OK, before going further, we need to step back and take a look at how deeply enmeshed Deputy Head of Counterintelligence FBI Agent Peter Strzok was to this entire FBI investigative enterprise.

•Peter Strzok was the lead FBI agent in charge of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. •Agent Peter Strzok was one of a small group who interviewed Hillary Clinton. •Agent Strzok was also the FBI contact person to receive the Russian Dossier and interview the author Christopher Steele.  [Remember, Hillary Clinton’s team paid Christopher Steele (via Fusion GPS) to create the dossier.] •Agent Strzok was the primary counterintelligence investigator for the ‘vast Russian conspiracy’, narrative.  •Agent Strzok was then hired by Robert Mueller to lead the FBI investigative efforts into  the “Russian Election Collusion/Conspiracy.”  •Agent Strzok was removed from the Mueller Team after the anti-Trump/pro-Clinton content of his internal communications were discovered by the current Inspector General investigation….

…and today we discover that Deputy Head of Counterintelligence, FBI Agent Peter Strzok was the person who interviewed National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn on January 24th, 2017.  An interview, that blindsided Flynn because there was no advanced notification…. And an interview that was the basis for the recent Robert Mueller charging of Flynn.

Good grief, it’s no wonder why the FBI desperately tried to control a pending IG release by advance-scripting a narrative, via leaks to the New York Times and Washington Post.

If FBI Agent Strzok can be shown to have conflicting political and institutional bias, then every aspect of the investigation he was involved in comes into question… and Agent Strzok is at the EPICENTER of every angle, within every aspect, of EVERY investigation.

SARA CARTER – A supervisory special agent who is now under scrutiny after being removed from Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office for alleged bias against President Trump also oversaw the bureau’s interviews of embattled former National Security advisor Michael Flynn, this reporter has learned.

FBI agent Peter Strzok was one of two FBI agents who interviewed Flynn, which took place on Jan. 24, at the White House, said several sources. The other FBI special agent, who interviewed Flynn, is described by sources as a field supervisor in the “Russian Squad, at the FBI’s Washington Field Office,” according to a former intelligence official, with knowledge of the interview.

[…]  The former U.S. intelligence official told this reporter, “with the recent revelation that Strzok was removed from the Special Counsel investigation for making anti-Trump text messages it seems likely that the accuracy and veracity of the 302 of Flynn’s interview as a whole should be reviewed and called into question.”

“The most logical thing to happen would be to call the other FBI Special Agent present during Flynn’s interview before the Grand Jury to recount his version,” the former intelligence official added.

[…]  According to another source, with direct knowledge of the Jan. 24 interview, McCabe had contacted Flynn by phone directly at the White House. White House officials had spent the “earlier part of the week with the FBI overseeing training and security measures associated with their new roles so it was no surprise to Flynn that McCabe had called,” the source said.

McCabe told Flynn “some agents were heading over (to the White House) but Flynn thought it was part of the routine work the FBI had been doing and said they would be cleared at the gate,” the source said.

“It wasn’t until after they were already in (Flynn’s) office that he realized he was being formally interviewed. He didn’t have an attorney with him,” they added.  Flynn’s attorney Robert Kelner did not respond for comment.

… [Justice Department Spokesperson] Isgur Flores said in a written statement to this reporter that the Justice Department provided the House Intelligence committee and leadership with “several hundred pages of classified documents and multiple briefings—including, for example, clear answers as to whether any FBI payments were made to a source in question related to the dossier—and has more recently cleared key witnesses they have requested to testify, including Mr. McCabe, Mr. Strzok, and the alleged handler in question.”  (read more)

Many people have asked the question why would Michael Flynn have 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” BFFs,…. 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 WH 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

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.

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.

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

♦Here’s my Twitter Thread on “WHY FLYNN LIED” – CLICK HERE

♦Here’s my Twitter Thread on “WHY RECENT IG STATEMENT IS IMPORTANT” – HERE

Did you know the DOJ has been investigating the FBI for 11 months…. wait, what?

Hold-up on the criticism folks.  Three important statements today from the DOJ, FBI and OIG indicate there have been ongoing investigations and reviews of conduct within the upper tiers of leadership within the Department of Justice and the FBI.

Given the nature of the leaked IG investigation to the Washington Post and New York times; surrounding apex investigator and deputy head of counterintelligence at the FBI Peter Strzok; and accepting the direct approach of President Trump in his tweets toward that revelation; and adding the layer of Intel Chairman Devin Nunes threatening to file ‘contempt of congress charges‘; there is every indication something is about to break – very soon.

(L-R) Attorney General Jeff Sessions – FBI Director Christopher Wray

“[The allegations] if proven to be true, would raise serious questions of public trust. I look forward to receiving the Inspector General’s report. We will ensure that anyone who works on any investigation in the Department of Justice does so objectively and free from bias or favoritism.”

“My job is to restore confidence in the Department of Justice in all aspects of our work and I intend to do so. As such, I have directed that the FBI Director review the information available on this and other matters and promptly make any necessary changes to his management and investigative teams consistent with the highest professional standards.”

~ Attorney General Jeff Sessions

“When the FBI first learned of the allegations, the employees involved were immediately reassigned, consistent with practices involving employee matters.”

~ FBI Spokesperson

Here’s the critical OIG statement:

“The January 2017 statement issued by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) announcing its review of allegations regarding various actions of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in advance of the 2016 election stated that the OIG review would, among other things, consider whether certain underlying investigative decisions were based on improper considerations and that we also would include issues that might arise during the course of the review.

The OIG has been reviewing allegations involving communications between certain individuals, and will report its findings regarding those allegations promptly upon completion of the review of them.”

~ Justice Department Office of the Inspector General

What the OIG statement is saying is that for 11 months the Dept of Justice OIG office has been investigating the politicization within the DOJ and FBI and deciding if the actions, or lack of action, was driven by the political ideology of the participants therein.

I was not aware this investigation was taking place, were you?

Apparently the DOJ-OIG is close to “reporting its findings.”

It would be prudent to withhold negative opinion of AG Sessions and FBI Director Wray until we can see the outcome of the Inspector General findings – which will, given the duration of the investigation, likely be a very lengthy and extensive report.

All of a sudden the recent FBI leaks to the Washington Post and New York Times make more sense.  All of the embedded political agents within the DOJ and FBI are quite possibly about to be exposed.  This would explains a lot of the current activity and visible angst from within the participants of the professional administrative state.

This year-long OIG investigation could possibly explain a great deal of the current headlines on all sides of the DC spectrum.  The black hats are on the cusp of being exposed.

(LINK)

“In the absence of a near-term recession trigger, current stretched equity valuations do yet not instill enough fear to change overall market direction.  Thus, the positive stock market momentum could be sustained in 2018, increasingly driven by earnings growth.”(link)

MAGAnomics Predicted

In essence, the Trump economic patriotism platform takes shape with the introduction of a few more key members for the domestic economy dream team.

If you have followed the Trump economic mindset from the beginning, you’ll know exactly what the purpose of each of these players are into the larger scope of domestic capital infusion. Remember, one of the essential elements Trump needs is to create the environment where the best play is domestic, ie. Main Street, investment.

To reverse three decades of economic outsourcing, the investment scales (best return) must tip from Wall Street (global investment) to Main Street (domestic investment), that’s where Mnuchin, Ross and Ricketts come into play. Economic patriotism is leveraged by steering capital investment much like well constructed levies can steer the flow of water. (read full outline)

Swamp Guardian and Fox News primary Decepticon, Brett Baier, interviews former Obama CIA Director Leon Panetta and President Trump’s current CIA Director Mike Pompeo during a Reagan Defense Forum summit at the Reagan Library.

Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton worked hand in hand over the horrific policy execution in Libya and Syria.  The joint CIA/DoS mission, Operation Zero Footprint, was an outcome of President Obama’s finding memo authorizing the covert mission in Libya.

Panetta is 100% full-on Deep State/Deep Swamp.  Current CIA Director Mike Pompeo is a bridge leading away from the larger Deep State apparatus. The distinction between the two comes out in buckets.

.

For those who use Twitter DaveNYiii has a great thread on the discussion – SEE HERE

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.