LEADER MCCONNELL: Mr. President, we’re here to reach a bipartisan agreement to finish out the year. And I’m glad that you invited us. I’m happy to be here.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Paul.
SPEAKER RYAN: I’m glad we’re here to resume conversations.
THE PRESIDENT: Mike, you have anything?
LEADER SCHUMER: Each person has said less. (Laughter.)
SPEAKER RYAN: One sentence.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I’m grateful for the leaders of both political parties. This is a time of great opportunity in this country. We’re seeing growth at home, but we have many challenges abroad and many challenges facing the American people.
And I’m more confident than ever, Mr. President, with your leadership and with the good faith of all the people in this room, that before this Christmas we’ll produce real results for the American people that will make America stronger and more prosperous.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much. I thought that with what’s going on in the world, I would bring our great military genius/person along and maybe General Mattis could say a couple of words.
SECRETARY MATTIS: It’s an honor to be here with the leaders from the Hill. Sort of the number-one priority for our country is to make certain we protect this Constitution and our way of life. And we’ve got great bipartisan support. I’m confident we’ll walk out of this with it.
THE PRESIDENT: I am too. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you very much.
COMMENT: Mr. Armstrong; I am sure you are aware of the sudden correction to the hyped stories by ABC and CNN that a confidant of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn said that Flynn was prepared to testify that then-candidate Donald Trump instructed him to contact Russian officials. Of course, they twisted that directive when Trump had only instructed him to open a dialog with Russia to repair the damage of the Obama administration and not to interfere with the elections.
I purchased the DVD of the Forecaster from Amazon. OMG, what an eye-opener. The review of LA Weekly was amazing stating that your film is an espionage and duplicity thriller “as serpentine and fascinating as a John le Carré novel.” What you put out there how the United States interfered in the Russian election that resulted in Boris Yeltsin stepping down and how this put Putin into power exposes the hypocrisy of the Deep State. I bought 10 movies for Xmas gifts.
Thank you for surviving. I was told by another client of yours that everyone else around was killed.
KW
ANSWER: Oh yes. Everyone surrounding this case was killed on the Safra side. Putin knew I refused to join that crowd. That is why they would never go to a trial. Can you imagine if this was ever to have been in a real open court that was honest? They were scared to death if I took the stand and exposed what was going on Behind the Curtain.
This is a standard operational procedure of always criminalizing anyone who is a threat to the powers that be. It is by no means limited to the United States. Germany is going after the former head of the AfD, Frauke Petry, to eliminate her from politics. France was doing the same to LePen. The EU was behind the coup to criminally charge Prime Minister Berlusconi to bar him from politics because he wanted to take Italy out of the Euro.
The new documentary “Atticus V. The Architect” exposes how Karl Rove used the Department of Justice to stop the former governor of Alabama from rising to a potential presidential candidate. This film uncovers the truth behind a hijacked election here in the USA, and how the power to indict people should NEVER rest in the hands of any government.
The Grand Jury was supposed to protect citizens from political prosecutions, but it has been completely undermined and serves nothing close to its constitutional purpose. The Supreme Court wrote quite eloquently what the Grand Jury was supposed to do. “The … grand jury … has the dual function of determining if there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and of protecting citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions.” Branzburg v Hayes, 408 US 665, 686-687 (1972). However, when the Supreme Court handed absolute immunity for prosecutors, they routinely mislead grand juries and provide only allegations to show guilt. The defendant has no right to present his side and the Supreme Court said that the trial jury will correct any injustice. That is a joke for 98.5% of the people plead guilty because the system is so rigged, lawyers tell them they will not win.
In a decision by Judges Evans, Posner, and Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit (Chicago), they wrote in 2005 the truth about the Grand Jury process:
“Realistically, federal grand juries today provide little protection for criminal suspects whom a US Attorney wishes to indict. Nevertheless, that is not a realism to which judges are permitted to yield.”
US v Ross, 412 F3d 771, 774 (7th Circuit 2005)
Back in 2014, the refusal to indict police officers in the USA for killing people wrongly prompted a British Newspaper to write: “A grand jury could ‘indict a ham sandwich,’ but apparently not a white police officer,” U.K.’s Independent. The former Chief Judge of New York, Sol Wachtler, became famous for the modern legal comment on how bad the Grand Jury had become. His comment became immortalized in the Tom Wolfe novel, Bonfire of the Vanities (1987). His review of the Grand Jury was the famous phrase that a grand jury could “indict a ham sandwich,” if that’s what you wanted because the prosecutors are totally unsupervised in bringing indictments. He later said that he coined the phrase during a lunch interview with Marcia Kramer of the New York Daily News.
Don’t be so caught up watching the granules moving at your feet that you fail to step back and recognize the entire landscape is shifting. It Has Begun…
Important remarks today. After a year of careful navigation Captain Trump has now hoisted the Spinnaker and is using massive economic winds to advance ALL ‘America-First’ policy objectives.
[…] “to get it going the way I really want, where we have GDP getting up to 4, 5, and even 6 percent — because I think that’s possible. If you look back in your notes, you’ll say when I said 4 percent, people said that would be years. Well, it’s turned out that I’m right because without the hurricanes this last quarter, we would have hit 4 percent. At 3.3 percent, which was adjusted previously — this is far beyond what anybody thought it would be at. So we’re at 3.3 percent GDP. I see no reason why we don’t go to 4, 5, and even 6 percent. And I don’t want to go beyond that because then it will be criticized if we don’t hit it.
But every time we go up one point, just so you understand, one point means $2.5 trillion, means 10 million jobs. So one point in GDP is an incredible statement. $2.5 trillion for each point, 10 million jobs for each point. And I think we’re going to be going up a lot of points.”
[Transcript] THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Thank you very much for being here. America is prospering again at home and being respected once again all over the world. However, we face many serious threats. Lots of things are happening in our country — lots of very positive things — but we have some things that we have to talk about.
We’re going to be discussing today the situation in North Korea. It will be handled, and it will be handled properly. Many of our brave troops will be spending Christmas overseas. We’re thinking about them. We’re funding them like they haven’t been funded in a long time — best equipment you can get. Our military is getting stronger, and I expect that very soon, I’ll be able to say stronger than ever before. It was very depleted when I got here. It’s not going to be depleted any longer.
So I just want to thank everybody. I want to congratulate Kirstjen Nielsen, who was just confirmed yesterday. Been a long wait and we’re waiting for a lot of others. All of you are waiting for people, or most of you are waiting for people to come in and help. I know from the standpoint of trade, we’re waiting for a lot of our trade representatives to be approved. They just don’t want to do it. The Democrats just don’t want to give us those people. They delay them as long as possible. They take every single minute they can take. It’s not right. But I would like to congratulate our new Secretary of Homeland Security. Kirstjen, good luck.
SECRETARY NIELSEN: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: I’m especially thrilled to report that the Senate passed massive tax cuts and reform. You know about that very well. You’ve covered it — for the most part — accurately, which is surprising for you folks, but that’s okay. (Laughter.) We’re on the verge of a historic victory that cuts taxes for the middle class, for businesses; brings back, probably, an excess of $4 trillion. As you know, we’ve been saying $2.5 trillion for years. Well, that number has greatly expanded. And we’ll be bringing back an excess of $4 trillion. It will be put to work in our country. There will be a lot of jobs being brought back with that money. Right now that money is being spent overseas. It’s not going to be spent overseas anymore.
The House and Senate are now negotiating the final bill, and I cannot wait to sign these giant tax cuts and reforms. I mentioned tax cuts, but it’s also reforms. But I’m looking forward to signing it. It will be the largest tax cuts, by far, in the history of our country.
We’ll be bringing the business tax from 35 all the way down to 20. At 35, it’s the highest in the industrialized world. At 20, we’re on the very low side, so we’ll be very competitive. You look at China, it’s 15 percent. Other countries are 18 percent. Some are 23, 24 percent. The average is actually, of the primary competitors, is actually 23 percent. So we’ll be pretty much below the average, and we’ll be able to compete.
And despite all of that, and despite — before we even get this massive injection — we have a stock market that has hit record highs 81 times since our election victory — 81 times. It’s at a new high right now.
Unemployment is at a 17-year low. Very shortly it’s going to be at a 19-year low. We think the numbers are going to continue to go down. And we’re also getting into the pool of the 100 million people that are not working. That pool is now coming back. As you know, that’s not considered in the low employment numbers, which means we have a lot of people that want to get to work, and that will be working.
Consumer confidence is at a 17-year high. We’ve created nearly 2 million jobs. Think of that — 2 million jobs since Election Day. That’s based on consumer confidence. That’s based on enthusiasm. Every enthusiasm poll, especially for business enthusiasm and job enthusiasm, is at an all-time high.
That’s why companies are coming back into our country. They’re opening up new plants. Most of you have written about — Toyota came back in. We have many car companies coming back in. They’re going to Michigan, they’re going to Ohio, they’re going to the states where they want to be. They can go anywhere they want — South Carolina, North Carolina. But they’re going all over our country. They’re coming back in. We had many years where we had no new plants; we only had closures. Now we have openings, and that means a lot of jobs.
But to get it going the way I really want, where we have GDP getting up to 4, 5, and even 6 percent — because I think that’s possible. If you look back in your notes, you’ll say when I said 4 percent, people said that would be years. Well, it’s turned out that I’m right because without the hurricanes this last quarter, we would have hit 4 percent. At 3.3 percent, which was adjusted previously — this is far beyond what anybody thought it would be at. So we’re at 3.3 percent GDP. I see no reason why we don’t go to 4, 5, and even 6 percent. And I don’t want to go beyond that because then it will be criticized if we don’t hit it.
But every time we go up one point, just so you understand, one point means $2.5 trillion, means 10 million jobs. So one point in GDP is an incredible statement. $2.5 trillion for each point, 10 million jobs for each point. And I think we’re going to be going up a lot of points.
So in order to really keep it going the way I want and the way we all want around this table, we have to get — pass our taxes. I call it “the mixer”. It’s in conference right now, but I call it “the mixer”. I think when it comes out, it’s going to be a beautiful mix.
There are things that I like better in the Senate bill; there are things that I like better in the House bill. I think when they come out, we’ll have some new additions and we’ll have the best of each. I think we’re going to have a fantastic tax bill.
There are very, very few people that aren’t benefiting by it. But there’s that tiny little sliver and we’re going to try to take care of even that very small group of people that just through circumstances maybe don’t get the full benefit of what we’re doing. But the middle class gets a tremendous benefit. And business, which is jobs, gets a tremendous benefit.
We’ll be giving the Cabinet, today, an update on national security and strategy. We’ll also receive briefings on the latest developments in the tax cut negotiations. And Administrator McMahon, who’s done a fantastic job at Small Business Administration — where’s Linda? Linda did a really fantastic job — is helping small businesses in record numbers. And they’ve needed help, really, because of the hurricanes. The hurricanes were devastating.
As I said, GDP — if we didn’t have the hurricanes we would have hit just about 4 [percent] this last — but we had — as you probably know, and probably everybody remembers, we had five really bad ones. And we have a lot of businesses that have been severely hurt and Linda McMahon has done an incredible job in helping those businesses out through the Small Business. So thank you very much, Linda.
So we’re in a great period in this country because jobs are coming back, unemployment is low, business has never been stronger. But we have a military that we have to build. I want to thank General Mattis for doing such a great job with respect to ISIS. He’s knocked the hell out of them. Of course I’ve made it possible with what I’ve let you do, I think. (Laughter.) Wouldn’t you say? But he has done a fantastic job.
He and the military have done a fantastic job with ISIS. They’re essentially knocked out of Syria, knocked out of Iraq. That’s the good news. The bad news — they go all over the place. And I’ll tell you where we don’t want them: We don’t want them here. We don’t want them in our country. Tell them to stay wherever the hell they are. We don’t want them coming back into our country. They do go back into some countries. We don’t want them going into our country. So we’re watching that closely.
So I’d like to wish everyone a really great season. I’d like to wish everyone a merry Christmas, happy New Year.
And I will tell you that we have a big announcement coming up at one o’clock. Perhaps a couple of you will be there; maybe not. But it’s a big announcement. It’s an announcement concerning Israel and the Palestinians and the Middle East. And I think it’s long overdue. Many Presidents have said they want to do something, and they didn’t do it. Whether it’s through courage or they changed their mind, I can’t tell you. But a lot of people have said we have to do something, and they didn’t do it. So we’ll be talking about that something at one o’clock, and I look forward to seeing you then.
Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Q Mr. President, what will the decision do? How will it help the peace process, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: We’ll talk about it in a little while.
Q Are we going to have a shutdown, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: It could happen. The Democrats are really looking at something that is very dangerous for our country. They are looking at shutting down. They want to have illegal immigrants; in many cases, people that we don’t want in our country. They want to have illegal immigrants pouring into our country, bringing with them crime, tremendous amounts of crime. We don’t want to have that. We want to have a great, beautiful crime-free country. And we want people coming into our country, but we want them to come on our basis. And that’s why we’re being so careful with our process and our screening.
And, as you know, we had a tremendous victory the other day in the Supreme Court with the ban. It got quite a bit of attention. Probably not as much of attention as it deserved. But we had tremendous — that was a tremendous victory for this country. Not a victory for me; it was a victory for our country.
So the Democrats maybe will want to shut down the country because they want people flowing into our country. And I want people coming into our country, but I want to vet those people, and I want to vet them very carefully. Because we dont want to have radical Islamic terrorism in this country, and we dont want to have crime in this country.
If you look at what just happened in San Francisco, that was a disgrace. And, as you know, the federal government just got involved and did a great thing, because they’re going to take that at least to the next step. They did a great thing by getting involved.
So thank you very much. I’ll see you all at one o’clock.
A rather interesting New York Times article describes life in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) now that interim Director Mick Mulvaney is leading the agency. Actually, one of the more interesting aspects is how congressional defenders of the CFPB have claimed the workforce is non-partisan, yet for some mysterious reason the mostly Millenials are described as using coded messaging.
Keep in mind, these are presumably college educated young professionals:
New York Times […] Some employees, including a few of the bureau’s top officials, have welcomed their new leader. Others, pointing to Mr. Mulvaney’s earlier hostility toward the agency and its mission, are quietly resisting. One small group calls itself “Dumbledore’s Army,” according to two of the people who were familiar with their discussions. The name is a reference to a secret resistance force in the “Harry Potter” books.
An atmosphere of intense anxiety has taken hold, several employees said. In some cases, conversations between staff that used to take place by phone or text now happen almost exclusively in person or through encrypted messaging apps.
Mr. Mulvaney has begun examining lawsuits filed by the agency and its process of gathering information from companies under investigation. The bureau’s so-called demand letters — an investigative tool used in the early stages of investigations — are “fairly broad and fairly burdensome,” he told reporters on Monday. (read more)
The CFPB is the product of far-left progressives, specifically Elizabeth Warren, initially setting up a financial control agency that operates without congressional oversight. The Bureau construct was previously challenged in court and ruled ‘unconstitutional’.
The CFPB was essentially created to work as a legal money laundering operation for progressive causes by fining financial institutions for conduct the CFPB finds in violation of their unilateral and arbitrary rules and regulations. The CFPB then use the proceeds from the fines to fund progressive organizations and causes. That’s the underlying reason why the Democrats are fraught with anxiety over losing control of it.
♦ #1 Conceived as a government watchdog, with aims to financially fill the coffers of left-wing activist organizations, the CFPB was doomed by an Elizabeth Warren structure that made it an inherently political agency. READ HERE
♦ #2 The sad and sick joke – how the face of the CFPB’s first director falsely claimed caring about consumers, but the reality was entirely political. READ HERE
Elizabeth Warren set up the bureau to operate above any oversight. Additionally, the bureau was placed under spending authority of the federal reserve. The CFPB gets its operating budget from the Federal Reserve, not from congress. Again, this was set-up to keep congress from defunding the agency as a way to remove it. Everything about the way the CFPB was structured was done to avoid any oversight. Hence, a DC circuit court finding the agency held too much power, and deemed the Directors unchecked position unconstitutional.
Mick Mulvaney is now in a position to look at the books, look at the prior records within the bureau, and expose the political agenda within it to the larger public. That is sending the progressives bananas.
Most likely President Trump will not appoint a replacement until Mulvaney has exposed the corruption within the bureau. That sunlight is toxic to Elizabeth Warren and can potentially be politically destructive to the Democrats. If the secrets within the bureau are revealed, there’s a much greater likelihood the bureau will be dissolved.
There are billions of scheme and graft at stake. Within the record-keeping there are more than likely dozens of progressive/Democrat organizations being financed by the secret enterprise that operates without oversight. That’s the risk to the SWAMP.
I just finished watching “The Forecaster” and I am impressed that you survived what the government did to you. As a former Green Beret from back in the day, I can appreciate what you endured more than most, my hats off to you.
All I can add is I hope to hell that no government including ours every gets your source code; as a former military officer and student of history, I know what our government is capable of.
I do wonder if China will survive the coming collapse in the west, aren’t they too tied to us?
Keep up the good work!
D
ANSWER: They will push you to the edge, hoping you break. There is a fine line and if you cross it you lose all fear of death. Then the table is turned. There is no threat they can make that will change your position. Some ask, “Why did you not just turn over the code?” They assume that they will actually honor what they tell you. They NEVER tell the truth, and if you turn over what they demand, you lose everything for they can kill you and pretend it was some accident, heart attack, or whatever. The press will believe them of course. That’s why they are there. You are dancing with the devil and it becomes a dance to the death. I was released ONLY because I got into the Supreme Court. Once they were taking the case, the New York boys had to release me.
Concerning China, the reason that they will succeed is because they are turning inward by building their economy into a consumer reservoir and eliminating their dependence upon the West. They will decline at first, but they will recover and make new highs when the West fails.
The TDS-media are fraught with misinformation on this issue.
In 1995, Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, requiring the movement of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The act said that Jerusalem should be undivided and be recognized as the capital of Israel. The legislation passed 93-5 in the Senate, and 374-37 in the House of Representatives. (link)
Following passage, all subsequent Presidents’ never carried through with the law; each signing national security waivers to delay moving the U.S. Embassy.
The most recent waiver lapsed at midnight last night; President Trump did not extend another waiver. It is now reported that President Trump has been in discussions with various mid-east leaders to notify them of his plan to follow through on the Jerusalem Embassy Act with a six month phase-in. President Trump will deliver a speech tomorrow outlining the plans.
Ironically, the opposition to President Trump is now claiming such a move will undermine his efforts at negotiating a peace-resolution between Israel and their Arab neighbors. The irony stems from those same voices claiming for a year that any Trump effort to negotiate a peace-deal was an exercise in futility. How can President Trump derail a peace-plan those same voices previously claimed never existed? See the pretzel-logic?
WASHINGTON/JERUSALEM (Reuters) – President Donald Trump told Arab leaders on Tuesday that he intends to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, a decision that breaks with decades of U.S. policy and risks fueling violence in the Middle East.
Senior U.S. officials have said Trump is likely on Wednesday to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital while delaying relocating the embassy from Tel Aviv for another six months, though he is expected to order his aides to begin planning such a move immediately.
U.S. endorsement of Israel’s claim to all of Jerusalem as its capital would reverse long-standing U.S. policy that the city’s status must be decided in negotiations with the Palestinians, who want East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the entire city, home to sites holy to the Muslim, Jewish and Christian religions.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Jordan’s King Abdullah, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and Saudi Arabia’s King Salman, who all received phone calls from Trump, joined a mounting chorus of voices warning that unilateral U.S. steps on Jerusalem would derail a fledgling U.S.-led peace effort and unleash turmoil in the region. (read more)
Remember an important aspect to international policy and engagement on this issue: ‘Each of the aforementioned voices has a domestic audience‘. There is no doubt prior to this decision the primary members of the peace coalition held lengthy discussions on the topic. Each would know it was a matter of when, not if, President Trump was going to fulfill this important campaign promise; accurate communication is one of President Trump’s strongest attributes.
Only President Trump is confident and strong enough to withstand the potential backlash. Never forget what President Fattah Abdel al-Sisi previously shared about his view on the new dynamic President Trump brings to the region.
In the final analysis, the overarching trait that all players respect is ‘strength’. However, President Trump is not approaching the move from a position of disrespecting the concerns of the partners.
[…] But U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Trump was expected to sign a national security waiver – as have his predecessors – keeping the embassy in Tel Aviv for another six months but would commit to expediting a move. It was unclear, however, whether he would set a date.
The Trump administration would need time to overcome logistical issues such as lack of a secure embassy building and staff housing in Jerusalem, according to one U.S. official. (more)
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 