QUESTION: Hi Martin,
I was unable to attend your WEC in Orlando but purchased it to view remotely. I’ve read the vertical market report and look forward to watching the video of the even when its ready. My only question is with regard to currency. With my currency in AUD I realise the place to be is in the DOW however with you’re previous reports of Australia being one of the few countries with Super Annuation and the fact longer term you have predicted the AUD to surpass the USD will investing in the DOW be detrimental on a purely currency basis or will the USD rally against all currencies before many years ahead seeing the AUD rally against it? Is the Aussie Dollar included when you say all other currencies etc or is it unique like you’ve mentioned before in a 2010 down under report?
Thanks for all the effort you go to helping us all navigate through these interesting times.
Cheers,
G
ANSWER: The US$ has been moving higher against the A$ since 2011. It has NOT reached the Yearly Bullish Reversal which stands at 14252 on the cash. The technical resistance stands at the 160 and 170 levels. There is no indication that the US$ will make all-time record highs against the A$ just yet. Exceeding that 14250 area will ring the alarm bell for the A$.
Here are the technicals for the Dow in A$. Here we have elected four Yearly Bullish Reversals whereas, in the currency, we have not elected any so far. This makes the 14252 number very important.
QUESTION: You have said that coins were still fiat and not tangible hard money. Nobody else has said that. Can you support that statement?
DS
ANSWER: Of course. During the American Colonial period, there was a shortage of silver in particular in Britain. They impose restrictions on what coins could be used to pay Americans for anything. That restriction was imposed on silver and gold. Therefore, payment to Americans from Britain was always in copper coins. If Americans wanted to buy something from Britain, it was typically demanded in silver or gold. This was one of the reasons for the American Revolution.
Because of these restrictions, the monetary value of copper coins was twice its actual metal content. All governments produced coins ONLY at a profit, which is called the seignorage. Here is a table of the weight and metal content of a U.S. penny. Not only has it declined in weight, in 1982 it ceased being a copper-based coin. The penny today is zinc copper plated to maintain the appearance. The price of copper became worth more than 1 cent and that was not profitable. In May 2012 Canada stopped minting one-cent coins altogether became the metal content exceeded its value ending a tradition since 1858 when Canada established its own currency.
Even in ancient Roman times, the mines belonged to the government. They financed their spending by producing new coinage every year. That covered about 80% of their budget. They set the value of the coin which was ALWAYS over the intrinsic metal content. So no matter what people you look at, the coinage value was ALWAYS greater than its pure metal content. Even Bretton Woods fixed the price of gold at $35 per ounce in 1944. They failed to raise that value and it eventually caused the monetary system to collapse in 1971. That was the very same result we see in the penny as well as the debasement in the Roman Empire of the silver coinage.
Therefore, anyone who tells you that ONLY paper money is fiat, they have absolutely no idea of the monetary system and how it has evolved with time. ALL money, when fixed in value by the government, is fiat. Even the infamous Soros attack on the British pound was based upon Britain trying to “fix” the pound at a high rate within the European Rate Mechanism at a high rate for pride.
Only a floating exchange rate system ends the fiat. So yes – that means as long as the “paper” dollar floats in value on world markets, it is not actually fiat and more than Bitcoin trading. The term “fiat money” means an arbitrary order or decree declaring the value to be fixed. The dollar was “fiat” when it was arbitrarily established by Roosevelt at $35 to the ounce of gold.
Today. as long as a currency floats, it is not an arbitrary declaration of its value by the government and is therefore not “fiat” as popularly stated by the hard money crew. This mythical idea that a currency should be a store of wealth has NEVER existed even once in history from one decade to the next. Those who argue for such a system are incapable of comprehending the business cycle and like Karl Marx want to freeze the system because they cannot cope with it.
Most people do not understand that there is the Eurogroup, which is an informal body of finance ministers from the Eurozone member states that are intended to discuss matters relating to their countries’ common responsibilities related to the Euro. They do not keep any minutes so nothing emerges with respect to policy. There is now a clash building between this Eurogroup and that of the European Commission. The Eurogroup will most likely oppose the EU Commission’s plans for an EU finance minister. This, of course, is one more step toward federalizing Europe. The view in Brussels is that their dream project is collapsing. The answer is not more freedom, but to centralize power to prevent the collapse of the Euro.
The Commission wants to impose its own finance minister over the Eurogroup and in turn, the Eurogroup will insist on having its own presidency. There is a rising belief within the Eurogroup that it should delineate the role of the Eurogroup from the role of the Commission. They see the Commission as attempting to grab more power unto itself.
Its main task isto ensure close coordination of economic policies among the Eurozone member states and promote conditions for stronger economic growth. This was seen as a critical element to maintain stability in the Eurozone as a whole.
However, as I have made clear before, the failure of the euro has been due to the refusal to consolidate the debts. Then you would have had a clean federal European government and each member state would then have its own budget that would not be dependent upon the federal government. Now because of this refusal to consolidate the debts from the outset, we have the idea of creating an EU Finance Minister who will then have dictatorial powers over Eurozone members.
This is going far beyond the United States of Europe, but a single government eliminating the sovereignty of individual member states. The USA has a federal government with its debt and 50 states which are all on their own. The Feds are not impacted by the budget of an individual state whereas the structure of the Euro is dependent upon each state. This is also why the EU opposes all separatist movements. The design is seriously flawed.
The Eurogroup exists without any real power collectively. There is no transparency because it had no real power. The group was effectively mandated by governments to conduct financial operations but without any formal means to carry any directive out. The finance ministers have acted with no more success than the ECB. The European austerity policy has been a huge mistake and this has been imposed upon the whole by Germany.
By now everyone is likely aware of the Fake News story run by CNN on Friday surrounding an email received by Donald Trump Jr. The email was part of the investigative evidence shared with the House Intelligence committee; and later leaked from within that committee to CNN – thereby initiating the false reporting on the content.
The central issue in the CNN story was the date of an email.
It was leaked from within the committee, and later reported by CNN, that the date was “September 4th, 2016”; a date convenient for a collusion narrative between Trump Jr and WikiLeaks.
However, the real date, on the actual email, was “September 14th, 2016”; a day after Wikileaks published the content of their DNC leaks and a date that makes the entire CNN report a ‘nothingburger’.
However, CNN reports that two independent sources originally leaked to them the contents of what they had seen on the email in question. But CNN never saw the email, until later in the day.
Think about this carefully.
♦Two “independent sources” both looked at an email, and both came away from reading that email with the wrong date? How is that possible?
It has been CTH contention for several weeks that a counterintelligence sting operation has been going on within the IC community. False trails of information, seeded by ‘White Hat’ investigators, intended to be captured by ‘Black Hat’ leakers – and delivered to their usurping allies in media. The stories are fake, the leaks are real.
All investigative documents, relating to the witness, are provided to the congressional committees prior to the interviews with the witnesses; or, if the information is classified, each committee member has an opportunity to review the documents via a controlled SCIF environment when no physical copies are allowed as part of the evidence.
The Don JR./Wikileaks email could very easily be part of a ‘sting’. The date was intentionally seeded as incorrect. The resulting story is fake. The leak, however, is real.
Each nugget of disinformation exposes a specific leaker. Each trail used in the sharing of that disinformation exposes the enabling media. The White Hat plants the fake news seed, and then watches to see where, when, how, to-whom, and from-whom, it shows up.
In this example, we believe it is most likely House Intelligence Committee Minority Chairman Adam Schiff was the recipient of the disinformation, and has now exposed himself as a leaker to an elite, previously undisclosed, investigative unit specifically assembling evidence of corruption and leaking at the highest levels of government.
The scale and strength of the CNN push-back, and specifically the tone in their refusal to even consider discussing source of the false information, further supports our supposition.
Keep in mind, Representative Adam Schiff is -as an outcome of his minority ranking on the House Intel Committee- a member of the elite congressional oversight “Gang of Eight”.
This is a VERY BIG deal. The Gang of Eight holds oversight on every covert intelligence operation going on around the world. The Go8 oversee the NSA, CIA, FBI, DNI, and every single intelligence unit and operation. The Go8 are the only group with oversight on the CIA action from Presidential Finding Memos authorizing covert operations.
The back-story to CTH theory on this endeavor includes an almost complete, years-long, Dept of Justice Office Inspector General investigation that no-one was paying attention to until recently. And don’t forget the ongoing FBI investigation into the Awan Brothers, and quantifying the potential intelligence compromise therein, plays into this.
That said, it would not be the IG carrying out the counterintelligence operation to identify leakers. In actuality, no official IC agency would be empowered to place fake news in front of congress. Setting traps for congress is generally bad form, and for matters of trust – bad politics. That reality, amid those who follow DC politics, is the central point to dismiss such the “Black Hat Hunting” theory.
However, few people were paying attention four months ago when Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coates told us they were going to do exactly that:
04:30 …”The FBI has created a new counterintelligence unit to manage these [leak] cases”…
08:17 …”these National Security breaches do not just originate from within the Intelligence Community. They come from a wide range of sources within the government, including the Congress.”…
.
Two days later, Sunday August 6th, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein reiterated he was going to follow through on the investigative demand of AG Sessions and DNI Coates and again referenced a “new counterintelligence division within the FBI”.
00:50 …“we’re responding appropriately. We’re going to devote more resources, re-evaluate our procedures and make sure we investigate every one of those leaks in an appropriate way.”…
1:07 “We have seen a surge in referrals (of leaks). We’ve seen an increase in the number of leaks. And we’re going to respond appropriately and try to establish an effective deterrent. Criminal prosecution isn’t the only way to prevent leaks but it’s an important part of the solution.”…
1:43 “That significant increase has necessitated an increase in resources. And so we have re-prioritized our cases within the National Security Division, we’re providing appropriate supervision at a high level, we’ve created a new unit within the FBI to focus on those leaks, and we’re going to devote whatever resources are necessary to get them under control.”…
.
If you consider the years-long IG investigation is coming to a conclusion. And there have been several high-profile ‘mistakes’ (from the media perspective) based on leaks recently.
The leaks were real, the underlying information was false:
After spending a reasonable amount of time looking at the recent CNN Fake News story surrounding Donald Trump Jr; and accepting the leak that spurred that fake news story stemmed from inside the House Intelligence Committee; and after applying a reasonable amount of common sense to how it occurred; CTH believes Adam Schiff was the most likely source of the leak to CNN’s Congressional Correspondent, Manu Raju, that led to the fraudulent story. Today’s discussion with Jake Tapper confirms that assertion:
.
CNN’s ‘Vast Russian Conspiracy‘ sellers and their cast of leakers below.
The Donald Trump Jr. email was leaked from within the committee, and later reported by CNN, that the date was “September 4th, 2016”; a date convenient for a collusion narrative between Trump Jr and WikiLeaks.
However, the real date, on the actual email, was “September 14th, 2016”; a day after Wikileaks published the content of their DNC leaks and a date that makes the entire CNN report a ‘nothingburger’.
However, CNN reports that two independent sources originally leaked to them the contents of what they had seen on the email in question. But CNN never saw the email, until later in the day.
Think about this carefully.
♦Two “independent sources” both looked at an email, and both came away from reading that email with the wrong date? How is that possible?
♦Such a specific tidbit of false information (a single date, on a single piece of paper), amid a very small group of people (congressional intel committee).
♦The pool of people, “sources”, able to *verify* and/or *authenticate* the very specific detail (a date on a page), amid a heavily controlled small-group environment, would itself be very small.
♦CNN reports an engineered narrative based on a wrong date. ABC and MSNBC (NBC) claim they *independently confirmed*, with their sources, that same wrong date.
COMMENT: The market is always wrong, if all people had all information the eurodollar would not move like in casino in either short or long period, it would be quite smooth.
And overall I hate money, if all people were good willing there was no need for money, so money equals bad people and there is no reason why I should like bad people. Period, your work sucks
REPLY: Anyone who thinks that someone can create a model and the whole world will follow it just does not get it. There always has to be someone on the opposite side. That is what makes cycles even exist. This person demonstrates that people exist who want to believe in Karl Marx. They do not want to be concerned with earning a living. They just want the government to take care of them like their parents until they die.
There is no real response I could offer to change their mind. There is no point. We need them to remain on that side of hopelessness to ensure the cycle will always exist. Why should someone work hard and plant crops and then give it to people for free so they can survive without creating something the farmer needs in return?
There was a very interesting study that reveals what Marxist socialism is all about. It is one of the Ten Commandments that we should not be envious of what others have. Yet this is the entire aspect that politicians exploit to retain power. This video reveals that even monkeys get upset when one is fed grapes and the other only gets cucumbers
It would be EXPLOSIVE if it turned out the October 2016 FISA warrant was gained by use of the Christopher Steele dossier. That’s a critical and key element to the sunlight upon the entire enterprise.
If the counterintelligence FISA warrant was obtained through deception, misleading/manipulated information, or fraud; and that warrant is what led to the wiretapping and surveillance of candidate Donald Trump and General Flynn; and that warrant was authorized by FISA Court Judge Contreras –who was the judge in Flynn’s case, and is now recused– the entire tenuous FBI and DOJ operation begins to collapse.
The back-story to the FISA warrant is the cornerstone. The back-story contains both the FBI and the DOJ scheme. Expose it, remove it, and the entire ‘muh Russia’ conspiracy fraud collapses under the weight of sunlight.
Mrs. Beverly Young Nelson has finally admitted that she personally wrote a portion of the infamous high school yearbook she and her attorney Gloria Allred used as proof of her accusations against U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore. Nelson’s tenuous credibility is now entirely gone.
However, in a similar blow to credibility, ABC News, the network of Brian Ross, downplayed the bombshell by presenting the admission of forgery as adding ‘notes’ to the inscription. The ABC narrative engineer actually coaches Mrs. Nelson, putting words in her mouth, and attempting to downplay the enormous significance of her deceit.
Roy Moore presser below:
Mrs. Beverly Nelson now admits she added the signature and other material in an effort to deceive the audience.
Last night news broke that U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras “has been recused” from the case overseeing the prosecution of General Mike Flynn. Details are vague. According to Reuters, both the judge and the Flynn legal team have yet to comment.
Additionally, there is no concrete answer as to whether the recusal was done by the judge himself or was forced upon him. While the reasoning is the key, the difference between the two options adds another layer of consequence within the rest of this outline. Reuters News Service puts it this way:
(Reuters) – The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia judge presiding over the criminal case for President Donald Trump’s former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has been recused from handling the case, a court spokeswoman said on Thursday.
According to a court filing, U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, who presided over a Dec. 1 hearing where Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about his contacts with Russia, will no longer handle the case.
Court spokeswoman Lisa Klem did not say why Contreras was recused, and added that the case was randomly reassigned. Reuters could not immediately learn the reason for the recusal, or reach Contreras. An attorney for Flynn declined to comment. (Link)
Obviously, the customary reason for recusal is when there is a conflict of interest between the case as assigned and the judge overseeing it. However, as you can clearly see, in this case it’s rather odd that if a conflict existed the judge would have even begun to oversee the case at the prior hearing. Why wait until six days after the first hearing?
As to the reasoning for the recusal, and stressed against the backdrop of the new information surrounding the investigative practices of the DOJ and FBI, this recusal is potentially both a game-changer and a massive dose of sunlight.
Judge Contreras was in the position of approving FISA warrants at the time when FBI Deputy Head of Counterintelligence, FBI Agent Peter Strzok was assembling the underlying information for the FISA warrant used against candidate Trump.
There is a very real possibility that Judge Contreras signed off on the FISA warrant in October 2016 that initiated the counterintelligence wiretapping and surveillance of the Trump campaign. That wiretapping and surveillance ultimately led to the questioning of Michael Flynn; the consequence of which brings Flynn to Contreras courtroom.
However, before getting to those ramifications it is important to step back for a moment and review the former March 20th, 2017, congressional testimony of FBI Director James Comey.
We have drawn attention to this testimony frequently, because it is one of the few times when congress has pinned Comey down and made him commit to specifics. In fact, for an otherwise innocuous congressional hearing, this specific segment has been viewed over 400,000 times. When we understand the importance of the content – we accept that perhaps even James Comey’s own lawyers have watched it repeatedly.
The first three minutes of this video are what is important. As you watch this testimony remember to overlay what you know now against the James Comey statements from nine months ago.
I would particularly draw your attention to the timeline as Comey describes (counterintelligence investigation beginning in July 2016); and also to pay attention to the person Comey assigns responsibility for keeping congress out of the loop on oversight. Comey points to the DOJ’s National Security Division Head who is in charge of the counterintelligence operations, Bill Priestap. However, Comey doesn’t use Priestap’s name:
…”it’s usually the decision of the head of our counterintelligence division”.
Everything happens in the first THREE MINUTES:
.
It’s obvious James Comey was not anticipating that line of questioning. His discomfort and obfuscation pours out within his words and body language. However, from that testimony we gain insight which we can add to the latest information.
We know the DNC and Clinton Campaign commissioned opposition research in April of 2016 through Fusion GPS, who sub-contracted Christopher Steele. Between April and July of 2016 the retired MI6 agent put together opposition research on Donald Trump centered around a claimed network of dubious and sketchy Russian contacts.
Notice the FBI counterintelligence operation began in July 2016. That directly and specifically lines up with the recent discoveries surrounding Deputy Head of Counterintelligence, FBI Agent Peter Strzok and the new information about Agent Strzok having direct contact with Christopher Steele, the author for the “Russian Dossier”.
Additionally, the July 2016 time-frame lines up with candidate Donald Trump winning the GOP nomination, and also the first application for a wiretapping and surveillance warrant to the FISA court which was unusually denied by a FISA judge.
Very few FISA requests are ever denied. Actually, only like 1 out of 100 are denied. So for a FISA request to be denied, there had to be a really compelling reason to require more than the traditional amount of FBI/DOJ due diligence within the request.
If you consider that monitoring associates within a presidential campaign would certainly be one of those types of requests which would lend a judge GREAT pause, well, perhaps the denial gains perspective. Certainly any FISA judge would easily understand the potential ramifications of the U.S. government conducting surveillance on a presidential campaign.
According to media reports in October of 2016 the full and completed Russian Dossier was being heavily shopped by Fusion GPS with payments toward journalists. Additionally, in October 2016, according to yesterday’s headlines: DOJ Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce G Ohr was outed and demoted because he too had conversations with Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS etc.
So in the month where a FISA Judge granted the warrant for wiretapping and surveillance, the FBI (via Agent Strzok), and DOJ (via Deputy AG Bruce Ohr), were both in contact with Russian Dossier author Christopher Steele.
October 2016 is EXACTLY when The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. As Andrew McCarthy pointed out months ago: “No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.” (link)
Are you seeing how the dots connect?
June/July 2016 a FISA request is denied. This is simultaneous to FBI agent Strzok initial contact with Christopher Steele and the preliminary draft of the dossier.
October 2016 a FISA request approved. This is simultaneous to agent Strzok and Assoc. Deputy AG Bruce G Ohr in contact with Christopher Steele and the full dossier.
It would be EXPLOSIVE if it turned out the FISA warrant was gained by deception, misleading/manipulated information, or fraud; and that warrant that led to the wiretapping and surveillance of General Flynn was authorized by FISA Court Judge Contreras – who would now be judge in Flynn’s case.
Is this the recusal reason?
Additionally, was that “Dossier” part of the collective intelligence gathering that led to the ridiculous (January 2017) “Russian Malicious Cyber Activity – Joint Analysis Report“? The report that attempted to give justification for the December 29th Russian sanctions, and made famous by the media falsely claiming 17 agencies agreed on the content.
Back to the timeline we go, and remember NSA head Admiral Mike Rogers was the one Intelligence Community official without *confidence* in the “Joint Analysis Report”.
On Tuesday November 8th, 2016 the election was held. Results announced Wednesday November 9th, 2016.
On Thursday November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Mike Rogers traveled to New York and met with President-Elect Donald Trump.
The next day, Friday November 18th, President Trump moved the transition team from Trump Tower to his golf course in New Jersey.
AND… On Friday November 18th The Washington Post reported on a recommendation from “October” that Mike Rogers be removed from his NSA position:
[…] In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower. (link)
Apparently, Mike Rogers never told his boss, James Clapper (or anyone else) he was going to see the president-elect. The recommendation to fire Mike Rogers (in October) was made by Defense Secretary Ash Carter and ODNI James Clapper “according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter.” October?
Is it entirely possible that NSA Director Mike Rogers, having seen the full scope of the intelligence, might have expressed reservations about the October FISA application content, and as a consequence positioned himself as a threat to the group plans?
So here we are in December of 2017. The Office of the Inspector General is currently working from the inside to investigate the politicization of the FBI and DOJ; and the IG is beginning to identify specific people: FBI Agent Strzok and DOJ Deputy AG Bruce G Ohr.
Meanwhile the oversight committees (Judiciary, Intelligence) are working from the outside of the corrupt organizations to spotlight the consequences from those identified people and highlight specific actionable behavior.
It’s all right there in front of everyone:
FBI Agent Peter Strzok’s former boss was Bill Priestap, FBI Asst. Director in charge of Counterintelligence. [The same Bill Priestap James Comey stated was the person who decided not to tell congressional oversight of the investigation] Bill Priestap’s boss was FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Directly above McCabe in the chain-of-command was FBI Director James Comey.
Inside the DOJ: Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce G Ohr’s former boss was Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. Sally Yates boss was Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
There’s the identified usurpers, and the political plan they utilized, with a common sense outline clear as day. Along with obvious official assistance from all of the personal staff under each official.
Back to the Flynn Case: (note the players)
•Friday January 20th – Inauguration
•TuesdayJanuary 24th – Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn was interviewed at the WH by the FBI (one of the interviewers was FBI Agent Peter Strzok).
•WednesdayJanuary 25th – The Department of Justice received a detailed readout from the FBI agents who had interviewed Flynn. Sally Yates said she felt “it was important to get this information to the White House as quickly as possible.”
•ThursdayJanuary 26th – (morning) Yates called White House Counsel Don McGahn first thing that morning to tell him she had “a very sensitive matter” that had to be discussed face to face. McGahn agreed to meet with Yates later that afternoon.
•Thursday January 26th – (afternoon) Sally Yates traveled to the White House along with a senior member of the DOJ’s National Security Division, Bill Priestap, who was overseeing the matter. This was Yates’ first meeting with McGahn in his office, which also acts as a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF).
Yates said she began their meeting by laying out the media accounts and media statements made by Vice President Mike Pence and other high-ranking White House officials about General Flynn’s activity “that we knew not to be the truth.”
According to Sally Yates testimony, she and Bill Priestap reportedly presented all the information to McGahn so the White House could take action that they deemed appropriate. When asked by McGahn if Flynn should be fired, Yates answered, “that really wasn’t our call.”
Yates also said her decision to notify the White House counsel had been discussed “at great length.” According to her testimony: “Certainly leading up to our notification on the 26th, it was a topic of a whole lot of discussion in DOJ and with other members of the intel community.”
•Friday January 27th – (morning) White House Counsel Don McGahn called Yates in the morning and asked if she could come back to his office.
•Friday January 27th – (late afternoon) According to her testimony, Sally Yates returned to the White House late that afternoon. One of McGahn’s topics discussed was whether Flynn could be prosecuted for his conduct.
Specifically, according to Yates, one of the questions McGahn asked Yates was, “Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another?” She explained that it “was a whole lot more than that,” and reviewed the same issues outlined the prior day.
McGahn expressed his concern that taking action might interfere with the FBI investigation of Flynn, and Yates said it wouldn’t. “It wouldn’t really be fair of us to tell you this and then expect you to sit on your hands,” Yates had told McGahn.
McGahn asked if he could look at the underlying evidence of Flynn’s conduct, and she said they would work with the FBI over the weekend and “get back with him on Monday morning.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has charged Flynn (full pdf below) with falsely telling FBI agents that he did not ask the ambassador “to refrain from escalating the situation” in response to the sanctions.
According to the plea, while being questioned by FBI agents on January 24, 2017, Flynn also lied when he claimed he could not recall a subsequent conversation with Kislyak, in which the ambassador told Flynn that the Putin regime had “chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of [Flynn’s] request.”
Furthermore, a week before the sanctions were imposed, Flynn had also spoken to Kislyak, asking the ambassador to delay or defeat a vote on a pending United Nations resolution. The criminal information charges that Flynn lied to the FBI by denying both that he’d made this request and that he’d spoken afterward with Kislyak about Russia’s response to it.
There was nothing wrong with the incoming national-security adviser’s having meetings with foreign counterparts or discussing such matters as the sanctions in those meetings. However, lying to the FBI is the process crime that has led to Flynn’s admissions herein:
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
