Boy howdy, it only takes a tweet from POTUS to get everyone fired up on the AG Sessions battle-front; including AG Sessions himself. It seems, generally speaking, responses to the tweet vary in direct relationship to the disposition of the reviewer:
My personal view is somewhat different than most. President Trump is highlighting a genuine frustration, not necessarily with Jeff Sessions per se’, but rather within the institution Jeff Sessions dutifully represents. This is, after all, what happens when citizen government runs into the bureaucracy of the institutions.
The same issues surfaced in May of 2017 (when Jeff Sessions tendered his resignation), and it’s not as big an issue as people make out. In fact, it’s rather ordinary and expected. POTUS Trump is a change-agent, a wrench in the machine. AG Sessions is a machine operator; retooling for a change in outcome, yet retaining the machine.
We are seeing nothing more than the typical frustration of a ‘results oriented president’ who, like many of us, has had enough of these seemingly endless investigations and wants the DOJ to get-on-with the indictments, arrests and prosecutions.
The frustrations are real; however, the punditry opinion of those frustrations is mostly ‘fake news’.
There’s a middle ground that seems to be obvious, from the perspective of having watched the entire Horowitz investigation very closely, and I doubt even President Trump -surrounded by the typical concentric circles that create political distance- even realizes it.
The DOJ lawyers, that is to say: ‘the prosecutors President Trump wants to see activated pronto’, are already in place… and they have been for some time.
Due to the sensitivity of politics, elections and recusals, none of which the disruptive change-agent-trump cares about, there’s almost no communication between the White House and DOJ on these investigative matters.
Inspector General Horowitz talks and coordinates primarily with AAG Rod Rosenstein… who relays information to AG Jeff Sessions…. who can’t necessarily brief the White House due to POTUS Trump being the actual victim of the criminality. We’ve talked about this dynamic before.
POTUS Trump is head of the Executive, head of the law enforcement apparatus, and simultaneously the primary victim of the politicization of the apparatus, and likely criminal conduct, which IG Horowitz has been investigating for well over a year.
It’s a weird dynamic, and it’s not like the DOJ can brief the victim (president) on their success at gathering evidence against the criminals (DOJ/FBI small group).
Hence, the frustration surfaces and POTUS tweets.
The conflict is no big deal really.
This is citizen government (common sense) meeting/hating the political swamp.
As U.S. Trade Officials meet with auto executives surrounding ongoing NAFTA sector negotiations, U.S.T.R. Ambassador Robert Lighthizer appears on Fox News to discuss ongoing trade initiatives with Laura Ingraham.
.
It’s challenging to discuss the basic ‘fatal flaw’ within a modern NAFTA in a short discussion segment; however, Ambassador Lighthizer, Secretary Ross and the newly positioned Peter Navarro have a strong position for withdrawal.
The essential problem with NAFTA is an evolution that took place over time. In its current form NAFTA became an exploited doorway into the coveted U.S. market. Asian economic interests, large multinational corporations, invested in Mexico and Canada as a way to work around any direct trade deals with the U.S.
By shipping parts to Mexico and/or Canada; and by deploying satellite manufacturing and assembly facilities in Canada and/or Mexico; China, Asia and to a lesser extent EU corporations exploited a loophole. Through a process of building, assembling or manufacturing their products in Mexico/Canada those foreign corporations can skirt U.S. trade tariffs and direct U.S. trade agreements. The finished foreign products entered the U.S. under NAFTA rules.
Why deal with the U.S. when you can just deal with Mexico, and use NAFTA rules to ship your product directly into the U.S. market?
This exploitative approach, a backdoor to the U.S. market, was the primary reason for massive foreign investment in Canada and Mexico; it was also the primary reason why candidate Donald Trump, now President Donald Trump, wanted to shut down that loophole and renegotiate NAFTA.
This loophole was the primary reason for U.S. manufacturers to relocate operations to Mexico. Corporations within the U.S. Auto-Sector could enhance profits by building in Mexico or Canada using parts imported from Asia/China. The labor factor was not as big a part of the overall cost consideration as cheaper parts and imported raw materials.
If you understand the reason why U.S. companies benefited from those moves, you can begin to understand if the U.S. was going to remain inside NAFTA President Trump would have remained engaged in TPP.
As soon as President Trump withdrew from TPP the problem with the Canada and Mexico loophole grew. All corporations from TPP nations would now have an option to exploit the same NAFTA loophole.
Why ship directly to the U.S., or manufacturer inside the U.S., when you could just assemble in Mexico and Canada and use NAFTA to bring your products to the ultimate goal, the massive U.S. market?
From the POTUS Trump position, NAFTA always came down to two options:
Option #1 – renegotiate the NAFTA trade agreement to eliminate the loopholes. That would require Canada and Mexico to agree to very specific rules put into the agreement by the U.S. that would remove the ability of third-party nations to exploit the current trade loophole. Essentially the U.S. rules would be structured around removing any profit motive with regard to building in Canada or Mexico and shipping into the U.S.
Canada and Mexico would have to agree to those rules; the goal of the rules would be to stop third-party nations from exploiting NAFTA. The problem in this option is the exploitation of NAFTA currently benefits Canada and Mexico. It is against their interests to remove it. Knowing it was against their interests President Trump never thought it was likely Canada or Mexico would ever agree. But he was willing to explore and find out.
Option #2 – Exit NAFTA. And subsequently deal with Canada and Mexico individually with structured trade agreements about their imports. Canada and Mexico could do as they please, but each U.S. bi-lateral trade agreement would be written with language removing the aforementioned cost-benefit-analysis to third-party countries (same as in option #1.)
All nuanced trade-sector issues put aside, the larger issue is always how third-party nations will seek to gain access to the U.S. market through Canada and Mexico. [It is the NAFTA exploitation loophole which has severely damaged the U.S. manufacturing base.]
This is not direct ‘protectionism’, it is simply smart and fair trade.
Unfortunately, the U.S. CoC, funded by massive multinational corporations, is spending hundreds of millions on lobbying congress to keep the NAFTA loophole open.
The U.S. has to look upstream, deep into the trade agreements made by Mexico and Canada with third-parties, because it is possible for other nations to skirt direct trade with the U.S. and move their products through Canada and Mexico into the U.S.
Additionally, with Canada now joining TPP it has become impossible for the U.S. to remain in NAFTA and simultaneously conduct trade negotiations with TPP nations.
President Trump, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and U.S. Trade Representative Lighthizer well understand this structural problem. ONLY Trump, Ross, Mnuchin and Lighthizer are willing to confront this problem. If Trump had lost the election, Clinton would have joined the multinationals and U.S. workers would have suffered greatly.
Lastly, the issue of Canada and Mexico making trade agreements with other nations (especially China), while brokering their NAFTA position with the U.S. as a strategic part of those agreements, is a serious issue that cannot adequately be resolved while the U.S. remains connected to NAFTA.
At the conclusion of Round #6, this was the direct issue at the heart of a very frustrated U.S.T.R. Lighthizer’s strongly worded response to Canada:
[…] In another proposal, Canada reserved the right to treat the United States and Mexico even worse than other countries if they enter into future agreements. Those other countries may, in fact, even include China, if there is an agreement between China and [Canada]. This proposal, I think if the United States had made it, would be dubbed a “poison pill.” We did not make it, though. Obviously, this is unacceptable to us, and my guess is it is to the Mexican side also. (read full remarks)
So you see, if you just look at the pure economics of the options, and you remember that President Trump is constitutionally antithetical to anyone having influence over U.S. interests other than the American people inside the United States, you can clearly see there is only one-way this entire process ends.
Still no word on the turrets and sharks with lasers idea, but we’re holding steady…
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – A U.S. judge on Tuesday sided with President Donald Trump’s administration and rejected an attempt by the state of California and environmental groups to stop the government from building a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico.
The lawsuit filed in a San Diego federal court alleged that Trump’s proposed wall violates federal environmental standards, as well as constitutional provisions regarding the separation of powers and states’ rights.
The plaintiffs asked U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel to stop the administration from pursuing the barrier until it demonstrates compliance with environmental laws.
The wall, a key item for Trump’s political base of supporters, has become a sticking point in talks to keep alive a federal program that protects from deportation young people who were brought to the United States illegally as children.
In his latest budget proposal to Congress, Trump requested $23 billion for border security, most of it for building the wall.
Curiel said his decision on Tuesday was not based on whether the underlying decisions to construct the wall “are politically wise or prudent.” Rather, Curiel said the Trump administration had not exceeded its legal authority in pursuing the project. (read more)
Earlier today President Donald Trump announced that he’s running for re-election in 2020 and Brad Parscale has been named campaign manager.
In an announcement posted on the president’s campaign website, his son, Eric Trump, called Parscale “an amazing talent” who was “pivotal to our success in 2016.” Top Trump adviser and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner said that Parscale “was essential in bringing a disciplined technology and data-driven approach to how the 2016 campaign was run.”
NEW YORK, NY – Today, President Trump announced the appointment of Brad Parscale as the Campaign Manager for his reelection committee as the advanced planning for the 2020 race begins.
Mr. Parscale is a longtime digital marketing strategist for President Trump, first with the Trump Organization and then with the successful 2016 presidential campaign, who has continued to lead digital strategies for the campaign and the Republican National Committee.
In addition to focusing on building its infrastructure for the 2020 race, the Trump Campaign will be engaged in the 2018 midterm elections this year, providing candidates with general support, endorsements, and rallying the support of the political grassroots by engaging Trump supporters in districts and states.
Eric Trump said, “Brad is an amazing talent and was pivotal to our success in 2016. He has our family’s complete trust and is the perfect person to be at the helm of the campaign.”
Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law, said, “Brad was essential in bringing a disciplined technology and data-driven approach to how the 2016 campaign was run. His leadership and expertise will be help build a best-in-class campaign.” (read more)
NEW YORK, NY – On the first day in his new role as the Campaign Manager of President Trump’s reelection campaign committee, Brad Parscale announced the appointments of top leadership roles, selecting two leaders who have played senior roles in the campaign committee since it was formed in early 2017.
Michael Glassner was newly appointed as the Chief Operating Officer of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. Mr. Glassner was the 2016 Deputy Campaign Manager starting in July of 2015 and has led the President’s campaign committee as the Executive Director since early 2017.
Lara Trump, the wife of Eric Trump and the President’s daughter-in-law, will serve as a Senior Advisor to Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., the President’s reelection committee. Mrs. Trump has coordinated strategic planning and digital communications for the campaign committee since early 2017.
These appointments come as the Trump Campaign builds out its long-term game plan. The campaign plans on being an important entity to help with the 2018 midterm elections including engaging in elections by supporting and endorsing House and Senate candidates, and leveraging President Trump’s vast network of supporters nationwide to encourage them to support candidates and vote. It will also involve building out an effective team for the 2020 reelection campaign.
“I am honored to lead President Trump’s reelection campaign committee as the Campaign Manager and build out a first-class management team that reflects the President’s winning spirit,” said Campaign Manager Brad Parscale.
“It is my pleasure to announce the first major appointments to our new leadership team as we build out the 2020 reelection campaign. Michael Glassner has been a valuable asset since the earliest days of the 2016 campaign. He will continue to provide his proven and critical leadership to the campaign as he serves as our Chief Operating Officer. Lara Trump has led the campaign’s strategic planning and digital communications since early 2017. Her advice and counsel will also be vital as we build a plan for success for the President’s reelection in 2020. I welcome the opportunity to work with two of the President’s most important campaign advisors as we build a winning team and strategy to engage in the midterm elections and then to support the President’s victory in 2020,” Parscale concluded. (link)
Earlier today Attorney General Jeff Sessions held a press briefing to announce the opioid task force (video below). During the Q&A segment of the presser, Fox News Catherine Herridge asked AG Sessions of the FISA court abuses outlined by Chairman Devin Nunes, Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Chairman Chuck Grassley would be investigated by the DOJ.
Attorney General Sessions affirms the FISA court abuse by the DOJ and FBI will indeed be investigated and prosecuted and directed attention to Inspector General Michael Horowitz. [watch at 37:57 of video – prompted]
.
However, this statement by Jeff Sessions IS NOT NEWS. This is exactly what those who have followed closely will note has been the direction since mid-year 2017. As AG Sessions affirms, IG Horowitz is NOT limited in scope. Horowitz is investigating *all* avenues of politicization within the DOJ and FBI and abuse therein; this includes FISA abuse.
Secondly, AG Sessions has previously stated his intention to get the DOJ back to the historic position of *not* discussing ongoing investigations. As such the response from General Sessions today is entirely in line with the two principles: 1) the IG is already investigating the FISA abuse as part of the original politicization investigation; and 2) that the DOJ supports that investigative path.
January 4th, 2018, an agreement was finally made between House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and DOJ Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for complete disclosure of all unredacted documents AND a list of witnesses who Nunes wanted the HPSCI to question.
Included in those names was: FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who exchanged anti-Trump text messages during an affair and previously worked on the special counsel’s Russia probe; FBI general counsel James Baker, who was reassigned; FBI head of counterintelligence Bill Priestap, whom ex-FBI boss James Comey testified made the decision not to brief Congress about the Russia case during last year’s election; and Bruce Ohr, a DOJ official reassigned after concealing meetings with figures involved in the dossier.
The January 4th agreement between Devin Nunes and Rod Rosenstein was made after a great deal of back-and-forth. Chairman Nunes then documented the agreement in a letter.
On January 8th, Bruce Ohr was demoted for the second time. [AND DOJ officials scheduled Bruce Ohr to be available to Devin Nunes on January 17th]
On January 9th, the DOJ provided the unredacted DOJ/FBI documents requested to Chairman Nunes; the documents the DOJ produced surrounded the Clinton-Steele Dossier and the FISA Title-1 application. The documents were assigned to a SCIF in the basement of the House. Those documents become the basis for Chairman Nunes to outline his memo; essentially a declassification request to the White House written by Trey Gowdy.
As a result of the agreement between Rod Rosenstein and Devin Nunes, one member from each side of the HPSCI aisle (one Democrat and one Republican) was permitted to review the original FISA application documents which included the Clinton-Steele dossier use therein.
Trey Gowdy and Adam Schiff were the two Intel committee members who reviewed. (Remember, this is January 9th, 2018) [Only Gowdy, Schiff, Ratcliffe and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte reviewed the original FISA documents]
A week later, January 16th, 2018, Chairman Nunes postponed the witness interview with DOJ official Bruce Ohr scheduled for the next day, January 17th.
Instead, on January 18th, 2018, the HPSCI voted to allow all members of the House to review the Nunes-Gowdy Memo created after the DOJ provided the documents (January 9th). [January 18th THROUGH February 2nd was #ReleaseTheMemo]
Now remember, throughout this time none of those prior agreed-upon FIVE witnesses (Strzok, Page, Priestap, Baker, Ohr) have been interviewed. Everyone’s attention shifted from witness testimony to the Memo; and as Democrat Eric Swalwell stated, no witness was interviewed. Period. [<- key point].
So to summarize so far: during January all the DOJ documents arrived, the HPSCI (Nunes) memo was written, released, declassified and released to the public on February 2nd, 2018 – but no witnesses testified. [Nunes Memo – Link]
So the question becomes:
How does the exact testimony (including quotes) of Bruce Ohr, and Bill Priestap become part of the Nunes Memo if neither Bruce Ohr or Bill Priestap was ever interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee?
Who is doing the interrogations of Bill Priestap and Bruce Ohr?
It’s not the HPSCI. It’s not the House Judiciary Committee and it’s not the Senate (Chuck Grassley). [Remember Grassley is relying on responsive FD-302’s provided by the FBI.]
See where this is going?
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has interviewed these witnesses and extracted testimony. This explains why Devin Nunes changed his approach after discussion with AAG Rod Rosenstein and was no longer in a hurry to interview the FIVE? (Strzok, Page, Ohr, Baker and Priestap).
Let me remind everyone that each of the aforementioned names is still within the system. Unlike Mike Kortan, David Laufman, Sally Yates, James Rybicki or Andrew McCabe, none of the five (Strzok, Page, Ohr, Baker, Priestap) have been removed. Peter Strzok is in FBI HR; Lisa Page is doing something; Bruce Ohr and James Baker are holding down chairs somewhere; and Bill Priestap is still Asst. FBI Director in charge of counterintelligence.
It doesn’t go unnoticed the media are transparently not following up on Peter, Lisa, Bruce Jim or Bill. No satellite trucks in front of their houses etc.; no pounding on their doors for comment etc. Nothing.
Further, ask yourself why Inspector General Michael Horowitz (or someone thereabouts) began to advance upon the entire ‘Trump operation’ with releases of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page text messages? Why them? Surely, other collaborative communication was also captured, yet we only heard of Page and Strzok. Why?
Here’s what is becoming transparently obvious. The fab-five are cooperating with the investigative unit of the OIG. All five of them.
The text message release was strategic. It was intended to substantiate the entire enterprise, put the ‘small group on notice’ and flush out the co-conspirators. The downstream exits of Kortan, Laufman, Rybicki, McCabe et al are evidence therein.
Additionally, the OIG (Horowitz) would want to keep the testimony of Page, Strzok, Ohr, Baker and Priestap away from the Democrat politicians, well known leakers, within the House Intelligence Committee (ie. Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff) until he was certain their usefulness as witnesses was exhausted.
The reason for this is transparently simple. The OIG is a division inside the Department of Justice. During an internal investigation if the IG becomes aware of unlawful activity he/she is obligated to inform the AG (Sessions) or AAG (Rosenstein). He can’t ignore it and he cannot delay notification of it. Unlawful activity must be reported.
The IG does not have legal or prosecutorial authority – the IG must immediately refer unlawful activity to the proper authority; essentially to his boss. A DOJ prosecutor is then assigned to work with the IG and essentially creates a parallel investigation focused only on the law-breaking part. [That prosecutor could, likely would, then begin a Grand Jury proceeding; no-one outside the AG, AAG, and that prosecutor’s office would know.]
The prior testimony/statements to the IG by the fab-five would explain why AAG Rod Rosenstein was negotiating with Devin Nunes, and why Nunes came away from those negotiations with wind in his investigative sails.
The DOJ (Rod Rosenstein) needs to wall-off the politics (Devin Nunes) from the ongoing investigation (DOJ-OIG-Prosecutor) to preserve the integrity of his advancing and assembling case (including witness testimony). Understanding this, after a review of the FISA documents – Nunes dropped/postponed his demand for immediate testimony by the fab-five to the HPSCI. [A record is already established]
As a person familiar with such specific investigative measures recently shared:
“They are sat down, told to not do anything, say anything or discuss anything UNTIL they get an attorney. At which time, the attorney is handed a letter from the investigating unit. That letter says in essence, this is how screwed you are. If you want to be less screwed you will sign this letter of cooperation and assist us. When we don’t need you, you sit there. When we do we will call you and you will provide what we need. Any deviation from this agreement lands you in jail for the full term.”
Additionally regarding Bruce and Nellie Ohr:
“The Republican memo states they turned over all their work and testified to someone that Bruce Ohr met with Christopher Steele and Steele was saying he didn’t want Trump in office. They didn’t testify to a Congressional committee, so it had to be the IG.”
All of the news and information coming forward, including the withdrawal of the request for the Democrat memo, aligns with a very specific fact pattern. Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Baker, Bill Priestap, Bruce Ohr and likely Nellie Ohr, have cut some kind of deal with the IG for process leniency in exchange for cooperation.
The Five have provided the IG and the DOJ with sworn statements and testimony which is highlighted in investigative communication between the DOJ and Chairman Nunes; and we see snippets surfacing in the Nunes memo.
That perspective explains everything seen and not seen.
It is likely the final investigative summary from the Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General (DOJ-OIG), Michael Horowitz, is going to be very encompassing:
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
The same issues surfaced in May of 2017 (when Jeff Sessions tendered his resignation), and it’s not as big an issue as people make out. In fact, it’s rather ordinary and expected. POTUS Trump is a change-agent, a wrench in the machine. AG Sessions is a machine operator; retooling for a change in outcome, yet retaining the machine.
Centinel2012 