Judge Emmet Sullivan Delays Sentencing of Michael Flynn for 90 Days…


Without cameras in the courtroom we are constrained to understand the Flynn sentencing hearing today through the perspectives of others. The Daily Caller has an article [See Here] and a thread on the events [is Here] and a great video recap of the events by Will Chamberlain [is HERE].

That said, there is much speculation and punditry delivered opinion on what took place; and how the hearing ended with Judge Emmet Sullivan delaying the sentencing of Michael Flynn for 90-days. While we await the transcript from the court, here’s my view.

Last night, while contemplating the possible outcomes of the hearing, there was a strong likelihood of exactly what happened today…. but only if Judge Sullivan was aware of the conflicted position of Michael Flynn, and approached the hearing from that perspective.

Flynn took the guilty plea of lying to investigators to avoid Mueller charging him over the Turkish lobbying issues (FARA).

Happily, it appears Judge Sullivan is well aware of this very specific dynamic and the issues therein. Special Counsel Robert Mueller used the unregistered foreign lobbying charges, and -more importantly- the devastating narrative that can be drawn from those FARA violations, as leverage over Flynn. Based on the comments from Judge Sullivan, it is clear he is aware of this dynamic.

That forms the backdrop for Judge Sullivan stating: “I cannot recall any incident in which the court has accepted a plea of guilty from someone who maintained he was not guilty and I don’t intend to start today.” The judge knows Flynn is pleading guilty to the lying, to avoid larger issues that would come from the unregistered foreign agent issue.

Keep in mind, this is about law and this is about politics. Sullivan appears to be well aware there are times when admitting to violations of law can be the better alternative than allowing the appearance of, and the use of, a much more damaging political narrative.

Think about it this way. If Flynn didn’t accept the plea, team Mueller could then begin deploying a narrative that was not just about a national security adviser lying to federal investigators; but also encompassed an unregistered agent of a foreign power holding a key national security position in the White House. Imagine what team Mueller and the media would do with that narrative. Think about it.

The judge readily understands the scale of both legal leverage and, more consequentially, the political leverage Mueller held over Flynn at the time when Flynn was making decisions on the least-bad outcome (June through November ’17).

So with that in mind, Judge Sullivan begins questioning Flynn and the Special Counsel about the status of current assistance from Flynn toward the recently (not coincidental timing) announced indictments in the Turkish Lobbying case. And Sullivan is asking Mueller’s prosecutor about what other charges they had considered over Flynn.

When Judge Sullivan says: “arguably you sold your country out”, he is not necessarily making a declaratory statement as much as he is referencing the framework of Flynn’s choices. Sullivan projects himself into the position of Flynn: you’re either a liar, or a treasonous foreign agent working in the White House. Which is least bad? That was the narrative option for Flynn.

Then comes a recess.

Following the recess:

[…]  “You were an unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the National Security Advisor to the president,” said Sullivan. After a 30-minute recess, Sullivan corrected his statement, saying that Flynn’s work for Turkey ended in November 2016.

“I felt terrible about that,” Sullivan said of his statement that Flynn was working for Turkey while in the White House.

At one point in the hearing, Sullivan asked van Grack if the special counsel ever considered charging Flynn with treason. Van Grack hesitated, according to reporters in the courtroom, but said that prosecutors never weighed those kinds of charges. Sullivan also walked back the treason question, saying that he did not intend to imply that Flynn was guilty of the crime. (read more)

I see a good bottom line here; that Judge Emmet Sullivan is well aware of the intricacies of the dynamic. Flynn likely didn’t lie; however, falsely admitting to a lie is a much better option than having team Mueller saying President Trump employed an unregistered foreign agent as his national security adviser.  See the dynamic?

Judge Sullivan is not making declaratory statements inasmuch as he is probing and outlining his understanding of Flynn’s position.

As a consequence of this dynamic, Judge Sullivan cannot vacate the plea that Flynn wants or else he positions Flynn to become a target of the Turkish lobbying case that was just unsealed yesterday.

Sullivan’s questions about the current status of Flynn’s cooperation indicate he was seeking to discover if Flynn held immunity in that case; Flynn does not.

If Flynn lawyers had gained full immunity for cooperation in the Turkish lobbying conspiracy case; it’s likely Sullivan may have vacated current Flynn charges. However, with Flynn still legally vulnerable in the Turkish case, any judicial decision favorable to Flynn could expose him to criminal charges in the lobbying case.

So Judge Sullivan delays sentencing 90-days, hoping the Turkish Lobbying conspiracy case is completed -or- at a status where Michael Flynn cannot be enjoined in the criminality therein.

That’s my take.

Will Chamberlain ⭐️⭐️⭐️@willchamberlain

Will Chamberlain @willchamberlain

Flynn hearing debrief – fireworks from Judge Emmet Sullivan, ends in a continuance

pscp.tv

.

Details: Mueller Filing Highlights Lengthy Deliberative Process Between FBI Investigators and Andrew McCabe on Flynn Report…


Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack filed a cover letter attempting to explain the reason for the Flynn interview on January 24th, and the official filing of the interview notes (FD-302) on February 15th, and then again on May 31st.  To explain the delay, he claims the report “inadvertently” had a header saying “DRAFT DOCUMENT/DELIBERATIVE MATERIAL”  (screen grab)

What the special counsel appears to be obfuscating to the court is that there was factually a process of deliberation within the investigative unit, headed by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, surrounding the specific wording of the 302 report on the interview.

Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack is attempting to hide the length of the small group deliberations. It seems he doesn’t want the court to know Andrew McCabe was involved in shaping how the fd-302 was written.

We know there was a deliberative process in place, seemingly all about how to best position the narrative, because we can see the deliberations in text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok:  See below (note the dates):

The text message conversation above is February 14th, 2017.   The Michael Flynn FD-302 was officially entered into the record on February 15th, 2017, per the report:

Obviously the interview took place on January 24th, 2017.  The FD-302 was drafted on January 24th, and then later edited, shaped, and ultimately approved by McCabe, on February 14th, then entered into the official record on February 15th.

It was a deliberative document from the outset.  Thanks to the Strzok/Page text messages we know the cover letter from the Special Counsel is misleading.

The Feb 15th, 2017, date was the day after McCabe approved it.

May 17th, 2017, Robert Mueller was assigned as special Counsel. Then, the FD-302 report was then re-entered on May 31st, 2017, removing the header; paving the way for Mueller’s team to use the content therein.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/395906943/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-djoN4ekdK25ysiMBEvgu

Advertisements

BREAKING – Pientka and Strzok Joint FBI Notes Released – Judge Sullivan Orders Mueller Team To File Public Version of Pientka FBI Interview (FD-302)…


This is interesting.  On the eve of Michael Flynn’s sentencing hearing tomorrow, judge Emmet Sullivan has ordered Robert Mueller’s office to publicly file a redacted version of  the original 302 (interview notes) that FBI Agent Joe Pientka prepared after Flynn’s Jan. 24, 2017 interview (full pdf below).

(Source Link)

  The FD-302 that is submitted by the Mueller team in response to the Sullivan order is here.  Written by FBI Agents Joe Pientka and Peter Strzok:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/395906943/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-djoN4ekdK25ysiMBEvgu

[Cloud Link to pdf – SCRIBD link to pdf]

This is breaking information, analysis to follow….

It is highly unlikely any of the recent filings will modify the decision of Judge Sullivan; rather it appears to be an effort on his part to bring as much public disclosure to the forefront as possible prior to his ruling.

I’m still rather curious on whether we will ever find out why Judge Contreras, a friend of FBI agent Peter Strzok, was recused from the case immediately after accepting the plea on November 30th, 2017.

It’s Happening – This is “THE” Fight, There are Trillions at Stake…


CTH has pointed, repeatedly, toward a very specific economic and financial dynamic  because President Trump is uniquely focused on Main Street’s “real economy“.

Everything happening in/around the financial markets is very predictable when you focus on understanding the principles of Main Street MAGAnomics and how those basic principles diverge from Wall Street’s “paper economy”.

President Trump is clawing back American wealth; inch by inch… bit by bit.  This is the full monty.  This is economic nationalism. This is for all the marbles.

This is it.

Everything is happening in a very predictable sequence. Few understand the MAGAnomic reset, and what was predicted to happen in the space between disconnecting a Wall Street economic engine (globalism and multinationals) and restarting a Main Street economic engine (nationalism/America-First).  In 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 CTH explained where we would be today. With current Wall Street events, perhaps it is worthwhile remembering the dynamic.

Originally outlined far more than a year ago. Reposted by request frequently..

President Trump’s MAGAnomic trade and foreign policy agenda is jaw-dropping in scale, scope and consequence. There are multiple simultaneous aspects to each policy objective; however, many have been visible for a long time – some even before the election victory in November ’16.  What is happening within the financial markets should not be a surprise.

If we get too far in the weeds the larger picture is lost. Our CTH objective is to continue pointing focus toward the larger horizon, and then at specific inflection points to dive into the topic and explain how each moment is connected to the larger strategy.

Today, as a specific result of a very predictable stock market reaction, we repost an earlier dive into how MAGAnomic policy interacts with multinational Wall Street, the stock market, the U.S. financial system and perhaps your personal financial value.  Additionally, we outline the global market forces and how they are aligned.  Again, reference and source material is included throughout the outline.

If you understand the basic elements behind the new dimension in American economics, you already understand how three decades of DC legislative and regulatory policy was structured to benefit Wall Street, Multinational corporate interests, and not Main Street USA.

The intentional shift in economic policy is what created distance between two entirely divergent economic engines to the detriment of the American middle-class.

REMEMBER […] there had to be a point where the value of the second economy (Wall Street) surpassed the value of the first economy (Main Street).

Investments, and the bets therein, needed to expand outside of the USA. hence, globalist investing.

However, a second more consequential aspect happened simultaneously. The politicians became more valuable to the Wall Street team than the Main Street team; and Wall Street had deeper pockets because their economy was now larger.

As a consequence Wall Street started funding political candidates and asking for legislation that benefited their multinational interests.

When Main Street was purchasing the legislative influence the outcomes were -generally speaking- beneficial to Main Street, and by direct attachment those outcomes also benefited the average American inside the real economy.

When Wall Street began purchasing the legislative influence, the outcomes therein became beneficial to Wall Street. Those benefits are detached from improving the livelihoods of main street Americans because the benefits are “global”. Global financial interests, multinational investment interests -and corporations therein- became the primary filter through which the DC legislative outcomes were considered.

There is a natural disconnect. (more)

As an outcome of national financial policy blending commercial banking with institutional investment banking something happened on Wall Street that few understand. If we take the time to understand what happened we can understand why the Stock Market grew and what risks exist today as the financial policy is reversed to benefit Main Street.

President Trump and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin have already begun assembling and delivering a new banking system.

Instead of attempting to put Glass-Stegal regulations back into massive banking systems, the Trump administration is creating a parallel financial system of less-regulated small commercial banks, credit unions and traditional lenders who can operate to the benefit of Main Street without the burdensome regulation of the mega-banks and multinationals. This really is one of the more brilliant solutions to work around a uniquely American economic problem.

♦ When U.S. banks were allowed to merge their investment divisions with their commercial banking operations (the removal of Glass Stegal) something changed on Wall Street.

Companies who are evaluated based on their financial results, profits and losses, remained in their traditional role as traded stocks on the U.S. Stock Market and were evaluated accordingly. However, over time investment instruments -which are secondary to actual company results- created a sub-set within Wall Street that detached from actual bottom line company results.

The resulting secondary financial market system was essentially ‘investment markets’. Both ordinary company stocks and the investment market stocks operate on the same stock exchanges. But the underlying valuation is tied to entirely different metrics.

Financial products were developed (as investment instruments) that are essentially wagers or bets on the outcomes of actual companies traded on Wall Street. Those bets/wagers form the hedge markets and are [essentially] people trading on expectations of performance. The “derivatives market” is the ‘betting system’.

♦Ford Motor Company (only chosen as a commonly known entity) has a stock valuation based on their actual company performance in the market of manufacturing and consumer purchasing of their product. However, there can be thousands of financial instruments wagering on the actual outcome of their performance.

There are two initial bets on these outcomes that form the basis for Hedge-fund activity. Bet ‘A’ that Ford hits a profit number, or bet ‘B’ that they don’t. There are financial instruments created to place each wager. [The wagers form the derivatives] But it doesn’t stop there.

Additionally, more financial products are created that bet on the outcomes of the A/B bets. A secondary financial product might find two sides betting on both A outcome and B outcome.

Party C bets the “A” bet is accurate, and party D bets against the A bet. Party E bets the “B” bet is accurate, and party F bets against the B. If it stopped there we would only have six total participants. But it doesn’t stop there, it goes on and on and on…

The outcome of the bets forms the basis for the tenuous investment markets. The important part to understand is that the investment funds are not necessarily attached to the original company stock, they are now attached to the outcome of bet(s). Hence an inherent disconnect is created.

Subsequently, if the actual stock doesn’t meet it’s expected P-n-L outcome (if the company actually doesn’t do well), and if the financial investment was betting against the outcome, the value of the investment actually goes up. The company performance and the investment bets on the outcome of that performance are two entirely different aspects of the stock market. [Hence two metrics.]

♦Understanding the disconnect between an actual company on the stock market, and the bets for and against that company stock, helps to understand what can happen when fiscal policy is geared toward the underlying company (Main Street MAGAnomics), and not toward the bets therein (Investment Class).

The U.S. stock markets’ overall value can increase with Main Street policy, and yet the investment class can simultaneously decrease in value even though the company(ies) in the stock market is/are doing better. This detachment is critical to understand because the ‘real economy’ is based on the company, the ‘paper economy’ is based on the financial investment instruments betting on the company.

Trillions can be lost in investment instruments, and yet the overall stock market -as valued by company operations/profits- can increase.

Here’s the critical part – Conversely, there are now classes of companies on the U.S. stock exchange that never make a dime in profit, yet the value of the company increases.

This dynamic is possible because the financial investment bets are not connected to the bottom line profit. (Examples include Tesla Motors, Amazon and a host of internet stocks like Facebook and Twitter.) It is this investment group of companies, primarily driven by technology stocks in the “tech sector” that stands to lose the most if/when the underlying system of betting on them stops or slows.

Specifically due to most recent U.S. fiscal policy, modern multinational banks, including all of the investment products therein, are more closely attached to this investment system on Wall Street. It stands to reason they are at greater risk of financial losses overall with a shift in economic policy.

That financial and economic risk is the basic reason behind Trump and Mnuchin putting a protective, secondary and parallel, banking system in place for Main Street.

Big multinational banks can suffer big losses from their investments, and yet the Main Street economy can continue growing, and have access to capital, uninterrupted.

Bottom Line: U.S. companies who have actual connection to a growing U.S. economy can succeed; based on the advantages of the new economic environment and MAGA policy, specifically in the areas of manufacturing, trade and the ancillary benefactors.

Meanwhile U.S. investment assets (multinational investment portfolios) that are disconnected from the actual results of those benefiting U.S. companies, highly weighted toward multinational investment, and as a consequence disconnected from the U.S. economic expansion, can simultaneously drop in value even though the U.S. economy is thriving.  THIS IS EXACTLY what is happening!

There are massive multinational interests inherently at risk from President Trump’s “America-First” economic and trade platform. Believe it or not, President Trump is up against an entire world economic establishment.

When we understand how trade works in the modern era we also understand why the multinational control agents within the current system are so adamantly opposed to U.S. President Trump. In essence, this is a structural economic battle that is being waged politically.

♦ The biggest lie in modern economics, willingly spread and maintained by corporate media, is that a system of global markets still exists.

It doesn’t.

Every element of global economic trade is controlled and exploited by massive institutions, multinational banks and multinational corporations. Institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank control trillions of dollars in economic activity.

Underneath that economic activity there are people who hold the reigns of power over the outcomes. These individuals and groups are the stakeholders in direct opposition to principles of America-First national economics; for brevity these are called ‘globalists’.

The modern financial constructs of these entities have been established over the course of the past three decades. When we understand how they manipulate the economic system of individual nations we begin to understand why they are so fundamentally opposed to President Trump and their execution of a business plan to influence U.S. politics.

In the Western World, separate from communist control perspectives (ie. China), “Global markets” are a modern myth; nothing more than a talking point meant to keep people satiated with sound bites they might find familiar.

China is the ultimate controlled economy. There are very few free market forces at play within the Chinese economy; or how that economy interacts with the global marketplace.

Simultaneously, those global markets have been destroyed over the past three decades by multinational corporations who control the products formerly contained within distinct global markets.

The same is true for “Commodities Markets”. The multinational trade and economic system, run by corporations and multinational banks, now controls the product outputs of independent nations. The free market economic system has been usurped by entities who create what is best described as ‘controlled markets’.

U.S. President Trump smartly understands what has taken place. Additionally he uses economic leverage as part of a broader national security policy; and to understand who opposes President Trump specifically because of the economic leverage he creates, it becomes important to understand the objectives of the global and financial elite who run and operate the institutions. The Big Club.

Understanding how trillions of trade dollars influence geopolitical policy we begin to understand the three-decade global financial construct they seek to protect.

That is, global financial exploitation of national markets.

FOUR BASIC ELEMENTS:

♦Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national outputs and industries of developed industrial western nations.

♦The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.

♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).

♦With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.

Against the backdrop of President Trump confronting China; and against the backdrop of NAFTA renegotiated; and against the necessary need to support the key U.S. steel industry; revisiting the economic influences within the modern import/export dynamic will help conceptualize the issues at the heart of the matter.

There are a myriad of interests within each trade sector that make specific explanation very challenging; however, here’s the basic outline.

For three decades economic “globalism” has advanced, quickly. Everyone accepts this statement, yet few actually stop to ask who and what are behind this – and why?

Influential people with vested financial interests in the process have sold a narrative that global manufacturing, global sourcing, and global production was the inherent way of the future.

The same voices claimed the American economy was consigned to become a “service-driven economy.”

What was always missed in these discussions is that advocates selling this global-economy message have a vested financial and ideological interest in convincing the information consumer it is all just a natural outcome of economic progress.

It’s not.

The process is not natural at all.  It is a process that is entirely controlled, promoted and utilized by large conglomerates, lobbyists, purchased politicians and massive financial corporations.

Again, I’ll try to retain the larger altitude perspective without falling into the traps of the esoteric weeds. I freely admit this is tough to explain and I may not be successful.

Bulletpoint #1: ♦ Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations.

This is perhaps the most challenging to understand. In essence, thanks specifically to the way the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995, national companies expanded their influence into multiple nations, across a myriad of industries and economic sectors (energy, agriculture, raw earth minerals, etc.). This is the basic underpinning of national companies becoming multinational corporations.

Think of these multinational corporations as global entities now powerful enough to reach into multiple nations -simultaneously- and purchase controlling interests in a single economic commodity.

A historic reference point might be the original multinational enterprise, energy via oil production. (Exxon, Mobil, BP, etc.)

However, in the modern global world, it’s not just oil; the resource and product procurement extends to virtually every possible commodity and industry. From the very visible (wheat/corn) to the obscure (small minerals, and even flowers).

Bulletpoint #2 ♦ The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.

During the past several decades national companies merged. The largest lemon producer company in Brazil, merges with the largest lemon company in Mexico, merges with the largest lemon company in Argentina, merges with the largest lemon company in the U.S., etc. etc. National companies, formerly of one nation, become “continental” companies with control over an entire continent of nations.

…. or it could be over several continents or even the entire world market of Lemon/Widget production. These are now multinational corporations. They hold interests in specific segments (this example lemons) across a broad variety of individual nations.

National laws on Monopoly building are not the same in all nations. Most are not as structured as the U.S.A or other more developed nations (with more laws). During the acquisition phase, when encountering a highly developed nation with monopoly laws, the process of an umbrella corporation might be needed to purchase the targeted interests within a specific nation. The example of Monsanto applies here.

Bulletpoint #3 ♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).

In underdeveloped countries the process of buying political outcome is called bribery. Within the United States we call it lobbying.

With control of the majority of actual lemons the multinational corporation now holds a different set of financial values than a local farmer or national market. This is why commodities exchanges are essentially dead. In the aggregate the mercantile exchange is no longer a free or supply-based market; it is now a controlled market exploited by mega-sized multinational corporations.

Instead of the traditional ‘supply/demand’ equation determining prices, the corporations look to see what nations can afford what prices. The supply of the controlled product is then distributed to the country according to their ability to afford the price. This is essentially the bastardized and politicized function of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This is also how the corporations controlling WTO policy maximize profits.

Back to the lemons. A corporation might hold the rights to the majority of the lemon production in Brazil, Argentina and California/Florida. The price the U.S. consumer pays for the lemons is directed by the amount of inventory (distribution) the controlling corporation allows in the U.S.

If the U.S. lemon harvest is abundant, the controlling interests will export the product to keep the U.S. consumer spending at peak or optimal price. A U.S. customer might pay $2 for a lemon, a Mexican customer might pay .50¢, and a Canadian $1.25.

The bottom line issue is the national supply (in this example ‘harvest/yield’) is not driving the national price because the supply is now controlled by massive multinational corporations.  Another example is China purchasing Smithfield, the largest pork producer in the United States.  Domestic U.S. pork production, and inventory, is no longer driving the price of U.S. pork products because the end product is being exported.

(POTUS Trump closing the NAFTA loophole within the USMCA)

The mistake people often make is calling this a “global commodity” process. In the modern era this “global commodity” phrase is particularly nonsense.

A true global commodity is a process of individual nations harvesting/creating a similar product and bringing that product to a global market. Individual nations each independently engaged in creating a similar product.

The production efficiency, the quality and capability of each nation, to produce the  product is independent and proprietary to the businesses within the nation.  In the natural course of national production, not all products are therefore identical; there are variances.

Under modern globalism this process no longer takes place. It’s a complete fraud. Massive multinational corporations control the majority of production inside each nation and therefore control the global product market and price. It is a controlled system; the free-market has been usurped.

The outputs are now almost identical regardless of the producing nation.  The processes used for a specific manufacturing sector output in the U.S. are now the same processes used for production in Mexico, or South Korea, or China etc.  Any technological efficiency gains are quickly purchased by the multinational and distributed internationally.

[Edwards Demming was a U.S. industrial expert who went to Japan following WWII and taught them the best processes for industrial manufacturing.  Japan embraced the teaching and instituted an improvement process called “Kaizen“.]

Back to lemons – EXAMPLE: Part of the lobbying in the food industry is to advocate for the expansion of U.S. taxpayer benefits to underwrite the costs of the domestic food products they control. By lobbying DC these multinational corporations get congress and policy-makers to expand the basis of who can use EBT and SNAP benefits (state reimbursement rates).

Expanding the federal subsidy for food purchases is part of the corporate profit dynamic.

With increased taxpayer subsidies, the food price controllers can charge more domestically and export more of the product internationally. Taxes, via subsidies, go into their profit margins. The corporations then use a portion of those enhanced profits in contributions to the politicians. It’s a circle of money.

In highly developed nations this multinational corporate process requires the corporation to purchase the domestic political process (as above) with individual nations allowing the exploitation in varying degrees. As such, the corporate lobbyists pay hundreds of millions to politicians for changes in policies and regulations; one sector, one product, or one industry at a time. These are specialized lobbyists.

EXAMPLE: The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)

CFIUS is an inter-agency committee authorized to review transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person (“covered transactions”), in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States.

CFIUS operates pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) (section 721) and as implemented by Executive Order 11858, as amended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 800.

The CFIUS process has been the subject of significant reforms over the past several years. These include numerous improvements in internal CFIUS procedures, enactment of FINSA in July 2007, amendment of Executive Order 11858 in January 2008, revision of the CFIUS regulations in November 2008, and publication of guidance on CFIUS’s national security considerations in December 2008 (more)

Bulletpoint #4 ♦ With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.

The process of charging the U.S. consumer more for a product, that under normal national market conditions would cost less, is a process called exfiltration of wealth. This is the basic premise, the cornerstone, behind the catch-phrase ‘globalism’.

It is never discussed.

To control the market price some contracted product may even be secured and shipped with the intent to allow it to sit idle (or rot). It’s all about controlling the price and maximizing the profit equation. To gain the same $1 profit a widget multinational might have to sell 20 widgets in El-Salvador (.25¢ each), or two widgets in the U.S. ($2.50/each).

Think of the process like the historic reference of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries). Only in the modern era massive corporations are playing the role of OPEC and it’s not oil being controlled, thanks to the WTO it’s almost everything.

Again, this is highlighted in the example of taxpayers subsidizing the food sector (EBT, SNAP etc.), the corporations can charge U.S. consumers more. Ex. more beef is exported, red meat prices remain high at the grocery store, but subsidized U.S. consumers can better afford the high prices.

Of course, if you are not receiving food payment assistance (middle-class) you can’t eat the steaks because you can’t afford them. (Not accidentally, it’s the same scheme in the ObamaCare healthcare system)

Agriculturally, multinational corporate Monsanto says: ‘all your harvests are belong to us‘. Contract with us, or you lose because we can control the market price of your end product. Downside is that once you sign that contract, you agree to terms that are entirely created by the financial interests of the larger corporation; not your farm.

The multinational agriculture lobby is massive. We willingly feed the world as part of the system; but you as a grocery customer pay more per unit at the grocery store because domestic supply no longer determines domestic price.

Within the agriculture community the (feed-the-world) production export factor also drives the need for labor. Labor is a cost. The multinational corps have a vested interest in low labor costs. Ergo, open border policies. (ie. willingly purchased republicans not supporting border wall etc.).

This corrupt economic manipulation/exploitation applies over multiple sectors, and even in the sub-sector of an industry like steel. China/India purchases the raw material, coking coal, then sells the finished good (rolled steel) back to the global market at a discount. Or it could be rubber, or concrete, or plastic, or frozen chicken parts etc.

The ‘America First’ Trump-Trade Doctrine upsets the entire construct of this multinational export/control dynamic. Team Trump focus exclusively on bilateral trade deals, with specific trade agreements targeted toward individual nations (not national corporations).

‘America-First’ is also specific policy at a granular product level looking out for the national interests of the United States, U.S. workers, U.S. companies and U.S. consumers.

Under President Trump’s Trade positions, balanced, fair and reciprocal trade with firm regulatory control over proprietary national assets, exfiltration of U.S. national wealth is significantly stalled.

This puts many current multinational corporations, globalists who previously took a stake-hold in the U.S. economy with intention to export the wealth, in a position of holding contracted interest of an asset they can no longer exploit (exfiltrate).

For durable goods: If the corporation wants the benefit of access to the U.S. market, President Trump applies price pressure (tariffs) which changes the ‘total cost of goods‘ dynamic and leverages the company interest to produce inside the United States.

Perhaps now we understand better how and why massive multi-billion multinational corporations and Wall Street institutions are aligned against President Trump.

 

James Comey Talks To Media Following Round #2 Congressional Hearing (Video)…


Former FBI Director James Comey speaks to the media at the conclusion of his second day of testimony before a joint House committee conducting DOJ and FBI oversight.

.

By prior agreement the transcript of the hearing will be made public within 24 hours.  So we should be able to read the testimony sometime tomorrow.

Advertisements

Flynn’s Mueller Cooperation – Two Turks Charged With Conspiracy as Agents of Foreign Government…


There’s a rather extensive backstory to the Turkish lobbying efforts that involved Michael Flynn.  [BACKSTORY HERE] Much of the Flynn issue was before the election of 2016 {Go Deep} and recent events align exactly as we would expect {Go Deep}. As CTH predicted the day after the original Flynn plea, the Turkish lobbying was used by Mueller as leverage.

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

As CTH warned in November of 2016 Flynn was involved in lobbying efforts on behalf of the Turkish government via Bijan Rafiekian, aka Bijan Kian, 66, of San Juan Capistrano, California, and Kamil Ekim Alptekin, 41, of Istanbul. The financial constructs surrounding the payments to Flynn were sketchy, very sketchy.

In 2016 CTH anticipated this sketchy behavior would come back to bite Flynn and -by extension- could be an issue for the White House if he took a high level position.  None of that had anything whatsoever to do with the fictitious vast Russian conspiracy story.

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

Giving Flynn a pass on his failure to register the arrangement under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and the banking issues (possibly IRS trouble), gave Robert Mueller a dual benefit.  In addition to the damaging narrative around Flynn, the FARA escape set-up Mueller’s ability to provide the Podesta brothers the same benefit.

Following the special counsel sentencing memo, we pointed out the criminal investigation referenced within the filing was almost guaranteed to be against Rafiekian and Alptekin {Go Deep}.  Well today, that exact scenario played out. Flynn is “Person A”:

WASHINGTON DC – An indictment was unsealed today charging Bijan Rafiekian, aka Bijan Kian, 66, of San Juan Capistrano, California, and Kamil Ekim Alptekin, 41, of Istanbul, and a Turkish national, with conspiracy, acting in the United States as illegal agents of the government of Turkey, and making false statements to the FBI.

Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney G. Zachary Terwilliger for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Assistant Director in Charge Nancy McNamara of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, made the announcement.

According to allegations in the indictment, the two men were involved in a conspiracy to covertly influence U.S. politicians and public opinion against a Turkish citizen living in the United States whose extradition had been requested by the Government of Turkey. The plot included using a company founded by Rafiekian and a person referred to as “Person A” [Flynn] in the indictment. The company, referred to as “Company A” in the indictment, provided services based upon Person A’s national security expertise.

The indictment charges that the purpose of the conspiracy was to use Company A to delegitimize the Turkish citizen in the eyes of the American public and United States politicians, with the goal of obtaining his extradition, which was meeting resistance at the U.S. Department of Justice. At the same time, the conspirators sought to conceal that the Government of Turkey was directing the work. However, not only did Turkish cabinet-level officials approve the budget for the project, but Alptekin provided the Turkish officials updates on the work, and relayed their directions on the work to Rafiekian, Person A, and others at Company A.

According to allegations in the indictment, the scheme included using a Dutch company owned by Alptekin to appear to be the “client” of Company A and to pay the company’s fee of $600,000, which was to be paid in three installments. Alptekin made the payments from an account in Turkey. The indictment alleges that after Alptekin made the payments to Company A, it was to kick back 20 percent of the payments to Alptekin’s company in the Netherlands, and two such kickbacks were made.  (read more)

Here’s the indictment:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/395899369/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-tGWOC4yHrl6GW0mbFG9A

.

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

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

In essence, this is about leverage for political use.

The 2016 election caused a big shakeup in the balance of power away from the professional political forces inside Washington DC.  A shift favorably toward political forces that are external to the DC machine, ie. President Trump and the deplorables; that shift is the risk to the system.  That makes President Trump a risk to the order of things.

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

The Sword of Damocles is swinging over the DC swamp. President Trump is fanning the candle flame and Robert Mueller was/is attempting to reinforce the horsehair.

 

Alan Dershowitz Discusses Tomorrow’s Flynn Sentencing Hearing…


Michael Flynn is scheduled to be sentenced tomorrow by Judge Emmet Sullivan.  Former constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz discusses his opinion on the possibility that Judge Sullivan could throw out the case.

Mr. Dershowitz has an opinion piece today at THE HILL going over this issue – SEE HERE

The media is asking the wrong question about the Michael Flynn case. They are asking whether Flynn lied or the FBI acted improperly, as if the answers to those two questions are mutually exclusive. The possibility that both are true, in that Flynn did not tell the truth and that the FBI acted improperly, is not considered in our hyper partisan world where everyone, including the media, chooses a side and refuses to consider the chance that their side is not perfectly right and the other side not perfectly evil. Read More

Democrats & Republicans Cannot Breathe the Same Air Anymore


Once upon a time, Democrats and Republicans could actually breathe the same air and have a drink with one another. Those days are long gone. It was back in 2002 when they actually worked together to make the ads during a political campaign more reasonable and less outright vindictive and nasty. It was 2002 when they enacted the “Stand By Your Ad” legislation that was part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. You had to state personally: “I approve this message.” The idea was that lawmakers would have to play fair together in the schoolyard making candidates less inclined to put out ads that were false or just plain nasty. Any public communication made by a political committee — including communications that do not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified federal candidate or solicit a contribution — must also display a disclaimer. Those days of civility are long gone and the fall out has been the rising 3rd party movement.

This time it looks like people are just abandoning the old party loyalties and setting out on their own. The political landscape we are entering in 2019 into 2023 is going to be very interesting and anything but politics as usual. This nasty infighting is indicative that indeed Democrats and Republicans cannot even breathe the same air any more.

Representative Elijah Cummings Outlines Democrat Plan to Remove President Trump via Michael Cohen…


It was curious to see Michael Cohen walk out of his sentencing hearing last week without having to report to jail/prison for the punishment therein.  Generally speaking when the final adjudication is presented the accused begins to serve his/her punishment. However, not in this case; and not with the construct of this pleading, this quid-pro-quo.

In the prosecutorial agreement within the Cohen case, there obviously remains the fulfillment of terms.  Michael Cohen doesn’t report to prison until March 6th, 2019.  Why the exceptional judicial delay and generosity?….  The incoming Chairman for the House Government and Oversight Committee, Elijah Cummings, explains:

.

There it is; transparently obvious for any political observer who has a modicum of intellectual honesty. House committees will use testimony from Michael Cohen as the cornerstone for their well-structured political strategy to eliminate the existential threat to their ongoing DC livelihood, President Trump.

There should be no doubt this plan was conceived well before Special Counsel Robert Mueller passed the investigative torch to his compatriots in the Southern District of New York. This impeachment/removal approach is a synergy between multiple benefactors, and is entirely by design.

Sunday Talks: Michael Mukasey Discusses Current State of DOJ…


Former U.S. Attorney General under President George W. Bush Michael Mukasey weighs in on Trump’s appointment of William Barr to U.S. attorney general.